An Effective Solution to Illegal Immigration

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

While Republicans have been trying to leech the credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, President Obama has upstaged them by laying out his immigration reform plan. This is a signature political issue that the Republicans have tried to make their own. However, the E-Verify program will test whether they really want to solve the problem or whether, like bin Laden, they’re more interested in maintaining the issue for its political usefulness.

The E-Verify system looks for a match between the name and SSN of the worker who applies for a job. If there’s a mismatch then the worker may be undocumented, or the worker has to contact the SSA to get the records corrected. The E-Verify program, if widely implemented, would dramatically reduce the incentive for illegal entry.

However, business hates it. The Florida Chamber of Congress has succeeded in getting mandatory E-Verify removed from a Florida immigration reform bill. Republicans are caught between their business overlords and the Tea Party.

The Florida Chamber of Congress cites out-of-date error rates and concerns over identity theft as the basis for their objection to mandatory E-Verify. Could it be there’s another reason? Maybe it’s because businesses can take advantage of the illegal’s vulnerability and pay them less than the minimum wage and violate work safety rules, as pointed out in Obama’s recent speech.

The error rates for E-Verify are steadily improving with most errors occurring due to typos and changes in names or citizenship that are not reported to the Social Security system. Workers need to get these errors fixed in order to receive their full Social Security benefits to which they are entitled.

The problem with identity theft occurs when an undocumented worker uses someone else’s (matching) name and SSN when applying for a job. That problem has been solved by something called “E-Verify Self Check” where individuals can access their status before applying for a job. The system knows whom you’ve worked for over the years and can ask the kind of questions that only the legitimate worker would be able to answer correctly. Therefore, workers can be verified and identity thieves won’t be able to verify their data.

Another problem for E-Verify is the case of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting that is before the Supreme Court (Kagan, J., recused). At issue is a 2006 Arizona statute, the Legal Arizona Workers Act that requires all employers to participate in the E-Verify program, which is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. The law was signed by then-governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano, now the Secretary of Homeland Security, the department that runs E-Verify. What you have is the Obama administration’s Solicitor General arguing against the most effective tool in the administration’s arsenal against illegal immigration.

As pointed out by Justice Ginsburg during oral arguments:

How can Arizona take a Federal resource, which the Federal Government says is voluntary except in certain circumstances, and turn it into something that’s mandatory?

The E-Verify Modernization Act of 2011 seeks to make E-Verify permanent and mandatory. It will be interesting to see if the bill suffers the same fate as the Florida legislation.

H/T: VC, Miami Herald, Adam Serwer, Daily Finance.

416 thoughts on “An Effective Solution to Illegal Immigration”

  1. excellent publish, very informative. I’m wondering why the other specialists of this sector don’t notice this.
    You should proceed your writing. I’m confident, you have a great readers’ base already!

  2. I just now wanted to thank you again for your amazing web page you have created here. It can be full of useful tips for those who are really interested in this kind of subject, in particular this very post. You really are all so sweet and also thoughtful of others in addition to the fact that reading your blog posts is a wonderful delight with me. And that of a generous gift! Mary and I will certainly have pleasure making use of your suggestions in what we need to do next week. Our listing is a kilometer long so your tips are going to be put to beneficial use.

  3. @Ekeyra: Do you think that a super-majority of Americans believe that people should be arrested for feeding the homeless? Even if they do it in public parks in groups of 40? Do you think that a super-majority of this town VOTED for this law, or would vote for this law? Do you think a super-majority of people believe charity and giving away your own property on your own dime and on your own time should be regulated in any way?

    In my philosophy, this law is wrong. I do not believe any of the above. You seem incapable of thinking in anything but extremes; just because I believe in super-majority rule does not mean I believe in all present laws. I think the vast majority of current laws could not survive a vote if they required even 60% of the vote, and that includes this idiotic law. It probably violates free speech and the right to assemble in a public place.

  4. The key to the effective use of reductio ad absurdum is knowing when and how to use it.

    That wasn’t it.

  5. @Roco: I’ve been involved in three successes with this approach (it is a requirement for my investment), it works just fine.

    Most executives make more mistakes than we do, and if you look at failed businesses the failure could usually have been avoided if it weren’t for some pig-headed executive insisting upon a course of action he thought was “BOLD” or “SAFE” and most of the rest of the company thought was foolhardy or suicidal.

    Collective business decisions are less subject to whims, obsessions, petty hatreds and intractable stubborness. They are less subject to interference by emotion and on average more rational. It takes a large helping of egomania to believe that, even if it cannot be explained rationally, your gut feeling is more accurate every time than three or four of your peers; and if anybody thinks they are that much smarter than ME, I will not voluntarily give them control over my time or my money. On the flip side, I’m not interested in investing with anybody that thinks they are that much dumber than I am, that they would willingly defer to my business judgment without question.

