Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Everybody Amnesty: The ongoing immigration reform law would forgive businesses that have employed illegal immigrants. Accepted employees with fake/bogus IDs? No problem   (p.washingtontimes.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, immigration reform, Center for Immigration Studies, illegal immigrants, Mark Krikorian, amnesty, guest worker program, immigration bill, intelligent design  
•       •       •

2561 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 1:05 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 12:14:11 PM  
Well this is from the Washington Times, and I trust their analysis over immigration issues.

...said nobody.
 
2013-04-29 12:35:16 PM  
It's probably going to have to happen for political purposes. That's really all you can say about it from a practical standpoint.

From a moral standpoint, of course, knowingly hiring an ineligible worker so that you can drive down the wages of actual citizens, or so that you can cheat on your payroll taxes, or so that you can force your workers into unpaid labor, or just so you can fark over your competitors who won't break the law... it's about as close to treason and slavery as you can get these days without knowing a North Korean spy or building a dungeon in your basement. Strange to see the  Washington Times agreeing with me, but hey.

Policing workplace eligibility is the easiest goddamn thing in the world. It doesn't require huge raids, just paperwork and the threat of real consequences. Right now, if you get caught paying an ineligible worker off the books, you're looking at a sternly-worded letter from a bureaucrat and  maybe the IRS will get around to asking for its back taxes, please. Treating it as though it were as serious a crime as, say, public urination--where criminal employers might actually spend a night in jail--would end up keeping more people from crossing the border illegally than the biggest fence in John McCain's most erotic dreams. Illegal workers don't go where there aren't jobs for them.

Actually, I say we should treat it like public urination, which immediately opens me up to the joke that public urinators get their names put on the same lists as pedophiles and rapists. But that's actually a great idea, in this case. Make offending businesses, or anyone who employs an offender, put up a sign warning people. Have them go door-to-door.
 
2013-04-29 12:46:29 PM  
Unless the business supplied them with fake IDs I have no problem with this. The businesses did their due diligence by checking the ID. If it was a state issued ID I don't see how you could hold the business libel.
 
2013-04-29 01:07:36 PM  
Why have Republic if u no follow laws?

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-29 01:08:37 PM  
You have to do that, otherwise you'll never get a handle on the problem. No one is going to volunteer to throw themselves in jail.
 
2013-04-29 01:09:24 PM  
Unless of course the FBI and courts ignore it  (which most branches in most states will), the government rolls over and scratches its balls then asks "oooh, I had a reform law?
 
2013-04-29 01:10:46 PM  
I'd say that the only party that shouldn't get any breaks should be the businesses that hired illegal aliens.
 
2013-04-29 01:10:55 PM  
Um... yea? Consuela aint the one that pays for politicians.
 
2013-04-29 01:11:41 PM  
Amnesty for employers accepting Fake IDs?

img2u.info

About 29 years too late for the porn industry.
 
2013-04-29 01:11:45 PM  
And this is one (of many) problems with 50+ acceptable forms of ID.

Not everyone can spot a McLovin
 
2013-04-29 01:12:14 PM  
Remember kids: you only have to follow the law if it suits you. And if anyone holds you accountable for it, call them racist and demand laws be passed to protect you from being caught or punished.
 
2013-04-29 01:12:26 PM  
If somone is in the country illegally and they provided false ID to companies for employment they shoudl be exempt from any "path to citizenship" as they have broken the law.
 
2013-04-29 01:12:29 PM  
The Washington Times? The Moonie paper? Even one of Rupert Murdoch's rags would have more credibility.
 
2013-04-29 01:13:31 PM  

Moonlightfox: Remember kids: you only have to follow the law if it suits you. And if anyone holds you accountable for it, call them racist and demand laws be passed to protect you from being caught or punished.


Meh, it's what the pot advocates do as well.  And really anybody else that wants laws changed.
 
2013-04-29 01:13:58 PM  
If there were actual consequences to businesses hiring illegal labor, they'd probably be less prone to hiring them.

As it is, the savings they get from them more than make up for any slap on the wrist "consequences" they'll receive.
 
2013-04-29 01:14:48 PM  

iStig: Well this is from the Washington Times, and I trust their analysis over immigration issues.

