Nice cafeteria. Be a shame of you can't use it. Remember DACA!

[adaher]

@Chronos

What HMS Irruncible wants to see is one single instance of injustice which would put an end to a very large number of other, equally bad, injustices. It’s not hypocritical to say that a single injustice is preferable to many injustices.

What is the injustice? The fact that document fraud is a felony? That’s easy to fix. Why not propose it? Some Republicans would even go along. It’s one less burden on business.

[running_coach]

@adaher

What is the injustice? The fact that document fraud is a felony? That’s easy to fix. Why not propose it? Some Republicans would even go along. It’s one less burden on business.

Never the fault of those who create the demand for illegal workers, right?
I don’t think that’s what “job-creator” means.

[adaher]

And that’s where E-verify and workplace raids come in.

[running_coach]

@adaher

And that’s where E-verify and workplace raids come in.

Wiki

E-Verify was originally established in 1997 as the Basic Pilot Program to prevent illegal immigrants and other people who have violated immigration laws from obtaining employment illegally in the United States. In August 2007, DHS started by requiring all federal contractors and vendors to use E-Verify. The Internet-based program is free and maintained by the United States government. Some states have passed legislation making it mandatory for certain businesses, other states require all employers use E-Verify.

You’d think the problem would be solved by now. Could it be there are employers who don’t want legal workers?
Besides, DACA allows those in the program to work legally.

[adaher]

E-verify is not mandatory everywhere. It should be. It unfortunately will not be part of a DACA compromise. Republicans already gave up on it in the face of Democratic opposition.

[running_coach]

@adaher

E-verify is not mandatory everywhere. It should be.** It unfortunately will not be part of a DACA compromise.** Republicans already gave up on it in the face of Democratic opposition.

Republican E-Verify Bill Faces Growing Internal Opposition

A House Republican bill that would require businesses to screen for undocumented immigrants is facing a growing bloc of opposition — even from within the GOP.

At a Thursday markup of the bill, which would mandate the use of an electronic screening system called E-Verify, one Republican Judiciary Committee member worried aloud that it would hurt agriculture businesses and drive workers underground. Democrats, who by and large oppose the bill, have been airing the same complaints for months, and are now forming an unlikely coalition with conservatives and Tea Partiers who oppose parts of the bill.

According to the groups’ letter, the mandatory E-Verify is problematic because it:

1. Creates a de facto national I.D. System - even for citizens;

2. Violates individual civil liberties such as the right to work and free speech;

3. Mandates a costly job-killing regulatory burden that cripples small business;

4. Requires employers to become enforcement agents of the federal government;

5. Encourages identify theft of law-abiding citizens

Some Republicans in Congress have the same problems with the bill, worrying it will hurt the American agricultural industry or take away state’s rights to police undocumented immigration.

Conservatives, Tea Party pan Republican-sponsored E-verify bill

A growing chorus of conservatives is hammering a Republican proposal requiring businesses to verify the legal status of the workers they hire.

The conservative critics – including Republican lawmakers, Tea Party groups and border-state governors – are airing a long string of complaints: From fears the bill will erode civil liberties; to worries it will harm the agriculture industry; to concerns that it simply won’t work.

At a Thursday markup of the House bill, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) said the proposal would “devastate” agriculture in his state.

E-Verify off the table in Senate DREAM negotiations — thanks to the GOP

On the other hand, show of hands: Does anyone believe Senate Republicans are eager to expand E-Verify? If Pelosi and Schumer turned around tomorrow and said they’re open to including that in a DREAM deal, the Chamber of Commerce and agricultural lobby would descend and demand a meeting with Mitch McConnell post haste. Democratic support for open borders remains the chief obstacle to immigration reform in the United States, but lord knows it ain’t the only obstacle.

Also, you seem to have forgotten that the GOP has majorities in both Houses. How can any Democratic opposition make any difference?

[HurricaneDitka]

@running_coach

… Also, you seem to have forgotten that the GOP has majorities in both Houses. How can any Democratic opposition make any difference?

Have you forgotten about the Senate filibuster?

I’m not sure what the motivation is (I refuse to believe it’s sheer ignorance), but lately Dems on this site have been keen to mention the R’s majorities and pretend the Dems are powerless in Washington. They can’t pass their agenda, true, but they sure can throw up roadblocks for significant portions of the Republican agenda via the Senate fillibuster.

[running_coach]

@HurricaneDitka

Have you forgotten about the Senate filibuster?

I’m not sure what the motivation is (I refuse to believe it’s sheer ignorance), but lately Dems on this site have been keen to mention the R’s majorities and pretend the Dems are powerless in Washington. They can’t pass their agenda, true, but they sure can throw up roadblocks for significant portions of the Republican agenda via the Senate fillibuster.

