Is there any...

[sealybobo]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

 

[sealybobo]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

 

[Dragonlady]

And just to reinforce what Sealy just posted, Donald Trump prosecuted exactly one employer in 4 years.

Obama and Biden, who YOU continually vilify as being in favour of "open borders", went after the employers with laser like focus. In the first three years of their administration, they used I-95 audits to go after employers, they conducting employee record audits on 8,000 companies in 2009, up from 503 the previous year. In 2007, W obtained two final orders in ICE cases against employers in 2007, and 2012 Obama obtained 495.

The record for most Final Orders in ICE prosecutions, by any President, is held by Bill Clinton, during the period 1992 - 1998, but George H. W. Bush holds the one year record at 1063, in 1992.

Once again, what Republicans are telling you about Democrats, open borders, and illegal immigrants is all lies. Democrats are enforcing the immigration laws. When Trump took over, illegal immigration was at it's lowest point since in 50 years. Before the covid crisis shut down all borders, illegal immigration under Trump was at it's highest level since 2002, when W stopped prosecuting employers.

Republicans don't like it when their billionaire donors have to go to court and pay million dollar fines so they LIE about Democrats.

A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (Published 2011)

The Obama administration has moved the focus on illegal immigration from workplace raids to indictments against people who hire unauthorized workers.

www.nytimes.com

Obama holds record for cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, says Wasserman Schultz

President Barack Obama is the boss-buster in chief when it comes to going after employers who hire undocumented workers,

www.politifact.com

DEMOCRATS GO AFTER THE EMPLOYERS AND THAT STOPS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. REPUBLICANS STOP PROSECUTING THE EMPLOYERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION GOES UP.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And just to reinforce what Sealy just posted, Donald Trump prosecuted exactly one employer in 4 years.

Obama and Biden, who YOU continually vilify as being in favour of "open borders", went after the employers with laser like focus. In the first three years of their administration, they used I-95 audits to go after employers, they conducting employee record audits on 8,000 companies in 2009, up from 503 the previous year. In 2007, W obtained two final orders in ICE cases against employers in 2007, and 2012 Obama obtained 495.

The record for most Final Orders in ICE prosecutions, by any President, is held by Bill Clinton, during the period 1992 - 1998, but George H. W. Bush holds the one year record at 1063, in 1992.

Once again, what Republicans are telling you about Democrats, open borders, and illegal immigrants is all lies. Democrats are enforcing the immigration laws. When Trump took over, illegal immigration was at it's lowest point since in 50 years. Before the covid crisis shut down all borders, illegal immigration under Trump was at it's highest level since 2002, when W stopped prosecuting employers.

Republicans don't like it when their billionaire donors have to go to court and pay million dollar fines so they LIE about Democrats.

A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (Published 2011)

The Obama administration has moved the focus on illegal immigration from workplace raids to indictments against people who hire unauthorized workers.

www.nytimes.com

Obama holds record for cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, says Wasserman Schultz

President Barack Obama is the boss-buster in chief when it comes to going after employers who hire undocumented workers,

www.politifact.com

DEMOCRATS GO AFTER THE EMPLOYERS AND THAT STOPS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. REPUBLICANS STOP PROSECUTING THE EMPLOYERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION GOES UP.

If trump had been tougher on illegals, the left would have approved of it?

 

[Dragonlady]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

No, we're not saying the Democrats don't hire illegals. But given their record of prosecuting those who employ illegal immigrants, I would be very surprised that any large employer of illegals would ever vote anything but Republican. As long as Republicans are in the White House, they are in no danger of being prosecuted or fined, and well, tax breaks.

We're saying that Republicans don't prosecute employers who hire illegals. With a Republican in the White House, employers don't have worry about I-95 audits or charges. They can hire all the illegals they want, without fear of prosecution. They might have to endure the odd ICE, and replace their employees after it's over, but they'll come flooding across the border, once they hear you're hiring.

Illegal immigation surges when Republicans are in the White House, and Republicans respond by hiring more Border Patrol guards, building facilities, and locking up border crossers. This shovels still more taxpayer dollars to border enforcement costs, private prison companies, legal aid lawyers, judges and court clerks.

Private prison companies donated heavily to Trump's Inauguration fund, and were rewarded with $200 million no-bid contracts to build internment camps on the southern border and hired 6000 border patrol and ICE enforcement officers.

