Thread: E-VERIFY FACING OPPOSITION FROM CONSERVATIVE, TEAPARTY

Originally Posted by gofer

They control who can be hired now. You must have a SSN. To believe some theory that the govt. is going to prevent legal people from working is beyond reasonable. Workers are the govts source of income and in another year, hopefully, the country will start to turn around.

I couldn't agree more.

Dixie

Originally Posted by imblest

I have friends who are members of the Republican Liberty Caucus and I can tell you what their problem is with this:

If the government controls who works by telling employers who is "okay" and who is not, then they can also control whether or not US citizens are allowed to work. They feel that the government may decide that any one of us is a terrorist (we already know that the feds consider us terrorists) and "revoke" our ability to get a new job by controlling who can be hired.

I hope I made sense with that. I understand their position, but I may not have explained it well.

This is a "red hearing" excuse. Don't believe it. They want an umlimited supply of low wage workers. They don't care if they hire citizens pr not.

Originally Posted by magyart

Originally Posted by imblest

I have friends who are members of the Republican Liberty Caucus and I can tell you what their problem is with this:

If the government controls who works by telling employers who is "okay" and who is not, then they can also control whether or not US citizens are allowed to work. They feel that the government may decide that any one of us is a terrorist (we already know that the feds consider us terrorists) and "revoke" our ability to get a new job by controlling who can be hired.

I hope I made sense with that. I understand their position, but I may not have explained it well.

This is a "red hearing" excuse. Don't believe it. They want an umlimited supply of low wage workers. They don't care if they hire citizens pr not.

That may be true of some of the other groups mentioned, but it is NOT true of the majority of RLC members. I am friends with MANY of the members of this group in NC, and many if not most are opposed to illegal immigration. They are devoted to Liberty and the Constitution, and they believe the government has already taken away many of our liberties. I tend to agree with them on many issues, and I can certainly see their point on this.

I agree we need E-Verify but I would rather see the states doing it as I don't trust the feds. Plus the states doing it would probably be cheaper. I do realize that Constitutionally, it is the fed govt's job, but if we make it so that the states CAN'T enforce immigration law, then everytime we get a Pres like Obama or Bush, the laws won't be enforced at all.

Originally Posted by imblest

Originally Posted by magyart

Originally Posted by imblest

I have friends who are members of the Republican Liberty Caucus and I can tell you what their problem is with this:

If the government controls who works by telling employers who is "okay" and who is not, then they can also control whether or not US citizens are allowed to work. They feel that the government may decide that any one of us is a terrorist (we already know that the feds consider us terrorists) and "revoke" our ability to get a new job by controlling who can be hired.

I hope I made sense with that. I understand their position, but I may not have explained it well.

This is a "red hearing" excuse. Don't believe it. They want an umlimited supply of low wage workers. They don't care if they hire citizens pr not.

That may be true of some of the other groups mentioned, but it is NOT true of the majority of RLC members. I am friends with MANY of the members of this group in NC, and many if not most are opposed to illegal immigration. They are devoted to Liberty and the Constitution, and they believe the government has already taken away many of our liberties. I tend to agree with them on many issues, and I can certainly see their point on this.

I agree we need E-Verify but I would rather see the states doing it as I don't trust the feds. Plus the states doing it would probably be cheaper. I do realize that Constitutionally, it is the fed govt's job, but if we make it so that the states CAN'T enforce immigration law, then everytime we get a Pres like Obama or Bush, the laws won't be enforced at all.

It's a federal program, it's not a state program. Individual states may use it, such as AZ, but the feds still make the decision regarding one's immigration status. Now consider the Secure Communities Initiative. Another federal immigration enforcement program. It's being implemented in most states and will be nation wide by 2013. Most states have implemented it with no problem. However, New York, Maryland, Washington, Indiana; all want the program restricted or eliminated. The states simply don't agree. This isn't unusual. E-Verify need federal implementation, in order to have a even application across the country.

I bet many of the RLC members that don't support this are business owners, who want a cheap supply of illegal workers. Remember many Republicans support amnesty and open borders. Bush and McCain fought for amnesty. Rick Pery opposes a border fence and gave illegal residents of TX, the TX Dream Act.

Many business owners belong to the Chamber of Commerce, one of our biggests opponets. Just because it's a Republican Liberty organization, doesn't mean they support enforcement of our immigration laws. Too many Republican business owners don't.

Originally Posted by magyart

I bet many of the RLC members that don't support this are business owners, who want a cheap supply of illegal workers. Remember many Republicans support amnesty and open borders. Bush and McCain fought for amnesty. Rick Pery opposes a border fence and gave illegal residents of TX, the TX Dream Act.

Many business owners belong to the Chamber of Commerce, one of our biggests opponets. Just because it's a Republican Liberty organization, doesn't mean they support enforcement of our immigration laws. Too many Republican business owners don't.

Okay, I cannot say this any clearer, at least as regards North Carolina: I KNOW many of these RLC people as friends, we have worked together for years in the GOP in NC, it is a small group. I cannot speak for all, but MOST are NOT looking to hire cheap illegal workers. Yes, some are free traders and a few support open borders, but it is NOT because they are hiring cheap workers, it is because this is what they believe is best for our nation. Sometimes we debate this issue among ourselves. The state president of this group is a dear friend and he opposes illegal immigration. The RLC did NOT support McCain or Bush, and they do NOT support Perry or Romney now.

