E-Verify

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BrntOrngStmpeDe, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    Why isn't there more discussion of phasing in 100% usage of E-verify? Trump talked about it, Rubio proposed it, Cornyn propsed it...Why can't we get any serious traction on universal use of E-Verify.

    I've read some of articles out there but none of them seem to hold water. Implementing E-verify and enforcing it would seem to be the most logical first step to resolving all of our illegal immigration issues.

    It may not provide 100% correct responses but it appears to be about 97% correct. E-verify is purported to spit out a negative response about 2.6% of the time and about 0.3% are resolved favorably. The data on the other 2.3% doesn't fully explain if they were determined to be illegal or if they just quit applying. An employment force of about 130MM and a churn rate of about 25% means that about 25MM people are moving into new jobs each year. That's about 750,000 per year that test 'hot' under E-verify. Seems to me that with 11MM illegal immigrants in the US, that 750,000 number is comprised mostly of exactly the people it was designed to detect.

    Implementing E-Verify would be so much more of a politically palatable course than starting forced deportations. And SOOOOOO much cheaper.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That would make too much sense. It would hit the problem at the source. It's not business friendly enough and of course, it's much easier to vilify the 'bad hombres' that come her to "rape and murder" our citizens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    The construction industry is stopping E-verify, which would kill the industry. Put an add in the paper for concrete finishers, framers, sheet rock installers, equipment operators and painters. Then notice how many blacks, whites and latinos apply.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    I say propose a one-time amnesty on non-felony illegals...with one restriction...no voting rights for two generations.

    Then poll a large sample of illegals asking how much they agree with the deal...strongly, somewhat, not at all.

    I don't support it by any means, just would be funny to watch Libs come out in full assault to kill it after polling showed 90+% of illegals strongly support it.

    Without the right to vote, the Libs would never agree to "helping" illegals. Just look what they did to the Cubans after they went for Trump in FL.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Liberals would oppose that plan because it makes no sense. You can't given someone legal status yet say they can't vote but can pay taxes. It's absurd.
     
  6. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I'm just amazed that the same purple, fly over states whose constituents helped propel DJT aren't pushing this harder. If I'm in a state where my unemployment numbers are higher than everywhere else, I would be pushing hard for Everify on a national level to make room for citizens to take those jobs. It is an almost no-cost solution for everyone except the employers that are hiring the illegals at below market wages anyway. Can these employers really hold that much sway compared to all the other entities in your constituency?

    I think this is a smarter way for wages to go up than having to federally mandate a higher minimum wage.
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    To be fair, legal permanent residents can't vote but still pay taxes. I think it makes sense because they are still nationals of their home country, and depending on their home country's laws, they can vote in their elections. What is nonsensical is to deny voting rights to their US citizen children for no reason other than who their parents are.
     
  8. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Of course it wasn't meant to be a serious proposal. Was merely pointing out the Libs only fight tooth and nail for these people for future votes.
     
  9. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    This - in any industry that employs illegals, the employers are breaking the law in order to be able to keep wages down. The government helps them do this and ends up taking a side against another employer who would like to do things legally but cannot or he will go broke.

    This whole crap line of "they do the jobs Americans won't do" leaves off the qualifier that should come immediately after - "at the wages we are paying them."
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. 4th_floor

    4th_floor Dude, where's my laptop?

    You are right. Citizenship and English are optional for construction workers these days. When I was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, a career in construction was a viable career. As you learned your trade, you could become a contractor or a builder. Now you have to be able to deal effectively with illegals in order to become a contractor. Whites and blacks need not apply.
     
  11. 4th_floor

    4th_floor Dude, where's my laptop?

    As long as they have legally obtained citizenship, I agree. But the anchor babies who became citizens due to a criminal activity should not be allowed to vote, regardless of the 14th Amendment. In my world, I would allow these anchor babies to become citizens by going through the same application process as other immigrants.
     
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Have you personally witnessed how hard immigrant labor works in our agriculture industry? I have over the course of many summers working on a family farm. For the life of me, I can't imagine a low wage American worker putting forth that effort, even at higher pay.
     
  13. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I disagree. From what I can tell the farm worker represents about 8-10% of the cost of the final goods. The rest is the farmer, the transportation and the supply chain.

    So let's say that that worker is making $10/hr to keep cost down. If we get all the illegal workers out of the system, what would wages go to? Hard to say but I would bet they would rise to $13-15 pretty quickly. You may not get workers to spend year after year rotating back to the same farms but I would bet you could get workers at that pay rate....especially if we simultaneously quit making the bar for disability, unemployment and welfare benefits so low.
     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It's pretty unusual to deny someone the right to vote based on someone else's alleged criminal activity. People conceived in rape gain their existence and therefore their citizenship through criminal activity. Should they lose the right to vote too?
     
  15. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I hate like heck that the anchor baby phenomenon and interpretation exist, but I don't see how we could ever revoke citizenship of someone that already gained it under a previous interpretation. The best we can do IMO is to redefine that provision and move forward with non-anchorbaby rules. I can't imagine revoking citizenship for anchor babies would find a sympathetic ear in very many courts.
     
