NC Republicans have lost their minds (re: illegal immigration & background checks)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
And if they dont use eVerify how would the "knowingly" be employing illegals?

Are you suggesting they should be engaging in some form of racial/ethnic profiling? :sneaky:

Actual innocence and plausible deniability aren't the same thing.

Agribusiness hires workers who don't speak English, often through an arrangement with a farm labor broker, who organizes the crews & helps them fill out the paperwork. The workers are migrants, of course, so there's no point in using the E-verify system after 9 months when they've been gone for 3-6 months, is there?

Of course not. Which is *obviously* the reason that N Carolina Repubs want to change their own rules. The 90 day window doesn't provide for the plausible deniability their agribusiness contributors need. Instead of agribusiness needing to lie, their representatives do it for them, pandering to their anti-illegal base the whole time. And they're believed, somehow.

Don't worry- they'll be right back up on their anti- illegal soapbox when an election approaches, depending on their base to have the memory & distractability of fruit flies.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Actual innocence and plausible deniability aren't the same thing.

Agribusiness hires workers who don't speak English, often through an arrangement with a farm labor broker, who organizes the crews & helps them fill out the paperwork. The workers are migrants, of course, so there's no point in using the E-verify system after 9 months when they've been gone for 3-6 months, is there?

Of course not. Which is *obviously* the reason that N Carolina Repubs want to change their own rules. The 90 day window doesn't provide for the plausible deniability their agribusiness contributors need. Instead of agribusiness needing to lie, their representatives do it for them, pandering to their anti-illegal base the whole time. And they're believed, somehow.

Don't worry- they'll be right back up on their anti- illegal soapbox when an election approaches, depending on their base to have the memory & distractability of fruit flies.

So again. You are suggesting that people who don't speak English should be profiled as illegal immigrants? :hmm:
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So again. You are suggesting that people who don't speak English should be profiled as illegal immigrants? :hmm:

I'm suggesting that N Carolina Repub are hypocrites, and so are you.

I have no quarrel with migrant farm workers & believe that it should be a lot easier for them to enter this country & be legal doing it. It's a hard life, just made harder by being illegal.

Legal farm workers demand & get better wages, & aren't as subject to the same sort of fear & intimidation tactics used to exploit undocumented workers. It's not like undocumented agricultural workers find their own jobs. Agribusiness wants & employs illegal labor crews. They all know the score, know which brokers supply illegal labor crews, because they're cheaper. You know it too.

I don't get any political mileage pandering to anti- illegal sentiment even as I make it easier for my financial supporters to employ them, unlike N Carolina Repubs.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I'm suggesting that N Carolina Repub are hypocrites, and so are you.

There is nothing hypocritical about not holding private citizens to a higher standard of immigration law enforcement than actual law enforcement.

Which is in fact what libs want to do.

I have no quarrel with migrant farm workers & believe that it should be a lot easier for them to enter this country & be legal doing it. It's a hard life, just made harder by being illegal.

Legal farm workers demand & get better wages, & aren't as subject to the same sort of fear & intimidation tactics used to exploit undocumented workers. It's not like undocumented agricultural workers find their own jobs. Agribusiness wants & employs illegal labor crews. They all know the score, know which brokers supply illegal labor crews, because they're cheaper. You know it too.

I don't get any political mileage pandering to anti- illegal sentiment even as I make it easier for my financial supporters to employ them, unlike N Carolina Repubs.

And how are they suppose to know if someone is illegal or not if the don't run E-Verify?

Are you suggesting they engage in some form of racial profiling?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
There is nothing hypocritical about not holding private citizens to a higher standard of immigration law enforcement than actual law enforcement.

Which is in fact what libs want to do.

Heh. That's what N Carolina Repubs wanted to do when they passed the 90 day limit on using E verify, when pandering to their anti- illegal base. Now they want to make it 9 months, to satisfy their agribusiness sponsors. Perhaps you'd care to comment on that, rather than on deliberately obtuse tangents of false attribution. It's not what I want, either way.

And how are they suppose to know if someone is illegal or not if the don't run E-Verify?

Are you suggesting they engage in some form of racial profiling?

The point is that Agribusiness doesn't want to know, so that they can retain plausible deniability. Their Repub friends are just helping them to do that, even as they hold an anti- illegal stance. They're having it both ways, embracing hypocrisy, as usual, and I'm confident their base will lap it up. You already have.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Good thing then the Dems that represent NC will go nuclear in preventing this, to protect their common working man base they try and play to so hard for votes. Oh wait...they won't...who is lapping what up again? Some people here are so LULZ it's getting to the point they're not even LULZ anymore. At some point one becomes almost desensitized to the comedy...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Good thing then the Dems that represent NC will go nuclear in preventing this, to protect their common working man base they try and play to so hard for votes. Oh wait...they won't...who is lapping what up again? Some people here are so LULZ it's getting to the point they're not even LULZ anymore. At some point one becomes almost desensitized to the comedy...

N Carolina Dems are powerless atm, until after the next election. Nor do Dems in general make an issue out of migrant farm workers, other than to seek better treatment & wages for them.

