The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Leadeye]

Denny, perhaps you missed this part of my post:



Many, including me, have stated that eVerify needs to be required (like I-9) documentation, which presumably requires new law. Or does it? Generally, yes, but I see a way to be pretty effective in clamping down even under current law.

First off, employing an illegal carries a pretty measly fine of $375 per employee for first offense, increasing to $1,600 on 3rd and subsequent. Not very hefty, and IMO, not much of a deterrent. HOWEVER, if the employer engages in a "pattern and practice" of employing illegals, then that becomes a criminal offense with $3000 and 6 months in prison PER employee! So, suddenly, an employer with 100 illegal employees is facing $300,000 in fines and 50 years possible of possible prison sentences. Tack on filing (or not filing) fraudulent I-9s, knowingly providing fraudulent documents, and payroll violations for not paying employees accurately, etc, etc, and I would think a smart prosecutor could double that by throwing the book at the violator, now we are talking $600,000 and 100 years of potential prison time.

Now we're talking some serious consequences.

Second, charge EVERYONE responsible. CEO/President of the company? Yup. CFO/accountant? Yup. HR head? Yup. HR anybody involved in hiring? Yup. Plant manager? Yup. Crew foreman/supervisor? Yup.

Third, pile on conspiracy charges. They all knew and acted in concert. Perhaps we are now up to a $1 Million fine for each individual involved in the conspiracy and 200 years in potential prison time. (probably more like 2-5 years of "real" time serving concurrently, but still scary for the average person)

Fourth, make the opening "salvos" in an area with "friendly" courts, i.e. not California or anywhere under the 9th circuit.

Finally, and this is key, make it clear that the employer could have easily avoided this by using eVerify but PURPOSEFULLY avoided eVerify because they knew doing so would have prevented them from hiring illegals.

Boom... de facto mandatory eVerify.

tl;dr: The "regular" fines for employing illegals are minuscule and ineffective. However, prosecuting large employers as a conspiracy, and throwing the book at violators, adds real teeth. Go after those who avoid eVerify because they intend to hire large numbers of illegals.

Two things I have issue with this while supporting the general idea. As long as you're talking money as punishment it just a cost of doing business. Somebody computes the risk reward and the problem continues. To really stop this you need to step up the penalties so the top leadership, CEO's, etc. is doing hard time in orange jumpsuits picking up trash every day shackled to an ODC. That's not something the leadership making the decision can put on a spreadsheet. Illegal hiring stops the day that law goes into affect everywhere.

Sadly though it's likely never to happen as that same leadership owns the law making process.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Grifters gonna grift.

So that $20M border wall GoFundMe campaign? Its organizer now hopes to use the money to finance a new nonprofit. Its board includes Kris Kobach, David Clarke, Erik Prince, and Tom Tancredo

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gofun...nd-sheriff-clarke-for-new-non-profit?ref=wrap

Uhhhh.... can they do that? Seems kinda shady.

 

[BugI02]

This is disingenuous, T. Lex. The wall is only part of what Trump wants, and he mostly wants it because once built, it is not so easy for some other president to undo. It must be torn down rather than simply reprioritized

It is merely the most visible part of the fight (currently) and in no way can Trump's advocacy be parsed as merely adopting what the Democrats (said) they wanted

But recall from the early failed DACA negotiations, there are four things Trump wants - you know, just like there are four rules for safe gun handling ()

1) The Wall - physical barrier backed up by increased resources, technology and personnel to discourage illegal immigration at the border

2) An end to chain migration

3) A skills-based visa system where what determines a persons approval as an emigre is based on what they have to offer the country - you know, like the one Canada and many other countries already have

4) An end to the visa lottery

2,3,and 4 are massively synergistic. Combine them with e-verify and no path to citizenship and they will make a huge dent in border jumping

Would that money be an even better bang for our buck if it was used to remove the DRAW for the illegals. If companies were too scared to hire them, they'd sure be less likely to take the risk. Sure, there will always be some illegal immigrant movement but that would be a HUGE blow. If we build a barrier but don't address the draw, the problem will still exist. Tunnel building will become a new profession. It pretty much is now.


The government pays them what the land is worth and I'm sure there wouldn't be much negative to say about that.


But nothing about employment enforcement? Huge food companies hire so many illegals but politicians have no stomach to address that.

Not clear about the National Emergency thing. If it truly IS a NE...just declare it now. No waiting or posturing. If it's not, then stop threatening it. It either IS or it ISN'T...

Care to read the last line of my post you referenced again?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don’t know a lot about e-verify, so I don’t know if it’s adequate to stop the day work/subcontracting. If you’ve hired a contractor lately for construction/home repair, chances are that it was a crew of illegal workers doing the labor. The contractor subs out work to a middle man who then goes and picks up workers for the day to do the work.

The subcontractor is usually here legally and kinda shields the general contractor from responsibility. If e-verify makes everyone in the employer chain responsible, I suppose that might be a little more effective. But, it’s going to be a hardship on the general contractor, especially if it’s a small business, to have to make sure all the people working on his jobs are legal. I’d hate tonsee a contractor get ruined because a some guy on a subcontractor’s crew was illegal.

And how far do you go with it? Do you make the client who hired the contractor responsible for the contractor’s sub’s sub? If I hire a contractor to replace my roof, I don’t want to be on the hook for the contractor’s subcontractor, hiring his illegal nephew as a gopher.

You logic is correct, neither the client nor the general contractor DIRECTLY hires illegals, so they cannot be held DIRECTLY responsible.

But, they know... or at the minimum are pretty sure, so even though they cannot be prosecuted, I don't feel sorry for them.

