Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[Mr. Deez]

Should the government be sued for their mistakes then because there will be plenty. If you think the feds can run this database accurately then you haven't been paying attention to the government over the last few decades.

I'm sure the government will screw up, and I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of reasonable compensation for employees wrongfully deemed illegal who are not. However, I wouldn't dump the program and have no serious enforcement just because the program isn't perfect.

 

[Horn6721]

All "Big" construction jobs sub most of a project out to subcontractors. So yes there may be some of it as a racket But GC's have very few employees.
Not all elements of a project can begin at once or at same time so it doesn't make economic sense to have for instance dry wallers on a GC's payroll since it is months until needed Or especially the last trades in a project which are not needed until a year or more after a project starts.
Subs also have very few employees.
Most subs again due to the spaced out need hire independent contractors to do a portion of the job where needed and who are responsible for their own FICA etc.
Make it easy for the subs to make sure someone is legal to work here BEFORE job is offered. Requiring E verify as it is now is just stupid.

 

[Mr. Deez]

All "Big" construction jobs sub most of a project out to subcontractors. So yes there may be some of it as a racket But GC's have very few employees.
Not all elements of a project can begin at once or at same time so it doesn't make economic sense to have for instance dry wallers on a GC's payroll since it is months until needed Or especially the last trades in a project which are not needed until a year or more after a project starts.
Subs also have very few employees.
Most subs again due to the spaced out need hire independent contractors to do a portion of the job where needed and who are responsible for their own FICA etc.
Make it easy for the subs to make sure someone is legal to work here BEFORE job is offered. Requiring E verify as it is now is just stupid.

I don't have a problem with hiring subs. I have a problem with hiring crooked and uninsured subs and then playing dumb when things go badly. That's leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

 

[Horn6721]

Of course it happens just like cheating happens in sports and voting.
But it probable happens less than you think.
The everyday reality for most sub contractors and many GCs is it takes a lot of energy and effort just to get the job done.
Would MOST use Everify if is were easier and you could do it before you offer someone a job?
I think so. The problems associated with using it After you offer employment are too complex and lengthy for many smaller companies.
OR if you could make a applicant prove they are legal to work before you offer employment. WHY is that even prohibited? Seems pretty basic

 

[Mr. Deez]

Of course it happens just like cheating happens in sports and voting.
But it probable happens less than you think.
The everyday reality for most sub contractors and many GCs is it takes a lot of energy and effort just to get the job done.
Would MOST use Everify if is were easier and you could do it before you offer someone a job?
I think so. The problems associated with using it After you offer employment are too complex and lengthy for many smaller companies.
OR if you could make a applicant prove they are legal to work before you offer employment. WHY is that even prohibited? Seems pretty basic

What you're saying about e-verify is true, but the rest is BS. It happens a lot more than cheating happens in sports and voting, and most would not use Everify if it were easier and could do so before the job was offered. Those are real concerns, but they are also an excuse. Homebuilders like hiring illegal aliens, because it's the only way to keep labor costs rock bottom as they are. If they only hired legal workers, tax withholding and FICA would be absolutely essential. If they didn't do it, the IRS would be on everybody's ***. Legal workers also wouldn't be willing to do dangerous work (as homebuilding is) without some kind of benefits and workers compensation coverage. All of this would impose significant costs on the subs who would therefore charge more to the builders. They aren't going to choose this option if they can dump all that crap on the taxpayers.

 

[Horn6721]

Deez
Most homebuilders , the GCs ,do not have actual laborers on their payroll. Period. Mostly they are not the ones hiring the laborers.
They solicit bids from subcontractors for the different trades they need .
Those sub contractors then show up to the project as needed.
The Home Builder does not for instance have Painters on their payroll when painting comes months after the building starts.
Most subcontractors are small companies who do not have an HR dept to handle prolonged problems. IF they could make the applicant prove they were legal to work Before offering employment they would.But the problems that come when an I9 is thrown back are more than they can handle.
Do the GCs know the subs are likely hiring illegals? Iam sure they do
Right now Everify is not required everywhere so no law is being broken
You are right hiring illegals keeps costs down. And right now it is not legal to make someone prove they are legal to work here
One simple policy change could slow hiring illegals down. Make it ok for employers hiring to make the applicant prove they are legal to work here.
Why not start there?

 

[Horn6721]

Why should the burden be on the employer?
Why shouldn't the applicant hsve to prove they are legal to work here?
Why can't you ask the applicant to prove legality?

 

[Mr. Deez]

One simple policy change could slow hiring illegals down. Make it ok for employers hiring to make the applicant prove they are legal to work here.
Why not start there?