Democratic enforcement shifts the costs illegal immigration to the employers via fines and levies reduces the costs of detaining and prosecuting illegals. Obama's policy of returning border jumpers to Mexico within 24 hours, before Constitutional rights kick in, was vilified by Republicans but - no arrest, no paperwork, incarceration costs, legal aid lawyer, immigration judge or trial:

This is how much it costs to detain an immigrant in the US

ICE budget requests have skyrocketed under Trump. Here’s how much it costs to detain someone in an immigration facility in the U.S.

www.cnbc.com

Republicans do ICE raids, round up the illegals, which makes it look like their serious about illegal immigration, but it's all a dog and pony show to fool American voters and reward their "for profit prison" donors. The Republican outrage over "open borders" and illegal immigrants is just bullshit to fool those who are willing to take their word for anything.

Democratic policies reduce the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border at no expense to the taxpayers. The don't have to catch them, lock them up, feed or house them, go to court with them, or deport them. As we say in poker, money you don't lose to bad bets spends just the same as money you win.

Going after the big employers with deep pockets, serves a number of purposes:

• Abercrombie & Fitch were fined $1 million. Fines, levies and assessments reduce the costs to the taxpayers and shift the cost of immigration enforcement to those who are creating the problem - employers who ire illegal
• Big fines and assessments help pay for the costs of enforcement. Rounding up illegals and deporting them costs a lot of money. Go after the guys who are using the resources of the American people to avoid paying decent wages to the American people.
• Word of mouth that they're checking ID's and it's hard to find work has a cooling effect on family and friends making a run for the border.
• The lowest rates of illegal immigration always follow the highest rates of prosecution of employers.

The right says employers hire illegals to do the work Americans won't do. Republicans have consistently voted against harsher penalties and have refused to prosecute employers, when in the White House, focusing instead on enforcement at the Southern Border. They also refuse to raise the minimum wage, instead using the social safety net to transfer money from middle class taxpayers, to the working poor.

No wonder big business votes Republican, and against the American people.

Democrats have NEVER been in favour of open borders, and they have been far more successful in stopping illegal immigration by enforcing the laws against employers, and they have relentlessly gone after employers when in office.

Republicans refuse to prosecute employers, but instead want to focus on the far less effective and more expensive route of increasing enforcement along the border.

 

[Dragonlady]

And just to reinforce what Sealy just posted, Donald Trump prosecuted exactly one employer in 4 years.

Obama and Biden, who YOU continually vilify as being in favour of "open borders", went after the employers with laser like focus. In the first three years of their administration, they used I-95 audits to go after employers, they conducting employee record audits on 8,000 companies in 2009, up from 503 the previous year. In 2007, W obtained two final orders in ICE cases against employers in 2007, and 2012 Obama obtained 495.

The record for most Final Orders in ICE prosecutions, by any President, is held by Bill Clinton, during the period 1992 - 1998, but George H. W. Bush holds the one year record at 1063, in 1992.

Once again, what Republicans are telling you about Democrats, open borders, and illegal immigrants is all lies. Democrats are enforcing the immigration laws. When Trump took over, illegal immigration was at it's lowest point since in 50 years. Before the covid crisis shut down all borders, illegal immigration under Trump was at it's highest level since 2002, when W stopped prosecuting employers.

Republicans don't like it when their billionaire donors have to go to court and pay million dollar fines so they LIE about Democrats.

A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (Published 2011)

The Obama administration has moved the focus on illegal immigration from workplace raids to indictments against people who hire unauthorized workers.

www.nytimes.com

Obama holds record for cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, says Wasserman Schultz

President Barack Obama is the boss-buster in chief when it comes to going after employers who hire undocumented workers,

www.politifact.com

DEMOCRATS GO AFTER THE EMPLOYERS AND THAT STOPS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. REPUBLICANS STOP PROSECUTING THE EMPLOYERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION GOES UP.

If trump had been tougher on illegals, the left would have approved of it?

If Trump had been tougher on Employers, there wouldn't have been any illegals for him to go after.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

No, we're not saying the Democrats don't hire illegals. But given their record of prosecuting those who employ illegal immigrants, I would be very surprised that any large employer of illegals would ever vote anything but Republican. As long as Republicans are in the White House, they are in no danger of being prosecuted or fined, and well, tax breaks.

We're saying that Republicans don't prosecute employers who hire illegals. With a Republican in the White House, employers don't have worry about I-95 audits or charges. They can hire all the illegals they want, without fear of prosecution. They might have to endure the odd ICE, and replace their employees after it's over, but they'll come flooding across the border, once they hear you're hiring.

Illegal immigation surges when Republicans are in the White House, and Republicans respond by hiring more Border Patrol guards, building facilities, and locking up border crossers. This shovels still more taxpayer dollars to border enforcement costs, private prison companies, legal aid lawyers, judges and court clerks.

