-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The Florida Chamber of Congress cites out-of-date error rates and concerns over identity theft as the basis for their objection to mandatory E-Verify.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.
faff, you do recognize your grammatical mistake, don’t you? You used the term “common sense” in the same sentence as a reference to the Rabid Right. Those two terms should never be juxtaposed.
OS,
You mean common sense won’t control the Right’s austerity plan to fund the corporations and the wealthy? 🙂
ekeyra sez: “Only here could crumbling goverment infastructure be a sign of not enough government.”
**********************************
OMFG! You have to be kidding me. According to the engineering data available to date, it will take about $22-trillion (that is with a “T”) to fix the whole country. Who is going to come up with that in a climate of NO NEW TAXES?. Notice the pipe was welded on only one side. That was not the government that did that. That was a contractor who cut corners to make the pipe cheaper, knowing there were no tests at that time to detect the shoddy work.
But we should really trust private industry to fix the problem without supervision. And on money that comes from folks who are willing to donate or pay for their own repairs.
And who is responsible for this? A hundred years of problems ignored until a whole neighborhood in San Fransisco burned and eight people died. No one wants to spend money on fixing things. And as for a mall crumbling, that is private property. Malls are not publicly owned. Safety inspections are non-existent in many areas because of budget cutbacks.
Only here could crumbling goverment infastructure be a sign of not enough government
Inspector America shows the incredible neglect that only government could get away with. When is the last time you walked through a mall literally crumbling before your eyes, all while the owner collected full rents?
“Common sense says government does not need to be involved to the level they now are.”
***********************************
Whose common sense? Have you seen the new series on The History Channel, “Inspector America?” To those of us who keep up with the infrastructure and have some engineering background, this is nothing new, but if you want to have the bejeezus scared out of you, take a look in on the series. There is not enough government involvement, not too much. People are going to die because of the failing infrastructure of this country. They already have when bridges have failed. It costs money to fix things, but the battle cry of the Teapublicans is, “NO NEW TAXES.” If there really is Karma, some of those folks will be driving across the next bridge when it collapses.
http://www.history.com/shows/inspector-america
Actually, protection of citizens is a legitimate function of government. So an early warning system for natural disasters is, at least in my mind, a legitimate use of public money.
Although you could have a private system run by insurance companies which have the most to gain from protecting the lives and property of their clients.
It would be pretty hard to privatize local roads and bridges, water and waste water treatment, water supply and a few other things. But a good many government services could be privatized easily.
Common sense says government does not need to be involved to the level they now are.
Tony, I would agree except I could not endorse using actual victim shots. I am kind of sensitive about this kind of thing since I just buried my teenage grandson and three years ago, buried my son in the National Cemetery. No smart ad agency will want to go there.
I am sure whomever runs against Bill Long (R-Stupid) will be very creative with the ads. Maybe showing workmen tearing down siren towers and an auctioneer selling the HAM radio frequencies then cut to actual footage of the tornado. BTW, if you have not seen some of the footage, like the people taking cover in that convenience store cooler, it will chill you to the bone.
@OS: I’d go with the alternating shots: Bill Long making fun of it, switch to the graveyard funeral service of a victim. Bill Long making more fun, then show a church service of a funeral with weeping parents.
raff, the sad and head-scratching thing about this is the fact many in Long’s district will agree with him and vote for him regardless of his idiocy that will almost certainly result in more deaths. I suspect that people who think like ekeyra, roco, Tootie and Moar/Roam are likely continue to support the agenda even if it could cost them their lives. Purity is more important than common sense.
OS,
You are right about the Missouri tornado and how it is a sad example of why the Teapublicans are trying to kill the middle class. So sad. Imagine how many more people will die in the future if we do not prepare for disasters!
ekeyra, you want to comment on Congressman Bill Long’s (R-Joplin, MO) recent remarks making fun of tornado preparedness? He recommended cutting funds for warning systems and sell the HAM radio frequencies used for emergency services. I don’t think we have to wonder what the ad campaign will look like next election and it will not be pretty–for Bill Long. This is what it is like to be on the wrong side of economic theory. As of the minute I write this, the death toll in Joplin, Rep. Long’s home district, is 116.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/23/978581/-Joplin-Congressman-Bill-Long-%28R%29-Made-Fun-of-Tornado-Test-Warnings,-Wanted-to-Sell-HAM-Frequencies?via=siderec
Tony, I think ekeyra is going to bring out the Big Gun; you know, the one where they sing Kumbaya to stop crime and people behaving criminally.
ekeyra will probably not approve of this version.
