Execs? If you go to Wendy’s the person who is in charge of hiring is a 24 year old without any college experience. They are presented documents that say that the person in front of them is legally eligible to work in the united states.
If it turns out that the documentation was not correct, who’s fault is that?
I guarantee that if anyone is held to be liable, the execs will make sure it is the 24 year old.
There is no way to 100% “secure the border”. the Wall is ridiculous.
All that is worth saying.
But it’s not hard to imagine an E-Verify with a social security number, a picture ID, and a set of fingerprints. If all that matches, your employee is good to go. Allowance for employer first offenses, second offenses, third offenses and followup sounds reasonable as well. Yes, there are details to resolve but this simply does not sound like rocket science, though it does require enabling legislation. Which we don’t have, because business is happy with the status quo and the Republican party is deadlocked.
I don’t have problems with the status quo c. 1970-2016 either. I’m just saying the debate was BS.
Empty allegation. All borders are porous: smuggling dates back to the earliest borders. The US spent billions on border security during the Obama administration. The U.S. Already Spends Billions on Border Security
This means everyone, I mean everyone who works would have to have their fingerprints and current picture in a national database. Which is even more than a national ID.
I, for one, am not willing to give up that much privacy just so some racists can feel safer, and so I get to pay double for all my produce. No thanks.
Wait, isn’t the Constitution a living, breathing document?
jk
When written, it couldn’t have expected the citizens to possibly be able to support an open border with a country the size of Mexico. Provisions would have been included.
The most important ingredient in the quest to secure the border is a true desire to actually secure it. And just because a 100% secure border might not ever be possible, that doesn’t mean that we can’t get close.
So your proposal is we give the right wingers everything they want and seal the borders to keep out anyone from a “shithole” country. And in exchange, the right wingers promise that after the border is secure they’ll consider setting up some kind of legal immigration system.
Why do you say, “give the right wingers”? The Dems claim they want a secure border, too, right?
Pass a bill that contains securing the border and immigration reform. Have the reforms kick in after the border is secure. Getting the second part won’t be that difficult because, contrary to the nonsense narrative pushed by many on the left, Republicans are not anti-immigration. They are anti illegal immigration.
The Republicans had a chance to get both border security and immigration reform with a bipartisan bill, and refused that chance, apparently because they didn’t want to make Obama look good. Even though it’s something they wanted.
The fact that Republicans are going crazy over immigrants having the right right under U.S. law to apply for asylum at a port of entry and that it is the only lane open to people from Honduras shows that they are anti-immigration.
The Trump administration is actually breaking U.S. laws in order to block *legal *immigration.
And they don’t care who is hurt by trying to block *legal *immigration.
You know, I’m going to need to backpeddle. I didn’t think it through. Whatever my post said, I had imagined green card holders getting IDd, but I didn’t consider social security identity theft with sufficient care.
Googling, Kevin Drum says: I don’t personally care all that much about the level of illegal immigration. The chart above, from Pew Research, shows the current numbers, which strike me as reasonable. But obviously a lot of people do care, and most of them are Republicans. They talk tough, they build walls and fences, and they promise to hire lots of border enforcement agents. But this is all a sham. If the economic incentives continue to exist, so will illegal immigration. Forget the Wall. If You Want Less Illegal Immigration, Go After Employers. – Mother Jones Me: Hear hear! KD continues: The obvious way to cut down on illegal immigration has always been to go after employers. Not only does this attack the root of the problem, but it’s practically self-funding. You hire lots of ICE auditors and then pay for them by levying big fines on employers who break the law. As the problem diminishes, you collect less money but you also need fewer auditors.
E-Verify isn’t perfect. Nothing is. But it could be made good enough. And once that’s done, enforcement could be made pretty widespread and the fines could be made pretty high. If you do that, you can forget about the wall. It’s just a distraction.
Bottom line: Anyone who claims to be fiercely opposed to illegal immigration but doesn’t support strong employer sanctions is just lying to you. LA Times: To achieve that goal, the federal government would have to systematically and aggressively go after employers who hire workers in the U.S. illegally. But enforcement of immigration law in the workplace has remained at a symbolic level since 1986, when Congress first made it illegal to hire such workers. From 2007 to 2014, the number of employers investigated for violating hiring laws for immigrants averaged fewer than 2,500 per year, nationwide. The vast majority were not prosecuted criminally but simply fined.
