Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:31 AM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903

Instead of "Build the wall", "E-verify, E-verify, E-verify"


So it turns out that E-verify isn't required nationwide.

I am actually pretty shocked to learn this. Note that e-verify, combined with modest enforcement effort from ICE, would make employment of illegal immigrants very difficult.

Current requirement: Employer has to 'examine' the employment documents and sign a form saying they appear valid.

How to bypass: Anyone with a readily available printer can make a plastic card that resembles a driver's license. Professional ID forgers can make it match exactly and of course put the photo of the person getting the card made on it. The social security card is a chintzy paper card that is even more trivial to copy.

With E-verify, yes, someone could still bypass using a name, driver's license number, and social security card that are all someone else's identity. Except that now there's a database entry. So after the second, and third, and so on illegal immigrant uses the same false identity, it would be fairly trivial to make this trip a software alert and send ICE detectives to investigate.

E-verify would actually reduce illegal immigration and employment, and it would be far more effective than a wall. Presumably cheaper as well.

I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but requiring all employers nationwide to do it sounds like it falls under the enumerated power of the Commerce clause. Congress should be able to force every employer in the country to do it as the employment of immigrants who have illegally crossed state lines clearly affects the national market for labor.

What say you, remaining conservative posters on this board? Do you agree or disagree that this is a good idea?

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-17-2019 at 11:32 AM.
  #2  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:58 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,627
This might be burdensome to smaller businesses. Perhaps requiring all employers with 50 or more employees to use E-Verify might be a bit more practical.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #3  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:59 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
Better than a wall, yes. However, if these illegal immigrants are here and working, that means they're paying taxes (unless they're being paid in cash only, but the cash only jobs could also just ignore E-VERIFY). Why would we want to deport someone who has a job and is contributing to our society?
  #4  
Old 08-17-2019, 12:21 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 298
If you change I9 requirements so that employers have to file an I9 return, and the Government has to verify the return, then we could accomplish the same thing. In my 26 year career, I've only seen one company ever audited for I9 compliance.
  #5  
Old 08-17-2019, 12:25 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
This might be burdensome to smaller businesses. Perhaps requiring all employers with 50 or more employees to use E-Verify might be a bit more practical.
Umm, how? Could we discuss in more details how burdensome it is to enter a person's documents into a website. Well, you need a computer and internet access. And how long do you think per employee. 15 minutes? An hour?

How big a burden are you anticipating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
If you change I9 requirements so that employers have to file an I9 return, and the Government has to verify the return, then we could accomplish the same thing. In my 26 year career, I've only seen one company ever audited for I9 compliance.
...what. So the Federal government is de facto a willing participant in illegal immigration. They are on purpose letting millions of them work (and yes, displace American workers or at least drive down their wages) while show deporting a few thousand of them.

This is actually a reasonable argument for amnesty. De facto, the federal government has allowed these people to stay, sometimes decades, and have children here. They shouldn't be kicked out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Better than a wall, yes. However, if these illegal immigrants are here and working, that means they're paying taxes (unless they're being paid in cash only, but the cash only jobs could also just ignore E-VERIFY). Why would we want to deport someone who has a job and is contributing to our society?
Then why don't we let these people in openly instead of forcing them to be a permanent underclass? Do you think there should be any limit to the numbers allowed through?

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-17-2019 at 12:29 PM.
  #6  
Old 08-17-2019, 01:15 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Better than a wall, yes. However, if these illegal immigrants are here and working, that means they're paying taxes (unless they're being paid in cash only, but the cash only jobs could also just ignore E-VERIFY). Why would we want to deport someone who has a job and is contributing to our society?
Because a society that has a farcical set of laws that can be ignored by the powerful for political and monetary gain is almost the definition of corrupt?
  #7  
Old 08-17-2019, 01:17 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post

Then why don't we let these people in openly instead of forcing them to be a permanent underclass? Do you think there should be any limit to the numbers allowed through?
We should have some sort of work residency program to handle these people, definitely. If they want to stay and become citizens, there should be a process for that, too, but it can definitely take longer and require more effort.