@ekeyra: engaging in those actions [crimes] IS imposing your will on another person and is therefore exactly the activities I would like to see an end to.
And how do you propose to stop them? With a flower and unconditional love? Do you think you can have a heart to heart talk with them and they won’t shoot you in the head and take your shoes?
Or shall we, the majority that does not include the murderers, impose our will upon the murderers and lock their ass up forever?
@ekeyra: No, YOU are the one that claimed, in the link provided on the word “invalid”, that YOU could not dream of imposing YOUR will on another human being.
If you punish murder, you are imposing your will (which is, “HEY, dude, no murdering!”) on other human beings. You are telling them THEY cannot murder people, even if they want to, even if the other guy has something really cool, even if murdering them feels good. YOU are saying, “Dude what did I say? NO MURDERING! Now Stop It!”
It was YOU claiming you would not dream of imposing your will on others. I have no problem imposing MY will on others, in fact, I’m willing to end their lives if they are convicted of murder.
But you do not DREAM of punishing murder, or using force on another person to stop them from stealing, raping or killing. Right? You would not DREAM of imposing your will on another human being. Read your own words HERE. If you need help reading your own words, the relevant passage is at the bottom of your post.
I have refuted your posts in their entirety, but it is pointless to continue if you do not believe crime can be stopped or punished with force. As I said, I find the fact that it CAN and SHOULD be punished self-evident, and if you do not, there is nothing to be gained by discussion.
This has to be one of the most logically challenged statements I have yet to read on this site. So many fallacies I do not even know where to start. Loaded with false equivalences, among other things. Sorry, sport, you have not refuted anybody or anything.
Tony,
“Since preventing fraud, theft, rape and murder is indeed imposing our will on other human beings”
Im outright astonished you could write that sentence and never once consider that engaging in those actions IS imposing your will on another person and is therefore exactly the activities I would like to see an end to. What you seem to imply is that this is what the government does. Reality would seem to suggest otherwise.
SWAT teams, law enforcement officers, and military personel routinely murder people. In fact one of the most famous government murders, the execution of osama bin laden, was met by the american public with dancing in the streets. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, the fact remains it violated four treaties and three federal statutes. As for theft and fraud i offer only the TARP bailout as evidence that looking to government for protection from those transgressions is absurb. Finally, statistics show that at minimum, one third of all prisoners in correctional facilities are sexually assaulted. So how how an institution that sentences people to that fate be somehow held up as a protection from it?
It seems by your criteria, this country should have never been founded. Seeing as how the colonists were well protected by the king, he did provide an them an army and all that, they had no right to criticize his exercise of power. Especially given that their replacement model did not eliminate murder theft fraud or rape either. In fact by your standards noone is history should have any say because noone has yet devised a system to rid humanity of those behaviors. More to the point, most members of the government routinely escape punishment for such actions. Look no further than the numerous cases of police misconduct that appear on this blog. Not only that but the more heinous the crime and the grander the scale of it, the less likely a member of government will be punished for their crimes. You may find a few police officers fired or jailed for their transgressions, but does anyone hold any doubt that george w bush will never see the inside of a prison cell?
You could have simply admitted you had no refutation to my posts and saved us both plenty of time and energy
@ekeyra: Your criticisms are invalid, remember? You do not dream of imposing your will on another human being, remember?
Since preventing fraud, theft, rape and murder is indeed imposing our will on other human beings, as is punishment and incarceration for engaging in these activities, and because I believe those are necessary functions of law and a government, I do not believe we have any common ground for a discussion. It is pointless to argue with you because what I see as a self-evident necessity you claim to see as intolerable. If we cannot agree that murder should be punished, then:
a) We cannot agree on anything, and
b) You are either lying or you are too irrational for me to learn anything useful by debating you.
Tony,
Using current examples of business operations, in no way renders free market operations invalid, because the businesses you described are not operating under a free market. You cannot refute the free market with examples absent a free market. Your assumption that businesses can simply ignore customer demand forever and let people starve, strangely ignores the fact that they have overhead, wages, rent, supply expenses, especially in a business as time sensitive as food service. Do you really expect them to waste days and days of product waiting to break their consumers will when the person across the street can simply take out an insurance policy and not have to engage in such asinine practices? For all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth i see around here about “the corporations”, I have yet to see anyone address the orginization that grants them the legal fiction to operate this way.