Private prison companies donated heavily to Trump's Inauguration fund, and were rewarded with $200 million no-bid contracts to build internment camps on the southern border and hired 6000 border patrol and ICE enforcement officers.

Democratic enforcement shifts the costs illegal immigration to the employers via fines and levies reduces the costs of detaining and prosecuting illegals. Obama's policy of returning border jumpers to Mexico within 24 hours, before Constitutional rights kick in, was vilified by Republicans but - no arrest, no paperwork, incarceration costs, legal aid lawyer, immigration judge or trial:

This is how much it costs to detain an immigrant in the US

ICE budget requests have skyrocketed under Trump. Here’s how much it costs to detain someone in an immigration facility in the U.S.

www.cnbc.com

Republicans do ICE raids, round up the illegals, which makes it look like their serious about illegal immigration, but it's all a dog and pony show to fool American voters and reward their "for profit prison" donors. The Republican outrage over "open borders" and illegal immigrants is just bullshit to fool those who are willing to take their word for anything.

Democratic policies reduce the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border at no expense to the taxpayers. The don't have to catch them, lock them up, feed or house them, go to court with them, or deport them. As we say in poker, money you don't lose to bad bets spends just the same as money you win.

Going after the big employers with deep pockets, serves a number of purposes:

• Abercrombie & Fitch were fined $1 million. Fines, levies and assessments reduce the costs to the taxpayers and shift the cost of immigration enforcement to those who are creating the problem - employers who ire illegal
• Big fines and assessments help pay for the costs of enforcement. Rounding up illegals and deporting them costs a lot of money. Go after the guys who are using the resources of the American people to avoid paying decent wages to the American people.
• Word of mouth that they're checking ID's and it's hard to find work has a cooling effect on family and friends making a run for the border.
• The lowest rates of illegal immigration always follow the highest rates of prosecution of employers.

The right says employers hire illegals to do the work Americans won't do. Republicans have consistently voted against harsher penalties and have refused to prosecute employers, when in the White House, focusing instead on enforcement at the Southern Border. They also refuse to raise the minimum wage, instead using the social safety net to transfer money from middle class taxpayers, to the working poor.

No wonder big business votes Republican, and against the American people.

Democrats have NEVER been in favour of open borders, and they have been far more successful in stopping illegal immigration by enforcing the laws against employers, and they have relentlessly gone after employers when in office.

Republicans refuse to prosecute employers, but instead want to focus on the far less effective and more expensive route of increasing enforcement along the border.

So, Republicans are tough on border security but lax on going after employers, whereas democrats are lax on border security but tough on employers....so, which one is worse?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And just to reinforce what Sealy just posted, Donald Trump prosecuted exactly one employer in 4 years.

Obama and Biden, who YOU continually vilify as being in favour of "open borders", went after the employers with laser like focus. In the first three years of their administration, they used I-95 audits to go after employers, they conducting employee record audits on 8,000 companies in 2009, up from 503 the previous year. In 2007, W obtained two final orders in ICE cases against employers in 2007, and 2012 Obama obtained 495.

The record for most Final Orders in ICE prosecutions, by any President, is held by Bill Clinton, during the period 1992 - 1998, but George H. W. Bush holds the one year record at 1063, in 1992.

Once again, what Republicans are telling you about Democrats, open borders, and illegal immigrants is all lies. Democrats are enforcing the immigration laws. When Trump took over, illegal immigration was at it's lowest point since in 50 years. Before the covid crisis shut down all borders, illegal immigration under Trump was at it's highest level since 2002, when W stopped prosecuting employers.

Republicans don't like it when their billionaire donors have to go to court and pay million dollar fines so they LIE about Democrats.

A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (Published 2011)

The Obama administration has moved the focus on illegal immigration from workplace raids to indictments against people who hire unauthorized workers.

www.nytimes.com

Obama holds record for cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, says Wasserman Schultz

President Barack Obama is the boss-buster in chief when it comes to going after employers who hire undocumented workers,

www.politifact.com

DEMOCRATS GO AFTER THE EMPLOYERS AND THAT STOPS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. REPUBLICANS STOP PROSECUTING THE EMPLOYERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION GOES UP.

If trump had been tougher on illegals, the left would have approved of it?

If Trump had been tougher on Employers, there wouldn't have been any illegals for him to go after.

If trump had been tougher on border security, there wouldn't have been any illegals for those companies to hire, but the dems would have called him all kinds of things for doing so.

Again, if trump had been tougher on immigration, would the left have been on board with it?

