-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The Florida Chamber of Congress cites out-of-date error rates and concerns over identity theft as the basis for their objection to mandatory E-Verify.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.
Tony C.
1, May 27, 2011 at 6:56 am
——————-
……
The labels of Democrat and Republican don’t mean anything over the long term; Ike believed in public works and infrastructure to the tune of trillions, the modern Republicans do not.
If paying homage to the Constitution is all you require, then you should have said so: We’ll justify universal health care as part of the war on terror, it is for national defense!
The minimum wage — NATIONAL DEFENSE!…
==========================================
Ahhhhhhh, I don’t really see why this statement is sarcastic?
A strong and healthy and well educated workforce IS a National defense….and it decreases the need for healthcare $$$$….and a HEALTHY educated people would be more productive, more reliable, quality driven and less likely to make mistakes that cause liabilities to employers…they would be, in short, irreplaceable. It’s not rocket science it’s common sense. Why is that obviality a scary thought to the current wave of neocon industrialists….?
I have never had my “ass” handed to me by you or by Tony.
Socialism is socialism whether it be democratic or not. In a socialist economy there are no free markets, government regulates production in some way. It is what we have here, the US is a socialist economy for all intents and purposes.
There is so much double speak going on here it is hard to know what you or Tony believe. If regulations are good then why are lobbyists bad? For the most part they work with politicians to write the regulations.
I would say it is you and Tony who are the black and white thinkers. Always thinking the market can be manipulated for the outcome you desire. It never happens that way.
“Roco”,
At least he’s not so stupid as to think socialism equates to a totally command economy. Unlike you. Socialism in the form of democratic socialism – no matter what bullshit you bloviate about – is NOT a command economy. It is a free market economy except for those segments critical to maintaining society and those which could affect national security. You black and white thinkers are all alike. No basis in reality unless you can be a polar extremist. Because if you read what Tony says carefully about regulated markets? It’s exactly what I’ve been saying in different terms. Capitalism is good for some things, it is not good for everything. Different tools for different jobs.
Thanks for completely capitulating in the guise of saving face after having your ass handed to you yet again.
Tony C:
then you are a greedy piggy according to some. But I am glad that you are saying how much you like capitalism. At least you acknowledge it’s superior wealth creating abilities. And I hope you have lived and will continue to live the American dream. Thanks in part to your hard work and thanks in part to a somewhat free economic system which allows you to keep some of your efforts.
“I could trace fundamental misunderstandings back to seventh grade geometry class. Then, six years later, that misunderstanding is biting them in the ass.” (Tony C)
That would be me except it was 11th grade “Honors” Geometry which was the only class that fit into my “music” schedule … me and 12 guys in the entire class. With the tacit approval of the teacher, who left the room during every quiz, the guys “helped” me and I still only managed to squeak by with a “C” but since it was a honors class the grade worked out to be a “B” and didn’t hurt my GPA. My excuse at the time was, “I’m a musician … I’ll never use geometry.”
However later in life when I took one of my “let’s investigate a different career moves” and sold brick and block, well … guess how one figures how many cubes of brick are needed to build a wall? Yep, geometry. Enter a Tony C to tutor me. 🙂
Yep. It’s not capitalism that’s the problem.
It’s unrestrained and unregulated capitalism that is the problem.
@Roco: You go on believing [snip] that capitalism is the problem.
See? Lying again, because I have stated I am a capitalist (and a successful one in multiple businesses). So thanks once again for the confirmation that you have lost this debate, when you start resorting to lies you obviously have no truths to offer. Thanks for the game, you know you lost but hey, maybe someday you’ll debate an idiot and win. Maybe not. I win this round, but I’m happy to let you post some more whining.
OOPS! Posted to the wrong thread.
I think it was Judge Bazelon who remarked of an expert, that spending time occupying a seat in a classroom did not guarantee the inculcation of knowledge.
Possessing a doctorate does not guarantee either humanity or common sense. Look at Thomas Sowell, James Dobson and Rand Paul, just to name three. We can add Michael Alan Weiner and make it four.
“Roco”,
I’m sorry, but the assessment of my education from someone who regularly makes up definitions to economic and political science terms to suit his own ends, distorts history to suit his ideology from what the facts demonstrate and otherwise in general regularly lies in the defense of greed over the necessities of civilization doesn’t mean squat.
You can think you bested Tony all you like. Delusional thought is often the self-serving rationale of the sociopathic. Tony, in fact, handed your ass to you on a plate. Just like every other person who has taken you to task in all your incarnations.
Because your postulates are venal self-serving crap designed to rationalize that you are a venal selfish sociopath with zero regard for others other than what you can exploit them for in pursuit of your personal gain. You want to think you’re the good guy. Sorry! The facts show you aren’t the good guy. You’re simply a greedy worshiper of your own ego. And ego worship is evil.
I am sorry but you learned your history from progressives who had an axe to grind. The stuff you wrote above is verbatim out of I don’t know how many progressive history books.
