Employees Across U.S. Fired After Joining ‘Day Without Immigrants’ Protest

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Barts,

Quote

Like drivers licenses have never been faked.

Actually, almost any document(s) can be faked. I even faked a few while in the military.

And, last year I believe, someone on this website posted about buying fake passports.

It is what is, but that does not mean we should just give up.

Jerry Baumchen

[BartsDaddy 4]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Barts,

Quote

Like drivers licenses have never been faked.

Actually, almost any document(s) can be faked. I even faked a few while in the military.

And, last year I believe, someone on this website posted about buying fake passports.

It is what is, but that does not mean we should just give up.

Jerry Baumchen

I never said or implied we should just give up.

What I was replying to was Bill von saying e-verify is the way to make sure the potential employee is hireable. It does nothing to prove that if the potential employee is using good forged documents.

Living in southern California for the last 37 years and working in manufacturing, I can tell you I have worked with thousands of illegal alliens. All most All of them great people, you have your scum in all factions or races or whatnot.

I am not against imigration, but I have seen plenty of forged documents that would pass as being legit. Not all employers are just turning a blind eye and hoping they don't get caught. Many are caught in the middle.

What I am trying to say is e-verify is a good tool and a good start but it can be better. It only verifies the validity of the paperwork not the person. And as we know in this day in age personal I'd theft is very common.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[kallend 1,621]

So what do you suggest? Since driver licenses, passports, green cards and birth certificates can all be forged, maybe a DNA test for each job applicant to prove that they are who they say they are?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BartsDaddy 4]

I don't have a solution to it. never said I did. I was just pointing out some flaws with what is in place.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[muff528 3]

I don't see why this is so hard. It is the responsibility of our Government to give businesses a reasonable assurance that the available workforce is legally eligible to work here. We pay them (willingly or otherwise) to pass and enforce immigration laws, largely for that very purpose. It should not be the job of private business to screen potential employees (with regard to worker eligibility or immigration status) and also have the responsibility of acting as the de facto enforcement arm of our Government's immigration laws, exposing them to criminal prosecution from one side, and "civil rights" lawsuits from the other, which might result from any action or decision they might make ...especially since the current immigration debacle is a result of dereliction and failure (or even political expediency) on the part of the Government to enforce their own immigration laws. Their assumption should be that if a person seeks employment and presents even what appear to be acceptable docs (ID, SSN, etc.), then they should be immune from prosecution. Any question of legality should be between the Government and the illegal worker. I have no problem with prosecuting businesses that actively seek out, and knowingly hire illegal workers ...if that intent can be proven in a courtroom.

While I'm ranting, I'd apply the same argument to American companies that are using raw materials that are subject to some of the more ridiculous terms of the much-abused "Lacey Act", and were ostensibly purchased legally from foreign countries. Trade agreements between the USA and the trading partner should keep enforcement at that level, insulating from liability any businesses that might have purchased a product that they believed was produced and subjected to conditions of any agreement between governments, and imported here lawfully. They should be assured that the Government has signed off on any goods entering the country and that any legal/criminal violations would be handled at the "export/import" level.

[billvon 2,384]

Quote

I don't see why this is so hard. It is the responsibility of our Government to give businesses a reasonable assurance that the available workforce is legally eligible to work here. We pay them (willingly or otherwise) to pass and enforce immigration laws, largely for that very purpose.

We have that, via E-verify, work visas, green cards and other programs.

Quote

especially since the current immigration debacle is a result of dereliction and failure (or even political expediency) on the part of the Government to enforce their own immigration laws.

Immigration "debacle?" The only people who are really offended by what's going on with immigration in the US right now are those who want to be, who can increase political capital by sowing fear.

Right now the number of illegal immigrants working is due to the actions of the employers who want to hire them. Increasing enforcement (via workplace raids etc) will hurt US employers, and since US employers do not want to be harmed, they oppose such tactics. Pretty straightforward.

Quote

They should be assured that the Government has signed off on any goods entering the country . . . .

There is no practical way they could do that. Nor would I want a government that had that much power. Give people (and companies) the freedom to make those decisions on their own.

[muff528 3]

billvon

Quote

I don't see why this is so hard. It is the responsibility of our Government to give businesses a reasonable assurance that the available workforce is legally eligible to work here. We pay them (willingly or otherwise) to pass and enforce immigration laws, largely for that very purpose.

We have that, via E-verify, work visas, green cards and other programs.

Agreed. This should be enough to keep employers from having to worry about consequences of inadvertently hiring an illegal worker. Any question of fake docs would be between the illegal worker and the Government. The company would simply lose the worker. Not his fault.

Quote

***especially since the current immigration debacle is a result of dereliction and failure (or even political expediency) on the part of the Government to enforce their own immigration laws.

Immigration "debacle?" The only people who are really offended by what's going on with immigration in the US right now are those who want to be, who can increase political capital by sowing fear.

meh ....

Quote

Right now the number of illegal immigrants working is due to the actions of the employers who want to hire them. Increasing enforcement (via workplace raids etc) will hurt US employers, and since US employers do not want to be harmed, they oppose such tactics. Pretty straightforward.

Yep, and I said that these employers should be held accountable in court. But, I'm against workplace raids unless the employer is believed to be intentionally hiring illegal workers, and enough evidence is provided to a court that a warrant is issued. NOT evidence that illegal workers have been identified there, but evidence that the business knowingly and intentionally hired them because they were illegal. BTW- by "enforcement" I mean primarily at the border. Large-scale deportations and random factory raids means that our immigration policies (notwithstanding the laws themselves) have already failed.

Quote

*** They should be assured that the Government has signed off on any goods entering the country . . . .

There is no practical way they could do that. Nor would I want a government that had that much power. Give people (and companies) the freedom to make those decisions on their own.

The Gov't ("Customs" and other Departments, etc.) already has that power WRT the Lacey Act. But my point is more about holding companies legally responsible for buying controlled goods which they reasonably, through trade agreements, etc., believe entered the country legally. Of course, the business can make legal choices or illegal ones. Same as anyone else. Again ...need evidence and warrants. Not evidence of having controlled goods, but evidence of intentional solicitation and acquisition of those goods.

[billvon 2,384]

Quote

Agreed. This should be enough to keep employers from having to worry about consequences of inadvertently hiring an illegal worker. Any question of fake docs would be between the illegal worker and the Government. The company would simply lose the worker. Not his fault.

IF he makes a reasonable effort (i.e. checks ID) - agreed.

That's the standard for just about every such case. Bartender who serves an underage woman? If he checks her ID and it seems valid, he's in the clear.

Quote

But my point is more about holding companies legally responsible for buying controlled goods which they reasonably, through trade agreements, etc., believe entered the country legally. Of course, the business can make legal choices or illegal ones. Same as anyone else.

Agreed - the standard should be the same in both cases.