Posts: 14,631
Threads: 2,362
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation:
0
Grace get a grip ... *(:>* My idea is you are all smoke and mirrors hiding in the rhetoric of the establishment. Indigenous people are not real keen on your version of the rules and law. You are a verbal bully that attempts to intimidate people with your version of the facts/ truth.
The truth is when we read history you fail. You are an advocate for an archaic colonial point of view.
Rudie
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Grace62 wrote:
There is a US Supreme Court case pending around this issue. US Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.
At issue is whether a state (in this case Arizona) can force businesses to use a federally funded database to verify employee immigration status and eligibility to work. I believe it's called e-Verify.
There's a lot more...the Chamber has had a great deal to say about immigration enforcement and the workplace and the general stance is that they don't want businesses encumbered with regulations, though those regulations are generally intended to help prevent exploitation of both documented and undocumented workers.
As for your other comments, I've already said that I'm in general agreement.
Right, i've seen the complaints about E-Verify, but that's an argument about a possible use of an existing system, not I9 enforcement. Today, E-Verify is broadly a voluntary program, and for obvious reasons E-Verify participants are not likely to be subject to I9 enforcement action. I don't mean to split hairs here, but we were discussing the effects of auditing and enforcement, not of implementing E-Verify.
The Chamber has a long and storied past of taking strong positions on immigration reform and labor law, and they aren't shy about making a fuss. So with all of the major accomplishments of I9 enforcement, why is it so hard to find someone from the CoC crying foul? I think it's because the impact of I9 enforcement is so minimal that it's not even worth complaining about. I think that the Chamber is happy to accept the costs of I9 enforcement if it keeps other programs like E-Verify at bay a while longer.
Are you generally in agreement with this? It was my key point from the post in question:
rjmacs wrote:
However, i am unconvinced that deterrence in the form of fines (rather than, say, prison time) is likely to be effective. Auditing is anemic enforcement, chiefly effective in keeping those who are likely to comply in line. Those who stand to profit significantly by flouting the rules are weakly incentivized by the threat of minor financial sanctions.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
haikuman wrote:
Perhaps we should distinguish ourselves with a broad acceptance of what we have done and return more of their lands to them other than deserts, industrial slavery, including dispensing with the attitude we are doing these native inhabitants a favor.
. . .
an HONEST attempt to redefine who the lands of the America's belong to and how the rules and laws are applied.
Rudie,
Can you say a little more about how this might look coming from politicians and policymakers? I think these are really important points, but also can be very difficult to imagine. Thanks!
Posts: 14,631
Threads: 2,362
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=haikuman]
Perhaps we should distinguish ourselves with a broad acceptance of what we have done and return more of their lands to them other than deserts, industrial slavery, including dispensing with the attitude we are doing these native inhabitants a favor.
. . .
an HONEST attempt to redefine who the lands of the America's belong to and how the rules and laws are applied.
Rudie,
Can you say a little more about how this might look coming from politicians and policymakers? I think these are really important points, but also can be very difficult to imagine. Thanks!
rjmacs *(:>* You are either a Judge or a Saint maybe both either way you should be...
I am working on getting a team together including an expensive think tank that for the right amount of
funding will provide just the facts I deem necessary to convince you all that they, Indigenous People were here 1st and are still here.:devil:
Rudie
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
haikuman wrote:
Grace get a grip ... *(:>* My idea is you are all smoke and mirrors hiding in the rhetoric of the establishment. Indigenous people are not real keen on your version of the rules and law. You are a verbal bully that attempts to intimidate people with your version of the facts/ truth.
The truth is when we read history you fail. You are an advocate for an archaic colonial point of view.
Rudie
That is bullshit.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
So Rudie, where to begin?
Manhattan back to the Lenni Lenape?
Seattle back to the Duwamish?
San Diego back to, let's see, that will be complicated.
Hawaii back to...the Hawaiians, or the people they conquered? Could get really tricky.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
Grace62 wrote:
Now that you've deigned to join the conversation, I will say that I mostly agree. However, I don't think that I9 enforcement has been in place long enough to react with such sweeping conclusions, this is new policy. I still think that people are thinking of the Bush-era workplace raids, and that is not what I9 enforcement is. It's paperwork auditing.
Deportation under the Obama administration has focused on people convicted of serious crimes, and the number of those deportation is up sharply, which is something I think we should applaud.
I find this part interesting because what happens here is that when criminals are deported, they come right back. It's like catch and release. So by and large, the people who have been found to be here illegally and incarcerated serve out their prison terms here. How does the new plan address this kind of thing? kj.
Posts: 24,926
Threads: 4,391
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
People. Have y'all not figured out yet that the government is NOT going to go after businesses (except isolated cases) in this situation?
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
kj wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
Now that you've deigned to join the conversation, I will say that I mostly agree. However, I don't think that I9 enforcement has been in place long enough to react with such sweeping conclusions, this is new policy. I still think that people are thinking of the Bush-era workplace raids, and that is not what I9 enforcement is. It's paperwork auditing.
Deportation under the Obama administration has focused on people convicted of serious crimes, and the number of those deportation is up sharply, which is something I think we should applaud.
I find this part interesting because what happens here is that when criminals are deported, they come right back. It's like catch and release. So by and large, the people who have been found to be here illegally and incarcerated serve out their prison terms here. How does the new plan address this kind of thing? kj.
Hrm. Actually, this really varies by state and by crime. Some convicted criminals who are out of status are deported immediately without serving jail or prison sentences; others serve their time and are then deported. There is a fair amount of flexibility (though there are guidelines in place) for who remains imprisoned and who gets sent home. More serious crimes, particularly aggravated felonies and drug crimes, more often land the felon in prison. Someone convicted of a minor offense, like shoplifting or petty larceny, more often will have their sentence suspended and be deported immediately.
The Secure Communities program does more than track cases through court, however; it actually screens people as they are detained by the police, and if they have a previous conviction (even if the sentence has been served, etc.) allows ICE to hold them for deportation. This is done because many state and local correctional facilities did/do not check the immigration status of their inmates; this is gradually changing with the expansion of 287(g) agreements.
For the record, the number of people previously convicted of aggravated felonies who re-enter the U.S. and are captured is statistically small (as a percentage of all deported immigrants), but not tiny. Precise numbers are hard to find, because technically speaking anyone who has been deported before and re-enters the country has committed a felony. However, it would be a big mistake to conflate most of these folks - who are generally economic migrants - with rapists and drug dealers.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote:
Are you generally in agreement with this? It was my key point from the post in question:
[quote=rjmacs]
However, i am unconvinced that deterrence in the form of fines (rather than, say, prison time) is likely to be effective. Auditing is anemic enforcement, chiefly effective in keeping those who are likely to comply in line. Those who stand to profit significantly by flouting the rules are weakly incentivized by the threat of minor financial sanctions.
No, I am not in agreement. You should update your knowledge of I9 enforcement and penalties.
|
