The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: rojawe on June 19, 2011, 06:45:16 PM
-
Alert! HR 2164, The Legal Workforce Act Will Make E-Verify Mandatory & Permanent!
The Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced an important bill to mandate E-Verify usage by employers.
HR 2164, The Legal Workforce Act would phase in the employment verification system over three years and make it permanent. Large employers, government agencies, and government contractors would have six months to comply. The bill would increase the penalties for businesses that fail to use the system, and it explicitly protects the rights of state and local governments to revoke the business licenses of employers who refuse to comply. We will be working hard to make sure that the bill is made even stronger so that any additional states' enforcement rights are not pre-empted.
Making E-Verify mandatory and permanent is an important step in putting millions of Americans back to work and fixing our broken immigration system. It will go after those unscrupulous businesses who purposely seek to exploit illegal immigrant labor and also help to deter identify theft.
It takes the states out of the power loop and leaves Big Big loopholes for illegals and Lamar Smith has sold out to the Chamber of Commerce. Please oppose this HR2164 and help save the American Labor. Do you trust the Gov to have full power on applying E-Verify and the States would lose the power.
-
Sorry ROWJAWE, I think mandating E-verify (while imperfect) is a step in the right direction . Most states are doing little to nothing, and those that are are wrapped up in court challenges. I have said a thousand times that we will never solve this problem as long as people hire illegals.If you build it they will come. I'm with Lamar on this one.
FQ13
-
Making E-verify mandatory is a good first step toward immigration control Chicken Little.
-
Another feel good law that imposes burdens on law abiding citizens at the sacrifice of privacy and rights.
More head-fake laws when all they need to do is enforce what we have...which by decision of scum policitians laws are not enforced....then we get this crap where they will burn law abiding citizens and companies with fines, burden them with regulations and bloat government with more useless drones sucking up cash from our pockets.
The same people who fall for this law may well believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus and make the point that not everyone should vote...some people clearly lack discernment. Evaluation of past performance can be a predictor of future performance...i.e., some people are sorry for voting for Carter and/or Obama now...but they still believe in their ability to discern and cling on to their beliefs by blaming their failures on something or somebody else.
Sorry to burst your bubble you guys who wait up for the big guy on the night of Dec. 24th....
-
Day-yum... I find myself in agreement with FQ...
Surely, this must be a sign of the coming Apocolypse.
-
Another feel good law that imposes burdens on law abiding citizens at the sacrifice of privacy and rights.
More head-fake laws when all they need to do is enforce what we have...which by decision of scum policitians laws are not enforced....then we get this crap where they will burn law abiding citizens and companies with fines, burden them with regulations and bloat government with more useless drones sucking up cash from our pockets.
The same people who fall for this law may well believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus and make the point that not everyone should vote...some people clearly lack discernment. Evaluation of past performance can be a predictor of future performance...i.e., some people are sorry for voting for Carter and/or Obama now...but they still believe in their ability to discern and cling on to their beliefs by blaming their failures on something or somebody else.
Sorry to burst your bubble you guys who wait up for the big guy on the night of Dec. 24th....
So what you're saying is you oppose requiring employers to verify the citizenship status of applicants ?
Press 2 for English.
-
Here is my stance, and you tell me where I stand:
We have several tools available to law enforcement and employers to reasonably determine if a person is legal. Develop a system and use it. If you end up supporting an illegal and get caught you must show your written policy, how it was developed and if it was followed. If your policy or execution is shoddy - You are screwed, but if you did the best you can and the slime still slipped by - It goes on your record, but unless there is a patter that turns shoddy we'll work with you.
How does that work for you?
-
Rastus, I understand your reluctance to support this, as am I. We do not need or want more Federal laws, we want fewer. But I view this akin to the CCW reciprocity bill - we should not need it but we do need it to force those states that won't chase down the illegals, like CA, IL, MA, NY et al. to do so. The potential for abuse is huge too, so maybe put a sunset clause in it, like 10 years? By then, it will be ingrained in businesses to the point they will not easily undo it. That would be my hope anyhow.
-
E- verify is one of those above mentioned tools.
Stopping illegal immigration requires 3 things,
1 Eliminate benefits for illegals, since these were put in place by Dems that would require electing TEA Party conservatives who will enforce the law
2 eliminate the jobs for them, that means requiring verified proof of legal residency and holding employers accountable.
3 Deport them when caught.
-
Here is my stance, and you tell me where I stand:
We have several tools available to law enforcement and employers to reasonably determine if a person is legal. Develop a system and use it. If you end up supporting an illegal and get caught you must show your written policy, how it was developed and if it was followed. If your policy or execution is shoddy - You are screwed, but if you did the best you can and the slime still slipped by - It goes on your record, but unless there is a patter that turns shoddy we'll work with you.
How does that work for you?
Sounds good to me. Using e-verify should be an affirmative defense. Its not your fault if the green card is faked or stolen, if it comes back good from Uncle Sam you are good to go. However, we need to make sure you can't "head fake" this to quote Rastus by just hiring temps from an agency. You should have to show that they have a policy of using e-verify as well (written in your contract say), otherwise its easy to avoid. But if you combine this with running sting operations on the guys who hire from the day labor pools you will see a change. If folks can't find work they will leave. Arizona chased a lot of folks out even though its law is still tied up in court. If there is a nationwide requirement for e-verify, I don't think I need to believe in the Great Pumpkin to think its going make it a lot harder for illegals to get hired, and that's a good thing.
