Well, for example, the laws requiring employers to check eligibility. Right now, all they have to do is look at a social security card. They don't have to follow up and verify that the card is valid. In fact, if they suspect an employee is illegal and they start scrutinizing him, they can be sued for discrimination.
To get proper employer verification, we need legislation. To require verification, we need legislation. To increase the penalties for hiring illegals, we need legislation. To protect an employer who is scrutinizing a suspected illegal worker from discrimination suits, we need legislation. Etc., etc., etc.
You are a real As to #2, can you cite any "immigration reform" bill that included a provision to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment thereby eliminating anchor babies? Please cite the bill number.
H.R. 1940
Perhaps you did not read my words as I did NOT say it was a small issue. I said no LAWS were required to change quotas.
Yes they are.
Why? Chain migration is not the problem
Yes it is. California went from a solidly Republican state to democrat because of chain migration, a lot of which was spurred by the 1986 amnesty. The vast majority of legal immigrants coming in because of chain migration are low income and therefore very likely to be future democrats.
Chain migration or "Family Reunification" as it was enacted, allowing citizens to sponsor other immigrants from their family to come to the U.S. is not bad policy.
It's horrible policy.
If we have good, law abiding, hardworking LEGAL immigrants in this country, why shouldn't we want a member of their family to take up one of those quota spots?
Just because they are family doesn't mean they too are going to be hard working. Lots of people sponsor their elderly parents, who then promptly go on social security without having paid in anything. Or they sponsor their cousins or adult children who are often undereducated and likely to go on the dole.
Well, for example, the laws requiring employers to check eligibility. Right now, all they have to do is look at a social security card. They don't have to follow up and verify that the card is valid. In fact, if they suspect an employee is illegal and they start scrutinizing him, they can be sued for discrimination.
Currently, employers are required by law to document that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States. If they don't, they are subject to some pretty hefty penalties, $275 and $16,000 per offense. It is the employers responsibility to document it. As you say, they aren't required to follow up on a SS, but they will suffer the consequences if it is shown that they did not exercise due diligence. E-verify is one of the options that they can NOW use to limit their liability.
To get proper employer verification, we need legislation. To require verification, we need legislation. To increase the penalties for hiring illegals, we need legislation. To protect an employer who is scrutinizing a suspected illegal worker from discrimination suits, we need legislation. Etc., etc., etc.
What good are tougher penalties if no one is enforcing the law? Enforce the law first. Then, if additional actions are required, introduce specific laws (not "comprehensive reform") to deal with those issues individually.
>>... can you cite any "immigration reform" bill that included a provision to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment
>H.R. 1940
As I think you know, I meant "comprehensive immigration reform." Instead, you cite a specific bill, H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007. I would support that, as long as it isn't buried in a "comprehensive" bill that includes all sorts of other unnecessary new laws.
Yes they are. ... Yes it is. ... It's horrible policy.
We disagree.