...said nobody.


This. The Moonies aren't exactly my go-to source for credible political analysis, unless I'm looking for right-wing religulous wharrgarbl.
 
2013-04-29 01:15:36 PM  
Gosh, who would lobby for such a law?
d19telvc6oexg6.cloudfront.net
 
2013-04-29 01:15:38 PM  
¡Ja Ja! Yo no pago impuestos
 
2013-04-29 01:21:08 PM  
If you're going to give the illegals carte blanche to ignore the law, you have no justification for holding their employers to a different standard. Unfortunately.
 
2013-04-29 01:21:20 PM  
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf

I was reading the Senate bill, especially TITLE III-INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT, Subtitle A-Employment Verification System, SEC. 3101. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.

The bill actually says the exact opposite of what the headline and article says. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. It starts on page 395 of the PDF.
 
2013-04-29 01:22:35 PM  

RexTalionis: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf

I was reading the Senate bill, especially TITLE III-INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT, Subtitle A-Employment Verification System, SEC. 3101. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.

The bill actually says the exact opposite of what the headline and article says. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. It starts on page 395 of the PDF.


Also if you look at page 454 there's a rider for funding of the perverted arts.
 
2013-04-29 01:22:39 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Unless the business supplied them with fake IDs I have no problem with this. The businesses did their due diligence by checking the ID. If it was a state issued ID I don't see how you could hold the business libel.


We've had a computerized SSN database that's supposed to be checked for every new hire for over a decade now. It's not about the fake ID.
 
2013-04-29 01:24:14 PM  
Ah yes, the immigration and illegal alien issue.

Drum up anger against the people here "illegally" while distracting people from the actual problem which is businesses are paying people under the table illegally.

After all, it's better to have the population turned against another group of people than it is to have them turn against businesses that are complicit in the problem.

Why is someone here "illegally" a bad thing? Taxes? Aren't businesses responsible for withholding most taxes for the government?
 
2013-04-29 01:25:01 PM  
Sounds like republicans and democrats both have business' that employ illegals.
 
2013-04-29 01:25:01 PM  

semiotix: It's probably going to have to happen for political purposes. That's really all you can say about it from a practical standpoint.

From a moral standpoint, of course, knowingly hiring an ineligible worker so that you can drive down the wages of actual citizens, or so that you can cheat on your payroll taxes, or so that you can force your workers into unpaid labor, or just so you can fark over your competitors who won't break the law... it's about as close to treason and slavery as you can get these days without knowing a North Korean spy or building a dungeon in your basement. Strange to see the  Washington Times agreeing with me, but hey.

Policing workplace eligibility is the easiest goddamn thing in the world. It doesn't require huge raids, just paperwork and the threat of real consequences. Right now, if you get caught paying an ineligible worker off the books, you're looking at a sternly-worded letter from a bureaucrat and  maybe the IRS will get around to asking for its back taxes, please. Treating it as though it were as serious a crime as, say, public urination--where criminal employers might actually spend a night in jail--would end up keeping more people from crossing the border illegally than the biggest fence in John McCain's most erotic dreams. Illegal workers don't go where there aren't jobs for them.

Actually, I say we should treat it like public urination, which immediately opens me up to the joke that public urinators get their names put on the same lists as pedophiles and rapists. But that's actually a great idea, in this case. Make offending businesses, or anyone who employs an offender, put up a sign warning people. Have them go door-to-door.


Yep. Start revoking business licenses and you'll see 11 million illegal immigrants turn into 4 or 5 in six months.
 
2013-04-29 01:25:49 PM  
I'm surprised that this doesn't have support on both sides. It protects our corporate masters and illegals at the same time.
 
2013-04-29 01:29:16 PM  

RexTalionis: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf

I was reading the Senate bill, especially TITLE III-INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT, Subtitle A-Employment Verification System, SEC. 3101. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.

The bill actually says the exact opposite of what the headline and article says. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. It starts on page 395 of the PDF.


Now there's a Fark challenge with no takers! Including me.
 
2013-04-29 01:29:34 PM  

The_Time_Master: Ah yes, the immigration and illegal alien issue.

