-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The Florida Chamber of Congress cites out-of-date error rates and concerns over identity theft as the basis for their objection to mandatory E-Verify.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.
Can we please stop bringing up somalia as some haven from the US government? Its not.
“Indeed, some of the experts point to the U.S. effort to finance the warlords as one of the factors that led to the resurgence of Islamic militias in the country. They contend that U.S. support for secular warlords, who joined under the banner of the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism, may have helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and prompted them to launch preemptive strikes. The Islamic militias have been routing the warlords, and they now claim to have taken control of most of the Somali capital.
“This has blown up in our face, frankly,” said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit research organization with extensive field experience in Somalia.
“We’ve strengthened the hand of the people whose presence we were worried most about,” said Prendergast, who worked on Africa policy at the National Security Council and State Department during the Clinton administration.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/americas/08iht-somalia.1930502.html
Woosty,
“if profit is the new bottomline and healthcare privatized is the new ‘acceptable’ standard”
How is that new?
Tony,
Oh yes i forgot, every businessman is a scumbag except you. Your an angel.
So here’s a nfty quote I found that also leaves me reeling in wonder when I think about the current state of healthcare and the massive move by the right to block single payer…you know, that ‘socialist’ model…
“Epidemics are National Security Issues and thereby fall squarely within the portfolio of the Defense Secretary” ~Donald Rumsfeld (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism By Naomi Klein). Acording to TSD, it was when Mr. Rumsfeld was being asked to divest of his Gilead Corp stock t remove conflict of interest…instead he not only refused, in his position he sold gazzillions of $$ of Tamiflu to the Gov. to stockpile against the terrorist threat. So apparently the Government is ok to profit off of by the corporations who scream SOCIALISM SOCIALISM COMMUNISM TERRORISTs!!!! And actualy…if profit is the new bottomline and healthcare privatized is the new ‘acceptable’ standard…people the sicker the better is thenext logical step….
Why is this easier and better than simply regulating businesses so that they do what they advertise that they are doing?
Tony, I suggested upthread there is already one well known “government” that operates on Roco’s model. It is called Somalia. He might want to emigrate there, since it is so onerous to live in a country where he has to pay taxes.
@Roco: People have a right to their labor.
Society has a right to the benefits of its infrastructure. People that use it have to pay the usage fees whether they like it or not, and the usage fees are a percentage of the income they derive, because society considers itself the partner in your venture that brings the infrastructure; and society says that’s the deal, take it or leave it.
And you can leave it; you don’t have to pay income taxes: Stop working. I am friends with a 48 year old couple that hasn’t paid a dime of income taxes in twenty years. If you want to avoid sales taxes, you can buy twenty productive acres in the middle of nowhere pretty cheap; do some research. Go off the grid, Roco.
@ekeyra: he who best meets the needs of his fellow man is the one who will come out on top.
No he won’t, the most ruthless guy that can do the most damage to his competition without being held responsible will come out on top; often literally standing over the grave of his competitor.
But I will remind people it is pointless to argue with you, you do not believe in any laws whatsoever. It’s in the threads right above us. It is not possible to debate government with somebody that believes in zero government and complete anarchy; there is just nothing to talk about.
@Roco: Rockefeller did lower the price of kerosene by improving the process.
Who the fuck did you think I was talking about?
He also did some things he later regretted.
Oh, I see, for billionaires it is “regretted,” for the rest of us it is “for which he should have been put to death.”
Free markets help the most people and offer the most freedom.
Did you forget? This is an assertion you make without proof, and in particular you cannot address the real-life scenarios I laid out that make it fail miserably, so you are a fool for believing in something that is demonstrably fucked up.
On top of all that, you conceded this argument when you started lying and calling me a socialist. You’re a liar and a fool.
Woosty,
“so why then the economic collapse and recession? Flat markets and wage stagnation (reversals in fact…) CEO gluttony and bailouts have been enhanced by the uber deregulation that has been happening. How does this support what you are saying?”