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Yes for a few reasons. First, they're organized. The industries that benefit most from illegal immigrant labor form political organizations and hire elite lobbyists. These aren't small time political advocates. They are some of the biggest, baddest, kick-in-the-balls dudes in the business. In Texas, they hire people like these guys.

    Second, they are obscenely rich - rich enough to buy governors, state legislators, state supreme court justices, etc. If you're a committee chairman, and a guy like home builder Bob Perry (now deceased) is standing there with a $100K check for you if you kill an anti-illegal immigration bill without a record vote, you're going to listen to him, especially if he's going to hand your primary opponent a $500K check in the next election if you don't listen to him.

    Third, the industries that benefit from illegal immigrant labor are politically savvy. Their Republican candidates credibly run as conservatives, and their Democratic candidates credibility run as liberals. It's tough to beat them in primary elections.

    Fourth, illegal immigration opponents are disorganized. They form organizations, but they have no money and often back crappy candidates, and of course, many illegal immigration opponents on the Left (like blacks) get sidetracked by less important liberal causes and take their eyes off the ball.

    Fifth, illegal immigration opponents are politically dumb, and it's easy to divert their attention with non-issues. They think it's about the immigrants when it's actually about money. If you raise the money angle, the candidates just start saying you're anti-business and start bashing the immigrants, and your point gets lost.
     
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You'd have to amend the Constitution to redefine the previous interpretation. We'd be better off just securing the border and punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants.
     
  18. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    No question. If everything were done legally and laws enforced, wages would rise, but profit margins would fall. The top 1-5% that make up the wealthy and upper middle class would lose a significant portion of their income/wealth in both the construction related businesses and Wall Street. In other words, the growing inequality gap might stabilize. And GDP might temporarily slow down. Can't have that.
     
  19. 4th_floor

    4th_floor Dude, where's my laptop?

    In my world, there would be no birthright citizenship. So if the mother is a non-citizen, the rape child would also remain non-citizen.

    Here's an article showing that birthright citizenship is not universal.
    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
     
  20. 4th_floor

    4th_floor Dude, where's my laptop?

    I would agree that retroactive loss of citizenship is probably unconstitutional - and is unfair. But I would like to see birthright citizenship end because it is not really that common, and it is not to the advantage of the US.
     
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    So what if the mother is a citizen? The rape child is still conceived due to criminality. Why not take away his voting rights?

    It's not universal, but that really doesn't matter. We do. Maybe we shouldn't, but we do and aren't likely to change it any time soon.
     
  22. 4th_floor

    4th_floor Dude, where's my laptop?

    The mother did not commit a crime. So she should be able to pass on her citizenship. Notice that I don't care if the rapist is a citizen or not.

    There is justice in my world. :bow: I am overdue to become emperor.
     
  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    OK, Emperor, why should the mother's criminality matter but not the father's?

    In the rape scenario, suppose both the mother and father (rapist) are both citizens. The father is still a criminal (because he's a rapist), and if it wasn't for his criminality, the child wouldn't be a citizen, because he or she wouldn't exist. Accordingly, why not take away the child's voting rights?
     
  24. 4th_floor

    4th_floor Dude, where's my laptop?

    Because I say so.

    Go to your room for the rest of the evening!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Lol. At least you admit that there's some arbitrariness to your rulings. I can respect that.
     
  26. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    Do you mean we should amend the constitution, or simply interpret away what the founders meant when they drafted it?
     
  27. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Wait, I was told by CNN and MSNBC that it was the *left* that cares about income inequality. I can't resolve that with their pro-illegal immigrant stance. Help!
     
  28. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    You can't. First, they will deny it when confronted. Second, when given examples, they go quiet. The only consistency is victimhood.
     
  29. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I'm ok with either. I'm not a legal scholar enough to know what it would take to set a new precedent for how that phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" is interpreted and how it ultimately gets enforced. I just know I want the end product to be....

    At least one of your parents must be a current, US Citizen in order for you to be granted automatic US citizenship at birth.

    If it takes an amendment to the constitution, then I would like to see that happen. I personally think they have it wrongly interpreted now, but again, I didn't go to law school. I think they erred because, at the time, it suited their growth ambitions. It still suits the ambitions of business leaders (more immigration means more consumers AND more cheap labor, they win on both fronts) so it will be an uphill battle.
     
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    In the modern era, I'd support doing this by constitutional amendment, but I do understand why they didn't do this with the 14th Amendment. The purpose of birthright citizenship was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had ruled that descendants of African slaves could not be citizens. If they had limited citizenship only to people who had at least one parent who was a citizen, then it wouldn't have granted citizenship to freed blacks. However, now that their citizenship and their descendants' citizenship has been established, adopting your preferred rule wouldn't disturb their citizenship.

    Some would like to see the Court change its current interpretation, which essentially limits this provision to the children born of foreign ministers or invading armies. However, they're not really thinking this through. If you hold that the children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then that would have implications beyond citizenship. Personal jurisdiction is a prerequisite for a court to render a civil or criminal judgment against someone. Accordingly, if the child of an illegal immigrant commits a crime in the United States and isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, guess what happens to him? He walks.
     

Share This Page