Don't you understand? The homebuilders and GC want illegal aliens on their worksites, because they are cheaper to hire. I am all for letting the employer require the applicant to prove his legal status, but by itself, that wouldn't change a friggin' thing. The builders and subs aren't innocent victims getting cheated by the illegal aliens. They prefer and seek out workers who are illegal. Yes, I know they are usually hire by the subs. That doesn't matter. The savings are built into the builders' costs.

Why should the burden be on the employer?

For the same reason the burden of selling booze to children is on the sellers of booze. They are in the strongest position to find out and prevent the hiring of illegal aliens. However, they do have to want to hire legal workers. Most employers in the homebuilding and construction industries do not.

 

[Horn6721]

Uh Deez?
How does the seller of booze determine legality of person buying booze?

What most in construction especially sub contractors want is to get jobs get oeople to do the jobs, do the jobs and get paid so they can pay the workers
. It is a struggle to keep enough projects in the pipeline to make a living.
What most can't handle is a bureaucratic morass that comes with Everify when an I9 is disputed
So if it is not required why do it?

Where ID is required isn't the burden on the one presenting ID to have legal ID?
If it is not legal who is the burden on to prove it is before a product ir service is given
Do car dealers give cars before they know the person can buy?

We are not going to agree. I just know most of the people hiring illegals are doing what is now legal to do
It could be simpler

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Uh Deez?
How does the seller of booze determine legality of person buying booze

Well, I'll jump in here. As a person who held a TABC license for more than a decade, I can assure you the people selling booze are required to determine if the buyer of said booze is of legal age to purchase. They are not required to determine the purchaser's immigration status.

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Uh Deez?
How does the seller of booze determine legality of person buying booze?

May I see some ID?

What most in construction especially sub contractors want is to get jobs get oeople to do the jobs, do the jobs and get paid so they can pay the workers
. It is a struggle to keep enough projects in the pipeline to make a living.
What most can't handle is a bureaucratic morass that comes with Everify when an I9 is disputed
So if it is not required why do it?

Where ID is required isn't the burden on the one presenting ID to have legal ID?
If it is not legal who is the burden on to prove it is before a product ir service is given
Do car dealers give cars before they know the person can buy?

We are not going to agree. I just know most of the people hiring illegals are doing what is now legal to do
It could be simpler

The burden should be on everybody, as it is on the sale of booze. The applicant shouldn't apply if he's illegal, and the employer shouldn't hire if he is. And both should be held responsible if they don't make a serious effort to make sure they're following the law.

Ultimately, you're just talking past my point. What you have wrong is that you presume the good faith of the subs and GCs. You think a bunch of guys who are scared shitless and can't speak English and can barely read and write in Spanish are fooling a bunch of rich, well-educated white guys who are some of the most politically-connected people in the country into thinking they're legal. It's absolutely comical. It's like a crack dealer saying, "I didn't know this was illegal. The burden shouldn't be on me to know."

And this BS mentality is at least, if not more, responsible for illegal immigration than the open-borders Left.

 

[Garmel]

And this BS mentality is at least, if not more, responsible for illegal immigration than the open-borders Left.

May I see some ID?

The fact that you can't figure out that it's not a business' job to do the work that should be done by the feds is mindblowing, man.

I've been a small business owner. If I looked at the database and misread it accidently what should happen if I hired an illegal? Under your system I would get fined for something that shouldn't be my responsibility.

No offense, Deez but you're out of your gourd on this issue.

 

[Horn6721]

Ok Deez
We just disagree. The educated white guys are not doing the hiring. Do they know? Of course. But neither they or the subs doing the hiring are doing anything illegal since they are taking the applicant at his word.
IF they tried to prove legality before hiring They would be doing something illegal.
Having dealt with both GCs and many many subs ( altho not much in home building) I can tell you day to day all they want are projects and people to show up to do the work. They for the most part are not political BUT do what is necessary to stay within the law.

Make it easy to have someone prove they are legal before they are hired and most will.

SN good point

 

[Mr. Deez]

Ok Deez
We just disagree. The educated white guys are not doing the hiring. Do they know? Of course. But neither they or the subs doing the hiring are doing anything illegal since they are taking the applicant at his word.
IF they tried to prove legality before hiring They would be doing something illegal.
Having dealt with both GCs and many many subs ( altho not much in home building) I can tell you day to day all they want are projects and people to show up to do the work. They for the most part are not political BUT do what is necessary to stay within the law.

Make it easy to have someone prove they are legal before they are hired and most will.

SN good point

They know their business model is crooked. That is enough. I don't expect them to break the law now. I expect the law to be changed to require it. And there's a reason why they fight every effort to strengthen the process. The "I'm stupid" defense means everything to them.