So, for the general contractor who hires sub's using illegal crews? Regular visits by the big black SUV with ICE stencils. Schedule I-9 audits with ALL of his subs. Nail the sub-contractors to the wall if they exhibit a "pattern and practice", which isn't one slip-up, it's the whole crew without docs or fake docs.

 

[BugI02]

What you need to know about E-Verify is that it's currently unavailable.


How ironic.

Well, gee. Who could have guessed that in an organization in which more than half of the 535 members favor open borders, e-verify would not be considered an essential government service

 

[BugI02]

Two things I have issue with this while supporting the general idea. As long as you're talking money as punishment it just a cost of doing business. Somebody computes the risk reward and the problem continues. To really stop this you need to step up the penalties so the top leadership, CEO's, etc. is doing hard time in orange jumpsuits picking up trash every day shackled to an ODC. That's not something the leadership making the decision can put on a spreadsheet. Illegal hiring stops the day that law goes into affect everywhere.

Sadly though it's likely never to happen as that same leadership owns the law making process.

Two words. Plausible deniability

CEOs push the responsibility as far down the chain of command as they can, rope those peeps off to a lower piton, and continue the climb without them

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Two words. Plausible deniability

CEOs push the responsibility as far down the chain of command as they can, rope those peeps off to a lower piton, and continue the climb without them

You're probably right... but...

Say the company had 5 different poultry processing plants across the country. With large numbers of illegals at each one. And corporate policy was to NOT use eVerify. I think an even moderately aggressive prosecutor could make a very reasonable argument that the "practice and pattern" came from the top down and indict the entire CxO suite.

 

[BugI02]

Anybody go to jail, or even get prosecuted, at the banks and bond rating houses after the great recession?

Vigilantes, anyone?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Anybody go to jail, or even get prosecuted, at the banks and bond rating houses after the great recession?

Vigilantes, anyone?

Yes, the ones that violated criminal law... make that the "one".

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html

(and, IMO, the chief causes of that were the "mark to market" rule on securities backed by real assets and the Clinton era requirements that banks hold 20% crap, sorry CRA, no wait, right in the first instance, in order to be allowed to acquire other banks)

ETA: And a bunch more went to prison, not for the original crisis, but for trying to steal the relief money that came afterwards... bunches of them, CNN says 35 in prison, 59 convicted of crimes.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-prison/index.html

 

[Tburke798]

FBI Reports Show Terror Suspects Coming From Canada While Trump Stares at Mexico - The Daily Beast

The FBI as already proven it's against Trump and most higher up's are upset he is in as POTUS! With the crap they pulled by cutting Hillary lose and COMPLETELY ignoring the laws and twisting them for her and the Dems, I wouldn't believe ANYTHING they now come up with!
They have lost the faith of most people.

 

[Libertarian01]

The problem I have with the notion of more alleged terrorists being caught at airports or at screening centers is that, there, they are surrounded by WALLS! They are being channeled through a screening process that is able to catch them attempting to get into the country.

Whereas, at the southern border, there are extremely large and significant gaps where no screening occurs.

Now, most folks from Latin America are good and decent folks simply looking for a better life, and Trump is a putz for attacking them. However, intermixed are potential problem children of unknown quantities because they are not funneled through any screening process. Sure, the vast numbers of folks turn themselves in and request asylum, and I do not worry about them. But the sad truth is that when we cannot control our border we cannot say with any certainty how many problem children are intermixed.

This is much like getting the bloody committee on voter fraud derailed. We will never know the numbers or severity of voter fraud without a serious investigation.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Phase2]

 

[KG1]

Looks pretty peaceful and tranquil there.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Looks pretty peaceful and tranquil there.

Manufactured crisis, obviously.

 

[Phase2]

Looks pretty peaceful and tranquil there.

Manufactured crisis, obviously.

All we need is for Jim Acosta to do a live event there.

 

[KMaC]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...nces-other-countries-trump-foreman-nr-vpx.cnn

I'm not sure why CNN ran this piece since it doesn't support the "Trump's an idiot" narrative . The stats that they show for other countries support the effectiveness of walls. When asked by the anchor if it will work here the reporter doesn't say yes, no or even maybe.

 

[actaeon277]

According to HuffPro, Pres. Trump is thanking Acosta for the Border Wall "sales pitch".

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Libertarian01]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...nces-other-countries-trump-foreman-nr-vpx.cnn

I'm not sure why CNN ran this piece since it doesn't support the "Trump's an idiot" narrative . The stats that they show for other countries support the effectiveness of walls. When asked by the anchor if it will work here the reporter doesn't say yes, no or even maybe.

I know CNN is heavily lopsided, but in this case I think the commentator Tom Foreman is correct. All things being equal, YES, the walls work. However, things are not equal.

First, our southern border is massive compared to everywhere else that has a wall. Second, we have posse comitatus that would interfere with military effectiveness to patrol the border that other countries do not have. Walls can be gone over, under, and around.

All that said if they dug one (1) tunnel, let them have it. Then post border patrol a few miles beyond visibility and catch them where the others cannot see. In other words, if a mouse has dug a hole in your wall you don't fix the hole, you put the mousetrap right on the other side of the hole. Voila!

Even if tunnels were dug that were not found or people climbed over, the flow would slow to a large degree. Without manpower or maintenance, the flow would increase. With manpower and maintenance, numbers would reduce.

All of this does not address an immigration system that is broken, inhumane, and tears families apart. We need to address that problem along with addressing the influx of illegal immigrants.

Regards,

Doug

 

[actaeon277]