I don't think we should arbitrarily declare, "We want X Mexicans and Y Chinese" or anything like that though.
  #8  
Old 08-17-2019, 01:18 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Because a society that has a farcical set of laws that can be ignored by the powerful for political and monetary gain is almost the definition of corrupt?
Are you talking about our tax code?
  #9  
Old 08-17-2019, 01:38 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
How to bypass: Anyone with a readily available printer can make a plastic card that resembles a driver's license. Professional ID forgers can make it match exactly and of course put the photo of the person getting the card made on it. The social security card is a chintzy paper card that is even more trivial to copy.
Also How to bypass: have the employer be part of it. They can either pay you under the table or find some other workaround. Keep in mind, even with false credentials, they're not stupid, but everything has to be good enough to give them plausible deniability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
This might be burdensome to smaller businesses. Perhaps requiring all employers with 50 or more employees to use E-Verify might be a bit more practical.
We [employers] already have to collect their ID and eligibility info, verify that nothing appears off, copy down the info (and photocopy in some cases) and then [again, the employer] has to sign the I9 form stating that everything is correct. Sticking that info into a free, online service, shouldn't be a big deal. In fact, we already have to report new hires (electronically, typically) to the state. It seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to combine that into one website. Either that the state passes along the info to e-verify, or New Hire reporting could be done on a federal level, instead of state by state, and it could all be part of the e-verify site.

I've never given that much thought so I don't know if it's plausible. In any case, there's plenty to do for new hires. I can't imagine adding e-verify to the process could take more than a minute or two.

Having said that, I'm for e-verify. I don't use it at my work currently, but I'd have no problem doing it and certainly wouldn't fight it if it became mandatory.
I suppose it could make the people working illegally just do a better job of covering their tracks, but it may also make some of those people work towards becoming eligible.
I also don't mind the idea of taking, at least some of, the responsibility of deciding if someone can legally work off the shoulders of the employers and putting it where it belongs, with the government.

I do agree with the premise, if you want to keep people out, it's not about the wall. Make finding work more difficult. If you punish employers enough that they don't find the risk provides enough reward, they'll stop hiring people that aren't eligible.


Something else that I'm guessing a lot of people don't realize, but l0k1 touched upon it upthread and I mentioned it in the other thread. A new employee fills out the first half of the I-9, they bring it to the employer along with their documents and the employer fills out and signs the second half of the I-9. Then the employer takes that I-9 and files it away. It doesn't get faxed or emailed or electronically submitted to anyone. We don't use the info to fill out an online form, nothing. Nothing ever happens with it, the next time it gets touched is likely when the employee no longer works there and it gets moved to a different filing cabinet.
That, IMO, is a big reason why this is so easy. There's no (gov) oversight.
  #10  
Old 08-17-2019, 02:11 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,760
The reason is obvious. The way it works now immigrant haters can ignore the havoc that getting rid of all these people would cause. I wonder if Trump used E-verify for his properties.

Here's a proposal: make E-verify mandatory for everyone. If a worker fails, give the employer a month, say, to find someone else for the job at the same salary. If the employer can't, the worker is not taking a job away from an "American" and so becomes legal.
Friendly amendment: allow the employer to jack up the salary for the job posting. But if he still can't find anyone to replace the immigrant, the immigrant gets the higher wages.

A rational immigration policy would be a lot better, but this could be a start.
  #11  
Old 08-17-2019, 02:53 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
I know you asked for conservatives, but on this topic, I think I am probably to the right of quite a bit of the board.

E-verify needs to be improved dramatically first.

Right now, it doesn't really do much. It doesn't check to tell if the documents presented belong to the person presenting them. It doesn't tell if they are real or if they are fake. All it does is tells whether or not a particular taxpayer ID (typically SS #) is being used suspiciously. It will allow a large number of unauthorized workers to fall through the cracks.

As far as false positives, that creates a headache for employer and employee. I've never been flagged, but when I worked for a utility company, one of the guys that got hired with me got flagged. They straightened it out eventually, but he was on basic office duty while the rest of us were in training. I was out of training and making another $2.50 an hour before he started training, about 6 weeks. So, E-verify cost the employee $2.50 an hour times 40 hours times 6 weeks, or about $600, not including overtime, and it cost the company a few weeks of paying him while he was being very unproductive. It was something that happened somewhat frequently, so they had makework for people appealing E-verify, but it was still a hassle.

That was the only company that I worked for with e-verify (that I know of), which is good, as I did a lot of job hopping in my 20's. There were many years where I would have 6 or more jobs in that year, sometimes with 3 or more being concurrent. I'm sure if they had e-verify, I'd have been flagged a few times.

If I ran e-verify at my place, then I would have to accept that occasionally I would get an employee that I could not legally fire for failing e-verify, but couldn't really invest training in either, in case it comes back that it was a true positive. That could be very costly.

As for the time involved, sure, it's not a whole bunch, but it's just one more burden that you are placing on businesses. To say it doesn't cost anything is to say my time is worthless.

