Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, May 5, 2019.
#1 is easy enough to get started. If you mean there would be a court battle, they already sue Trump over everything. He eventually wins all or almost all of those.
#4 has been done before in US history as recently as the 1950s
Instead of "sorta like" we could go with reality, which is that it is the federal govt's primary job to protect the national borders. This is as much where the entire idea of nation-states came from as anything else. The common defense. Defense of what? The common land and your people on that land. Ask yourself, when did humans first organize into a civilization? It is here. This is the single place, moment and reason all human civilization began. Back to the here and now, certain persons in the effective control of our federal may not want this job done but it is the job whether they like it or not. And, I would argue, it is not unreasonable for the people to expect them to do that job.
ps - people build houses off the electrical grid every day in this country
Lol. It wasn't your question when you said I hadn't answered your question. And you can dismiss my comments, but I've been close enough to the business owners to know what they thought, what issues they dealt with, what regulations were truly a burden, and which ones weren't. They did not consider E-Verify burdensome to any significant degree. Tax withholding, insurance, and employee benefit complexities were much bigger headaches.
And of course, I saw the other side of this all the time, because I sued companies that hired illegals. I saw the Social Security cards that were the wrong color and very clearly not made out of the right paper that these crooks used to give themselves plausible deniability. It was a joke.
In my experience, government compliance is overwhelming. I would prefer to see the little guy get a break. These are our primary new job creators. Big corporations are not job creators, they are ruthless job eliminators. Yet the little guy is the subject of scorn and abuse. There may be no group in America that is more important yet more shat upon than he (generic he). It's not fair I tell ya.
And today has a timely article from the NYT (of all peoples) on this same idea generally. IMO, the article wholly understates the fear from small business owners at the thought of Sanders or Warren.
Trump Fans or Not, Business Owners Are Wary of Warren and Sanders
" .... Wariness extends far beyond an elite financial fellowship, though, to many small and medium-size businesses whose executives are not reflexively Republican but worry that the ascendancy of a left-wing Democrat would create an anti-business climate. In their view, sweeping plans to remake the health care system or slash the cost of higher education will mean higher taxes for businesses and the middle class, no matter what candidates promise.
But if policy is an issue, so is tone. In campaign speeches and debates, some said, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren portray businesses as exploiting the American economic system instead of building it, and of contributing to income inequality instead of creating wealth...."
I am going to go a bit further with this same piece from the NYT^ because this one part really bugs me
Trump Fans or Not, Business Owners Are Wary of Warren and Sanders
He doesn’t approve of tariffs, which have disrupted his supply chains and raised costs. He is turned off by the president’s disparagement of immigrants. And while small businesses routinely thank the administration for hacking through a regulatory thicket, he said of the pre-Trump rule book, “I can’t think of one time that it affected me or slowed growth.”
The guy who said this does not see the big picture with what is going on with supply chains. Or "OEMs" as may be more accurate. But these have been leaving the US and all of North America for that matter for the last two decades. And once they are gone, that is it, they are gone forever.
This was one of Trump's primary aims with tariffs and a new trade deal with China. To not just slow or stop the loss of OEMs to Asia, but to reverse it. It has been a part of Trump's plan from the escalator. It was a part of his written and published economic plan. It's not something that gets much or any attention and it is not something either Obama or Hillary ever understood. But it is absolutely crucial to manufacturing in the US. And it is working as of this moment in time.
I agree with this. (4) would be the most difficult practically and politically. There would be huge protests and videos of ICE agents carrying screaming children out of houses. Even for people who agree with deportation and border security, that could be a bridge too far.
I would like to add another factor. Cost. It would cost a ton of money to do all that. That money will be gathered through taxes. Seems like it would cost less money to spend a what 10-15 minutes per new hire to do e-verify than build up ICE and enforce all these deportations.
It should be as easy as, take pictures of all needed documents, upload them onto the e-verify form, check a box or a dozen, and hit the send button.
Easy to start. Impossible to enforce. You'd be lucky to get two votes in the Supreme Court with the current text of the law. Good chance you wouldn't get that many.
No, it hasn't. We've had some major removal actions. We've never gotten rid of everybody or even close to everybody.
Of course the feds should do their job. However, if someone gets in anyway, people should not be allowed to make money off the fact that someone was able to sneak in. Again, it's like the cocaine dealer. If the feds were perfect at their job, there'd be no cocaine to sell. However, we're not going to legalize coke dealing just because the feds failed to keep the cocaine out of the country.
Yeah, Ted Kaczynski and Musberger. Lol.
I disagree. I think their hands will be tied on this issue. We have been setting them up for this, with their own precedence.
That's not true. The majority of temporary labor ended up voluntary self-deporting in the 1950s.
Here is a Harv Law Rev article about the topic generally https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1878-1941_Online.pdf
See also - its already begun The Surprising New Effect Of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown
If immigration and the border are not resolved and soon, nothing else will matter. This point in history, right now, is our last stand. So they have to do it.