Yeah, that stopped the tax plan in it’s tracks. Any other actual examples?
Besides, where do you get off complaining about any Democratic use of the filibuster when you would cheer Republican use against Democratic legislation?

[HurricaneDitka]

@running_coach

Yeah, that stopped the tax plan in it’s tracks. Any other actual examples?
Besides, where do you get off complaining about any Democratic use of the filibuster when you would cheer Republican use against Democratic legislation?

I wasn’t complaining about the Dems use of the filibuster. I was complaining about you and other Dopers pretending it doesn’t exist.

[running_coach]

@HurricaneDitka

I wasn’t complaining about the Dems use of the filibuster. I was complaining about you and other Dopers pretending it doesn’t exist.

So you don’t actually have any examples, right?

Because so far, the GOP has done a fine job of throwing up their own roadblocks.

[HurricaneDitka]

@running_coach

So you don’t actually have any examples, right?

Because so far, the GOP has done a fine job of throwing up their own roadblocks.

Examples of what? Filibuster threats by the Dems?

[running_coach]

@HurricaneDitka

Have you forgotten about the Senate filibuster?

I’m not sure what the motivation is (I refuse to believe it’s sheer ignorance), but lately Dems on this site have been keen to mention the R’s majorities and pretend the Dems are powerless in Washington. They can’t pass their agenda, true, but they sure can throw up roadblocks for significant portions of the Republican agenda via the Senate fillibuster.

@HurricaneDitka

Examples of what? Filibuster threats by the Dems?

How about actual uses of the filibuster you’re so terrified of being used? Otherwise, you’re yelling that the sky is falling.
Or you could admit that the GOP is their own worse enemy and the Democrats haven’t done a thing.

[HurricaneDitka]

@running_coach

How about actual uses of the filibuster you’re so terrified of being used? Otherwise, you’re yelling that the sky is falling.
Or you could admit that the GOP is their own worse enemy and the Democrats haven’t done a thing.

I’m not terrified of it, I’m aware of it.

Here, although I have no doubt you’ll only count the narrowest possible definition of “actual uses of the filibuster” you can contrive.

[Chisquirrel]

Like you were so sure the Democrats were going to filibuster and shut down the government a few weeks ago?

[RTFirefly]

@HurricaneDitka

I’m not terrified of it, I’m aware of it.

Here, although I have no doubt you’ll only count the narrowest possible definition of “actual uses of the filibuster” you can contrive.

Um, you’re kidding, right?

The Senate has a tradition of unlimited debate. Absent a prior agreement of a limit on debate, cloture has to be invoked to get to a vote, even on something no Senator is opposed to or is attempting to block. Your list is of instances where Mitch said, in effect, ‘debate’s over, time to vote.’ That’s not a filibuster.

[running_coach]

@RTFirefly

Um, you’re kidding, right?

The Senate has a tradition of unlimited debate. Absent a prior agreement of a limit on debate, cloture has to be invoked to get to a vote, even on something no Senator is opposed to or is attempting to block. Your list is of instances where Mitch said, in effect, ‘debate’s over, time to vote.’ That’s not a filibuster.

it should be a piece of cake for Hurricane to find out which Democrat filibustered each motion and post that.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chisquirrel

Like you were so sure the Democrats were going to filibuster and shut down the government a few weeks ago?

Did I say I was “sure” of what they were going to do? I don’t recall saying that, but feel free to point out where I did.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@HurricaneDitka

I’m not terrified of it, I’m aware of it.

Here, although I have no doubt you’ll only count the narrowest possible definition of “actual uses of the filibuster” you can contrive.

If you think of cloture as a proxy for filibusters, then you just presented a list of defeated Democrat filibusters as evidence of Democratics wielding political power. That doesn’t really work.

[HurricaneDitka]

@HMS_Irruncible

If you think of cloture as a proxy for filibusters, then you just presented a list of defeated Democrat filibusters as evidence of Democratics wielding political power. That doesn’t really work.

My position is that the filibuster gives the Democrats some power in Washington. running coach asked:

@running_coach

… How can any Democratic opposition make any difference?

The simple answer is: via the Senate’s legislative filibuster. It gives them the ability to obstruct most GOP legislation. Do you disagree?

[running_coach]

@HurricaneDitka

My position is that the filibuster gives the Democrats some power in Washington. running coach asked:

The simple answer is: via the Senate’s legislative filibuster. It gives them the ability to obstruct most GOP legislation. Do you disagree?

Looks to me like the GOP has obstructed far more GOP legislation than the Democrats could dream of.
If you can’t cite actual examples, then it’s nothing more than a fear. The fear that the GOP can’t run roughshod over any opposition.