The only way for it to work well would be to collect biometric data on all authorized workers in the US. Is that something that the conservatives on this board would be able to endorse?
Tell you what, make e-verify mandatory, but have exceptions for small businesses (defined as having fewer than 20ish employees, revenues of 1-2 million, or no single person having more than $150,000 in personal income).
  #12  
Old 08-17-2019, 03:39 PM
Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Shenzhen, China
Posts: 7,307
It's not like golly gee shucks, we just can't figure out the solution to all these illegal immigrants and if we just came up with the right idea, all of it would be fixed.

The fundamental thing you need to understand about the American immigration policy, as it has been implemented for decades, is that it's not designed to keep illegal immigrants *out* of the country, it's designed to keep them *in* the country but with no rights so they can be used as a source of cheaper labor. Everything about how immigration is enforced in practice is grounded in a tacit understanding that this is the goal, while there's just enough of an on paper legal framework to provide plausible deniability to those who aren't paying close enough attention.

You need to accept this as a basic starting point to the conversation before you're able to have any kind of realistic conversation about what can be done about illegal immigration.
  #13  
Old 08-17-2019, 03:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
So it turns out that E-verify isn't required nationwide.

I am actually pretty shocked to learn this. Note that e-verify, combined with modest enforcement effort from ICE, would make employment of illegal immigrants very difficult....

What say you, remaining conservative posters on this board? Do you agree or disagree that this is a good idea?
E-Verify is very unreliable.

This is a very bad idea.

Look, ICE agents are constantly arresting US Citizens as "illegals" and they have e-verify and more. What make you think it's worth a bucket of warm piss?
  #14  
Old 08-17-2019, 04:59 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
E-verify needs to be improved dramatically first.

Right now, it doesn't really do much. It doesn't check to tell if the documents presented belong to the person presenting them. It doesn't tell if they are real or if they are fake. All it does is tells whether or not a particular taxpayer ID (typically SS #) is being used suspiciously. It will allow a large number of unauthorized workers to fall through the cracks.

As far as false positives, that creates a headache for employer and employee. I've never been flagged, but when I worked for a utility company, one of the guys that got hired with me got flagged. They straightened it out eventually, but he was on basic office duty while the rest of us were in training. I was out of training and making another $2.50 an hour before he started training, about 6 weeks. So, E-verify cost the employee $2.50 an hour times 40 hours times 6 weeks, or about $600, not including overtime, and it cost the company a few weeks of paying him while he was being very unproductive.
I had no idea it was this crappy. A sane "E-verify" system would :

a. Collect some kind of biometric of the employee. A photo of their face is fine.
b. In the back end, the biometrics would get cross referenced to other users of that SSN.
c. Impose no direct burden on the employer. Instead, it triggers an investigation and the employer is not directly aware of it. A detective will come and interview the suspicious employee. If they turn out to not be a citizen, well, they get first notified in writing that they have been found not to be a citizen and they have 90 days or so to either produce evidence proving they are, or they can sign up for the transportation back to their home country.

Failing to comply in 90 days, that would be when jails get used.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-17-2019 at 05:00 PM.
  #15  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:05 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Umm, how? Could we discuss in more details how burdensome it is to enter a person's documents into a website. Well, you need a computer and internet access. And how long do you think per employee. 15 minutes? An hour?
Requiring a computer and internet access might be burdensome to some small businesses. If I have a lawn care company consisting of myself and two employees it's possible my entire operation is done offline. Most federal laws & regulations regarding employee/employer relationships only apply to businesses with a minimum number of people. For some that minimum number might be 15 and for others it might be 50. From a practical standpoint I think you're better off making the E-Verify requirement apply to businesses that employ a lot of people.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #16  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:10 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I had no idea it was this crappy. A sane "E-verify" system would :

a. Collect some kind of biometric of the employee. A photo of their face is fine.
b. In the back end, the biometrics would get cross referenced to other users of that SSN.
That's complicated. You are essentially doing facial recognition on all new hires in the entire country. First you have to gather and store that info for your database, then every single time that I get another job, you have to send my data in to be verified again.

Not that it cannot be done, but it'll be complicated and expensive and there may be those who feel that it is an invasion of their privacy.
Quote:

c. Impose no direct burden on the employer.
As an employer, I don't mind that. But I am still doing a good faith check first, right? I don't want to spend time investing into employees if I don't know whether or not they will dragged off by ICE in the next few months.
Quote:
Instead, it triggers an investigation and the employer is not directly aware of it. A detective will come and interview the suspicious employee. If they turn out to not be a citizen, well, they get first notified in writing that they have been found not to be a citizen and they have 90 days or so to either produce evidence proving they are, or they can sign up for the transportation back to their home country.