Drum up anger against the people here "illegally" while distracting people from the actual problem which is businesses are paying people under the table illegally.

After all, it's better to have the population turned against another group of people than it is to have them turn against businesses that are complicit in the problem.

Why is someone here "illegally" a bad thing? Taxes? Aren't businesses responsible for withholding most taxes for the government?


What does withholding taxes have to do with illegals?
 
2013-04-29 01:30:25 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Unless the business supplied them with fake IDs I have no problem with this. The businesses did their due diligence by checking the ID. If it was a state issued ID I don't see how you could hold the business libel.


It's actually pretty goddamn hard to accidentally hire an ineligible worker these days, but nobody's talking about going after businesses that actually did the basic, minimum verification steps and were honestly deceived. Just the opposite--those businesses are completely bulletproof, as they should be.

I mean, the problem is, nobody's talking about going after businesses that flagrantly and openly hire people they know aren't eligible to work, either. Or the ones that "forgot" to process the paperwork three years ago, and then when they finally got caught and lectured, "forgot" to do it again with the next batch of workers.
 
2013-04-29 01:30:59 PM  
If we aren't going to deport illegals, then why would anyone be punished for anything at all surrounding illegals?


Also, no one but the fake ID holder should ever be at risk. It is the government's responsibility to monitor the fraudulent creation of IDs and no cost should ever come to any business surrounding identity verification. This should extend from illegal immigrants, to pornstars being of legal age, to bars serving underage.

The cops are responsible for getting rid of fake IDs, not business owners.
 
2013-04-29 01:31:29 PM  

Agnes Gonxha's Confidant: ¡Ja Ja! Yo no pago impuestos


¬¬

Callese, mi buen. Nos hace ver mal.
 
2013-04-29 01:34:39 PM  
The arguments for programs like medicaid, SNAP and welfare used to be that they were needed for the poor, infirmed and children.  Nobody disagreed.

Today, democrats actually believe that unemployment, SNAP and welfare create jobs and thus it helps the economy to have more people on them.  This is why they want Amnesty.
 
2013-04-29 01:36:26 PM  

foxyshadis: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Unless the business supplied them with fake IDs I have no problem with this. The businesses did their due diligence by checking the ID. If it was a state issued ID I don't see how you could hold the business libel.

We've had a computerized SSN database that's supposed to be checked for every new hire for over a decade now. It's not about the fake ID.


CSB:

My family had a business cutting grass in Houston.  Lots of people there who look like illegals that aren't and lots that are.  My mom is a lawyer and has no interest in getting disbarred for a guy who cuts grass, so she follows the law to the letter.  Check the ID, send in the SSN, do withholding under the SSN, go about your business.  The SSN database only verifies that the SSN belongs to SOMEONE - anyone really.  So until she sends witholding under the guys name to that SSN, no one knows what's going on.  AND the IRS only cares to tell you that the name doesn't match the SSN when they do an audit, so the guy could go YEARS before anyone contacts my mom and dad and tells them their guy has farked up paperwork, by wich time the guy has probably moved on.

After my parents sold the company and retired, they got raided by ICE because some redneck who wanted too high a salary didn't get a job there and called it in.  About half their guys were illegal and that sure did suck for the company but because my mom did everything required to check, the company itself was not in any legal trouble.

In other words, your database is bullshiat.  Things don't work the way you think they do.
 
2013-04-29 01:37:27 PM  

o5iiawah: Today, democrats actually believe that unemployment, SNAP and welfare create jobs and thus it helps the economy to have more people on them. This is why they want Amnesty.


Uh, no. As I recall, the argument for those types of entitlement spending was that it functions as a better stimulus than tax breaks (an argument which has been buoyed by many studies). Nobody is arguing that it creates jobs and it helps the economy to have more people on them, but rather that it's the better alternative to tax cuts and tax breaks.
 
2013-04-29 01:38:33 PM  

Grobbley: semiotix: which immediately opens me up to the joke that public urinators get their names put on the same lists as pedophiles and rapists

This is a myth, stop repeating nonsense you haven't researched


Not that it was really my point, but...

That_is_literally_labeled_as_the_joke.jpg
 
2013-04-29 01:39:00 PM  
The Washington Times is a biased bullshiat machine.
 