Yes, there are many Republican business people out there who do hire cheap illegal labor, but in NC, it is NOT the RLC. More likely, it is the plain old, regular GOP high rollers.

This is my experience, I don't know about yours, but if you'll respect my experience, I'll respect yours.

RELATED

Republican E-Verify Bill Faces Growing Internal Opposition
First Posted: 9/15/11 05:11 PM ET Updated: 9/16/11 06:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- A House Republican bill that would require businesses to screen for undocumented immigrants is facing a growing bloc of opposition -- even from within the GOP.

At a Thursday markup of the bill, which would mandate the use of an electronic screening system called E-Verify, one Republican Judiciary Committee member worried aloud that it would hurt agriculture businesses and drive workers underground. Democrats, who by and large oppose the bill, have been airing the same complaints for months, and are now forming an unlikely coalition with conservatives and Tea Partiers who oppose parts of the bill.

"I just can't abide with what we're doing to my state in terms of the temporary need for temporary workers," Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) said. "It would devastate agriculture. … If we do not recognize the demonstrated need for foreign workers, and I'm talking about temporary foreign workers in the agriculture field, we're kidding ourselves."

Tea Party groups, including Take Back Washington, Tea Party Nation and Liberty Coalition, bought a full-page ad in Politico on Thursday criticizing the mandatory E-Verify bill. They also sent an open letter to members of Congress asking them to oppose the bill to avoid disastrous consequences for American citizens.

"Punishing businesses and telling citizens they can't work is no way to stop illegal immigration...or fix the economy," the ad reads.

According to the groups' letter, the mandatory E-Verify is problematic because it:

1. Creates a de facto national I.D. System - even for citizens;

2. Violates individual civil liberties such as the right to work and free speech;

3. Mandates a costly job-killing regulatory burden that cripples small business;

4. Requires employers to become enforcement agents of the federal government;

5. Encourages identify theft of law-abiding citizens

Some Republicans in Congress have the same problems with the bill, worrying it will hurt the American agricultural industry or take away state's rights to police undocumented immigration.

Although he supports making E-Verify mandatory for businesses, Lungren asked his colleagues to include a measure that would allow visas for temporary workers in agriculture.

"I stand as a supporter of E-Verify, but I also have to say, unless we recognize the specific, demonstrated need for agriculture and respond to that with a workable program, I'm afraid E-Verify won't pass and won't become law," he said. "I'm also afraid that if it were to become law it would devastate agriculture, and I just don't see why we have to do that."

Agricultural groups said at a hearing in June that a mandatory E-Verify bill could drive out vital employees that may not be easily replaced by American workers. An estimated 80 percent of workers in the agricultural industry are undocumented and few citizens apply, perhaps because of the long hours, low wages and back-breaking work.

"Few citizens express interest, in large part because this is hard, tough work," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak said in June. "Our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers to do the right thing."

Some business owners also say the bill increases the number of bureaucracy hoops they must jump through in hiring workers, costing an estimated $2.6 billion to implement for small businesses. The program is already mandatory for government agencies and contractors, and open for use by independent companies.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), a freshman who is not on the Judiciary Committee, also opposes the E-Verify bill, although for a different reason. He said in a press release in June that the bill preempts states' rights to find their own ways to fight undocumented immigration.

"On paper, the Legal Workforce Act sounds good, but in reality it will be just another law the federal government doesn’t enforce," he said. "If this bill becomes law, states and municipalities will be powerless without the federal government acting first."

Liberal critics of the mandatory E-Verify bill, for their part, are eager to point out the dissent for the bill from the right in arguments about why E-Verify would not work. They argue that the bill should be coupled with comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes many of the current undocumented workers.

"It can't be done alone," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said of E-Verify at the Thursday hearing. "Without those other reforms, mandatory E-Verify would create enormous damage."

But both groups face a Judiciary leadership that is staunchly in support of the bill, particularly Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and immigration subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.).

They say that E-Verify would protect American jobs by driving out undocumented workers, rejecting the claim that the undocumented people primarily take the jobs Americans will not.

"Anyone who cares about unemployment in America should care about opening up jobs for them," Smith said at the Thursday hearing. "Yes, E-Verify is a jobs killer, but only for illegal workers."

CORRECTION: 9/16 6:15 p.m. -- Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) does not support the bill in its current form, as was previously stated. "While Congressman King is a supporter of the use of E-verify, and he finds much in the Chairman's bill that he can support, he has serious concerns about the bill as it is currently written," John Kennedy, a King spokesman, said on Friday. "In particular, Congressman King is concerned about the bill's preemption language, the bill's failure to require the verification of returning agricultural workers, and the inability of employers to voluntarily verify the statuses of individual employees. He is looking forward to the opportunity to address these issues during the upcoming markup, and it is inaccurate to characterize him as a supporter of the legislation at this point."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 64915.html

RELATED

E-Verify 'flags' Obama's Social Security Number
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-249840-everify.html

RELATED

Obama's 16 Different Social Security Numbers
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2442166/posts

Barack Obama has 16 Social Security numbers - snopes.com
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=59064
20 posts - 12 authors - Last post: Feb 18
Barack Obama has 16 Social Security numbers Politics. ... The list of Social Security numbers supposedly associated with Barack Obama is ...

Fact Check:
Neil Sankey, Barack Obama and 27 Social Security Numbers? MUST READ
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc ... 7-numbers/