 

[sealybobo]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

Yes, you rich republicans who like the cheap labor will always point to the far left of our party and say we will call you racist if you go after illegal employers.

So what? Have some balls. And who cares what they say? You’re going after illegal employers not immigrants. You’re going after criminals who are ruining the middle class. And you didn’t care what we said when you went after illegal employees. Yes it was racist and pointless. Going after illegal employers is not racist and it will solve the problem.

Dont worry about the flaming liberals. Stop using them as an excuse. You dont care what they think and in this case, neither do I.

The truth is you can’t get yourselves to go after corporations. Not for taxes, not for global warming, not for them paying low wages, not when they hurt people and not when they hire illegals.

 

[sealybobo]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

No, we're not saying the Democrats don't hire illegals. But given their record of prosecuting those who employ illegal immigrants, I would be very surprised that any large employer of illegals would ever vote anything but Republican. As long as Republicans are in the White House, they are in no danger of being prosecuted or fined, and well, tax breaks.

We're saying that Republicans don't prosecute employers who hire illegals. With a Republican in the White House, employers don't have worry about I-95 audits or charges. They can hire all the illegals they want, without fear of prosecution. They might have to endure the odd ICE, and replace their employees after it's over, but they'll come flooding across the border, once they hear you're hiring.

Illegal immigation surges when Republicans are in the White House, and Republicans respond by hiring more Border Patrol guards, building facilities, and locking up border crossers. This shovels still more taxpayer dollars to border enforcement costs, private prison companies, legal aid lawyers, judges and court clerks.

Private prison companies donated heavily to Trump's Inauguration fund, and were rewarded with $200 million no-bid contracts to build internment camps on the southern border and hired 6000 border patrol and ICE enforcement officers.

Democratic enforcement shifts the costs illegal immigration to the employers via fines and levies reduces the costs of detaining and prosecuting illegals. Obama's policy of returning border jumpers to Mexico within 24 hours, before Constitutional rights kick in, was vilified by Republicans but - no arrest, no paperwork, incarceration costs, legal aid lawyer, immigration judge or trial:

This is how much it costs to detain an immigrant in the US

ICE budget requests have skyrocketed under Trump. Here’s how much it costs to detain someone in an immigration facility in the U.S.

www.cnbc.com

Republicans do ICE raids, round up the illegals, which makes it look like their serious about illegal immigration, but it's all a dog and pony show to fool American voters and reward their "for profit prison" donors. The Republican outrage over "open borders" and illegal immigrants is just bullshit to fool those who are willing to take their word for anything.

Democratic policies reduce the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border at no expense to the taxpayers. The don't have to catch them, lock them up, feed or house them, go to court with them, or deport them. As we say in poker, money you don't lose to bad bets spends just the same as money you win.

Going after the big employers with deep pockets, serves a number of purposes:

• Abercrombie & Fitch were fined $1 million. Fines, levies and assessments reduce the costs to the taxpayers and shift the cost of immigration enforcement to those who are creating the problem - employers who ire illegal
• Big fines and assessments help pay for the costs of enforcement. Rounding up illegals and deporting them costs a lot of money. Go after the guys who are using the resources of the American people to avoid paying decent wages to the American people.
• Word of mouth that they're checking ID's and it's hard to find work has a cooling effect on family and friends making a run for the border.
• The lowest rates of illegal immigration always follow the highest rates of prosecution of employers.

The right says employers hire illegals to do the work Americans won't do. Republicans have consistently voted against harsher penalties and have refused to prosecute employers, when in the White House, focusing instead on enforcement at the Southern Border. They also refuse to raise the minimum wage, instead using the social safety net to transfer money from middle class taxpayers, to the working poor.

No wonder big business votes Republican, and against the American people.

Democrats have NEVER been in favour of open borders, and they have been far more successful in stopping illegal immigration by enforcing the laws against employers, and they have relentlessly gone after employers when in office.

Republicans refuse to prosecute employers, but instead want to focus on the far less effective and more expensive route of increasing enforcement along the border.

You completely get it. I love to read a smart persons post. And when I read your posts it makes me feel like I’m not completely alone here. Thanks

 

[sealybobo]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

No, we're not saying the Democrats don't hire illegals. But given their record of prosecuting those who employ illegal immigrants, I would be very surprised that any large employer of illegals would ever vote anything but Republican. As long as Republicans are in the White House, they are in no danger of being prosecuted or fined, and well, tax breaks.

