What would the Legal Workforce Act do? Require 100% of businesses to use E-Verify for all employers within 2 years Require all federal, state, and local agencies, businesses that contract with the federal or state government, and businesses with more than 10,000 employees to begin using E-Verify within 6 months Require federal, state, and local agencies to run its entire workforce through E-Verify Allow private business to check all current employees through E-Verify Increase employer penalties and fines for knowingly hiring illegal-alien workers Require the Social Security Admnistration to send no-match letters to employers if a current employee's name and social security number don't match in their system Require the Social Security Administration to notify owners of a Social Security number if their number is used multiple times Allows states to use their authority over business licensing to penalize businesses that don't use E-Verify https://www.numbersusa.com/content/...sors-chairman-smiths-legal-workforce-act.html
It makes sense is to make eVerify mandatory for employment and ALL government benefits. Take away their ability to keep legitimate jobs with phony or stolen social security numbers. The SSA and IRS are all too well aware of multiple people using a single social security number. With modern computer databases, it wouldn't be hard to pluck out all the duplicate, non issued or under age users excepting the original issuee. Then send notices to their employers the duplicate users payments are coming from that there appears to be an error and they must verify the social security number within 30 days or face massive fines and jail time. This is a simple cost effective way to open up approx 5 million existing jobs to the 14 million out of work citizens. It will also save Billions in Government benefits going to those who circumvented the legal immigration process and aren't entitled to benefits that should be going to out of work American Citizens..
It won't fix anything. You can get around it by claiming the people you hire are freelancers. Freelancers technically aren't employees and can skip basically all of the hoops. I would know. I'm a freelancer myself (but a real one).
My solution will. Those "freelancers" have to file the proper paper work complete with Social Security number. If their social security doesn't match they are violating 2 laws. It doesn't matter if they are "freelancers" or not. The law says ANY any federal benefit or service or employment in the U.S., that would include eVerify for "freelancers" too. Employers who have a high degree of "freelancers" should be raided and their books gone over with a fine tooth comb. If the "freelancers" that are found to be using someone else's SSN can be arrested for ID theft.
I think this is once again an example of the federal government overreaching. I do not think the federal government has the authority to force privately owned businesses to do this. This could be very expensive for some small businesses. It could be the difference in hiring and not hiring at all. I'm concerned about the influx of immigrants across our southern border too, but the federal government could easily prevent this wave of people. This is one area where the federal government should be involved, in securing our nations borders. They have no desire to do so.
$419 dollars a year for a company of 10. expensive? It's a tax write off in the first place, second I'll bet they spend as much on ink and paper for their printers.
I posted the authority in the post below. http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/226815-mandatory-nationwide-e-verify.html#post4963168 Now we have to elect someone who will uphold the laws already on the books, not pick and choose the ones they like and ignore the ones they don't.
I agree we should be forcing the laws that exist. Why is it difficult for the most powerful nation in history to defend its borders the same way every other nation on the planet does? We don't need E-Verify to stop this, if we never allow them to cross the border.
This is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government. They have no right to dictate to businesses who ought to be hired.
Does that include black people? Gays? Pregnant women? Really curious how far your indignance on this goes, and if it allows you to remain consistent. As for eVerify: is the White House getting an email?
The government cannot tell a business that it must hire a black/gay/pregnant person, just as it cannot tell them that they must not hire a black/gay/pregnant person. All the government can do is punish a potential employer for discriminatory firings. It is virtually impossible to show that racial discrimination is the reason why a person was not hired--it's proving a negative. Sure, we all suspect that it happens, but legally speaking it's incredibly difficult to show that unless you can establish a pattern of discriminatory hiring in that company. Even the government doesn't try to force a company to hire someone they wrongfully didn't hire (in the rare instances where it can be demonstrated). They just force the company to pay compensation for it. It would be an obviously hostile workplace if they forced the company to actually hire that person. My issue here is that, fundamentally, the government really does not have the right to dictate who gets hired and who does not. Operationally speaking, there is no objective method of doing this other than to require quotas and the like. At best, the government can require demographic information to be assessed a point value on point-based applications for public service positions and public college admission. I don't have a problem with a business firing someone for using the wrong social security number, or other examples of fraud. In other words; I think firing is the only place where the government actually does stand a chance of objectively stepping in. If one person with objectively adequate performance gets fired while others with objectively poor performance are retained, that's something that can be demonstrated. Trying to make that case involving the inherently rather subjective hiring process is impractical. There's no effective way to force employers to hire people they don't want to hire other than outright command by the government.
overreach by the federal government??? What other things do you think are overreach by the federal government and Ubama??? Lightbulbs? Mandated healthcare? Non-Recess appointments? War Powers? GM bailout? Bringing a lawsuit against AZ through the UN?
