(no subject)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

But didn't you just argue lack of enforcement was a problem?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

no. i argues the existing laws and regs aren't working.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

What you just said right above was:

employers would have to ascertain proof of citizenship, and/or right to work, and that's apparently an affront to human rights in certain circles.

THAT is framed as a solution you're proposing. You going to change stance now when it's right above??

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

you do realize employers aren't allowed to ascertain citizenship today because it's discriminatory?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit.

Employers are legally able to ask if you're a citizen and if you require sponsorship.

They can't ask **in an interview setting** but you do need to disclose your status regardless.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

they can only ask for required identity doocuments, employment eligibility and fill out the ins form i-9.

as i said before, the current system isn't working.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Well, if you dont have a social security number -- strike #1.
They're supposed to run a background check (with that SSN) -- if they dont, then we're back to ENFORCEMENT.

And if you request sponsorship or have anything else but "ongoing right to work" then it's pretty clear what your citizenship status is.


Again, it's a question of enforcement. And it's the company's legal OBLIGATION to ascertain if you can work or not.

So again: Merely saying "its not working" without examining WHY is a half-assed argument.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

i never said -why- it wasn't working, but then i'm not writing a treatise on the subject either.


but since you seem to think the problem lies not in current regulation, but in enforcement, i ask once again: who is responsible for enforcement?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking that the employers full responsibility is nebulous, and varies to area. All I have to do is see proof, there is not yet (that I know of) the centralized place that enables small business owners to do a back ground check. I habe been told by an INS agent that I can't be held libel for accepting forged documents.

Frankly I'm all for more enforcement on the employer level. On the other hand when cities force "big box stores" to provide for shelter for "day laborers", and all the different civil rights groups get up in arms when some cities try to police areas where "day laborers" congregate, there are definite mixed signals being sent.


*That's So Cal code for illegal aliens