And not political? You are delusional. They are massively political.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The fact that you can't figure out that it's not a business' job to do the work that should be done by the feds is mindblowing, man.

I've been a small business owner. If I looked at the database and misread it accidently what should happen if I hired an illegal? Under your system I would get fined for something that shouldn't be my responsibility.

No offense, Deez but you're out of your gourd on this issue.

Do you begrudge having to card people to buy booze?

 

[Garmel]

Do you begrudge having to card people to buy booze?

One is where a person is selling a product which he is responsible for and another is asking businesses to do border security which isn't their responsibility.

Arizona's strict E-Verify doesn't work and it won't work no matter what you try.

 

[Mr. Deez]

One is where a person is selling a product which he is responsible for and another is asking businesses to do border security which isn't their responsibility.

Arizona's strict E-Verify doesn't work and it won't work no matter what you try.

No, I'm not asking you to do border security. I'm asking you not to hire illegal immigrants and providing a pretty easy to use database that you can legally rely upon. It should be as easy as googling somebody.

And if the private action is available, yes, it will work. Relying on slimy politicians paid off by the companies that benefit from illegal immigrants labor will not.

 

[Garmel]

No, I'm not asking you to do border security. I'm asking you not to hire illegal immigrants and providing a pretty easy to use database that you can legally rely upon. It should be as easy as googling somebody.

And if the private action is available, yes, it will work. Relying on slimy politicians won't.

No, because using private action requires people to hire lawyers. Will people put the effort and cost for a case they may lose. It may work on a few cases but not many? On top of that democrats would not enforce anything.

Trump's policies had the best illegal immigration policies. Let's return to that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No, because using private action requires people to hire lawyers. Will people put the effort and cost for a case they may lose. It may work on a few cases but not many?

It would only take one big case. That would be the end of it.

On top of that democrats would not enforce anything.

I'm not worried about Democrats enforcing a private action. I'm worried about Republicans doing it. Historically, they have been softer on employment enforcement.

Trump's policies had the best illegal immigration policies. Let's return to that.

To a point, yes, but it was inadequate if we really want to solve the problem long term.

 

[OUBubba]

We should allow private enforcement of immigration violations akin to the private enforcement of abortions. That would work well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We should allow private enforcement of immigration violations akin to the private enforcement of abortions. That would work well.

It would work much better.

 

[Garmel]

Good article from a libertarian on why E-Verify hasn't worked. Opinion | Why E-Verify is failing

 

[huisache]

I was chatting up some workers on a city of Corpus street project about when the job would be finished the whole conversation was in Spanish because none could speak any English. I talked to the waitress who brought me my tacos. I ordered in Spanish when she struggled with my Ingles. I am sure their employers were unaware of the situation. Right

if someone can profit, none dare call it treason

 

[Monahorns]

Alex Nowrasteh is what we call a regime libertarian. He is technically a libertarian but he mostly goes along with whatever those in power want to do. He is correct in the article, but of course his proposed solution is to increase immigration. I'm not saying that is the wrong the to do, but it does coincide with what most politicians want.

 

[Horn6721]

huis Since it was the city I am sure they use Everify, right?
Surely you are not implying workers on a City project are illegal.

 

[Mr. Deez]

huis Since it was the city I am sure they use Everify, right?
Surely you are not implying workers on a City project are illegal.

When I was doing the Work of the Lord, I represented a client who was illegal and was an employee of the City of Austin. If there's no serious enforcement, the laws are pointless.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Good article from a libertarian on why E-Verify hasn't worked. Opinion | Why E-Verify is failing

It's a good article, but it's more of an explanation as to why the laws are weak rather than on why it's a bad idea in general. There is a corruption problem here - both on the part of the government and the businesses.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Alex Nowrasteh is what we call a regime libertarian. He is technically a libertarian but he mostly goes along with whatever those in power want to do. He is correct in the article, but of course his proposed solution is to increase immigration. I'm not saying that is the wrong the to do, but it does coincide with what most politicians want.

Honestly, I'm not anti-immigration per se. In fact, I'm pretty open on immigration in a vacuum. The problem I have is that we just have rank lawlessness right now. We have no control over who is coming. It's a disorderly free-for-all - no vetting or regard for economic need to play a part.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D

Did your illegal have fake ID?
So it isn't just the greedy ******* Homebuilders? It is major cities who knowingly break the law?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr D

Did your illegal have fake ID?
So it isn't just the greedy ******* Homebuilders? It is major cities who knowingly break the law?

Yes, he had a fake ID. No, it isn't just greedy ******* homebuilders. It's greedy ******* restaurants, maid services, landscapers, hotels, etc. and liberal city and county governments. But none of that makes the homebuilders any less greedy or assholic just like the presence of crack dealers doesn't make meth dealers any better.