Such workers have almost zero effect on working class people, given their small number & the fact that it's not a life Americans want.

Feel free to sign up. The UFW is actively seeking people. They'll hook you up.

http://www.ufw.org/toj_play/TOJNEW_12_JAL.html

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/29/stephen-colbert-and-7-others-take-farm-jobs-offered-by-ufw/
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
I'm suggesting that N Carolina Repub are hypocrites, and so are you.

I have no quarrel with migrant farm workers & believe that it should be a lot easier for them to enter this country & be legal doing it. It's a hard life, just made harder by being illegal.

Legal farm workers demand & get better wages, & aren't as subject to the same sort of fear & intimidation tactics used to exploit undocumented workers. It's not like undocumented agricultural workers find their own jobs. Agribusiness wants & employs illegal labor crews. They all know the score, know which brokers supply illegal labor crews, because they're cheaper. You know it too.

I don't get any political mileage pandering to anti- illegal sentiment even as I make it easier for my financial supporters to employ them, unlike N Carolina Repubs.

The same Republicans would have no problems hiring illegal labor (directly or indirectly) to do their housework for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the same grace period was extended to those service type jobs.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,478
6,901
136
What an odd conundrum the Repub Party created for itself where it has to pander to their base whose sorely needed votes are aimed at creating strict immigration controls to "Keep 'Murica, 'Murican" and simultaneously pander to those awfully rich businessmen whose sorely needed Super PAC $$$ and campaign donations are targeted in the opposite direction, aiming to keep the borders wide open so they can violate the laws of the land by hiring cheap illegal slave labor.

Two diametrically opposed agendas coming from the same party, yet they somehow seem to be happy with this arrangement.

If the Dem Party had the same problem I'd guess that they'd be at each others throats over this.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Why should private citizens be expected to enforce federal immigration laws if the states are prohibited from doing so?

Why should private businesses be expected to verify immigration status when public schools will not?

Because we don't want illegal immigrants and the absolute best and cheapest way of getting them not to come here is to prevent them from being able to get a job/make money for a $1,000 Alex?

Unless of course you don't think we have an illegal immigration problem, if so I can understand your point. If you do think we have a problem, stop blindly supporting your "team".
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
A lot of people really dont think illegals are a problem.
This includes all Democrats, and Republicans who dont live next door to them.

As a non-partisan concerned citizen whose hometown has been invaded by criminals and drug dealers, I am one of the few who wants to see real action.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
There is nothing hypocritical about not holding private citizens to a higher standard of immigration law enforcement than actual law enforcement.

Which is in fact what libs want to do.

So even though we have a pretty good way of preventing illegals from gaining employment within the US, which is their primary motivation for coming here, we shouldn't employ it until such time that we can get the feds to uphold a higher standard in their law enforcement efforts?

That is a really fucking bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I want nothing more than to see the feds uphold the law but waiting for them to do so before implementing other measures is patently retarded. Its worse than retarded actually, its embracing the status quo. If you are happy with that, fine argue for that but don't pretend to be against the status quo while defending actions that do nothing but give us the status quo.


And how are they suppose to know if someone is illegal or not if the don't run E-Verify?

I actually employ people in the construction industry and I can tell you that for at least 80% of illegals it isn't that hard at all. As an employer all I want and need is plausible deniability. E-verify is actually a great thing for me, as an employer in a field with a metric fuckton of illegal workers, for various reasons but the absolute best part is it gets me off the hook from a legal viewpoint.

Are you suggesting they engage in some form of racial profiling?

Are you suggesting they refrain from using simple common sense?

Do you hire people? If so what industry and area are you in?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
So even though we have a pretty good way of preventing illegals from gaining employment within the US, which is their primary motivation for coming here, we shouldn't employ it until such time that we can get the feds to uphold a higher standard in their law enforcement efforts?

That is a really fucking bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I want nothing more than to see the feds uphold the law but waiting for them to do so before implementing other measures is patently retarded. Its worse than retarded actually, its embracing the status quo. If you are happy with that, fine argue for that but don't pretend to be against the status quo while defending actions that do nothing but give us the status quo.

I am saying that when

(1) Public schools are blocked from verifying immigration status, something I assume our lefty friends are fine with

(2) When Democrats pass laws granting government funding to illegal immigrant to attend public universities

(3) When Democrats throw a fit when actual state law enforcement attempt to verify immigration status

that it is a bit hypocritical for these same people to throw a fit that Republicans won't force private citizens to verify immigration status.

Or lets put it this way. If illegal immigrants can confidently stand around wearing shirts proclaiming their illegal status, show up at congressional offices proclaiming their illegal status... maybe we should stop worrying about private businesses?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The point is that Agribusiness doesn't want to know, so that they can retain plausible deniability. Their Repub friends are just helping them to do that, even as they hold an anti- illegal stance. They're having it both ways, embracing hypocrisy, as usual, and I'm confident their base will lap it up. You already have.

If the Spanish speaking person says he is legal why shouldn't the farmer be able to take his word for it? After all its good enough for the police.