Failing to comply in 90 days, that would be when jails get used.
And in the cases where the employer was knowingly complicit, or conspired in the creation or acquisition of fraudulent documents, then the employer can very well be held liable as well, both civil and criminal.
  #17  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:23 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
It's not like golly gee shucks, we just can't figure out the solution to all these illegal immigrants and if we just came up with the right idea, all of it would be fixed.

The fundamental thing you need to understand about the American immigration policy, as it has been implemented for decades, is that it's not designed to keep illegal immigrants *out* of the country, it's designed to keep them *in* the country but with no rights so they can be used as a source of cheaper labor. Everything about how immigration is enforced in practice is grounded in a tacit understanding that this is the goal, while there's just enough of an on paper legal framework to provide plausible deniability to those who aren't paying close enough attention.

You need to accept this as a basic starting point to the conversation before you're able to have any kind of realistic conversation about what can be done about illegal immigration.
Quoted For This-Can't-Be-Said-Too Often. The system is like it is because that's the way the people who designed it wanted it to be. "Illegality" is a crucial part of it.

It's probably no accident that the Great Deporter was a Democrat. He hadn't gotten with the program.

The Current Occupant may be going a bit far with his recent terrorisation schemes - in the current low-unemployment environment, if people really stopped coming (and arrivals are down) and all the 50+ meat packers, hotel maids and construction workers decided working was too dangerous and they'd retire and be supported by their legal citizen kids, the system would start to falter.

On the other hand, they're not above stirring the pot some more in South America in order to fix that problem
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #18  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:27 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
As far as false positives, that creates a headache for employer and employee. I've never been flagged, but when I worked for a utility company, one of the guys that got hired with me got flagged. They straightened it out eventually, but he was on basic office duty while the rest of us were in training. I was out of training and making another $2.50 an hour before he started training, about 6 weeks. So, E-verify cost the employee $2.50 an hour times 40 hours times 6 weeks, or about $600, not including overtime, and it cost the company a few weeks of paying him while he was being very unproductive. It was something that happened somewhat frequently, so they had makework for people appealing E-verify, but it was still a hassle.
This was the employers fault. No adverse action may be taken against an employee based on a tentative nonconfirmation result from E-Verify. The proper thing to do is to provide the employee with the Further Action Notice from E-Verify, ask the employee if they wish to context the TNC, and then wait for the final results before taking adverse action against the employee.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #19  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
This was the employers fault. No adverse action may be taken against an employee based on a tentative nonconfirmation result from E-Verify. The proper thing to do is to provide the employee with the Further Action Notice from E-Verify, ask the employee if they wish to context the TNC, and then wait for the final results before taking adverse action against the employee.
They did not take adverse action against the employee. He still worked there, he still got paid. He just didn't get a promotion that he was never promised. As training was 6 weeks of offsite work with instructors and quite a bit of equipment and material, it makes sense for them to not invest that heavily into someone who may not be there soon. I conservatively estimate that they paid at least $10,000 on my training, if you include my pay, the cost of me driving their vehicle all over the state, the materials I used, the rent on the location that we used, and paying the instructors.

It was a very large company, and this was pretty standard practice, so I assume that they made sure that how they were doing it was legal.

Hmmm, I can't find a direct answer either way, but if your company offers a signing bonus, would that bonus need to be paid to the employee before the matter was resolved? If so, can you claw it back from their pay if it turns out that they are not legal?
  #20  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:51 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Umm, how? Could we discuss in more details how burdensome it is to enter a person's documents into a website. Well, you need a computer and internet access. And how long do you think per employee. 15 minutes? An hour?

How big a burden are you anticipating?
You'd effectively be telling the Old Order Mennonites, the Amish, and other Plain People that they aren't allowed to hire anybody.

Looks like a pretty sizeable burden to me.

And there are a lot of other people who have very limited Internet access, even if they want it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
The fundamental thing you need to understand about the American immigration policy, as it has been implemented for decades, is that it's not designed to keep illegal immigrants *out* of the country, it's designed to keep them *in* the country but with no rights so they can be used as a source of cheaper labor.
This.

If the undocumented labor force all disappeared, the rest of the country would be left with a really huge mess.

But all attempts to set up a process for legal work documentation that would actually cover the number of people needed in the number of jobs that we need them for get blocked in Congress. Let alone any attempt to allow people working in the USA for years on end to -- gasp -- live with their families!


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That's complicated. You are essentially doing facial recognition on all new hires in the entire country. First you have to gather and store that info for your database, then every single time that I get another job, you have to send my data in to be verified again.