2013-04-29 01:44:56 PM  

plewis: foxyshadis: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Unless the business supplied them with fake IDs I have no problem with this. The businesses did their due diligence by checking the ID. If it was a state issued ID I don't see how you could hold the business libel.

We've had a computerized SSN database that's supposed to be checked for every new hire for over a decade now. It's not about the fake ID.

CSB:

My family had a business cutting grass in Houston.  Lots of people there who look like illegals that aren't and lots that are.  My mom is a lawyer and has no interest in getting disbarred for a guy who cuts grass, so she follows the law to the letter.  Check the ID, send in the SSN, do withholding under the SSN, go about your business.  The SSN database only verifies that the SSN belongs to SOMEONE - anyone really.  So until she sends witholding under the guys name to that SSN, no one knows what's going on.  AND the IRS only cares to tell you that the name doesn't match the SSN when they do an audit, so the guy could go YEARS before anyone contacts my mom and dad and tells them their guy has farked up paperwork, by wich time the guy has probably moved on.

After my parents sold the company and retired, they got raided by ICE because some redneck who wanted too high a salary didn't get a job there and called it in.  About half their guys were illegal and that sure did suck for the company but because my mom did everything required to check, the company itself was not in any legal trouble.

In other words, your database is bullshiat.  Things don't work the way you think they do.


IIRC, the e-Verify database was wrongly flagging 7% of applicants who actually did have the right to work last time I read about it.  Innocent citizens denied jobs while guilty slip through.
 
2013-04-29 01:45:51 PM  
NO, G D IT NO.  We need a new government.  Vote out every one of them.
 
2013-04-29 01:47:08 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: RexTalionis: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf

I was reading the Senate bill, especially TITLE III-INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT, Subtitle A-Employment Verification System, SEC. 3101. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.

The bill actually says the exact opposite of what the headline and article says. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. It starts on page 395 of the PDF.

Now there's a Fark challenge with no takers! Including me.


That's the problem with Americans today. They rely on "analysis" on "news sites" instead of going to the source and reading it for themselves.
 
2013-04-29 01:47:12 PM  
References to specific page numbers of S.744 supporting claims of "amnesty."  Still too groggy to look at the bill myself.

http://www.cis.org/immigration-reform-amnesty-illegal-aliens-and-the ir -employers
 
2013-04-29 01:50:24 PM  

LesserEvil: Amnesty for employers accepting Fake IDs?

[img2u.info image 400x572]

About 29 years too late for the porn industry.


Not to worry there not included.
 
2013-04-29 01:51:16 PM  

Grobbley: semiotix: which immediately opens me up to the joke that public urinators get their names put on the same lists as pedophiles and rapists

This is a myth, stop repeating nonsense you haven't researched


Might try a little research yourself.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/03/can-public-urination-be-a-s ex -offense.html

http://downtownathens.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/public-urination-cons id ered-sex-offense-in-georgia-not-enforced-by-police/
 
2013-04-29 01:51:31 PM  

RexTalionis: BarkingUnicorn: RexTalionis: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf

I was reading the Senate bill, especially TITLE III-INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT, Subtitle A-Employment Verification System, SEC. 3101. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.

The bill actually says the exact opposite of what the headline and article says. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. It starts on page 395 of the PDF.

Now there's a Fark challenge with no takers! Including me.

That's the problem with Americans today. They rely on "analysis" on "news sites" instead of going to the source and reading it for themselves.


True.  The "Internet sales tax" bill is short and sweet, but hardly anyone in that thread bothered to read it.

I'm on my first cuppa coffee, and it's a big motherfarking bill.   Maybe later when I can see straight.
 
2013-04-29 01:56:15 PM  
Does the bill require work histories from immigrants applying for whatever it provides?  If so, it would seem unworkable if employers would be afraid to verify employment.  "Jesus? Nah, never heard of him."
 
2013-04-29 01:56:34 PM  
"You have your SSN?"

"Si, senor." (Hands it over.)

"Okay...Gunter. Your name is Gunter?"

"Si, senor."

"Good enough for me! Welcome aboard! Ivan, come train the new guy!"

Ivan: "Si, senor."
 
