HenryLewis
New member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 3
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
E verify should be made a federal law, and it should be enforced.
E verify should be made a federal law, and it should be enforced.
We have all the laws we need, they just aren't enforced.
That may put a dent in the problem but how do you E verify the personnel sent to mow your lawn, watch your kid(s), fix your fence or clean your pool? What about the masses that hang out at Home Depot to do day labor? Subcontract (1099) labor is not technically an employee. Most construction and farm work is subcontracted out. I, for example, being self employed get "hired" quite often but am never actually anyone's employee and much of my (handyman) competition is illegal as hell.
That may put a dent in the problem but how do you E verify the personnel sent to mow your lawn, watch your kid(s), fix your fence or clean your pool? What about the masses that hang out at Home Depot to do day labor? Subcontract (1099) labor is not technically an employee. Most construction and farm work is subcontracted out. I, for example, being self employed get "hired" quite often but am never actually anyone's employee and much of my (handyman) competition is illegal as hell.
The problem is, and has always been, about enforcement (still Typing)
Anyone not hiring through a professional service today us very foolish. Someone injured on your property while mowing your lawn...painting your house...washing your windows? Your homeowners insurance does NOT protect you. And, chances are very great they have no workers comp insurance of their own.
Aren't employing people directly. No EVerify responsibility.
Ask for identification. If it's fishy, don't employ a person.
Anyone not hiring through a professional service today us very foolish. Someone injured on your property while mowing your lawn...painting your house...washing your windows? Your homeowners insurance does NOT protect you. And, chances are very great they have no workers comp insurance of their own.
Aren't employing people directly. No EVerify responsibility.
That is my point - a high percentage of construction, day/job labor and farm labor is not done by "employees". I have no insurance and little of value to sue for - if you don't like that then don't "hire" me. I work 100% for repeat customers or their referrals and have plenty of (too much?) work - I turn down jobs quite often. I love being both self-employed and semi-retired.
The Problem:
I am firmly for re-establishing how we regulate both legal and illegal immigration in our nation. I am a firm believer in protecting the resources as well as lands we have in our nation. We need to limit our population in order for this to be a reality. My children aren't going to be able to enjoy the same experiences that I did as a child if this growth continues...
The reason I pick on immigration to accomplish this task is because every statistic I have ever seen portrays the image that our nation's birth rates are stagnant, or even below 2. This means that without immigration our nation would UNDENIABLY have a declining population given an extended time frame.
The Answer:
I believe that illegal immigration has an extremely simple common-sense answer which is altogether avoided because of its apparent impact on wealthy business owners. This answer is to impose fines upon the people who are hiring the illegal immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants themselves. If the fine is high enough then even if the chances of getting caught are extremely low it will still not be a cost-effective practice to employ illegal laborers. Thus, it will not create a good business model and will be dropped as a practice. If it is not cost effective to hire illegal labor then there simply won't be any jobs in our nation for this demographic to occupy, and thus little to no reason to immigrate to here in the first place.
This would be very easy legislation to write, and would not require the formation of any new governmental agencies. I am also pretty confident that the general public would be overwhelmingly (~70%+) in favor of this legislation. The problem would obviously be the same one as usual, getting it through Congress... This does provide an answer for illegal immigration though, which leads me to believe that with the right spin that the Republican party could be swayed into this mindset by their supporters. I am unsure of how this would pass muster with left-leaning Americans though.
Myself:
I describe my political leanings as "other" but I will be actively voting against the Republican party in the foreseeable future due to my scientific background as well as their apparent motivators. I feel like it is important to emphasize this point so as others understand my personal biases.
I have one guy who does work for us who, like you, is semi-retired and in business for himself. He never hires a helper, y the way. He is a shirttail best friend. I trust him. May be a big mistake. Nonetheless, I hire him regularly.
I have many keys to homes/farms that I work in/on and a few of them are owned by out of town (Dallas or Houston) folks. I occasionally hire help and did so two days last week to set an existing 12' x 16' "cottage with lofts and a porch" on a proper pier foundation. Most jobs I can, and prefer to, do by myself but sometimes help is required (even if only for safety).
I'm very happy that you have found a niche. I personally wouldn't hire you because you hire others without having insurance. I have deep pockets and am not willing to risk a costly lawsuit. No offense. I am happy for you.
You could draw up a waver.
The Problem:
I am firmly for re-establishing how we regulate both legal and illegal immigration in our nation.
The law is already in place - https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/penalties. As with most other laws the Democrats say we need to enact.
That's why you hear the GOP saying "We have the laws, we need to enforce the laws we have" when the Democrats keep saying we need "comprehensive" immigration reform.
I see I'm the only one voting 'no' so far. No surprise there.
*ducks the slings and arrows of outrageous scorn and spite from those who disagree and, by ducking, avoids them*
What you're presenting is an "easy" answer to an issue that cannot be easily addressed. The key factor is this: it does. not. matter. if nobody hires them - they'll still stay here and make businesses of their own.
Why? Ask yourself this: if you're a family man, and you know deep in your gut that where you presently live (say, Honduras or some other place south of the border) is a clear and present danger to your family, that there was a very real chance that you and yours might get killed in the drug wars, or that your kids face the very real possibility of getting kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, and that your family would be much, much safer if you could bring them to America, what would you do? Would you give a rat's ass what America's laws were? No, you would not...because your duty to your family is infinitely stronger and more important to you than that of obeying American laws.
So what happens? They'll come here anyway. If no one hires them, then they'll make businesses of their own. That's a major lesson I learned living in the Philippines - if you don't have a job and can't get a job, then make your own job...'cause if you don't, you won't eat. Likewise, the illegal immigrants here will make their own jobs - they always have and always will.
There is one and ONLY one thing that can be done to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants into America: make their home nations nearly as prosperous and nearly as safe as America already is. Why do you think that so many immigrants come from third-world nations, but not so much from first-world nations? How that can be done, I'm not entirely positive...but - and this goes against the politically-progressive grain (see my political lean) - I pointed out seven years ago that Reaganomics, as bad as they were and are for America's economy, did wonders for much of the developing world...and it can be argued with some success that the progress of developing nations has paid dividends down the line for American workers.
But regardless of what anyone claims, as long as America is so much more prosperous and so much safer than their home nations, there is absolutely nothing that can be done short of going door-to-door brownshirt-style demanding "papers, please" that can decrease the number of illegal immigrants we have today. (note: unless we destroy the economy again, since there was a marked decrease in illegal immigration immediately following the Great Recession - but I really don't think we want to go down that road again)
The law is already in place - https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/penalties. As with most other laws the Democrats say we need to enact.
That's why you hear the GOP saying "We have the laws, we need to enforce the laws we have" when the Democrats keep saying we need "comprehensive" immigration reform.
You are fundamentally confused. I am not trying to kick anyone out of the country. I am trying to enact a policy that will prevent more people from immigrating here.
Try again.
Then you did not understand the thrust of my reply, which was "as long as America is so much more prosperous and so much safer than their home nations", they'll come here...and they'll stay here...and they'll make their own jobs, just as they did back home...but in a place that's much more prosperous and safer than the one they left.
And the claims that we can't do anything about this problem are flat out wrong.
We could nuke Mexico, that would sure as hell effect immigration.
I'm not supporting this idea in the least, just pointing out how intrinsically wrong that statement is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?