yestrusocialist
No bio...
User ID: 2545
yestrusocialist
10hr ago
I also imagine (and in a couple of cases know with certainty) that employers know they are hiring illegals. But at $10k/violation for hiring illegals and $50k-$300k for discrimination for failing to accept "reasonably genuine" documents, I don't blame them for it.
I blame the legal structure they operate under and the politicians who created it. Capitalists will be Capitalists. It's on government to align the incentives with desired actions.
I agree this can be done, but it will be slow and will not get rid of illegals in the short run.
yestrusocialist
1d ago
Lets scroll up and see what the original conversation was about:
I am saying that a Trump that wanted to actually enforce immigration laws would not be doing what he is doing now.
This shouldn't even be up for debate. If they wanted to stop immigration they'd go after American employers who pay the illegal immigrants American money to work for them
In fact, if Trump wanted to "actually enforce immigration laws" he would in fact enforce existing laws which include laws against illegals being in America. The fact that it might be politically infeasible to radically reshape both immigration and anti-discrimination law does not change this fact - the changes you've described (which I support!) are not current law.
And yes, blaming employers is a left wing misdirection because employers are behaving exactly as laws fully supported by the left insist they behave. The fact that a minority of republicans side with left wingers on changing those laws doesn't change this.
I agree that the actual fight is between MAGA and the establishment and the establishment includes some Republicans. Who disagrees with this claim? Trump certainly doesn't - witness his many fights with Republicans like Liz Cheney who value preserving their social standing with leftists over saving America.
yestrusocialist
1d ago
Nowhere, because Republicans are not a monolith and the establishment ones side with Dems on this issue. See also, e.g., continuing to fund NED, remote shutoff, etc.
yestrusocialist
2d ago
I asked grok. Republicans tried to make everify mandatory in 2023 with HR2, and multiple times in the past as well. Dems prevented it.
yestrusocialist
2d ago
Every employed illegal also went through it. I'm all in favor of mandatory e-verify plus giving employers broad leeway to reject any vaguely suspicious documents (even if "reasonably genuine") and re-e-verify any employee anytime for any reason.
I'd also favor inverting the cost of penalties - $50-300k for hiring illegals, only $10k for discrimination. (Today it's the reverse.)
But this is a major change in the law with exactly zero D support + very little establishment republican support.
Its nonsense to pretend that this new regime is anything like existing law, however.
yestrusocialist
2d ago
I agree the law should be changed. I was disagreeing that Trump could simply enforce existing law.
yestrusocialist
2d ago
If you want to reduce the penalties for discrimination and commensurate increase the penalties for hiring illegals, to the point where employers happily risk discriminating in order to avoid hiring illegals, I support this.
yestrusocialist
2d ago
I agree that it would be great to dismantle antidiscrimination law. It is not true that this could be "easily cleared with legislation" - among other things one would also need to eliminate leftist judges and other instruments of left wing anti democratic power.
yestrusocialist
2d ago
That is a fake alternative, made up by the left. More detail here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3493/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/405679?context=8#context
yestrusocialist
2d ago
No, this is a made-up misdirection from the left.
Employers are not the villain here - employers are legally required to accept any "reasonably genuine" documents that appear to relate to the employee, even if they are not ultimately confirmed by e-verify. Employers cannot terminate an employee simply because they believe they are an illegal immigrant. Doing so may result in anti-discrimination lawsuits against the employer, which are far riskier and carry heavier penalties than hiring illegals.
If an employer reports a worker to ICE as potentially illegal, the employer may get into trouble with anti-retaliation law. Additionally, claiming the employer is retaliating against you can be a pathway to getting 6 more years in the US - i.e. the illegal alien is financially motivated by the government to cause further trouble for the employer.
Here's a better analogy:
See this thread from the previous motte thread: https://www.themotte.org/post/3493/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/405679?context=8#context
Specifically, in 2023, anti-immigration republicans tried to pass HR2 which got rid of the tasty tuna cans (mandatory e-verify). The hypothetical "you" (dems + a few CATO republicans) prevented it from passing. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4529/text
This line about going after employers is a leftist misdirection. I agree Trump should try to get laws changed to make e-verify mandatory, but also he should enforce existing immigration law and try to get illegals out. Enforcing existing immigration law works, today, to reduce the # of illegals. The # goes down regardless of whether Trump's successor feels like enforcing E-Verify laws or not.
Incidentally, Trump is trying to kick out immigrants by doing things like giving them less free money taken from hardworking taxpayers. Leftists oppose this too.
More options
Context Copy link