The reasons for weak workplace enforcement are widely recognized. For starters, Congress deliberately included a gaping loophole in the Immigration Reform and Control Act, making it extremely difficult to prosecute employers that break the law. The loophole has remained since 1986 because it is politically advantageous.
There has never been much public or congressional appetite for a harsh crackdown on employers… Op-Ed: Why immigrants won’t self-deport
Think tank discusses European tightening of immigration control during 1980s: Deterrence Without Discrimination
https://cis.org/Report/Employer-Sanctions-Europe There appears to be little factual basis for an argument that employer sanctions have not worked in Western Europe, so they will not work here. Such an argument grossly overstates what can be learned through comparison and conveniently ignores or distorts the actual Western European experience with employer sanctions.
The border is as secure as it has been in several generations. Do you not know this?
“Giving the right-wingers what they want” and “securing the borders” are not the same thing. The border, as already noted, is as secure as it has ever been if not moreso, and the Obama administration turned away or deported record numbers of illegal immigrants.
Conversely, the grossly expensive Wall right-wingers want will do very, very little to “secure the border”, so claims that Democratic opposition to it constitutes not wanting a secure border are fallacious. And illegally detaining asylum seekers and farming out their children to private detention centers run by Betsy DeVos’s people not only doesn’t secure the border, it’s actively monstrous.
That quote is not from the Constitution.
You are speculating, and your speculation is not grounded in anything but your own opinion.
I think what happens is that when immigration is discussed, the Democrats seemingly always side with the immigrants, and to a large segment of the US population, this looks like favoring immigrants, illegal or otherwise, over already resident citizens. And if there are questions of asylum involved, or there’s a lot of sympathy for illegal immigrants, it is perceived as even worse. Even the terminology used can be construed as favoring illegal immigration- calling them “undocumented immigrants” instead of “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens” implies that they’re legitimate immigrants who just *happen *to not have the right paperwork, instead of people who are sneaking into the country without even trying the legal route.
It’s not much of a step from there to claim that politicians and parties who are sympathetic to that might actually be in favor of open borders.
Which means it is not secure. Obviously.
It’s almost comical that you and others parrot some interaction of “the border is as secure as…”
The fact is, it’s not secure. Period. And it is equally as comical to hear the notion that a wall couldn’t;t be helpful in parts of the border. The notion that walls don’t work is contradicted by walking around any day with one’s eyes open. And there was a quote by some one, I forget who, that made the point well. Saying walls don’t work is like saying buckets don’t work. Of course they work, which is why we see so many of them everywhere. And don’t forget their lighter cousins, fences, they do a damn good job, too.
It’s a fairly standard piece of right-wing propagandistic skulduggery in use these days. It goes like this:
The Right implement, or attempt to implement, a policy that adversely affects a minority population in a discriminatory or persecutory way.
The Left step in to block the policy because it is unfair, discriminatory, persecutory, etc.
The Right use this in their messaging: “See? The Left only cares about minorities and hates [whites/Christians/men/Americans/etc]! And by taking the side of [minority], they’re playing identity politics!”
The right-wing media broadcast this messaging ubiquitously.
The consumers of those media accept this message hook, line and sinker.
Republicans and oligarchs PROFIT!
Gays, trans, Muslims, immigrants, etc… all the Republicans have to do is to come up with some new heinous practice against them and the Democrats are forced to either tolerate the persecution or, in fighting it, lose the messaging battle. It’s a win-win strategy for amoral assholes.
Of course there was the expectation - the idea of the border control did not yet exist and as any of the Mexicans or anyone with any knowledge of the history it was you people who were the economic migrants pouring over the border to the Mexico…
It is how you got the lands of the Indian nations, the Texas, the entire south west of your nation.
What a weird distortion of the history…
That’s not exactly what I’m talking about though; it’s more the idea that you already have a set of people who are predisposed to be hostile to illegal immigrants because they think that they drive wages down, and take jobs from citizens, or whatever other reasons. And it happens often enough to not be a wholly mythical thing- tradesmen like electricians and carpenters have it tough in a lot of places because of so many unlicensed Mexicans willing to work for cheap, for example.
Then you get a Democratic politician on TV going on about “undocumented immigrants” and all the other stuff about wanting to make a better life, etc… The people I just mentioned go “WTF? Why is this guy sticking up for people who are coming here without going through the legal process, taking jobs from Americans, and driving wages down?”
It doesn’t necessarily have to be the result of any right-wing machinations.