We're saying that Republicans don't prosecute employers who hire illegals. With a Republican in the White House, employers don't have worry about I-95 audits or charges. They can hire all the illegals they want, without fear of prosecution. They might have to endure the odd ICE, and replace their employees after it's over, but they'll come flooding across the border, once they hear you're hiring.

Illegal immigation surges when Republicans are in the White House, and Republicans respond by hiring more Border Patrol guards, building facilities, and locking up border crossers. This shovels still more taxpayer dollars to border enforcement costs, private prison companies, legal aid lawyers, judges and court clerks.

Private prison companies donated heavily to Trump's Inauguration fund, and were rewarded with $200 million no-bid contracts to build internment camps on the southern border and hired 6000 border patrol and ICE enforcement officers.

Democratic enforcement shifts the costs illegal immigration to the employers via fines and levies reduces the costs of detaining and prosecuting illegals. Obama's policy of returning border jumpers to Mexico within 24 hours, before Constitutional rights kick in, was vilified by Republicans but - no arrest, no paperwork, incarceration costs, legal aid lawyer, immigration judge or trial:

This is how much it costs to detain an immigrant in the US

ICE budget requests have skyrocketed under Trump. Here’s how much it costs to detain someone in an immigration facility in the U.S.

www.cnbc.com

Republicans do ICE raids, round up the illegals, which makes it look like their serious about illegal immigration, but it's all a dog and pony show to fool American voters and reward their "for profit prison" donors. The Republican outrage over "open borders" and illegal immigrants is just bullshit to fool those who are willing to take their word for anything.

Democratic policies reduce the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border at no expense to the taxpayers. The don't have to catch them, lock them up, feed or house them, go to court with them, or deport them. As we say in poker, money you don't lose to bad bets spends just the same as money you win.

Going after the big employers with deep pockets, serves a number of purposes:

• Abercrombie & Fitch were fined $1 million. Fines, levies and assessments reduce the costs to the taxpayers and shift the cost of immigration enforcement to those who are creating the problem - employers who ire illegal
• Big fines and assessments help pay for the costs of enforcement. Rounding up illegals and deporting them costs a lot of money. Go after the guys who are using the resources of the American people to avoid paying decent wages to the American people.
• Word of mouth that they're checking ID's and it's hard to find work has a cooling effect on family and friends making a run for the border.
• The lowest rates of illegal immigration always follow the highest rates of prosecution of employers.

The right says employers hire illegals to do the work Americans won't do. Republicans have consistently voted against harsher penalties and have refused to prosecute employers, when in the White House, focusing instead on enforcement at the Southern Border. They also refuse to raise the minimum wage, instead using the social safety net to transfer money from middle class taxpayers, to the working poor.

No wonder big business votes Republican, and against the American people.

Democrats have NEVER been in favour of open borders, and they have been far more successful in stopping illegal immigration by enforcing the laws against employers, and they have relentlessly gone after employers when in office.

Republicans refuse to prosecute employers, but instead want to focus on the far less effective and more expensive route of increasing enforcement along the border.

So, Republicans are tough on border security but lax on going after employers, whereas democrats are lax on border security but tough on employers....so, which one is worse?

Because border security isn’t going to solve the problem. They can come here as visitor or students.

We agree we need a high tech way of securing our border. Technology, drones, border patrol agents. But building a 2000 mile wall is a joke.

Especially when you won’t do anything about the lure. Illegal employers.

We all know the war on drugs is a joke. If they really want to fight that war it’s in Colombia. Are they afraid to take on the cartels? Same way they are afraid of the illegal employers.

Clearly over the past few decades corporations have taken over our government. Just look at how private companies control our elections with their electronic voting machines.

Wake up Americans

 

[AMart]

rule, regulation, or law that might simply confirm a voter's identity that those of you on the left wouldn't scream "racism!" over? Can those of you crowding to the left imagine any manner whatsoever that performed and/or was intended ONLY to ensure that a voter - any voter, every voter, regardless of race - is who he or she says he or she is that would not evoke cries of "racism!!!!!" from you?

After looking at this thread the answer is no. Leftists find rayyyycisssss stuff everywhere.

 

[sealybobo]

rule, regulation, or law that might simply confirm a voter's identity that those of you on the left wouldn't scream "racism!" over? Can those of you crowding to the left imagine any manner whatsoever that performed and/or was intended ONLY to ensure that a voter - any voter, every voter, regardless of race - is who he or she says he or she is that would not evoke cries of "racism!!!!!" from you?

After looking at this thread the answer is no. Leftists find rayyyycisssss stuff everywhere.

Right now I believe the rule in my state is they ask you for ID. If you don't have ID then you can fill out a form confirming you are who you are. So not having an ID won't stop you from voting. You just have to fill out a form verifying you are who you say you are.