Why would you expect a business eviroment where failed businesses and poorly managed companies are sustained not by adapting to dynamic consumer demand and market signals, but by political connections which drain resources from truly productive enterprises, not to implode? Truly productive ventures meet the demands of their customers and acquire resources through voluntary transactions. This process creates wealth by directing resources in the most efficient manner possible to their most desired ends. In our climate of “too big to fail”, socialized debt, and moral hazard (gambling with other people’s money, which is what bailed out financial firms do), resources are diverted from their most desired ends by political and bureaucratic processes which are removed from any economic considerations of their use (who cares if only 3 people are going to use this airport all year and it cost millions in taxpayers funds to maintain, the politician who secured its funding will be a hero to the people employed there, to the detriment of all who must fund it and never utilize it). In this perspective, asking why the economy collapsed is like asking how you could go broke if you can pay off your visa card with your mastercard. No economy is sustainable if resources are diverted from their most efficient and economic uses (determined by price signals and voluntary transactions in a free market) to be squandered by politically connected special interests and public works projects.
No matter what you wish to label them, the businessman who has foresight, preperation, and a little luck will always favor a free market to compete in because in that enviroment he who best meets the needs of his fellow man is the one who will come out on top. The businessman who wishes to defraud, harm, or otherwise benefit at the expense of his customers and employees will always favor government intervention because he must meet only the demands of a powerful few to maintain his revenue rather than the demands of the many, which the honest businessman caters to. In this light the collapse of our economy was inevitable.
Puzzling,
Although that most certainly is child abuse, telling them what they got wrong and why will teach them everything that striking them with a ruler will not, there was a sad story in my neck of the woods of 3 little girls younger than nine who were forced to perform unmentionable acts with several adults, some of which were their family. Sometimes you wonder if humanity is deserving of its inexplicable survival.
One would think that if you know less than nothing about a subject, let’s say the statistical properties of an experiment or research design, one would not bloviate on it and expose one’s ignorance for all the world to see.
One would think.
ekeyra,
Grave, meet cradle:
Roco
1, May 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm
wOOSTY:
I agree with that. They dont like capitalism because it causes wages to rise due to makret forces. So the neocon industrialists as you call them (I call them socialist industrialists) keep competition out and wages low with the help of government favortism. Think GE and GM for starters.
A greedy industrialist would want the best work force possible and pay the maximum wage he could to maximize his profits. And he would also want to have a safe working environment so he could attract the best workers possible. A neocon/socialist industrialist would want to rely on government to help him keep his wages low and his profits high, he would also want government taking care of health care which would also help his bottom line and maybe even have government stifle competition so he could have a monopoly and make even more money.
——————————
so why then the economic collapse and recession? Flat markets and wage stagnation (reversals in fact…) CEO gluttony and bailouts have been enhanced by the uber deregulation that has been happening. How does this support what you are saying?
Since this entire thread has been off topic for a large percentage of the posts now i just wanted to share something.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902626.html
“Consider the bills in Congress that seek to limit the freedom of federally aided automakers to close dealerships or to build the cars that buyers want. Preserving local jobs and building greener cars are admirable objectives, but a firm that is forced to sacrifice profitability to attain them is unlikely to be competitive over the long haul. Indeed, one reason the “public option” health insurance program under debate may turn out to be more expensive than advocates suggest is that here, unlike in Europe, we are unlikely to put up with government restrictions on what sorts of care will be available, especially for seniors. A board of experts might decide to limit access to hip replacements, for instance, but there is little chance Congress will let them get away with it.
Private insurers, by contrast, will cut whatever they can. This puts them at constant war with regulators and patients, but beneath this tension is a certain useful discipline. We want health care to be cheaper, and the for-profit health-care industry has every incentive to make it so. Supporters of the public option tout Medicare’s cost advantages over private insurance, but those are largely obtained by setting below-market reimbursement rates for medical services (meaning that private patients subsidize Medicare patients). Moreover, the costs of compliance with the hundreds of pages of Medicare regulations are also transferred to the providers, and thus, again, to private patients.
I have no problem with a system in which private patients subsidize public patients. I do not even mind calling it a tax. Those who have good jobs should be helping out, and carping about it is uncharitable, especially now. But an expanded public option will be possible only if the for-profit sector remains vibrant and strong — and profitable. Thus, we should all await, with grateful anticipation, the day when American firms again begin to earn the highest profits in history.”
It must suck to be on the losing side of this argument, and skewered by a law professor at Yale no less. Who I might add pretty much says what I have been saying. Although I disagree with using the private sector as a milk cow. People have a right to their labor. But voluntary charity is an important aspect of belonging to a community and should be practiced, truly needy people need our help.
