ADVERTISEMENT

Instead of a wall....

How the hell would an employer know? It is illegal to ask about national origin or do anything beyond asking for documents in accordance with the I-9 process. Employers have to walk a tightrope between ensuring illegals aren't working for you and NOT going "too far" in ensuring your employees are legal. Minimum required document check... nothing more.

If you don't see the tight spot employers are in, then you're not an honest person.

So you are in fact claiming that employers don't know when their employees are illegal, and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted?

This is getting good.
 
So you are in fact claiming that employers don't know when their employees are illegal, and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted?

This is getting good.

How would they know?

You are ONLY allowed to ask for one document from List A, OR one document from List B AND one document from List C. Once that's done, the investigation is over.

You can't ask anyone where they're from. You can't ask anyone if they're here legally or not. You can ONLY ask for documents.

I'm sure a painting contractor with three employees understands these nuances of the law.

It's a set-up for employers, and I hear people on these boards screaming that the solution for illegal immigration is to make this trap worse.

Unfreaking believable.
 
How would they know?

You are ONLY allowed to ask for one document from List A, OR one document from List B AND one document from List C. Once that's done, the investigation is over.

You can't ask anyone where they're from. You can't ask anyone if they're here legally or not. You can ONLY ask for documents.

I'm sure a painting contractor with three employees understands these nuances of the law.

It's a set-up for employers, and I hear people on these boards screaming that the solution for illegal immigration is to make this trap worse.

Unfreaking believable.

How would they indeed. Those poor, unfortunate employers weighed down by the burden of the 7 page I-9 form and unwittingly hiring of illegal immigrants.

Fitting that you choose a painting contractor as your example.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense for Trump to take the position that his administration would address the problem of illegal immigration by simply enforcing current law. Consistent prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegals strikes me as being the easiest and most cost effective way to approach this issue. Not as sexy as a wall perhaps but effective and much less controversial than a physical barrier that only protects the southern border....
DO BOTH Genius!!
 
"
May be a good idea, John Oliver said that the majority of illegals are people who have basically entered legally but over-stayed their Visas.

But that sort of thing isn't really a Trump way of doing things though. Trump gets votes and attention because he's a lot of style over substance. Basically he pledges to solve problems in a very flashy way that is ment to get attention. It does not matter if there are more effective ways of doing things, or even if his way is particularly ineffective or will backfire.
"Trump way of doing things" seems to have brought him a long way. Kind of successful man dont ya think??
 
Furthermore, that doesn't stop the drug dealers, and the human traffickers, and of course, the family members of people who are already here who can support them even if they can't get a job.

Punishing CITIZENS who happen to be employers instead of the ILLEGAL ALIENS is farked up, dude. Back that BS wagon up!
Why don't you think people should be accountable for themselves? What other laws do you think people should be able to ignore?
The drug smugglers are a separate issue. Smugglers sometimes use illegals to bring in drugs, but the point is once they are here you need to make it hard for them to find jobs.
 
instead of a wall, we should build this
DeathStar.gif


nobody would eff with us
USA USA USA
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
Why don't you think people should be accountable for themselves? What other laws do you think people should be able to ignore?
The drug smugglers are a separate issue. Smugglers sometimes use illegals to bring in drugs, but the point is once they are here you need to make it hard for them to find jobs.

There will always be a black market for labor. For tax evasion, or illegal immigrants, or worker's compensation avoidance. You might as well be calling for a minimum wage.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense for Trump to take the position that his administration would address the problem of illegal immigration by simply enforcing current law. Consistent prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegals strikes me as being the easiest and most cost effective way to approach this issue. Not as sexy as a wall perhaps but effective and much less controversial than a physical barrier that only protects the southern border....

You're giving Trump supporters far too much credit. Give them an image of a big wall to keep out brown people, that's something they can wrap their heads around.
 
You're giving Trump supporters far too much credit. Give them an image of a big wall to keep out brown people, that's something they can wrap their heads around.

Can we keep the Mexicans out as well as the brown people?
 
See, now you are trying to conflate things in order to have a pity party. You are saying that employers shouldn't bear the burden, presumably because it is "unfair". I explain that, unless government does it entirely themselves, someone has to bear the burden. So I presume that, in your hr-blowing opinion, that should be the potential employees. But why them over the employers? It makes more sense that an employer would be more aware of and cognizant of the laws and regulations on hiring, and that a potential employee would not be. The burden makes the most sense on employers.

But of course the burdens are balanced against everything else, I'm guessing I've posted a similar though over a thousand times on here. EVERYTHING is a balancing test.