FQ13
-
Punish the employers ! They hire illegals because they can get them cheaper than Americans and treat them like shit in ways an American would not tolerate.
-
Indeed. And you won't have to put many CEOs in jail before folks get the message. Perp walk the CEOS of say Hormel and Motel 6 on multiple felony counts including conspiracy and running a continuing criminal enterprise, and I think a lot of folks will come to Jesus speedy quick.
FQ13
-
Sounds good to me. Using e-verify should be an affirmative defense. Its not your fault if the green card is faked or stolen, if it comes back good from Uncle Sam you are good to go. However, we need to make sure you can't "head fake" this to quote Rastus by just hiring temps from an agency. You should have to show that they have a policy of using e-verify as well (written in your contract say), otherwise its easy to avoid. But if you combine this with running sting operations on the guys who hire from the day labor pools you will see a change. If folks can't find work they will leave. Arizona chased a lot of folks out even though its law is still tied up in court. If there is a nationwide requirement for e-verify, I don't think I need to believe in the Great Pumpkin to think its going make it a lot harder for illegals to get hired, and that's a good thing.
FQ13
You are talking like a person trying to get around it!
Place of business is the one responsible! When the big green bus arrives at a place of business or residence it is that address that is responsible. I'm kind of a black and white guy and don't buy the "it's not my fault BS"
Biggest problem with this is the same thing that sends our jobs overseas: The people that demand low prices for their mass quantities will not stand for paying a fair wage so their neighbors can have a job that pays well. Have you ever noticed that the same people that scream about pollution in the United States are the same ones that will shop at WalMart for products made in China with materials we ban, using labor practices we forbid, and cranking out pollution at twice the rate we allow?
The do gooders claim that we need to be good humanitarians, but down deep they just want cheap produce on the market shelves and cheap construction workers, and illegals provide that.
-
Look, I am quite willing to set up a guest worker program for agriculture. Farmers have it hard, migrant work sucks, and wages are going to be low. But for the rest of it? I have no sympathy for employers who say we can't pay more. Look, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the level of illegal immigration. And if I recall hotels and restaurants and meat packing plants still operated. Granted most people did mow their own lawn, but beyond that, the world still turned much as it does now with folks offering a high enough wage to attract an American. What's any different now other than a large pool of cheap illegal labor driving down wages?
FQ13
-
Look, I am quite willing to set up a guest worker program for agriculture. Farmers have it hard, migrant work sucks, and wages are going to be low. But for the rest of it? I have no sympathy for employers who say we can't pay more. Look, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the level of illegal immigration. And if I recall hotels and restaurants and meat packing plants still operated. Granted most people did mow their own lawn, but beyond that, the world still turned much as it does now with folks offering a high enough wage to attract an American. What's any different now other than a large pool of cheap illegal labor driving down wages?
FQ13
Too many ways for those who would rather not work and who would not work to advance to get a free lunch.
-
Too many ways for those who would rather not work and who would not work to advance to get a free lunch.
Fewer now than then though. Between the welfare reforms under Reagan and Clinton, as well as generaly more stringent state requirements, its harder to get a hand out now than it was twenty or thirty years ago. The difference is the fact that our borders leak like a sieve, employers face no sanctions and every one is too afraid of being called a racist to do anything about it.
FQ13
-
You are talking like a person trying to get around it!
Place of business is the one responsible! When the big green bus arrives at a place of business or residence it is that address that is responsible. I'm kind of a black and white guy and don't buy the "it's not my fault BS"
Biggest problem with this is the same thing that sends our jobs overseas: The people that demand low prices for their mass quantities will not stand for paying a fair wage so their neighbors can have a job that pays well. Have you ever noticed that the same people that scream about pollution in the United States are the same ones that will shop at WalMart for products made in China with materials we ban, using labor practices we forbid, and cranking out pollution at twice the rate we allow?
The do gooders claim that we need to be good humanitarians, but down deep they just want cheap produce on the market shelves and cheap construction workers, and illegals provide that.
You have to write the law to anticipate just those people, and it is not because people don't want to pay more for products, it is because employers can charge top dollar and put more money in their pocket.
Fewer now than then though. Between the welfare reforms under Reagan and Clinton, as well generlly more stringent state requirements, ist harder to get a hand out now than it was twenty or thirty years ago. The difference is the fact that our borders leak like a sieve, employers face no sanctions and every one is too afraid of being called a racist to do anything about it.
FQ13
Bullshit
-
No I'm saying this bill has to many loopholes and will do nothing to any illegal here and employers will say O he worked for me and doesn't have to go thru E-Verify. When the Chamber backs a immigration bill were screwed, we need to change the bill and get the loopholes out. Sounds good but not with us being sold out with a poorly written bill and the likes of the chamber cheering. :'( :-X
-
No I'm saying this bill has to many loopholes and will do nothing to any illegal here and employers will say O he worked for me and doesn't have to go thru E-Verify. When the Chamber backs a immigration bill were screwed, we need to change the bill and get the loopholes out. Sounds good but not with us being sold out with a poorly written bill and the likes of the chamber cheering. :'( :-X
If its backed by the Chamber, or worse yet the Farm Bureau or the CatholciChuch, you are right to say we should look at the fine print. Still, I think a no BS requirement to use E-verify, not being able to get around it by hiring temp agencies or using labor contractors, and putting those who don't and deliberately hire illegals in jail is the only sane way to solve the problem.
FQ13
-
I think it's time to change my meds.......................I agree with FQ on most of what he's posted in this thread. ;D