Praise the Lord!
Mandating e-verify, along with severe penalties for non-compliance would solve
95% of the problem.But - sadly, employers in Utah don't want
that, so it won't happen.If Romney would simply make his
position on illegal immigration clear, we would have the information we need
whether to support him or not!The illegal immigration problem IS
best solved by the feds. but they're not doing it.
Since Bush left they are again enforcing locally. Romney cannot cater to the
right wing radicals on this issue or he will lose by a wide margin. That is
"On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's
crackdown on immigrants but said a much-debated portion on checking
suspects' status could go forward."This is misleading. The
key provision is upholded by Supreme Court. Deseret News, please keep your
left-waing writers in check.
To "Fitness Freak" unfortunately there are many ways of getting around
employment laws that would shield an employer from any punishment.For example, if I started a framing company and wanted to hire my cousin from
Mexico it is easy. I make him a co-owner. That way not only do I get around
having to do background checks, I also get around having to comply with any
minimum wage requirements.I can also hire people as 1099 employees,
which means that they are independant contractors and are responsible for their
own taxes, and are not employed by the business.Some employers will
simply pay cash directly to the workers to avoid having to maintain records and
verification.It is too easy to get around eligibility checks, so
unless you eliminate all loopholes, you will still have the illegal workes.
@Fitness Freak:"The illegal immigration problem IS best solved
by the feds. but they're not doing it."The federal
government not upholding the law should give rise to impeachment. The feds
can't arbitrarily ignore without suffering consequences.Congress should drag the US AG, Eric Holder, and his Homeland Security head,
Janet Napolitano in and demand they uphold enforcement of immigration laws. We
can't abide not having our laws enforced for political expediency.
"Redshirt" I know of the situation you speak of. SOME employers try
it....for a while. They can sometimes get away with it for years, but the IRS
has several "tests" to determine if an employee is, indeed, a
"contractor". Once an employer starts filing 1099's he risks the
wrath (and attendant legal fees)of the IRS. Most (maybe not all)would much
rather face immigration authorities rather than the IRS.I've
heard of a few employers who have gone the route of "1099's" and
severely regretted it later.E-Verify laws COULD be written into the
bonding requirements of most all construction sites so the General Contractor
COULD be held responsible for non-compliance.But first, the Utah
legislature needs to have the WILL to enforce. Something they haven't
demonstrated so far.
@Fitness Freak:"But first, the Utah legislature needs to have
the WILL to enforce. Something they haven't demonstrated so far."Rob a bank law enforcement would be on your tail in a New York second
with heavy penalties and even jail time. Rob the American people via illegal
immigration and law enforcement and our elected legislators yawn and look the
other way. Go figure.
There are a handful of men that force us to pay the entitlements so their rich
friends in public office don't have to. This allows those businessmen to
pay slave wages and lower the wages of all in Utah. It is just a handful that
are breaking Constitutional Law. It is just very upsetting that by doing that,
they are selling the citizens of Utah down the road and trying to eliminate the
middle class. The problem with all of this is, what happens when all of the
middle class can't pay taxes because there are no jobs? Who pays for what
the businessmen are not paying and who is going to be able to afford what they
are selling? A smart person would know that this is all going to crumble sooner
I just got through reading the opinion of the Court and the dissenting opinions.
Clearly the Supremes ruled that the Federal Government is in charge of
immigration not the states. While they upheld the section on police officers
checking the immigration status of those they stop for other legal reasons, it
had a lot of provisos attached. I don't see the Utah law being upheld in
light of this opinion. The liberals on the court joined Roberts and Kennedy.
Even Alito's dissent was mild. Naturally Scalia and Thomas' reasoning
was somewhat surreal. Those who are passionate about how this law
should have been upheld will enjoy reading Justice Scalia's dissenting
opinion. It sounds like something Chief Justice Roger Taney (the author of the
Dred Scott Opinion) would come up with. It was straight out of pre-Civil War
America. Naturally Thomas simply wrote four pages saying he agreed with
everything Scalia said.Fascinating decision though. Not how I
expected it turn out.
Let's consider children misbehaving on a playground. The playground aide
(the Arizona govenor) attempts to meet her responsbilities and maintain order
and safety on the playground (in the state of Arizona). When the aide reports
to the classroom teacher (the President)regarding said misbehavior, the
classroom teacher does nothing, which clearly sends a message to those who are
misbehaving. Order and safety cannot be maintained when those who chose to
misbehave (break the law!) know that the aide (the Arizona govenor) has no
support from the teacher (the President).Ask your five year olds, or
your teenagers, about the wisdom here...
How can you profile when 75-80% of the lawbreakers come from the same ethnic
group? That means that 75-80% of the people arrested have to be Hispanic, or
it's profiling? (percentages higher in border states)
Between this and e-verify-pulling business licenses. Our legislature has the
means to enforce the laws of our country. We will see after this
election who the patriots are, and who is willing to sell out his country and
countrymen for greed.