ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I am being reasonable and rational. They come here for work, which is why the numbers slowed to a net negative during the depths of the recession. If you don't solve the work problem, you won't solve the illegal immigration "problem" which seems obvious to me is a feature, not a bug, of our larger immigration/border approach.
Either party could have implemented very strict legal status verification requirements with steep penalties for employers who violate them, AND the personnel to enforce those laws. But none of either party have done that. I've since lost the article, but during the Bush admin someone figured out the total number of employers hit with violations for a two year period. The bottom line is it amounted to less than 3 total violations per employee per two years. I promise I could ride my bike to a dozen illegal, criminal employers by lunch - hotels, any landscape company, any lawn mowing company, most construction crews, the dairy farmers about 30 miles away, the tomato farmers in the next county, the few remaining tobacco farmers.....
Part of the problem is the decision to make employers an extension of ICE. The Obama Administration has doubled down on that expectation. I go to great lengths to insure every employee is legal. However, why should an employer be required to be a document expert? Democrats have stood in the way of making E-Verify the primary method to verify legal status, and protect employers.
E-Verify divides House panel along party lines - Jessica Meyers - POLITICO.com
I absolutely agree that an employer who knowingly hires an illegal should be hammered by penalties, including jail and confiscation of assets.