Are you implying Hispanics are untrustworthy?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If the Spanish speaking person says he is legal why shouldn't the farmer be able to take his word for it? After all its good enough for the police.

Are you implying Hispanics are untrustworthy?

That's what N Carolina's Repubs said, until they didn't, even though they claim they still are.

Are you implying that they're dishonest?
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,647
26
91
What an odd conundrum the Repub Party created for itself where it has to pander to their base whose sorely needed votes are aimed at creating strict immigration controls to "Keep 'Murica, 'Murican" and simultaneously pander to those awfully rich businessmen whose sorely needed Super PAC $$$ and campaign donations are targeted in the opposite direction, aiming to keep the borders wide open so they can violate the laws of the land by hiring cheap illegal slave labor.

Two diametrically opposed agendas coming from the same party, yet they somehow seem to be happy with this arrangement.

If the Dem Party had the same problem I'd guess that they'd be at each others throats over this.
This is exactly how I see it, and was my point in posting this thread. It's just an odd situation no matter how you look at it.
 

OGOC

Senior member
Jun 14, 2013
312
0
76
Because we don't want illegal immigrants and the absolute best and cheapest way of getting them not to come here is to prevent them from being able to get a job/make money for a $1,000 Alex?

Could do both.

It's pretty hypocritical for someone to want to verify and whatever illegals yet on the other hand is just fine having American citizen taxpayers pay the bill for known-illegal kids to go to school. And probably pay for their lunches and things too.

I assume anyone fine with illegals being in the country are also fine with them owning guns since they must not be considered a threat if they are allowed to be in the country without documentation and all that.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Actually the US public gets cheap food and the largest economy in the world.

Why do you hate unions and living wages?

As for the subject on hand, how about looking at the major flaw in the E-verify system, it can't be used until after you hire the person.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/06/5-things-you-should-know-about-e-verify.html

The process, according to Calabrese, is not supposed to be a pre-screening system for potential hires. In fact, he said, if employers follow the procedural rules, "You're not supposed to do E-Verify until after you've hired someone."
imagine if the TSA couldn't check to see if you are on a no fly list until after you board the plane and it takes off.

Here is the solution all employers have to submit all job applications to e-verify and the federal government tells the employer if they can or can't hire the individual absolving the employer of any responsibility,

just like the TSA can prevent a person from boarding a plane absolving the private airline of any responsiblity for not allowing the person on the flight.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I am saying that when

(1) Public schools are blocked from verifying immigration status, something I assume our lefty friends are fine with

(2) When Democrats pass laws granting government funding to illegal immigrant to attend public universities

(3) When Democrats throw a fit when actual state law enforcement attempt to verify immigration status

that it is a bit hypocritical for these same people to throw a fit that Republicans won't force private citizens to verify immigration status.

Or lets put it this way. If illegal immigrants can confidently stand around wearing shirts proclaiming their illegal status, show up at congressional offices proclaiming their illegal status... maybe we should stop worrying about private businesses?

So you are saying that due to the actions of the left concerning illegals and the public sector that the right should simply concede the entire illegal immigration issue altogether?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Could do both.

Yes we could but the question is if we don't do one does that mean that we shouldn't do the other? Its either all or nothing?
It's pretty hypocritical for someone to want to verify and whatever illegals yet on the other hand is just fine having American citizen taxpayers pay the bill for known-illegal kids to go to school. And probably pay for their lunches and things too.

I agree. However I think its just as hypocritical to want to stop the above yet purposely prevent something that would remove the absolute largest motivator illegals have for coming here, perhaps even more so considering the positions the parties have on the issue.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
If the Spanish speaking person says he is legal why shouldn't the farmer be able to take his word for it? After all its good enough for the police.

Are you implying Hispanics are untrustworthy?

Wow, I guess I completely misunderstood your position on illegal immigration. You obviously have no issue with it at all and think we should let them, and all that follow, to stay, work and live the same as their legal counterparts. I knew this was the stance of most elected Republicans but I was under the impression that the rank and file didn't agree with the actions of their party.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Wow, I guess I completely misunderstood your position on illegal immigration. You obviously have no issue with it at all and think we should let them, and all that follow, to stay, work and live the same as their legal counterparts. I knew this was the stance of most elected Republicans but I was under the impression that the rank and file didn't agree with the actions of their party.

You appear to be missing the sarcasm :p

Although I stand by my basic point.

It is absurd that illegal immigrants can show up at congressional offices, wear shirts proclaiming their illegal status, show up in court to demand a law license, drive around in a van declaring their illegal activity without real risk of deportation, but then expect private businesses to enforce immigration laws.

So you are saying that due to the actions of the left concerning illegals and the public sector that the right should simply concede the entire illegal immigration issue altogether?

I am saying that the lefties in her to dogpile on the Republicans are the real hypocrites.

It is basically the same as Republicans throwing a fit if the Democrats decided to cut taxes on the rich.
 

God Mode

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2005
2,903
0
71
Republicans have a long habit of doing every bad thing in the book while foaming at the mouth and screaming that no one else should or can do the same. It's kindergarten mentality at its finest.