Not that it cannot be done, but it'll be complicated and expensive and there may be those who feel that it is an invasion of their privacy.
Current facial recognition technology is also far from perfect. And it works less well if used on people who happen not to be white.
  #21  
Old 08-17-2019, 06:04 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
They did not take adverse action against the employee. He still worked there, he still got paid. He just didn't get a promotion that he was never promised.
When it comes to employment, adverse actions includes terminations, refusals to hire, and refusals of promotion. If the company based their decision not to send him to training based on a tentative nonconfirmation from E-Verify that is a textbook example of an adverse action.

Quote:
It was a very large company, and this was pretty standard practice, so I assume that they made sure that how they were doing it was legal.
It wasn't. When you receive a tentative nonconfirmation from E-Verify it specifically tells the employer they cannot take an adverse action based on that. Either the utility company screwed up, you were fed misinformation on why this person wasn't in training, or your recollection is off.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #22  
Old 08-17-2019, 06:15 PM
Triskadecamus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,601
Some small employers do have inadequate resources for implementing thorough checking of immigration status for their employees. If Immigration enforcement offered assistance to the prospective employer, without bullying the employees the cost benefit. for both ICE, and small business owners would be motivating. It could be done via email, with minimal physical visits, at local offices. This isn't rocket science.

The small businesses aren't the problem, anyway. Employers of fifty or more seasonal employees are unquestionably aware that a large percentage of their employees are immigrants. and the cost of verifying their legal status is THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY. Simply enforce RICO warrants on CEO's and COO's all businesses convicted of employing illegal workers twice in the same five year period. Confiscate the business's assets, as allowed for ongoing criminal enterprises. Declare the shares to have no value, and sell the assets to cover the costs.

When you motivate the people who can actually make the changes, the changes will occur.

Tris
__________________
It might cut down on some political campaign funding.

Last edited by Triskadecamus; 08-17-2019 at 06:16 PM.
  #23  
Old 08-18-2019, 02:56 AM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
You'd effectively be telling the Old Order Mennonites, the Amish, and other Plain People that they aren't allowed to hire anybody.

Looks like a pretty sizeable burden to me.

And there are a lot of other people who have very limited Internet access, even if they want it.
Now you're just being ridiculous. But sure, fine, religious or extremely small business (less than 3-5 people, not 50!), fine. Barely makes a difference then.
  #24  
Old 08-18-2019, 09:29 AM
Mr. Duality is offline
Luminary
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Because a society that has a farcical set of laws that can be ignored by the powerful for political and monetary gain is almost the definition of corrupt?
+1

We don't have a workable system for verifying eligibility to work because powerful interests with political pull want to be able to employ illegals, treat them poorly and pay them less.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!
  #25  
Old 08-18-2019, 11:53 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
You'd effectively be telling the Old Order Mennonites, the Amish, and other Plain People that they aren't allowed to hire anybody.

Looks like a pretty sizeable burden to me.

And there are a lot of other people who have very limited Internet access, even if they want it.
There's already workarounds for that. It would be trivial to add e-verify to the list. There's plenty of things that are required to be submitted online but employers below a certain threshold (for employee count, income, tax due per period etc) are allowed to do in other ways or not do at all. I'm going to guess the Amish already either fit into one of those categories or they have outside help with this kind of thing and whoever does that would handle this as well. If Amish societies become the new refuge for illegal migrant workers, then we can work on that.

Quote:
If the undocumented labor force all disappeared, the rest of the country would be left with a really huge mess.
But we'd get back all those jobs they stole. There's unquestionably thousands of migrant workers that come up from Mexico to work in farms in Summer. If you crack down on that, all the people complaining that they took 'er jerbs, could go work there.

Quote:
Current facial recognition technology is also far from perfect. And it works less well if used on people who happen not to be white.
The OP mentioned biometrics, K9bfriender changed that to facial recognition. There's other types of biometrics. Finger prints and hand stamps, for example. Interestingly, someone I know added a handstamp time clock to his business and his employees wouldn't use it because they didn't want their fingerprints being taken. Understood. But to be clear these machines don't look at your fingerprints or even the bottom of your hand at all. They take a picture from above and use finger length and distance apart (IIRC) to set up a way to recognize you.
  #26  
Old 08-18-2019, 12:02 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
There's already workarounds for that. It would be trivial to add e-verify to the list. There's plenty of things that are required to be submitted online but employers below a certain threshold (for employee count, income, tax due per period etc) are allowed to do in other ways or not do at all. I'm going to guess the Amish already either fit into one of those categories or they have outside help with this kind of thing and whoever does that would handle this as well. If Amish societies become the new refuge for illegal migrant workers, then we can work on that.