2013-04-29 02:00:14 PM  
Do you really think anything can get through a Republican congress that doesn't shield their donors from any kind of liability?
 
2013-04-29 02:03:29 PM  

iStig: Well this is from the Washington Times, and I trust their analysis over immigration issues.

...said nobody.


Why is this ethos so apparent to the fark left? An article doesn't agree woth your uninformed bias, so it is fake.

Most people would go find an article countering it if they truly thought it was untrue, not merely assert it is untrue without countering information.

Ignorance must truly be bliss.
 
2013-04-29 02:04:11 PM  

o5iiawah: The arguments for programs like medicaid, SNAP and welfare used to be that they were needed for the poor, infirmed and children.  Nobody disagreed.

Today, democrats actually believe that unemployment, SNAP and welfare create jobs and thus it helps the economy to have more people on them.  This is why they want Amnesty.


No one claims having unemployment helps the economy. We claim that the alternative is worse for the economy. Having paid sick-leave is cheaper than having a sick person working and getting germs all over the food that he's serving, causing a mass outbreak of illnesses that directly vectors back to the restaurant.

Having SNAP is cheaper than having kids starve or left out on the streets, causing truancy as well as spreading disease.

Having welfare is cheaper than having society pay for the damages that ensue when the person turns to crime to survive.

These things, unemployment insurance, SNAP, welfare... are insurance policies in a way. We buy insurance because we know that unforeseen bad events will happen. It's guaranteed. We just don't know when nor the financial consequences. We buy the insurance because it's cheaper than paying the consequence of not buying the insurance.

Now, arguably, you can say, "Hmm, I think the premium is too high. Can we go lower?" That question would work well in the true sense of insurance for uncertain future events. But is rather meaningless when it refers to feeding a starving child or keeping someone's head above water when unemployed. In these latter cases, we know exactly how much it costs to feed a child or how much it takes to stay solvent.
 
2013-04-29 02:07:28 PM  

Moonlightfox: Remember kids: you only have to follow the law if it suits you. And if anyone holds you accountable for it, call them racist and demand laws be passed to protect you from being caught or punished.


Remember kids: all laws have equal moral strength and breaking one is as bad as breaking another.

On a practical scale, working on a farm in California without completing the right paperwork -- which is, in any real sense, exactly what an illegal immigrant is guilty of -- is somewhere close to driving on a suspended license. Yes, it's wrong, but it's harmless unless you do something else on top.

The idea that the penalty for being an illegal immigrant should be deportation, or a multi-year ban from re-entering the US, is just silly.

The suggestion that the immigration debate has anything to do with national security is just political grandstanding, usually from people who know that they don't otherwise have a decent argument to make.

And as for the MORAL OUTRAGE that seems to fire up so many people about how important it is to FOLLOW THE LAW at all times lest you corrupt the children: even assuming that the advocates of that position have never broken a speed limit, drunk underage, paid for one movie but sneaked into another, or fudged on your taxes (I'm sure every one of us declares how much sales tax we owe for Internet purchases on our state returns, right?), working without the right paperwork isn't exactly one of the Ten Commandments.

We're talking about failing to follow elaborate, bureaucratic and ultimately completely arbitrary administrative processes. That's it. Yes, they broke that law. Now let's have a sensible conversation about what the consequences for that should be. We regularly have amnesties for unregistered guns, uninsured drivers, and unpaid taxes. What's so terrible about an amnesty for working without the right paperwork? As an offense against society goes, it should be barely more than a "fix-it" ticket.

/For the record, I'm a naturalized citizen. I did the whole L1(B), Green Card, Citizenship path -- and don't see any good reason to compel somebody else to do so, nor to deport them for not having done so.
 
2013-04-29 02:08:38 PM  

flynn80: Sounds like republicans and democrats both have business' that employ illegals.


Only one side defended it to the supreme court 4 years ago. Arizona implemented a law revoking the business license of any owner who knowingly hired an illegal immigrant, forced used of e-verify. Liberals cried racism, holder called it illegal. Thank god the judges weren't stupid enough to buy it.

Alwayd amazes me how liberals decry corporations and talk about how they need to stop business from hiring illegals.... then attack the law that explicitly did that.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report