I'm not asking what the Government policy is: I'm asking you, directly: Should a private business be able to refuse to hire someone for any reason, including their skin color, sexual preference, health condition, etc? And I'm also curious if you expand your answer to cover Rapunzel's great question as well: what else is a Government over-reach?
Which served as an example of what my own position is. I agree with government policy on this matter. I think that the government should have the right to tell a business that a firing was wrongful, and punish them for doing it. I think that it is acceptable for the government to punish a business for establishing a pattern of wrongful discrimination in hiring. I don't think the government should have any right to tell a business whether they can hire an individual or not. There is a difference between a pattern and an individual decision. I don't think it's right for the government to tell a business that they must hire an individual because he's black, or because he's gay, or because she's pregnant. I do think it's alright for the government to slap down a business that establishes a general pattern of discriminating against black people, gay people, pregnant women, etc. The decision to hire or not hire an individual is substantially different from a business's overall hiring patterns. The government has a right to punish for improper patterns, but not to interfere in the decision regarding any one individual. Operationally, I do not think it's even possible for the government to do so without simply commanding that certain people will work for certain companies. Practically speaking, there is no alternative. What I want is irrelevant. There is no effective way to do otherwise, short of assigning workers to businesses.
I am fine with it. Of course I am a liberal. I think that government has a place in both immigration enforcement and in regulating business's to ensure that they comply with the law. The other option that would work would be national ID cards, but Conservatives hate those more than they hate illegal immigrants working.
I'll just address this matter in a response to this post. I think that, in general, activities by concentrated power (public or private) is illegitimate. That said, if concentrations of power still exist, I can and do express preferences on what activities those are. I think that product-related regulations are generally a good idea, because I do not see how it is an infringement to require that a company produce safe and effective products (which they ought to be doing anyway). In the case of energy related regulations (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to), I don't see a problem with the government establishing efficiency standards for particular categories of products. After all, those products are hooked into the power grid that the rest of society also uses. Excessive drain by an individual harms everyone else, either by denying them power (in the case of an overstressed system, by causing blackouts and such), or by increasing prices. If we're going to have a government, it had (*)(*)(*)(*) well better be structured to benefit the majority rather than the minority. That means that mandatory participation in a national health insurance plan would be a good idea. Mandatory participation in private insurance plans is not. It's acceptable for the government to tax the people to pay for a service it provides to them (in this case, health insurance), but it's not acceptable to require them to do business with a private company. This is why I opposed ending the public option with the healthcare reform act. There should have been an option to participate in a public insurance plan if you didn't want to be forced to do business with a private company. I think there ought to be a short time limit for confirmations; if Congress can't decide within four months, the president ought to get his pick. I mean, if we're going to have a government, it should be the best (*)(*)(*)(*)ed government we can get. And that doesn't involve pointless obstructionism. I also think that confirmations ought to be based on the qualifications of the appointment.. not on his politics, or on Congressional agreement with the existence of the position to which is would be appointed. I don't think that confirmation is the time for Congress to express its displeasure with a position that Congress itself created. That is nothing more than Congressional interference with the president's constitutional duty to uphold the law. I can't see a reason to grant them. GM nationalization with the intent of transferring ownership to GM workers in a reasonable time frame might have been acceptable. Just handing a private company big pile of money is not. The shareholders and leadership should have gotten wiped out at the very least. I happen to think that would have been a very good time to implement a bit of socialism and transform GM into a worker-owned company. The bank bailouts are also in the same category. Any "too-big-to-fail" bank should not be entrusted to the incompetent hands of private investors. Sounds like some meaningless conservative screed. It doesn't even make legal sense. The UN doesn't recognize internal states; there is no international legal framework for suing a US state.
The lightbulbs-The push toward their mandatory adoption is based on the belief that the bulbs use less electricity to provide the same light output. But the environmentalists are the very people standing in the way of new refineries, coal-fired power plants, and nuclear power plants. There is no energy source of electricity that the environmental wacko's are not opposed to. They want America to have energy independence, but they oppose drilling for oil in Alaska. Conservation is fine, but increasing the supply of electric power is even better. A country that does not use it's own natural resources it stupid!!! Life expectancy is not what they say. They claim that Incandescent bulbs waste 90 percent of their input power as heat. CFLs are not 100% efficient, either, but somehow that is never mentioned. The healthcare law that passed is in direct conflict with the Constitution. The government cannot mandate people to buy a product from a private company...PERIOD! The reason I brought up recess appointments is because the congress was not IN RECESS when Ubama made those appointments. He usurped the Constitution and he knows it and he doesn't care. IMO he should be impeached for not upholding the Constitution on more than one occasion...per his oath of office. It is also against any confines of the Constitution to bail out a private company, no matter who it is. This is unconscionable. No one should be too big to fail.