But we'd get back all those jobs they stole. There's unquestionably thousands of migrant workers that come up from Mexico to work in farms in Summer. If you crack down on that, all the people complaining that they took 'er jerbs, could go work there.


The OP mentioned biometrics, K9bfriender changed that to facial recognition. There's other types of biometrics. Finger prints and hand stamps, for example. Interestingly, someone I know added a handstamp time clock to his business and his employees wouldn't use it because they didn't want their fingerprints being taken. Understood. But to be clear these machines don't look at your fingerprints or even the bottom of your hand at all. They take a picture from above and use finger length and distance apart (IIRC) to set up a way to recognize you.
One comment: the illegal immigrants didn't directly "steal" jobs. More jobs were created to take advantage of the illegal immigrants being available. If a real set of policies and enforcement mechanisms were put in place, it would need to be done gradually, and the employers probably need at least a partial amnesty program. (so all 10 million or so illegal workers don't all get thrown out at once. That's far too much of a disruption)

What they do is they push the market price for labor in the fields that illegal immigrants can perform below minimum wage. So there are little to no jobs for Americans in those fields being offered at all, because the employer doesn't want to pay minimum wage for a worker who will not work as hard as an illegal immigrant.

If illegal immigrants were to gradually become unavailable (either through deportations or amnesty + training for the ones here) then businesses would have to change over time to use less backbreaking labor in deplorable conditions. They would have to start using more efficient processes and automation and the costs for some things would increase.
  #27  
Old 08-18-2019, 12:47 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,729
Yes re: stealing jobs, see the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That doesn't mean everyone is better off, of course.
  #28  
Old 08-18-2019, 01:33 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 43,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What say you, remaining conservative posters on this board? Do you agree or disagree that this is a good idea?
I'm only conservative by non-US standards, but I find it interesting that you assume the employee has decided to cheat beforehand and without the knowledge of their employer.

While I do certainly know instances of people who decided to immigrate illegally, every instance I know of someone working illegally (whether they are themselves irregular immigrants, regular immigrants or citizens of the country) has involved employers who knew perfectly well what was going on. Quite a few times, employers who would not employ anybody over the table. Do you think E-Verify would have kept Trump or Koch from employing irregulars?
__________________
Some people knew how to kill a conversation. Cura, on the other hand, could make it wish it had never been born.

Last edited by Nava; 08-18-2019 at 01:35 PM.
  #29  
Old 08-18-2019, 01:37 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
There's unquestionably thousands of migrant workers that come up from Mexico to work in farms in Summer. If you crack down on that, all the people complaining that they took 'er jerbs, could go work there.
.
Have you ever tried to do any of that work, for more than half an hour at a time, at a reasonable rate of speed, and producing a reasonable level of quality?

I raise direct-market produce. I do such farmwork, on my own place, all the time. I've been doing it, on my own place or in others' vineyards, since I was in my mid-twenties. I've hired people who haven't done it before. I've trained farm interns.

One of those interns (a US citizen if it matters) had for some years starting in her teens been a professional hand harvester. Twenty years ago when I was more physically capable, I couldn't come anywhere near keeping up with her. No other farm intern I've ever had, people in their late teens and twenties in decent physical shape and some of them really into the work, could have come anywhere near keeping up with her, even after several months of learning how.

And a high percentage of people I took on gave up on the job -- despite the fact that they'd taken it up out of genuine interest, and despite the fact that they were being trained in multiple aspects of a small-scale operation, and so almost never did any specific harvesting or planting or weeding job all day long; we were always switching back and forth to different types of work with differing amounts and type of physical stress and different mental requirements.

It's not unskilled work that can be done by anybody off the bat. It requires not only basic physical fitness, but training of the body in specific fashions, which vary with the job that needs to be done. And it's not only a matter of physical strength and adaptiveness to particular sorts of movement and to a wide variety of weather conditions. The ability to tell which peach is at the right degree of ripeness to be harvested for a specific market, and to not only judge this but to get that peach off the tree without injuring it in the process, is something that takes time to learn and that some people have a lot of trouble with -- especially when the color cues that work for one variety out of hundreds don't work for another, and the degree of ripeness desired depends on the market. And those cues, and the harvest technique that doesn't damage either the fruit or the plant, are different when the crop is peppers. And different yet if it's strawberries. And different yet -- I could go on. And then there's pruning and tying systems; and safe use of a really wide variety of hand tools, power tools, and powered equipment; and safe and appropriate use of chemicals including pesticides and fertilizers; all of which can vary drastically depending on crop, climate, market, and individual farm. And I haven't even touched livestock handling.

