House approves amendments to Homeland Security bill that increase interior enforcement and helps secure the border (2013, illegal aliens)

[chicagonut]

Friday, June 8, 2012, 9:05 AM EDT -


Last night, the House passed the Department of Homeland Security Approprations Act of 2013, and with it, eight amendments focused on increasing interior enforcement and securing the border were approved and added to the final bill. Under House Leadership of the last few Congresses, it's been tough to get recorded votes from the full House, but the DHS spending bill is an annual measure we can count on!

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/

[theunbrainwashed]

Does this include fierce sanctions for employers? If it doesn't, then this bill has no teeth to it and does little to nothing to change the situation and was designed to be voted down or watered down by the Democrat controlled Senate while making the GOP appear to be useful

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

Does this include fierce sanctions for employers? If it doesn't, then this bill has no teeth to it and does little to nothing to change the situation and was designed to be voted down or watered down by the Democrat controlled Senate while making the GOP appear to be useful

Good question and one that begs to be answered. This also plays to my theory that the two party system is a sham. Its a good cop bad cop routine. If there is no real penalty against employers no matter how big or small then the law is as worthless as jaywalking laws.

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

Does this include fierce sanctions for employers? If it doesn't, then this bill has no teeth to it and does little to nothing to change the situation and was designed to be voted down or watered down by the Democrat controlled Senate while making the GOP appear to be useful

There are already fierce sanctions for the employers. So no need to duplicate that. The problem is proving that they "knowingly" hired illegal aliens. Many times it is their hiring personnel who hire them without the knowledge of the owner or higher up execs. Many times the illegal aliens provde such authentic looking fake ID's that they fool those doing the hiring also. That's why we need e-verify mandated across the board to put a stop to both the employer's and the illegal alien's lawbreaking.

[theunbrainwashed]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

There are already fierce sanctions for the employers. So no need to duplicate that. The problem is proving that they "knowingly" hired illegal aliens. Many times it is their hiring personnel who hire them without the knowledge of the owner or higher up execs. Many times the illegal aliens provde such authentic looking fake ID's that they fool those doing the hiring also. That's why we need e-verify mandated across the board to put a stop to both the employer's and the illegal alien's lawbreaking.

So why does the bill not have that? I still call that a bill that was designed to make the GOP look good, without punishing their bank rollers. The GOP loves illegal immigration as much as the Democrats do as far as I see it. It's akin to having criminal penalties for drugs but you defund the police department. You can have as many penalties as you want, but if you don't have enforcement, penalties mean nothing

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

There are already fierce sanctions for the employers. So no need to duplicate that. The problem is proving that they "knowingly" hired illegal aliens. Many times it is their hiring personnel who hire them without the knowledge of the owner or higher up execs. Many times the illegal aliens provde such authentic looking fake ID's that they fool those doing the hiring also. That's why we need e-verify mandated across the board to put a stop to both the employer's and the illegal alien's lawbreaking.

All this can be done easily enough. How do police prove that someone knowingly bought an illegal gun? When is said person prosecuted for the crime?
How much would it cost an individual to fight prosecution for hireing illegals? Instead of going after the corporation perhaps go after individuals within the corporation. HR managers, plant managers etc. I doubt many will risk all they have worked for and jail time to hire illegals to save thier corporate masters money.
How many CEO's demand their HR people or plant managers hire illegals? I doubt that many do. I think they impose a need to cut costs and the lower level managers opt to save on labor by hireing illegals.
Go after individuals as well as corporate masters.....

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

So why does the bill not have that? I still call that a bill that was designed to make the GOP look good, without punishing their bank rollers. The GOP loves illegal immigration as much as the Democrats do as far as I see it. It's akin to having criminal penalties for drugs but you defund the police department. You can have as many penalties as you want, but if you don't have enforcement, penalties mean nothing

I already told you why. There already are sanctions in place for the employers in our laws. I already told you why it is hard to prove that the employers themselves have hired illegal aliens. There have been numerous cases where the employers were found guilty and were fined and/or jailed. Most of the time it was the personnel dept. that was found guilty.

[All American NYC]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

Friday, June 8, 2012, 9:05 AM EDT -


Last night, the House passed the Department of Homeland Security Approprations Act of 2013, and with it, eight amendments focused on increasing interior enforcement and securing the border were approved and added to the final bill. Under House Leadership of the last few Congresses, it's been tough to get recorded votes from the full House, but the DHS spending bill is an annual measure we can count on!

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/

This is much needed.