It seem that according to you, 4 more pages of documents throws the balance out of whack. Are you wanting potential employees to do it, or are you willing to pay the government to do it?

"Everyday Joes" that hire people, that then know the laws of hiring people. If you are saying they shouldn't have to know the law because it is too burdensome .... that would be one hell of an admission.

So the burden of enforcing immigration law should be placed on private citizens, instead of the Federal government as the Constitution intended?
 
Do you actually think he would go after employers?

Why not? The law is already on the books. Set up a functioning E-verify system, or the like, so that the employer has a viable way to confirm a potential employee's status, and then enforce the law. I think if you got very serious about this for a couple years, (& I'm suggesting jail time for offenders), the majority of employers would shun illegals forcing most illegals to leave of their own accord due to an inability to find work.....
 
Why not? The law is already on the books. Set up a functioning E-verify system, or the like, so that the employer has a viable way to confirm a potential employee's status, and then enforce the law. I think if you got very serious about this for a couple years, (& I'm suggesting jail time for offenders), the majority of employers would shun illegals forcing most illegals to leave of their own accord due to an inability to find work.....

A functioning E-Verify system is already here, but voluntary at the federal level (some states require employers to use it). However, E-Verify doesn't verify someone's status. The mandatory Form I-9 process does that. What E-Verify does is help to stop people from using fake documents to apply for jobs. "The Real ID Act" created a database of government-issued documents that E-Verify uses to check for discrepancies.
 
So the burden of enforcing immigration law should be placed on private citizens, instead of the Federal government as the Constitution intended?

No, the law simply says that employers can't hire illegals. No employer would be asked to hold or detain anyone....
 
A functioning E-Verify system is already here, but voluntary at the federal level (some states require employers to use it). However, E-Verify doesn't verify someone's status. The mandatory Form I-9 process does that. What E-Verify does is help to stop people from using fake documents to apply for jobs. "The Real ID Act" created a database of government-issued documents that E-Verify uses to check for discrepancies.

So then the real key to this is nation wide implementation of a functioning "Worker Status ID" system....
 
So then the real key to this is nation wide implementation of a functioning "Worker Status ID" system....

Yep, we wouldn't need a database of dozens of different kinds of documents if our Social Security Card had a photograph so that it could be a "List A" document (one that verifies identity AND eligibility to work in the United States).

One card to rule them all. Our lives could be much simpler.
 
Why not? The law is already on the books. Set up a functioning E-verify system, or the like, so that the employer has a viable way to confirm a potential employee's status, and then enforce the law. I think if you got very serious about this for a couple years, (& I'm suggesting jail time for offenders), the majority of employers would shun illegals forcing most illegals to leave of their own accord due to an inability to find work.....

I don't think TRUMP would go after employers (except his enemies as pointed out before) because he is one of those employers and he believes in the ability to hire whomever he damn well chooses and pay them how he sees fit.

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, I'm saying that HE won't do it.
 

You know, I agree with you to an extent, but having/requiring the "papiere" wasn't the problem with the Nazis, it was how they did it (like in your picture). We could, in theory, have similar ID requirements as they did without instituting the brown shirts.
 
Yep, we wouldn't need a database of dozens of different kinds of documents if our Social Security Card had a photograph so that it could be a "List A" document (one that verifies identity AND eligibility to work in the United States).

One card to rule them all. Our lives could be much simpler.

So a photo of a baby?
 
So the burden of enforcing immigration law should be placed on private citizens, instead of the Federal government as the Constitution intended?

Wait, what? None of that was about "enforcing immigration laws", it was about determining eligibility and where to place the burden. Are you saying that the government should be posted at employment places verifying every one of the millions of hires each year? That sounds expensive ... is that what you want?

I'd also be interested to see how you think the Constitution applies to this.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense for Trump to take the position that his administration would address the problem of illegal immigration by simply enforcing current law. Consistent prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegals strikes me as being the easiest and most cost effective way to approach this issue. Not as sexy as a wall perhaps but effective and much less controversial than a physical barrier that only protects the southern border....


Why put doors on your house? Wouldn't it make sense for local law enforcement to address the problem of squatters, trespassers, and burglars, by simply enforcing current law?
 
Why put doors on your house? Wouldn't it make sense for local law enforcement to address the problem of squatters, trespassers, and burglars, by simply enforcing current law?

Phew, glad this will only cost a couple hundy. Was sure it was going to be billions, tens of them+.
 
ADVERTISEMENT