You need to look a little harder, the truth is out there. Apparently you don’t want to uncover it. I suppose I would feel uneasy as well if my entire philosophy of life was a lie which is detrimental to people.
You go on believing progressive policies are good and sound and that capitalism is the problem. There is so much evidence to the contrary at this point that I leave it to people to do their own research and find out what the facts are.
PIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece. I think that says it all.
The young pinkies in FDR’s administration were blaming capitalism for the Great Depression as well. Now we have the Great Recession and capitalism is being blamed again. When in fact what caused this was progressive economic policies.
Tony didnt win a box of cracker jacks. But if it makes you feel better I will send him one altruist boy.
Tony,
I have no issue with that statement. The failings of public schools is funding and testing is a poor measure of the metric. That’s why I favor more stringent requirements for teachers and metrics based on student readiness for the next level of instruction versus a test administered to students at the end of an educational cycle to determine retention. In other words, after a brief introduction to the new subject, the assessing metric should be their ability to adopt the basic concepts in light of how the full study of the previous subject should have prepared their understanding and conceptual framework. The true metric is are they conceptually ready for the basics of the next area of study, not rote learning. Parrots can mimic. Understanding requires modification of conceptual frameworks and understanding, not raw knowledge, is the ultimate goal of education – how to think, not what to think.
@Roco: And I am not going to believe you, and it isn’t MY homework you won’t do, it is your own. It is up to the AUTHOR to justify their claims and show their citations and bibliography, not their AUDIENCE. If you make the claim the burden of proof is ON YOU, not ME.
So you can’t meet any of my points or explain how the free market will address them, you cannot tell the truth even about what I said, you have chosen to start insulting me and lying about my beliefs, so by MY rules of debate you have lost. You got nuthin’. I have won, and you are just a noisemaker now. Get over it. You lost.
@Buddha: Without defending the quality of our current schools, which I think is abysmal due to lack of funding, the issue for me with schooling is that the quality of schooling is very difficult to ascertain at the time it occurs. Testing doesn’t help, the tests are inevitably leaked (by previous students and teachers and irresponsible adults that think it is more important for their child to appear smart than to be smart). The tests will be taught, by rote if necessary, and nearly all memorization work is pointless.
Because the quality doesn’t show until later, if all schools were for-profit they would have a strong incentive to cut corners and become baby-sitters, at a critical time in brain development that cannot be retrieved.
As a grad student one of my jobs was tutoring undergrads that needed help in the lab, and for some of those struggling with basic science, I could trace fundamental misunderstandings back to seventh grade geometry class. Then, six years later, that misunderstanding is biting them in the ass.
That is one reason I favor public schooling; it is not the best possible schooling, but at least there is no CEO telling the principal he has to cut expenses another 5% this quarter because Wall Street wants to see profit growth in an essentially static market. And of course we would also see the emergence of “premiums” in schooling, a fragmentation of the product into 50 products that will, as always, disenfranchise the poor over the rich, and destroy whatever is left of the level playing field I think we should be playing on.
Tony C:
“I don’t need to address your idiotic lies about OSHA, the regulations it imposes…”
Of course you dont, because you cannot. By the way those arent lies, they are verifiable.
But I am not going to do your homework for you.
And yeah “Roco”, Tony has indeed won this round. Just like everyone else you’ve ever taken on here with your ridiculous economic and politic ideas has won. And why is that, one might ask? It might be because your ideas are indefensible. Duh. And that you’re a myopic and money obsessed sociopath who keeps repeating the same actions a expecting a different outcome doesn’t help you much either.
Ooooo. The troll cites an declares victory, cites unattributed article, and then comes back with some snark! Bad news, sociopath! Tony has kicked your ass up and down this thread, sport.
“But anyway, I just found this little nugget. It suggests that people who believe in free markets are on the cutting edge of societal evolution.”
And where did you find this “nugget”, oh venal one? In that same anatomically incorrect place you keep your head? And of course it says you’re “on the cutting edge of societal evolution”. Because to say otherwise would mean that you’re not one of Rand’s specials, the Übermensch.
“One small step at a time. People have suffered long enough under progressive economic ideology.”
Nonsense. The current economic disaster is directly traceable to Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics – a direct result of Greenspan’s objectivist bent and the idiocy of von Mises and his like minded ilk of fascist/corporatist apologists. Under the progressive programs implemented by FDR, this nation enjoyed 50 years of unparalleled economic success. Since our economic malaise began at the same time as Reagan and the lobbyist purchased whores in Congress started dismantling the market regulations FDR put in place, it’s manifestly too bad for you apologists that sometimes correlation is causation. Let’s follow the bare bones history of regulation: Little and no regulation led to the Great Depression – Regulation and government sponsored projects building infrastructure led us out of the Great Depression – De-regulation led to the unstable bubble markets and outright financial crimes like credit default swaps of the Great Recession we are currently in. It is not progressive ideology that brought the market down. It’s laissez-faire free marketeers and their ideology that business shouldn’t have to play by any rules have brought the markets down. Nice try, Rove-lite, but the facts say your statement is crap.
