Welcome To The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration

[panamania79 2]

Mark was a busy guy.

Back to the topic. Why can't someone be against illegal immigration and illegal aliens without being called a racist? Is it that the pro-illegals have no support for lawbreaking other than attempting not to appear racist themselves? I know that's kind of circular, but if someone thinks it's racist to oppose illegals, they would try to avoid being called racist by taking the untenable position of excusing illegality for some, but not for all, based on skin color.

I have seen this on several occasions myself.Anytime an illegal doesn't get their own way,they start calling everybody a racist.It's like an automatic defense mechanism.I find this very annoying !

and what's really silly, some fall for it or even buy into that rhetoric too.

Dang libruls.

I guess I'm the only librul who isn't fooled by them.

Na sister... its just that the hysteria is deafening. I'd love for the hystericals to list those lack of common-sense liberals (here) that somehow are pro-illegal when quite to the contrary to their hysteria, most here support a legal immigration system with clear reward/punishment for those that follow/violate immigration law, respectively.

Of course, they won't list since their hysteria won't allow it, breaking their endless broken record of illegal-loverisms.

I have formed my opinion because of situations I have seen with my own two eyes.I used to be a recruiter at a temporary employment agency.I've seen just about every trick in the book !

[scandal 951]

Step one would be to end the easy access to employment.

Employers must be punished for hiring illegal workers and we need to insure they have a way to check.

Although I agree with the bolded part, It will never happen. The republicans are ideologically opposed to this, and democrats are scared to seem anti-business.

eVerify.

A program the left and the right should be able to agree on.

A program anyone with common sense should be able to agree on.

Yet thanks to lobbyists and cynical Washington politics, it lingers.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Mark was a busy guy.

Back to the topic. Why can't someone be against illegal immigration and illegal aliens without being called a racist? Is it that the pro-illegals have no support for lawbreaking other than attempting not to appear racist themselves? I know that's kind of circular, but if someone thinks it's racist to oppose illegals, they would try to avoid being called racist by taking the untenable position of excusing illegality for some, but not for all, based on skin color.

I have seen this on several occasions myself.Anytime an illegal doesn't get their own way,they start calling everybody a racist.It's like an automatic defense mechanism.I find this very annoying !

and what's really silly, some fall for it or even buy into that rhetoric too.

Dang libruls.

I guess I'm the only librul who isn't fooled by them.

Na sister... its just that the hysteria is deafening. I'd love for the hystericals to list those lack of common-sense liberals (here) that somehow are pro-illegal when quite to the contrary to their hysteria, most here support a legal immigration system with clear reward/punishment for those that follow/violate immigration law, respectively.

Of course, they won't list since their hysteria won't allow it, breaking their endless broken record of illegal-loverisms.

No hysteria involved, but it takes common sense to see that being anti-illegal is not the same as being hysterical.

[alienlovechild 75]

eVerify.

A program the left and the right should be able to agree on.

A program anyone with common sense should be able to agree on.

Yet thanks to lobbyists and cynical Washington politics, it lingers.

It's already part of our county's government employee requirements. They don't have to wait for Washington's approval on this issue.

[scandal 951]

eVerify.

A program the left and the right should be able to agree on.

A program anyone with common sense should be able to agree on.

Yet thanks to lobbyists and cynical Washington politics, it lingers.

It's already part of our county's government employee requirements. They don't have to wait for Washington's approval on this issue.

The relatively modest proposal a few months ago was to insist that all private employers who were getting federal bailout or stimulus money should be required to participate in eVerify. The lobbyists forced it out of the legislation.

Personally, I don't see why it shouldn't be mandatory across the board that every private employer over a certain size (say, 200 employees, just to pick a number) be REQUIRED BY LAW to use eVerify. As it is, it's completely voluntary. Meaning all the businesses hiring illegal workers go about their merry way, undisturbed.

Just wrong.

If you can have mandatory carding for people buying booze and cigarettes at every 7-11 and night-club in the country, why can't we have mandatory "carding" of every employee hired at a place of business? Just common sense.

[rebeccajo 14]

We already have a verification system.

It's called the I-9 form. It's more on par with 'carding' people.

I'll be in favor of E-Verify when it stops having false hits. Or when we can be sure employers won't abuse it by 'checking' the status of workers after the initial verification.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yep, I-9 requires the employer gets not one, but two forms of identification from each employee. Not sure why that doesn't work.

Rebecca, are you saying that the Everify system can deny people employment because they are falsely on some kind of hit list?

[rebeccajo 14]

Dang libruls.

And just where the heck have YOU been?

[rebeccajo 14]

Yep, I-9 requires the employer gets not one, but two forms of identification from each employee. Not sure why that doesn't work.

Rebecca, are you saying that the Everify system can deny people employment because they are falsely on some kind of hit list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify

In 2007, DHS proposed a "no-match" regulation specifying "safe harbor" procedures for an employer to follow in response to notification that an employee's Social Security number is invalid. A federal district court in California blocked the proposed regulation from taking effect. As of early March 2008, the DHS is revising the regulation.[3][2] The state of Georgia is also considering making compliance mandatory.[4]

The program has also been called inaccurate, though the error rate, currently around 8 percent, is decreasing, as many of the errors came from changing last names after marriage, or not informing the government they were now citizens.[3] An anti-immigration activist group called NumbersUSA is creating a service to track which companies join and which do not to build pressure on non-participating companies to join.[2]

[scandal 951]

Yep, I-9 requires the employer gets not one, but two forms of identification from each employee. Not sure why that doesn't work.