Teaching any of this -- I won't say 'all of this' because nobody learns all of it, dairy workers may not know how to harvest peaches or vice versa -- to the people who are complaining that immigrants are 'stealing their jobs' is complicated, not only by the fact that many of these people are genuinely not physically capable of it without an extended period of conditioning and some of them not capable of it no matter how much physical training would be involved, but by the fact that many of them won't believe there's anything that needs learning, because they think it's all "unskilled labor". It is really really hard to teach a skill to somebody who won't listen because they're unwilling to believe that there's any learned skill involved.

Plus which, there just plain aren't enough hands available, at least unless we're going to massively revamp what other work is getting done. I posted this in another thread, but will briefly drop it in here also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...?noredirect=on

So, yeah. If the undocumented labor force all disappeared, the rest of the country would be left with a really huge mess. And to some extent (see link above) we're already in it.
  #30  
Old 08-18-2019, 02:07 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
One comment: the illegal immigrants didn't directly "steal" jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Have you ever tried to do any of that work, for more than half an hour at a time, at a reasonable rate of speed, and producing a reasonable level of quality?
It was just a quote from South Park, a joke, if you will. And also a slight commentary from me, basically agreeing with what you were saying.

Last edited by Joey P; 08-18-2019 at 02:10 PM.
  #31  
Old 08-18-2019, 03:04 PM
Caldris bal Comar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
Requiring a computer and internet access might be burdensome to some small businesses. If I have a lawn care company consisting of myself and two employees it's possible my entire operation is done offline. Most federal laws & regulations regarding employee/employer relationships only apply to businesses with a minimum number of people. For some that minimum number might be 15 and for others it might be 50. From a practical standpoint I think you're better off making the E-Verify requirement apply to businesses that employ a lot of people.
Strictly speaking, it's theoretically possible to run a business like that offline, but when I owned one, the very first quarter I sent the IRS a paper check for my payroll withholding taxes. They cashed it, but sent me a nasty letter saying that I they would assess a fee on me the next time I sent them a check. So thereafter I used the online EFTPS portal.

I think most businesses of that size are going to be using Quickbooks or similar anyway, and the simplest way to do tax payments is via the program, which is all hooked into the federal and state online payment portals already. In a hypothetical mandatory e-verify world I'm sure Intuit would bake the necessary functionality into their payroll service.
  #32  
Old 08-18-2019, 04:09 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
It was just a quote from South Park[/URL], a joke, if you will. And also a slight commentary from me, basically agreeing with what you were saying.
Ah. I am a person who's clueless about a lot of such references. Thanks for info.

I'm also probably influenced by having read people saying such things entirely seriously -- including our US House "representative", who thought local wineries could just replace their full-time skilled vineyard workers with high school students working in their spare time.
  #33  
Old 08-18-2019, 05:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I had no idea it was this crappy. A sane "E-verify" system would :

a. Collect some kind of biometric of the employee. A photo of their face is fine.
b. In the back end, the biometrics would get cross referenced to other users of that SSN.
c. Impose no direct burden on the employer. Instead, it triggers an investigation and the employer is not directly aware of it. A detective will come and interview the suspicious employee. If they turn out to not be a citizen, well, they get first notified in writing that they have been found not to be a citizen and they have 90 days or so to either produce evidence proving they are, or they can sign up for the transportation back to their home country.

Failing to comply in 90 days, that would be when jails get used.
How many freaken Federal 'detectives" do you think the Govt has?

Trust me, this wouldnt work.
  #34  
Old 08-18-2019, 05:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
...
The fundamental thing you need to understand about the American immigration policy, as it has been implemented for decades, is that it's not designed to keep illegal immigrants *out* of the country, it's designed to keep them *in* the country but with no rights so they can be used as a source of cheaper labor. ...
Not cheaper. They are paid exactly the same as everyone else. But instead they mostly do jobs that white Americans cant or wont do.
  #35  
Old 08-18-2019, 05:48 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not cheaper. They are paid exactly the same as everyone else. But instead they mostly do jobs that white Americans cant or wont do.
Where did you get such a fucking stupid idea from?

Employers Exploit Unauthorized Immigrants to Keep Wages Low
Quote:
The impact of unauthorized immigration on lesser-skilled native-born American workers, however, is more complicated. Unauthorized immigrants contribute to the economy in vital industries and pay billions in taxes, but it’s also true that 5 percent of the labor force is comprised of unauthorized, deportable workers who aren’t fully protected by U.S. labor laws. Unauthorized workers are often afraid to complain about unpaid wages and substandard working conditions because employers can retaliate by taking actions that can lead to their deportation. This gives employers extraordinary power to exploit and underpay them. When the immigrants’ wages are suppressed, so are the wages of U.S. workers competing for similar jobs.