The "wackos" may object to electricity, but the vast majority of actual environmentalists do not. We support electrical generation, though not with coal. There's no way to produce power from coal cleanly. If you're worried about mercury from CFLs, you ought to be terrified by a coal plant. If the energy that powers your incandescent bulbs comes from a coal plant, that plant will release more mercury generating the power for that bulb over the life of the bulb than is contained in the CFL. And what's worse is that mercury gets spread out in the environment at large, contaminating bodies of water. Opening up Alaska would not give us energy independence. It would be a drop in the bucket. There are only two ways for the US to achieve energy independence; cut back on how much energy we use (through efficiency and lifestyle changes), and produce more through long-term sustainable native sources. Opening up a couple of big oil fields isn't going to solve our problem. We're not going to be able to produce enough from those to replace foreign imports--but opening those sites will reduce the price of oil, which will delay development of and investment in long-term sustainable options. Actually, a country that wastes something as critically valuable as oil right now, just to get a hit of cheap gas, is pretty stupid. That oil in Alaska will be insanely valuable in 2050. We can squander it now, when other countries are willing to sell their oil on the global market... or we can use it later, when other countries are not willing to sell their oil at all, because they require all their production for internal use. Life expectancy averages in the range they claim. Note, averages. Some bulbs will be less, others more. This gets worse when you go buy the cheap ones; the ballasts used in the cheap bulbs are generally poor. Plus a lot of people install them improperly, in switches with dimmers, or in recessed sockets where the ballasts have a tendency to overheat. CFLs are also more susceptible to damage from voltage spikes and poor wiring; if you're consistently getting much less than the rated lifespan of the bulb, you should call an electrician to inspect the wiring in the house, and perhaps should consider options for power conditioning. There's no way to avoid some energy being wasted as heat; but no lighting technology fares as poorly at this as incandescent bulbs. ILBs are, at best, 18 lm/w in luminous efficiency. Even the most conservative estimate for a compact fluorescent puts them at 46 lm/w, and that ranges upward to 75 lm/w. Granted, LEDs are the kings of efficiency in the regular market today, but they are somewhat expensive, and they are not drop-in replacements for incandescent bulbs--you can light the same area with LEDs, but you have to arrange the lighting differently. ... which is exactly what I said. You shouldn't be required to buy healthcare from a private insurer. But you ought to be required to buy it from a public insurer, if one existed, and we're assuming that there's going to be a government around in the first place. Republicans continuing a pro-forma session in order to block the presidential power to grant recess appointments interferes with the president's constitutional requirement to uphold the law. Congress cannot prevent the president from upholding the law; if they did not like the law, they shouldn't have passed it, or should try to repeal the law rather than merely hold up appointments to fulfill the position. Like it or not, there is a separation of powers issue here, and the president does require the appointment of someone to the position... and Congress is objecting to his nominee simply because they object to the position they created. Clearly this matter ought to go to the supreme court, but they are too cowardly to take itup. If anything, the Republican members of the Senate ought to be impeached for interfering with the President's ability to uphold the laws they passed. They cannot exercise their power in such a way that it puts the president in a constitutional quandary. That is what executive authority is for--to allow the president to resolve quandaries of that nature. If Congress fails to fulfill its duties, and lets that fall on the president through executive authority, they are simply transferring power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. If Congress had an actual objection to Obama's nominee, this might be different... but they're not objecting to the nominee or his qualifications, they're objecting to the very position to which he has been nominated. That's what would justify impeachment charges for those senators... not that it will ever happen. Like I said, no bailouts, shareholders and leadership get wiped out, the company gets reorganized as a worker-owned cooperative.
eVerify IS the way to stop this invasion. We've already proven controlling the border is next to impossible. If there is simply no way to get anything but cash only day labor, most won't even come here in the first place.
2 years.? Why not 2 months. ? We need to get these job-stealing parasites out of here right now!! I'm getting mad!!
All that will happen is that more businesses will close, and prices will rise in the ones that remain. Kicking the immigrants out will just lead to worse job problems for America. We'll have greater unemployment.
