Illegal Immigrants why so much love?

[pablo2752 106]

6 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Also, as has been mentioned here in CEHST many times over the years, slapping harsh fines on employers who hire illegals need to be enforced.  Put a price on doing so of around $100,000 per instance should help reduce the lure of cheap employees (nearly slave labor).

My mom told me than when she first picked up a supervisor job in a local hotel as her first job after she got her green card, about 1/3 of the housekeepers had false work documents - she didn't have hard proof, but this was a known secret. Employers obviously know that they are bogus but pretend ignorance because ICE/USCIS won't have ways to prove their dishonesty. She also said that she would have been more sympathetic to them if they hadn't splurged their money on Gucci bag, Channel or whatever fancy stuff. 

 

Another story - remember when Maryland failed to pass a sanctuary city bill one time? Guess who opposed it? Legal immigratns, most of which were Asians and a few were latinos that used to be illegals until reinstated. Surprise slap in the democrats' faces! 

Edited August 4, 2020 by pablo2752

[TBoneTX 45,959]

My plan:

 

1.  No adjustment of status from tourist visas, except perhaps in EXTREME medical emergencies.

 

2.  "OK, DACA kid; you can stay, but your illegal parents must submit themselves for prompt deportation."

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

27 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

My plan:

 

1.  No adjustment of status from tourist visas, except perhaps in EXTREME medical emergencies.

 

2.  "OK, DACA kid; you can stay, but your illegal parents must submit themselves for prompt deportation."

I kinda like these ideas. I think industries that benefited from DACA should be taxed to pay for the legal status of DACA conversions to an existing/relevant visa (with extra scrutiny on student visas) with provisions barring them from passing on citizenship or legal status to anyone else but their own children born in the US. It means not all DACA people would even be given legal status, they'd have the burden of proof to demonstrate their time in the US has been productive, otherwise, by the non-immigrant nature of deferral.. deported. If that amount of generosity were to be a problem, I'd not have an issue whatsoever with a very simple policy of "deport them all".

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I kinda like these ideas. I think industries that benefited from DACA should be taxed to pay for the legal status of DACA conversions to an existing/relevant visa (with extra scrutiny on student visas) with provisions barring them from passing on citizenship or legal status to anyone else but their own children born in the US. It means not all DACA people would even be given legal status, they'd have the burden of proof to demonstrate their time in the US has been productive, otherwise, by the non-immigrant nature of deferral.. deported. If that amount of generosity were to be a problem, I'd not have an issue whatsoever with a very simple policy of "deport them all".

Would that "industries" rule of financial support extend to the previous president who enacted DACA in the first place?  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Would that "industries" rule of financial support extend to the previous president who enacted DACA in the first place?  

I'm all for it, since this is basically a hypothetical that stands no chance anyways. I think I suggested it before that Obama be held liable to pay for the damages caused by DACA, which is his policy, one which also contravened immigrant law.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Boiler 45,952]

All they would have to do is make payment to illegals not deductible as a business expense.

[pablo2752 106]

I wonder if there is an easier alternative to E-Verify. I talked to a few people who work in HR, and they said it's a pain in the behind.(am I allowed to use profanities here, or will this bleed some people's heart?), which is why some businesses (even larger ones in states that is not mandated) can get away with knowingly hiring illegal aliens under false pretense of ignorance. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by pablo2752

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

58 minutes ago, pablo2752 said:

I wonder if there is an easier alternative to E-Verify. I talked to a few people who work in HR, and they said it's a pain in the behind.(am I allowed to use profanities here, or will this bleed some people's heart?), which is why some businesses (even larger ones in states that is not mandated) can get away with knowingly hiring illegal aliens under false pretense of ignorance. 

Can you elaborate on why E-verify is difficult to use?  I have only experienced it as an end user, not an employer, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

[TBoneTX 45,959]

1 hour ago, pablo2752 said:

am I allowed to use profanities here

We're allowed to use family-friendly language.  

[pablo2752 106]

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Can you elaborate on why E-verify is difficult to use?  I have only experienced it as an end user, not an employer, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Well I don't know all the intricacy, but all I have been told by a few acquaintances in HR is that E-verify poses lots of work on employers. However, from what I gather, when a company does E-verify, several things happen: 

 

1. You allow SSA and DHS to audit employer data. Every 30 day employer's data is reviewed, and if something is wrong, audit can be done by any agency of ICE/USCIS/SSA and Justice of Departments' Immigrant and Employee Rights Section. This alone is enough for illegal-happy employers to not opt in if there is no mandate. In fact, this is why farmers don't like E-Verify. Also, E-Verify is s separate from I-9, so you still can get fined for I-9 violation even if you pass E-Verify.

 

2. You need more than one E-verify specialist in your company. This can be costly even though E-Verify enrollment cost is free because there are downstream costs such as training HR members just for E-verify. 

 

3. E-verify, despite its "E-" prefix, does not allow you to submit anytime you want - it has "off-line" period, which is absurd. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Can you elaborate on why E-verify is difficult to use?  I have only experienced it as an end user, not an employer, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

As a former Plant manager, I implemented its use for our company and taught HR to use it. If you cant figure out how to use E-Verify you have no business doing anything but stacking boxes. It's super easy. 

 

It's so easy even a 

 

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

As a former Plant manager, I implemented its use for our company and taught HR to use it. If you cant figure out how to use E-Verify you have no business doing anything but stacking boxes. It's super easy. 

 

It's so easy even a 

 

but a caveman can spell better than NB

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

12 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

but a caveman can spell better than NB

I cant be a genuineness at everythang

[pablo2752 106]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

As a former Plant manager, I implemented its use for our company and taught HR to use it. If you cant figure out how to use E-Verify you have no business doing anything but stacking boxes. It's super easy. 

 

It's so easy even a 

 

How much did you spend a year for expenses related to E-verify? 

[Boiler 45,952]

The businesses I know who employ illegals know perfectly well what they are doing. Can there be an odd situation where somebody slips through the cracks, I am sure there is but that is not the norm. Ditto I know a few who make a big issue that they do nt employ illegals and they do not.