Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'll note it shows ten states that require e-Verify for all or most employers. You'll also note that all ten are strongly Republican states.
You'll note it shows seven states that require e-Verify for public employers and contractors. You'll also note that six of them are strongly Republican states, one of which is Texas. The seventh, PA, I'll call Democratic even though Trump barely won it in 2016.
The data clearly shows that Republicans are much stronger advocates of e-Verify, although there is room for improvement.
We certainly do when one cannot tell the difference between a city wall to imprison a population and prevent good people from getting out, and a border wall to protect a population and prevent bad people from getting in.
Remove/Reduce the demand by holding companies/businesses/individuals accountable for hiring illegals (that includes Trump Inc.) and I'll support the wall too.
I'll agree to that. A wall coupled with strict e-Verify. Any objections?
No wall will stop people all by itself. They all have to be patrolled heavily to work.
If a wall is built, it will suck up all the Border Patrol funds to build it and there won't be any left for the Border Patrol eventually. Sooner or later, a Congress will cut the patrol funds, as personnel is always the first thing to be cut in a tight budget year.
The whole point of this debate about specific wall funding is so that it doesn't affect Border Patrol's everyday funding.
Your claims that the wall will create an abysmal national deficit is over the top. It's $5 billion now, $25 billion total. In truth, the $5 billion now is likely all it would ever get unless it showed visible return on investment. And the House bill they passed this week includes $12 Billion more in foreign aid than Trump had requested. It isn't about the money. Dems are willing to give away money like candy just not to something that would allow Trump to proclaim success.
How do you make that connection? Democrats have been the primary opponents of e-Verify.
Check out this map of states implementing e-Verify. https://www.lawlogix.com/e-verify-map/
You'll note it shows ten states that require e-Verify for all or most employers. You'll also note that all ten are strongly Republican states.
You'll note it shows seven states that require e-Verify for public employers and contractors. You'll also note that six of them are strongly Republican states, one of which is Texas. The seventh, PA, I'll call Democratic even though Trump barely won it in 2016.
The data clearly shows that Republicans are much stronger advocates of e-Verify, although there is room for improvement.
Republicans refused to vote for e-verify in 2006, 2013 and 2018. The states with mandatory e-verify either ignore the law or created huge carve outs for industries vital to their economy like agriculture.
Quote:
In 2011 states across the Southeast passed laws that threatened private employers with dire consequences—including losing their license to do business—if they didn’t enroll with a federal data service called E-Verify to check the legal status of new hires. Modeled after 2008 measures in Arizona and Mississippi and billed as a rebuke to a do-nothing Obama administration, the laws went further than those in the 13 states that required checks for new hires only by state agencies or their contractors.
Seven years later, those laws appear to have been more political bark than bite. None of the Southern states that extended E-Verify to the private sector have canceled a single business license, and only one, Tennessee, has assessed any fines. Most businesses caught violating the laws have gotten a pass.
If Trump is removed it will be through impeachment, or resignation due to credible threat of impeachment.
He doesn't care about impeachment any more than Bill did. Now if there was a credible threat of Senate conviction then he would be under pressure to resign in order to spare the senators.
A borderwall is the cheapest thing we can do to deter illegal immigration. Some claim electronic means would be better, but it isnt. Sure, you could potentially detect people crossing the border. But there are huge tracts of empty land for those who cross in which to hide. Then we have to send huge numbers of border agents to find them and track them down, arrest them process them etc. A wall will stop most from crossing.
you build a wall and illegals will be brought in to the US in the back of semis going through border crossings. The way to stop illegal immigration is to make it hard for the people to get a job. Maybe e-verify isn't the answer, maybe we need a federal work card, sort of like a driver's license.
I disagree, its cheaper to just enforce existing immigration laws then build a wall. Its cheaper to not be racist either.
The facts show otherwise. Even the Border Patrol and Homeland Security have said that a physical barrier is what really works. Just how cheap is it to continue paying the over $100 billion a year that illegals cost us vs a $25 billion wall? How would enforcing our immigration laws within our borders have an impact on new ones entering?
WTH does racism have to do with building a wall to protect our citizens from illegal entrants?
If there are no jobs for illegals, the flow is reduced to a trickle. It's pretty simple. As far as the drug trade is concerned, most of the drugs come in via trucks or boats. Speedboats have become the chief method.
But even then, raising the issue of the drug trade actually reinforces my point, not yours. If you eliminate the economic reward for illegal immigration, then you allow border control to actually concentrate its efforts on true threats such as coke smuggling, rather than stop someone coming up from Guatemala to come here to work as a custodian for $10 an hour.
But, no, you'd rather take the bait and choose the least effective solution.
I'm uninformed, lol! E-verify will help reduce the flow of illegals looking for economic opportunity into our country but what part of criminals, drug runners and those from known terrorist countries won't be deterred by e-verify didn't you get? No all drug are not getting into our country via the ways you mentioned either. There are young Latinos that are used as drug mules that are sneaking across our border also.
How about those employers who will continue to pay cash to their illegal workers? How do you stop that with e-verify? How do you stop them from coming here to give birth on our soil and all the welfare goodies they get through them?
You know better than the links I have provided that prove that the good walls work including the Border Patrol and Homeland Security? You know better than the congress that passed the wall bill back in 2006 with both Schumer's and Obama's signature on it?
Take your snarky attitude and stick it where the sun don't shine and welcome to my ignore list. You're completely clueless!
Republicans refused to vote for e-verify in 2006, 2013 and 2018. The states with mandatory e-verify either ignore the law or created huge carve outs for industries vital to their economy like agriculture.
I said there was room for improvement. Nevertheless, there is a clear and strong correlation showing that it is the Republican states that have passed e-Verify laws. That the laws don't go far enough or contain too many exceptions or are weakly enforced is a valid point but does not negate the fact that the effort by Democratic states have been far less. FWIW, I live in Texas and have sent emails to my senators and district rep supporting e-Verify for all employers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know better than the congress that passed the wall bill back in 2006 with both Schumer's and Obama's signature on it? 