This exploitation is not just theoretical. A landmark study found that 37 percent of unauthorized immigrant workers were victims of minimum wage violations. An astounding 84 percent who worked full-time were not paid time-and-a-half for overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a week.

Big employers no strangers to benefits of cheap, illegal labor

Quote:
While his immigration status hasn’t posed a significant roadblock to his continued employment, it has exposed him to the risks that come with working in the shadows. He and his fellow custodians have repeatedly been paid less than minimum wage and worked six or seven days a week with no overtime pay, according to court records and Texas Tribune interviews. In some cases, they accumulated those overtime hours when Target managers would lock them in the store for extra tasks.

“We've realized that [employers] prefer us for being undocumented because we just keep our heads down to get jobs,” Chunco said. “[We] can't afford to complain. They take advantage of us being undocumented.”

What Chunco describes is a window into an expansive underground labor market in which illegal hiring is widespread, even among some of the biggest names in American business. Yet the risk of running afoul of immigration authorities is low. Employers skirt culpability by accepting fake documents that they are not legally required to verify, misclassifying workers as independent contractors or subcontracting to separate businesses that do the actual hiring — all while claiming they did what the law requires to verify their workers’ employment authorization.
  #36  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:54 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
We should have some sort of work residency program to handle these people, definitely. If they want to stay and become citizens, there should be a process for that, too, but it can definitely take longer and require more effort.

I don't think we should arbitrarily declare, "We want X Mexicans and Y Chinese" or anything like that though.
Why not? I don't think you should pick an arbitrary number of immigrants out of thin air, but I do think the government administrators responsible for managing US immigration should be trying to match the number of economic migrants to the demand for those economic migrants. Likewise, for humanitarian and family immigration, there should be a basis for determining a reasonable quota of immigrants. For economic migrants, I don't think country of origin is important. However, for humanitarian migration, I think it's a good idea to prioritise getting people out of the most dangerous situations. For family migration, I also think it's reasonable to try and ensure geographical distribution of immigrants.
  #37  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:06 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
.... What say you, remaining conservative posters on this board? Do you agree or disagree that this is a good idea?
Are we going to deport the ones that E-verify identifies as here illegally?
  #38  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:13 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are we going to deport the ones that E-verify identifies as here illegally?
Isn't that the point? I mean, besides identifying the employers who are taking advantage of this illegal but highly cost-effective labor force.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #39  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:20 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
Isn't that the point? I mean, besides identifying the employers who are taking advantage of this illegal but highly cost-effective labor force.
I would hope so, but I'm less and less confident these days that deportation is viewed as a valid response to illegal immigration by the other side of the political aisle.
  #40  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:58 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
Isn't that the point? I mean, besides identifying the employers who are taking advantage of this illegal but highly cost-effective labor force.

E-Verify isnt reliable enough to deport anyone.
  #41  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:55 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
E-Verify isnt reliable enough to deport anyone.
So perhaps not a good replacement for enhanced border security?
  #42  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So perhaps not a good replacement for enhanced border security?

We dont need "enhanced border security" either. There's a fence there already, primarily for drug interdictions.
  #43  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
... There's a fence there already, primarily for drug interdictions.
Sort of. It could be a lot more fence-like and less vehicle-barrier-only / open-passage-like in a lot of places.
  #44  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:39 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So perhaps not a good replacement for enhanced border security?
The WallTM is so mighty that it can stop visa overstays!
  #45  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:11 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,936

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Where did you get such a fucking stupid idea from?
Tone it down.

[ /Moderating ]
  #46  
Old 08-21-2019, 07:18 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are we going to deport the ones that E-verify identifies as here illegally?
Technically if those people cannot obtain employment, the opposite problem would occur. They would have to go to another country to seek work. INS would need to provide an 800 number to call for that would result in a taxpayer provided taxi ride to the airport and a return flight to their country of origin.

No need for cages or even jails of any sort for illegal immigrants (unless they committed a different crime obviously). Those jail cells would be used occasionally to punish hiring managers and executives caught violating the law. And you could start a bounty program - green card and 10-100k cash for every employer of illegal immigrants you report.

If there's not much available work in the US there wouldn't be coyotes and crowds rushing the border and cutting holes in the present fencing.

De facto the USA is PAYING for illegal immigration to happen. Employers of illegal immigrants always were the real criminals.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-21-2019 at 07:21 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017