Would any of you on the right accept this?

Voters are asked to present an acceptable photo ID such as a Michigan driver's license or identification card. Please note that voters who do not have an acceptable form of ID or failed to bring it with them to the polls still can vote.

They simply sign a brief affidavit stating that they're not in possession of a photo ID. Their ballots are included with all others and counted on Election Day.

Problem solved!!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

I don't know considering I've never done it.

Basically Michigan already has the solution to this.

Michigan does have a voter identification requirement at the polls. Voters are asked to present an acceptable photo ID such as a Michigan driver's license or identification card. Please note that voters who do not have an acceptable form of ID or failed to bring it with them to the polls still can vote. They simply sign a brief affidavit stating that they're not in possession of a photo ID. Their ballots are included with all others and counted on Election Day.

Do any Republicans have a problem with how Michigan does it?

 

[sealybobo]

I dare Republicans to say "anyone can sign an affidavit....." because after 1000 Trump supports signed affidavits Republicans acted like affidavits were facts. Anything a Trump supporter said happened in a sworn affidavit Republicans said must be fact because no one would risk the punishment of lying on an affidavit. They said those affidavits were proof the election was rigged. No way 1000 Republicans would all lie on affidavits or complain about shit they can't prove they saw.

 

[AMart]

rule, regulation, or law that might simply confirm a voter's identity that those of you on the left wouldn't scream "racism!" over? Can those of you crowding to the left imagine any manner whatsoever that performed and/or was intended ONLY to ensure that a voter - any voter, every voter, regardless of race - is who he or she says he or she is that would not evoke cries of "racism!!!!!" from you?

After looking at this thread the answer is no. Leftists find rayyyycisssss stuff everywhere.

Right now I believe the rule in my state is they ask you for ID. If you don't have ID then you can fill out a form confirming you are who you are. So not having an ID won't stop you from voting. You just have to fill out a form verifying you are who you say you are.

Would any of you on the right accept this?

Voters are asked to present an acceptable photo ID such as a Michigan driver's license or identification card. Please note that voters who do not have an acceptable form of ID or failed to bring it with them to the polls still can vote.

They simply sign a brief affidavit stating that they're not in possession of a photo ID. Their ballots are included with all others and counted on Election Day.

Problem solved!!!!!

As a provisional ballot. If you lost your ID and can provide SSN, Birth Certificate (I have 5 copies because I used to lose my wallet back in the day), utility bill or bank statement with name and address that is fine.

 

[sealybobo]

Ye

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

Yes they give to both parties so they cover all their bases.

Ok let's talk about Yarrabee Farms.

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

"This individual has worked at our farms for four years, was vetted through the government's E-Verify system," said farm owner about Cristhian Rivera.

www.desmoinesregister.com

The story doesn't actually say rivera was employed by the lang family. The story is a bit confusing. It says yarabee farms is owned by several people, and:

During a news conference Tuesday, authorities said Rivera was employed and lived in the area for four to seven years, but they would not disclose his employer

So, while the craig family are one of the owners of the farm, the story doesn't actually name them as the ones who employed Rivera.

It also said that he was vetted through the e verify system, so apparently the government knew he was working in the country illegally.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about this story? Was he here illegally? Yes, and by that standard, he should not be employed, but, it is what it is. Does the story ever actually link Rivera with the lang family? Or just that Rivera was employed at a farm where the lang family was one of the owners?

Yes, the Tysons donate to both candidates, but there is a closer tie there, way back when, there I recall a story about a Tyson scandal with the Clinton's.

Also, apparently don Tyson was a big driving force behind Bill Clinton.

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

www.latimes.com

I think later the company admitted they did not use Everify. What would you say to that?

Then, knowingly hiring someone not legally eligible to be employed in the US should come with whatever punishment that entails. Usually its fines.

It's a slap on the wrist and slim chance you'll get caught so employers risk it. They only get in trouble when there is a fire and 5 illegals are trapped in a basement.

This happened in the city next to where I live

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire

A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he hid five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in a basement house fire

www.freep.com

Novi couple pleads guilty to hiding 5 immigrants who died in 2016 fire
A Chinese restaurant owner admitted he harbored five undocumented Mexican immigrants who died in basement house fire


With his teary-eyed, college-age daughters in the courtroom, 56-year-old Roger Tam admitted to what the government charged him with as he came to court with no deal on the table. He confessed alongside his wife, Ada Lei, 49, who pleaded guilty to the same crime.