    Since I feel that any business I invest in has a claim on both my time and my money, I do not invest without consensus governance on what amounts to judgment calls. (As distinct from trained-professional calls, such as legal matters or engineering matters.)

  6. Tony C:

    I don’t know, most executives I know take an informed decision based on the best available information provided by subordinates and their own expertise.

    I don’t know many businesses that operate by committee for important decisions.

  7. @Roco: You can make the decision based on committee but someone has to have the ultimate responsibility.

    No, they don’t. The committee makes the decision, and the committee decides for the corporation, and the corporation has the ultimate responsibility.

    A decision taken by a committee leads to no one taking ultimate responsibility. When things go south committee members can say “not me, I was forced to vote for it, it is not my fault.”

    That is ridiculous; a vote is a vote and nobody on the comittee is ‘forced’ to vote for anything. They vote their conscience; and if they lose the vote, they lose it. Their vote is recorded, just like in the House of Representatives. If things go south it makes no difference, the decision was a decision of the majority and the fallout belongs to everybody. If it makes them feel better to say ‘I told you so,’ the only response for the others is, ‘Yes you did.’

    So what? I cannot be forced to vote for anything, and I cannot force anybody else to vote for anything. I vote on the information and experience I have at hand, and make my argument for my vote, and they can do the same.

    If anything the executive who is taking final responsibility is protecting his subordinates from fallout should things not work out as planned.

    Bullshit, he is forcing his ‘subordinates’ to do something they think is wrong-headed. There is no need for ‘subordinates,’ your idiotic insistence that somebody must be at the top is just ridiculous. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn’t get to override the decision of the majority. The Foreman of the Jury doesn’t get to override the group and declare Guilty or Not Guilty despite their objections. The Chairman of the Board doesn’t have to be allowed by the corporate charter to override the majority view of the Board; in fact the COB can be completely powerless in terms of autonomy.

    You are just proving your ignorance, no wonder you believe the shit you do, you cannot comprehend the simplest of logic.

  8. Tony C:

    someone has to take the final decision. You can make the decision based on committee but someone has to have the ultimate responsibility. I see no contradiction.

    A decision taken by a committee leads to no one taking ultimate responsibility. When things go south committee members can say “not me, I was forced to vote for it, it is not my fault.” Cowards take that route. They hide their failure in the herd.

    If anything the executive who is taking final responsibility is protecting his subordinates from fallout should things not work out as planned.

    You dont run shit, except your mouth.

  9. Tony C:

    you and Otteray Scribe are the epitome of refined gormlessness.

    Carry on.

    Otteray Scribe:

    I will engage in any conversation you wish to engage in. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean Ayn Rand is my guru.

    She has a lot of good ideas and some ideas that need a second look and some ideas that are unworkable. Seems to me that applies to most every sort of “guru”.

    At least I am aware of her short comings, you seem to put Marx and Engels on a pedestal.

    You progressives have your own set of dogma to which you adhere. And you are every bit as loyal to your unworkable philosophy as I am to free markets. The only difference is that your economic philosophy was, is and always will be a magnificent failure. And capitalism did, is and will always provide a higher standard of living and a superior method of wealth creation.

    I find it funny that you believe the lies you learned in the government schools you most probably attended. ekeyra, I and others are telling you the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth and it shakes your value system to it’s very core.

    No wonder you call us sociopaths, I guess in your limited experience and understanding we probably are. Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, Von Mises and others are the equivalent of a Copernican revolution in economics, you and other progressives play the part of the Catholic Church.

    But I can assure you, the earth does revolve around the sun and capitalism is a superior wealth creating and freedom creating system.

  10. @ekeyra: Well damn, maybe thats why its crumbling before our eyes?

    Of course it is; because know-nothings like you act against your own self-interest by opposing the taxes that would fix it; and demand instead that you should be allowed to pay MORE than cost because you want somebody to earn a profit, in the deluded belief that they might be benevolent and fix the road if you pay them enough. Even though you have no alternative to that road no matter how bad it is, and will never have an alternative, and despite the fact that the new owner would certainly find it in his best interest to conduct as few repairs as possible and let you assume the cost of damages to your car instead.

    But don’t let reality intrude on your fantasies of power and control, no matter how fantastically improbable they are.

  11. @Roco: So why do you think I would run a company tyrannically? … But someONE has to be the ultimate decision taker

    In two sentences you claim you wouldn’t run a company tyrannically but there really must be a tyrant. That’s so hypocritical it is funny.

Comments are closed.