“Finding effective solutions to our nation’s education problems is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. Many children lack quality educational options and are too often relegated to attending low-performing schools. A lack of educational choice is a reality for thousands of low- and middle-income children across the country and is a major factor in our nation’s mediocre academic achievement levels. But thankfully, 2011 has marked a turning-point for school choice, with a growing number of states implementing options such as vouchers, tuition tax credit programs, online learning and other innovative school choice options – that offer a better alternative for America’s children.”
It’s not choice that’s the problem. There are plenty of choices as there are a fairly large number of private and religious schools through out the country. The problem is a lack of quality caused by a lack of funding for public schools. A lack of funding contributed to by those who evade their social responsibility in paying taxes like corporations. And here’s the kicker – making school a for profit undertaking in no way guarantees that they will provide a quality education. Some of the best schools I attended were public schools and private schools. Conversely, some of the worst schools I attended were public and private schools. Access isn’t the problem. Quality and equality in quality is the problem in education.
“The free market does it better, more efficiently and more effectively because of the profit motive.”
No, it doesn’t. It merely does it with the added cost of an expected ROI. Profits are an end cost to a product. An end cost passed on to consumers.
“The funny thing to is that the free market restrains greed, you can only charge so much for something if there is competition so right out of the box you are limited and the only way you can compete is to innovate to save a nickle here or a dime there to beat your competition.”
Or you can do what history has shown to be the true economic endgame of unregulated markets; become so big you can crush all your competition and form a monopoly or an oligopoly. A monopoly/oligopoly able to set prices and profits to whatever level the owners and operators greed dictates regardless of the true state of supply. Oligopolies like OPEC for example. Or monopolies your beloved Standard Oil, which was broken up in 1911 under the auspices of the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
Your postulates are simply not defensible, “Roco”. Greed is not good. Greed is stupid. Something you remind the world of with your every factually and logically weak and venally apologetic post.
@Roco: No you did concede. If you can lie and claim I believe stuff that I do not, then I will claim you know you have lost and have conceded. I don’t need to address your idiotic lies about OSHA, the regulations it imposes (and I have obeyed in more than one factory) are obviously safer, they are common sense, and you ignore the fact that about 150 times as many people are seriously injured as killed.
Plus it is hilarious for you to complain when I present one scenario after another proving where free markets fail and you have not bothered to address one of them. Because you know you cannot. So, I accept your resignation, you know you lost, stop crying about it. I have won this debate whether you like it or not.
I see you evaded my response to your OSHA post. Nicely done, you must be taking lessons from someone.
Tony C:
I concede nothing and I am not nursing my wounds. If you read about St.-Simon’s views you may be interested.
But anyway, I just found this little nugget. It suggests that people who believe in free markets are on the cutting edge of societal evolution. Hopefully I will live to see the day we start turning the corner from statism to liberty. True human freedom encompasses both the political and economic realms.
One small step at a time. People have suffered long enough under progressive economic ideology.
But anyway here is the article:
“Finding effective solutions to our nation’s education problems is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. Many children lack quality educational options and are too often relegated to attending low-performing schools. A lack of educational choice is a reality for thousands of low- and middle-income children across the country and is a major factor in our nation’s mediocre academic achievement levels. But thankfully, 2011 has marked a turning-point for school choice, with a growing number of states implementing options such as vouchers, tuition tax credit programs, online learning and other innovative school choice options – that offer a better alternative for America’s children.
School choice, which saves taxpayers money and simultaneously offers children a higher quality education, is sweeping the nation. And it’s an idea whose time has come. Instead of funding school buildings, the philosophy behind school choice says we should fund students instead and allow education dollars to follow a child to the school of his or her choice.
In places like Washington, D.C., where the now-revived D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is providing low-income children with vouchers to attend a private school of their choice, dramatic results have been achieved. These children, who once attended the poorest-performing public schools in the country, are thriving in schools chosen by their parents – not assigned based on their zip code. Academic achievement has risen, and impressively, students who received a voucher and used it to attend private schools of their choice had a 91 percent graduation rate.”
The free market does it better, more efficiently and more effectively because of the profit motive. Greed is actually good and it moves mountains when employed in positive endeavors. Venal greed like say the Mafia or Union bosses or politicians is sociopathic. But wanting to make a fair return on your efforts is not greed, by that metric everyone who labored would be greedy.
The funny thing to is that the free market restrains greed, you can only charge so much for something if there is competition so right out of the box you are limited and the only way you can compete is to innovate to save a nickle here or a dime there to beat your competition.
And then you have all kinds of good things come to market, look at the history of Standard Oil. Ole John D. sold a gallon of kerosene for far less than whale oil. He put the whale oil industry out of business. According to you and others who think like you that would be a bad thing. Me I like whales, capitalism saves whales literally and factually.