Rebecca, are you saying that the Everify system can deny people employment because they are falsely on some kind of hit list?

The problem with showing ID is that just as 17 year olds give their older sister's driver's license as fake ID to buy beer, there are plenty of illegal workers who similarly provide fake Social Security cards and other ID.

eVerify is not perfect, but it does verify the authenticity of SSN, for example.

Regarding false hits - that is a concern RJ, but from what I've read much, much less so. The technical kinks have (again, as I've read) been worked out of the system. Opposition at this point is coming from those with an axe to grind: either Democrats trying to curry favor with potential voters in communities seen as favorable to continued hiring of illegals, or the business community and their lobby who want to retain cheap labor pools.

[Caladan 19]

The problem with eVerify is the lack of recourse for errors. It would be a very bad thing if someone had to be fired legally and unemployable for months or years while it was sorted out.

[scandal 951]

Yep, I-9 requires the employer gets not one, but two forms of identification from each employee. Not sure why that doesn't work.

Rebecca, are you saying that the Everify system can deny people employment because they are falsely on some kind of hit list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify

In 2007, DHS proposed a "no-match" regulation specifying "safe harbor" procedures for an employer to follow in response to notification that an employee's Social Security number is invalid. A federal district court in California blocked the proposed regulation from taking effect. As of early March 2008, the DHS is revising the regulation.[3][2] The state of Georgia is also considering making compliance mandatory.[4]

The program has also been called inaccurate, though the error rate, currently around 8 percent, is decreasing, as many of the errors came from changing last names after marriage, or not informing the government they were now citizens.[3] An anti-immigration activist group called NumbersUSA is creating a service to track which companies join and which do not to build pressure on non-participating companies to join.[2]

Note the dates in the above .. 2007 and 2008. My understanding is that things are much better now.

I can google around a bit to find some cites.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

We already have a verification system.

It's called the I-9 form. It's more on par with 'carding' people.

I'll be in favor of E-Verify when it stops having false hits. Or when we can be sure employers won't abuse it by 'checking' the status of workers after the initial verification.

problems with that is - how many employers know how to tell if the i-9 is valid? and what prevents someone from "acquiring" a fake one?

additionally, one could just say they are a usc and bypass the i-9 entirely.

it's my opinion we need e-verify, and yes, the bugs should be worked out of it posthaste.

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employmen...11594922-1.html

Unfortunately, as good as E-Verify sounds, there are several reasons why 99 percent of American employers have not signed up for the program. The main reason is that there are serious flaws with the accuracy of the database program. Although E-Verify spits back a "non-confirmation" result about 5 percent of the time, it is believed that the error rate for these results is as high as 4 percent. Although many within the program dispute these problems, an independent study released a report noting that the system failed to meet the data accuracy benchmarks set by Congress. These false positive reports take time and effort to correct, and can often lead to disastrous results. Several employers have faced wrongful termination lawsuits by employees fired after their names triggered incorrect non-confirmation results on E-Verify.

This problem is likely to get worse before it gets better. The E-Verify program appears to be underfunded, and the staff at the DHS and the Social Security Administration is overworked. The system will continue to feel strain as more and more states require their employers to sign up for E-Verify. If the system is generating an error rate of 4 percent now, what will the error rate look like when the system is pushed over maximum capacity?

Also, employers who sign up for E-Verify give up some very important rights. Most employers receive a three-day heads-up before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wing of the DHS will audit and investigate a workplace for immigration violations. However, in order to use E-Verify, employers must sign a Memorandum of Understanding that allows ICE to enter a workplace to investigate without any prior notice. This open invitation allows the government an unlimited opportunity to search records and question employees.

We already have a verification system.

It's called the I-9 form. It's more on par with 'carding' people.

I'll be in favor of E-Verify when it stops having false hits. Or when we can be sure employers won't abuse it by 'checking' the status of workers after the initial verification.

problems with that is - how many employers know how to tell if the i-9 is valid? and what prevents someone from "acquiring" a fake one?

additionally, one could just say they are a usc and bypass the i-9 entirely.

it's my opinion we need e-verify, and yes, the bugs should be worked out of it posthaste.

Because you usually sign it in front of the HR person................

[Peikko 1,575]

We already have a verification system.

It's called the I-9 form. It's more on par with 'carding' people.

I'll be in favor of E-Verify when it stops having false hits. Or when we can be sure employers won't abuse it by 'checking' the status of workers after the initial verification.

problems with that is - how many employers know how to tell if the i-9 is valid? and what prevents someone from "acquiring" a fake one?

additionally, one could just say they are a usc and bypass the i-9 entirely.

it's my opinion we need e-verify, and yes, the bugs should be worked out of it posthaste.

The I-9 is a form that requires the employer to get two forms of identification from the employee. There are three lists of 'acceptable' ID and one has to acquire one from one list and one from one of the other lists. Essentially, Driving license, Birth Cert or Passport type ID plus SSN#. The I-9 is not a form of identification in and of itself. Additionally, this applies to all employees, not just furriners.