Tony C:
in my response to you about OSHA death rates came down because of innovations in the market place and an increase in the job market. I find it interesting that the chart stops in 1933 which was during the depression. It would be interesting to see the statistics prior to 1933.
Rockefeller did lower the price of kerosene by improving the process. He also did some things he later regretted.
Free markets help the most people and offer the most freedom.
Otteray Scribe:
If there is a sample of only 3 or 4 you have to do the best you can with what you have. So we have 3 railroad companies 2 fail and 1 succeeds, the 2 that failed were heavily subsidised by government and one wasn’t. Now there may be other reasons for that but we can also look at other industries in which the same thing happened. Now our sample is larger and we can start seeing trends.
If the same scenario occurs across 3 or 4 industries with 3 or 4 data sets within each industry, I think we can come to some valid conclusions. However we can also come to some conclusions based on outcomes during different times in history. We are dealing with principles here.
If I drop a ball once I know every time I drop a ball I will have the same outcome. Why do you think economics is any different?
Now that author may be wrong but you haven’t proven he is wrong all you have done is give me 2 opinions which say he is wrong.
The guy may indeed be wrong but you haven’t offered any valid criticism.
If you had no other knowledge of women you would come to that conclusion and change your conclusion once you met one woman who could cook. So the example the guy uses to criticize the book is not a very good criticism.
interesting article. One of the problems though is there are only 5 health insurance companies of any size. There is no real competition and there is much government regulation.
This was conveniently left out of that article. Do you actually think it will be any different if there is only one provider? What we need are more companies to offer service and make these people actually work for their money through innovation and efficiencies. This is just one example of what happens in a heavily regulated market.
Maybe the author should look at the regulations as well. But that is pretty typical of what an industry heavily involved with government does. Just another example of progressive policies favoring the elites.
@Roco: Is that what you are saying?
No, what we are saying is that we are opposed to profiting off of other people’s misery. So if you can reduce the price of steel from $55 to $11.50 a ton using science and innovation, then great. If you reduce the price of steel from $55 to $11.50 a ton by killing or crippling a few extra workers, then we will stop you.
What we are saying is that if you cut the price of kerosene in half by improving the refining process, wonderful. If you do it by defrauding your investors and stiffing your suppliers and using thugs to kill your competitors, then we will stop you.
What we are saying is that we aren’t vampires, we do not need to feed on the blood of our fellow man, it isn’t worth the death or injury or crippling or blinding of another human to save us a buck. It isn’t worth pain and misery to save us a buck.
There are ways, by applying science, to reduce the average cost of goods to citizens; there are innovations in management and technology that can increase productivity, and we are all for letting entrepreneurs test those in the marketplace and we will root for them to strike it rich, and they can keep the money.
What we are saying is that there are principles more important than money, and it is not an either/or choice: We can have an economy and a citizenry that adheres to values and STILL innovates and reduces costs and improves quality. It is not necessary to spill blood or endanger people or ruin lives or fuck people over in order to earn a profit.
Roco, you are even more clueless than I thought, which means that you are plumbing new depths in the obtuse department. You obviously know nothing of research design. You have no idea what you are talking about. For starters, no study of data can be considered to have any power (“power” being a term of art with a specific meaning)unless a sample size of at least thirty is evaluated and compared with a similar sample size control group for comparison. To put it in simple terms that you can understand: CLAIMING A SINGLE INCIDENT IS PREDICTIVE OF SOMETHING IS MEANINGLESS. In other words, so you can get my drift, using a single case is means absolutely nothing. Kind of like the example of taking three men who can cook and a woman who can’t, must mean that all women cannot cook. That is the way the math seems to work in your universe.
Tony C:
what have I lied about? Just because you don’t like what I have to say doesn’t mean I am a fool or a liar.
Maybe you lie to support your arguments? So you think everyone else does. I don’t need to lie, facts are on my side. Progressives need to distort truth to make their policies work.
Like stimulus spending creates jobs, the only one left in America who believes that is Paul Krugman and he will come off that position once he can no longer ignore/obfuscate the facts. If he doesn’t he will end up looking foolish and it will ruin his career.