The way I look at it is that we have already shifted the courts and will completely have them over the next 5 years. And if we can get control of our border next, we still have a fighting chance.
OK, I laughed. Should I apologize for chasing the m'berger off? It was me who did that, but I had to crap all over my own otherwise terrific thread to do it. Some of you already seem to miss him
Agree with everything you said, but we'd need to clean up one other issue. Obviously it's illegal to hire an illegal alien. However, it's a legal minefield because it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. That makes it very easy to screw up and get yourself sued if you're trying to avoid hiring illegal aliens. I wouldn't eliminate protections for foreigners who are in the country legally. However, the use of E-Verify and a finding that the applicant is illegal) should be a complete defense to any discrimination lawsuit associated with that applicant no matter what questions you asked the applicant, whether you looked at him funny, whatever.
OK, you've named one...
Can we not sanction the attorney (disbarred would be really cool) and deport the liar immediately if their lawsuit results in proving they were in fact illegally in our country? I'd be in favor of that.
The same incentive would exist with e-verify. The other part is that around half of all illegals are here through over-staying Visas. Walls won't have any effect on them. Deportations would be very difficult and would need $$$$$s in personnel and searches. I for one don't want the Fed government to build a large apparatus whose purpose is to round people up and kick them out of their houses. That ability can be directed in ways on the society that is scary.
Do you just let them stay?
You make it so they can't make a living. And then you direct a much smaller force to going after the truly criminal element - drug smugglers, violent offenders, etc.
HOW do you make it that they can't make a living?
They would then qualify for some bennies and if they have an anchor baby ( which they would) they are home free for life
E-verify keeps illegals from making a living Horn6721
I’ve heard all the stats before about the % of visas that have over stayed. I guess it depended on who’s stance you want to believe. They all have been fact checked and different fact checkers don’t agree. Either way a wall has to be built to free up resources that are being paid $$$$ anyway. If we do nothing they are costing us too much.
To me what’s scary is allowing the law to be broke without any consequences. Our Government officials don’t have consequences and the illegals dont have consequences. But us the tax payers and regular citizens have consequences on everything.
Again, set a deadline for illegals to get out of our country and the ones that abide can come back here legally. The ones that choose to not leave lose their right to ever be in this country again. I think we’d be surprised how many that would actually leave voluntarily so they can come back legally. Plus with a wall would make it so hard to get back across once deported. Of course I agree with Deez that employers serve time or heavy fines for hiring illegals. Between those two things it would make it not worth trying to get in.
Yes denying the ability to have a job denies them a living but we still give them some benefits especially if they have children and if they have anchor babies they can get even more benefits.
I35 has the right idea. Do all of the things we can. No one thing will eliminate illegals flooding in. All of the things will not stop the flow completely but maybe it can make a difference.
You guys do realize when you pimp e-Verify you are trying to solve a government made problem with another government program. I am dubious as to it's efficacy.
Ron DeSantis' approval rating is up to ~ 72%, which I think is highest among recent polling of all governors. He barely won the election, so this is a big move
Phil, you do realize that any solution to the government made problem is a government program.
Yes but I'm not the one acting like EV will fix everything.
You make it impossible for them to make a living by taking away the "I'm stupid" defense to employers and everyone up the chain of hiring. Mandatory E-Verify does this.
Can they indirectly get benefits through their US citizen children? They can get some specifically related to the child. Enough to make a living? That's pretty doubtful. They barely get by now with benefits and full time jobs.
To the extent that some find a way to get by, keep in mind that kids grow up. You can't get welfare through them forever. That answer isn't going to satisfy many, and I'm not a fan of it myself. However, the US citizen children of illegal aliens will always present a messy situation.
It won't fix everything, but it would do more than any one thing.
I like EV but the problem with it is that the states won't enforce it (many aren't enforcing it now). How do the feds make them?
That's funny. I don't think it will fix everything either.
States have that right. I am not interested in forcing states to follow laws they disagree with. Feds need less power.
They don't have to. Worrying about whether a state will support the federal government's position is only an issue when the feds are trying to intrude on something that isn't in their authority, such as public education. Immigration law and enforcement of immigration law is one of the few legitimate federal powers. As such, the federal government has supremacy on the matter and can directly enforce E-Verify on private businesses and even on state and local governments much like they can directly enforce the federal tax code. If a business refuses to withhold and pay federal employment taxes, the responsible parties can be fined and sometimes thrown in the slammer. Same can be done with refusal to use E-Verify.
They have the right not to enforce the law, because it would be a federal law. States don't have to help the feds enforce their own laws. That's why sanctuary cities are legal depending on the specifics.
However, they don't have the right not to follow the law or interfere with federal enforcement of the law, because immigration law is within the federal government's legitimate authority. If Gavin Newsome issued an executive order saying the State of California wouldn't use E-Verify to screen state employees, federal officials would be within their rights to arrest him, charge him with a crime, and toss him in "federal-pound-me-in-the-***-prison," to quote Michael Bolton.