The IRCA was passed and signed into law in 1986. That was 35 years ago. This is not a joke about oh noes how can that be so long ago. This is a point that employers must confirm that employees are allowed to work in the US legally has been the law for 35 years. This isn't new.
The I-9 form began to be used after that point. In 1996, IIRIRA was passed and signed into law. That set up three separate programs for verification of employee's status. In 2004, the Basic Pilot Program began using online systems to conduct the verification.
In 2007, the Basic Pilot Program was renamed E-Verify. I'm pulling this information from here, not off the top of my head: e-verify.gov/about-e-verify…
I remember the debates around IRCA and the compromise that was claimed to be reached was a one time amnesty in exchange for increased border security measures and employers being on the hook for employing those here illegally. We've seen how that's worked out.
Let us do the Herculean task of setting aside the you are a racist caterwauling when immigration laws are discussed. Instead, let's focus on how the compromises are never kept. There's a reason those of us over the age of, say, 50, are intensely cynical about any compromise.
It's been 35 years where those who want what is, in effect, open borders get what they want immediately while the claimed enforcement mechanisms seem never to take place, not really. Oh, every now and again there will be a raid on an employer but only now and again.
And every freaking year, like clockwork, the shrieking begins about how the crops will not be brought in and no American will do the back breaking work, which, yes, it is, of bringing in the crops and thus we have to use desperate people to do that work.
Here's the thing: there are fairly extensive laws and regulations about migrant workers already on the books. Here's a basic resource on those that's written at least somewhat in English and not Legal.
dol.gov/agencies/whd/a…
These laws were debated and passed and are, supposedly, the law of the land. And yet, every freaking year, like clockwork, when a politicians makes mouth noises that hey maybe those should be followed banshee shrieking erupts as if no such laws exist. It's wearying.
The disingenuousness of it all sets my teeth on edge. If you think there should be no laws requiring employment verification, then argue that. But, no, seriously, you don't get to pretend the laws do not exist. You don't, not if you want to be considered a sentient being.
OMG THAT HEARTLESS PERSON WANTS E-VERIFY TO BE USED. Yeah, guess what? There's laws on the books, probably older than the person wailing, that require that employment status be verified. Don't like it? Repeal it. Go ahead. Change the law. Do it.
The absolute and utter refusal to accept that, hey, the other side gets to enforce the portions of the act that were used to get them to agree to pass it in the first place is Veruca Salt tantrum throwing. I have no respect for it. No one should respect it. It's pathetic.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with alexandriabrown

alexandriabrown Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @alexthechick

10 Jun
Over the last day or so I've seen some threads about commercial investors driving up housing prices with references to Blackrock Inc. and others buying up entire neighborhoods and then turning all the houses into rental homes. That raised some questions so I started digging.
The bought an entire neighborhood appears to be coming from this WSJ article:

wsj.com/articles/if-yo…
I'll put up a screencap from the opening paragraph since WSJ and thus paywalled and I don't know how much people can see of it. Image
Read 9 tweets
4 Jun
*dons jaunty windmill tilting helm* To continue my campaign to stand athwart yelling dude I don't believe you stop it, I was reading an article this morning (not from NR so this is different subtweeting) on a topic about which I am concerned and about which I have some knowledge.
This came from an entity which I have found reliable in the past and thus I was already inclined to be favorable to the author. The article stated that it was based on discussions with people anonymous due to legitimate concerns of personal and professional consequences.
That raised some warnings but, fine, I read on to see what was said. The article was well written but something was pricking at me. About half way through I realized what it was. The structure was that the objectionable position was provided via named sources and citations.
Read 15 tweets
18 May
I have redacted the names on these not due to any personal reasons as I am not familiar with those who made the statements but because what interests me are the statements themselves. Here is point counterpoint on wearing or not wearing a mask now.
Both points are valid. Personally, I do not care if someone still wears a mask. Their life, their face, none of my damn business why they are. That throat cleared, the good for the goose good for the gander and it's your turn on the shaming pole position is basic human nature.
Many of the people who screeched about killing grandma and who love Science sexually appear to believe that they are not going to be mocked now that their beloved Science says okay fine no masks Because Reasons and they decide nuh uh still wearing it because because I am okay.
Read 8 tweets
13 May
Let's chat about this for a moment. Source: wxii12.com/article/north-…
Defitionally, there cannot be enough gas for everyone if over 70% of the gas stations in NC have no gas to sell at the pump. There is enough gas for everyone! Also 74% of the gas stations in a decently sized state do not have gas. People see the second and eyeroll the first.
We are back, yet again, to an inability by public officials to explain thing simply. The there is enough gas position is, as I understand, accurate. The storage tanks were not compromised. The gas is in the storage tanks. The issue is getting it to stations.
Read 6 tweets
26 Apr
I take some small measure of pride in being able to at least sort of understand why people hold views completely different than mine. Not always and not fully but I do try to understand not only the reasons themselves but the underlying rationale for those reasons.
That throat clearing aside, there is a, well, not position, really, not even a stance, more like an emotive state that I do not comprehend at all. And that is the rejection of the right to defend. I do not just mean self-defense. I mean any kind of defense.
The rejection of the right of self-defense is most obviously, but not exclusively, seen in the gun debate in the US. Those who reject the right of self defense are sincere in their claims to not comprehend why anyone needs or wants a gun because self-defense is seen as wrong.
Read 13 tweets
20 Apr
It matters that so many people who want, indeed need for financial reasons, to be considered erudite regarding politics and current events bought the cop beaten to death with a fire extinguisher story and now refuse to acknowledge what they actually said about it. Let me rant.
Greenwald has an article wherein he sets out multiple examples and I shall be energy efficient and refer you there. greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-li…
I am more interested in the meta aspect of it. Since the Marvel level retconning is beginning let me take a moment to remind everyone that Capitol police officer beaten to death by Trump insurrectionists was not a story that was briefly mentioned during the confusion on 1.6.21.
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(