But the couple could be spared prison if their lawyers have their way as the defense plans to ask for probation, arguing their clients have long felt terrible about the tragedy, but were in no way responsible for the workers' deaths.

Added Steve Francis, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations in Detroit: "These guilty pleas should stand as a warning to employers who knowingly hire and employ illegal aliens that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Authorities say all five victims were in the U.S. illegally and had been here for six months before they died.

Ok, so we've wandered away from the premise of the thread. What are you getting at here? I responded to a post about supposed problem with Republicans hiring illegals, the person I was responding to mentioned Tyson, I pointed out that the Tysons were big Clinton supporters, and democrats, and now we are here.

Yes, people hire illegals. It happens on both sides, my point was, done just blame Republicans because democrats do it too.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.

www.thomhartmann.com

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


What do these dates tell us? They tell us Clinton was doing his job. Bush stopped, on purpose, because in the 2000's Republicans loved illegals. They were doing jobs Americans won't do is what they were saying. And if you are a Republican, chances are you were going along with that argument. We were right. Illegals were doing jobs Americans would do. But you have to pay us American wages. You don't have to pay illegals American wages.

So this is one way the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. Let's say illegals cost the American middle class $1 billion dollars a year. That means the rich save $1 billion dollars a year. See how the gap between the rich and poor gets wider?

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers. I hear Republicans on USMB and all their arguments defending illegal employers.

The old Republican argument when they know they are wrong is that both sides do it too. Sorry, that don't float.

So you're saying that democrat owned companies don't employ illegals?

The statistics you linked prove that both sides contribute to the issue. "Between 1999 and 2003"...who was president in 1999? Clinton. So, the decline started under him and continued under Bush.

And you want to go after the illegal workers and play wack a mole but you won't go after illegal employers.

Ok. So you folks need to make up your mind here. The left has long advocated for allowing illegals in to do the work that "Americans won't do", but now you are here complaining that we don't crack down on employers hiring illegals. Let say for example, ice did a major raid on corlorations across America. You'd have lefties everywhere saying it was racist and that they were targeting people of color.

So, which is it?

Also, again, I have no idea why were going down this rabbit hole, its moving further away from the original point.

Remember, you Republicans went after illegal immigrants for the last 4 years and you didn't care what us liberals said about it. If you understood fully, you'd realize those policy were racist and ineffective. Trump did it not to solve the problem but to make the racists in the party happy. Build a wall. Deport illegals. Fuck with sanctuary cities. None of that's going to solve the problem.

So then I don't think you really care if we cried when you went after illegal employers. Think about it. The next day the headline reads ICE raid on company who knowingly hired illegals. Please tell me who would complain. Even the flaming left liberals wouldn't have too much to say. It's kind of hard to cry for an illegal who just lost their job.

Did we get off topic? I'll go back and see where that happened and get us back on course.

 

[sealybobo]

In my area they have a paper list of all registered voters in the district. You walk in, they ask your name, you tell them, they cross off your name, you go vote.
Works great.

John Jones walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Davidson, we got you on the list"

A few hours later...

John Jones walks in "hello, I'm John Jones, and I'm here to vote"

"OK Mr Jones, we got you on the list"

A few hours later....

Dave Davidson walks in: "hello, I'm Dave Davidson, and I'm here to vote"

"I'm sorry, Mr Davidson, we show that you have already voted, I'm afraid you can't vote because we have no way of proving you didn't vote"

Is that happening?

Don't know, my point was, its that easy for someone to commit voter fraud if all you have is a list, and someone's word that they are being honest about who they are.

I don't know. They ask a couple questions. What's your address for example. Anyways, you do realize if this happens it maybe happens once or twice in each state. Not even. So why are you so worried about this?

It's more likely you are just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote.

If someone is a registered voter they should be able to get an absentee ballot no reason needed and they should be able to mail in their vote. And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

If these new rules stopped a lot of Trump voters from voting I bet you wouldn't be pushing for these new voter laws. I bet you'd want to make it easier for them to vote. And then maybe I would be like you. I'd be against the masses voting because "they are stupid".

Sorry but picking a Republican or Democrat to lead isn't about being smart. For a rich person, it's smart to vote GOP. For a poor person, it's smart to vote Democratic. It's the GOP's responsibility to represent poor and stupid people too not just smart and rich people.

No, its not about stopping poor people from voting, its about making sure legal people are voting.

So why are you so worried about this?

Why are you not worried about this? Do you not want to make sure that only legal and legitimate votes are counted?

And I sort of liked it that because of the pandemic they mailed EVERYONE an absentee ballot. It showed a lot of people will vote if they can mail in vote.

Sure, its convenient, but surely you can see the flaw in blindly sending out millions of ballots, especially when you don't allow voter role purges. Many ballots will find their way to the wrong people, former addresses, people who have died, and some people will use that as a way to commit fraud because they will send those illegitimate ballots back in, and nobody will ever be able to catch them.

1. Voter purges are not only allowed, they're encouraged. But like all things, the devil is in the details. Purges without notification, and done close to elections are barred. Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

2. All mail in ballots require ID. The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

3. Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

4. In the instances where there have been large cases of voter fraud, the voter ID laws being proposed by Republicans would have had absolutely no impact in preventing these voter fraud cases.

Ongoing purges of names with notifications being mailed out, and a reasonable time frame for the voter to respond, a second and "final notice" of purge, all done with no names being removed within 6 months of an election, should be SOP.

I'm all for giving people enough time to respond to a purge notice. No argument there, but, if they send you multiple notices and you fail to respond, you can't blame that on the system.

The difference between Dems and Republicans, is that Dems will accept all forms of ID, and Republicans want very limited forms of ID and verifications, which are designed to limit specific blocks of voters.

I'll be honest, I agree that we should not accept ALL forms of ID. Its too easy to fake an ID these days. I think the form of ID should be a legal, verified ID, such as a DL, or other state or government issued ID. For those that have trouble acquiring one of these ID, I think the state should help them get it, and it should be free.

Mail in voting has been in place since the Civil War. There has never been any cases of significant voter fraud using mail in ballots.

Only in select areas and in most cases its a "by request" absentee ballot. There has never been a nation wide mass ballot mailing such as the dems are suggesting.

Another interesting thought I just had on Republican hypocrisy. Every time we find an illegal employer Republicans defend them saying they were shown fake id's and there is no way for them to know the ID's weren't real.

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Makes me think even more that this is just an unnecessary step or hoop Republicans are trying to make people jump through in order to vote, because they don't want them to vote. They want to make it harder so less people vote.

What employers are you referring to?

So if it's so easy for illegals to get fake id's that employers accept, why wouldn't poll workers accept their fake id's too?

Thats a good point. Its why I'm not in favor of allowing any and all IDs as verification, but a specific ID, that you have to.prove your citizenship to acquire and if you have a hard time getting the ID the state can assist you in finding the appropriate documents to prove your citizenship.

And no, don't want to make it harder for legal citizens to vote, just want to make it so that only citizens can vote, and that no dead people, dogs, or people who get someone else's ballot in the mail are able to vote.

Why does the left keep insisting its about voter suppression? I've yet to hear anyone from the right say they wanted to prevent people from voting. Only YOU folks are saying that.

Tyson Foods, Koch Industries - ICE workers pulled 700 illegals out of two plants owned by these billionaire owned companies. And not for the first time either. These companies, with all of their resources, are consistent targets of ICE enforcement raids, but neither has ever been charged with hiring illegal workers. Their claims have always been they were presented with fake ID's.



You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Lol, I kinda knew you were going to say Tyson. I don't know of any repubs who defend their practices, but you do know the Tysons are big time Clinton supporters, right?

You have yet to hear anyone on the right to say they want to prevent people from voting because THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Right, my point was, the left are the only ones saying it. I listen to a lot of both right and left wing radio, I've never heard anyone on the right say anything other than they want proper legal voters only to be able to vote. The left are the only ones saying the right are trying to suppress the vote. You will say any attempt by the right to maintain fair and honest elections as an attempt to suppress votes.

How come so often the Supreme Court has to rule on a new law that Republicans passed and too often the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional and designed to suppress black votes?

The Supreme Court Case Challenging Voting Restrictions in Arizona, Explained

The lawsuit is a crucial test for the Voting Rights Act’s ability to protect people of color.

www.brennancenter.org

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a challenge to a pair of Arizona voting policies that make it harder for people to vote, especially in communities of color and Native American communities. The case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, is significant because it likely won’t just affect voters in the state. It could have broad implications for the fairness of our democracy across the country because of what the decision might mean for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the VRA.

The Brennan Center and other groups are urging the court to enforce and preserve the VRA’s protections, which were previously scaled back by a damaging 2013 Supreme Court ruling. Now, in the midst of an expanded, nationwide voter suppression push fueled by lies about nonexistent fraud in the 2020 election, those safeguards have taken on even greater importance — and so has this lawsuit.



And look at this one

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.

Trying to get all the mail in votes thrown out because only Trump supporters were stupid enough to stand in line and vote during a pandemic.