Gov. Bobby Jindal signs illegal-immigrant hiring bills

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: The Times-Picayune

Two bills designed to discourage public and private sector companies from hiring illegal immigrants have been signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Jindal's office said he has signed House Bill 342 by Rep. John Bel Edwards, D-Amite, to require all private contractors who want to do business with a state or local public entity to use the federal worker verification system, "E-Verify," to assure that all employees are in the country legally.

Jindal also has signed House Bill 646 by Rep. Kirk Talbot, R-River Ridge, that requires private businesses to use the same "E-Verify" system as one means to check the status of workers or face fines for each illegal immigrant employed.



Read more: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/07/gov_jindal_signs_illegal_immig.html

[bigworld]

1. This is the kind of measure which will actually work to discourage illegal immigration

unlike a law like Arizona's.

[annabanana]

2. Well. With the crops rotting in Alabama, Louisiana and

(I think) South Carolina.. How high can we expect food prices to climb now? Every week the ticket gets harder and harder to punch at the ol' Stop & Shop.

[Harry Callahan]

30. Should crops be rotting when unemployment is at 9.2%?

[TheFarseer]

64. that's what I'm screaming!!!

Americans are "too good" for jobs like that so they think. I can see the point that people didn't go to college to pick fruit and I understand that unemployment pays more but what about highschool students at least? My classmates and I used to march through a hot muddy cornfield detasseling corn for a month in the summer for $4.25 an hour btw. This is only back in the 90's. Kids can't be that much lazier now can they be? I suppose that would interfere with playing Nintendo DS. . . . . . . . . .

[ProSense]

3. Here's something else Jindal signed:

Think Progress: Jindal Signs Anti-Choice Bill, Likens Women Who Receive Abortions To Criminals

[pampango]

15. About the only support for republican governors/legislatures on DU is on illegal immigration matters

There's still a split in opinion here but you see a lot of support for the stricter laws passed in republican states (and only in republican states where the masters of distraction and us-vs-them envy politics reign), even when those laws are opposed by unions, civil rights groups, privacy groups, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Thankfully, the anti-choice bill passed by the same republican legislature and signed by the same republican governor will meet universal condemnation here as will almost any other bill that emerges from a republican-run state.

[pampango]

4. E-Verify seems to be supported by repubs, opposed by unions, immigrant rights groups and

civil liberties and privacy groups. It seems to be real favorite, though, of Lamar Smith.

ACLU, EEF, others say Legal Workforce Act would result in large, government-controlled 'error-prone' database of highly sensitive information

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218175/Privacy_groups_protest_proposed_E_Verify_bill

A proposal to force employers to use the federal E-Verify system to vet new employees has stoked widespread privacy concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several other civil liberties, privacy and labor groups last week urged Congress to reject the Legal Workforce Act of 2011.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would require that all U.S employers use E-Verify determine whether new hires and current employees can legally work in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill introduced in House and Senate to require all employers to use E-Verify.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16immig.html?_r=1

On Tuesday, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill that would require all employers nationwide to use a federal electronic system, known as E-Verify, to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. Mr. Smith’s bill had only Republican sponsors; a similar proposal was offered the same day in the Senate by Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

The bill was immediately assailed by immigrant advocate organizations and unions.

“Main Street businesses and key agriculture and tourism industries know the economic pain this type of legislation can inflict,” said Eliseo Medina, the international secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union. “They know the government database does not work and is too costly for businesses, and for taxpayers who will lose billions of dollars in revenues when disqualified workers go off the tax rolls and into an underground cash economy.”

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

7. I disagree with the criticism of E-Verify

E-Verify was about 97% accurate prior to the introduction of the new photo matching features, where you actually get to look at a digital photograph of a person to see if it matches the new hire. It is nearly 99% accurate now with these features.

I use E-Verify daily and been doing so for the past 3 years for probably thousands of people. No one has been denied employment due to wrong data because E-verify allows hires whose documents don't match the database plenty of time to deal with mistakes such as misspelling, etc., all the while remaining on payroll and being paid and employed. Only once this time has elapsed and the employee has not fixed whatever issue caused non-confirmation can the employer terminate the employee.

I even E-verified myself to test the system out when it was first rolled out and I came up as 'tentative non-confirmation.' Turns out there was a misspelling in my rather long Italian surname. I called the number I was given and got the matter resolved very quickly. I have a green card, by the way, but at the time there was no photo match feature.

The argument that it is too expensive is bogus. It's FREE - accessible online with free registration. Entering information takes all of 2 minutes. There's no charge to employers nor employees to use it. When a tentative non-confirmation appears, documents with instructions appear in English and Spanish.

There are separate phone numbers to call in cases on tentative non-confirmations. Employees are given the option to have their information reviewed and corrected or, if they know they are using false IDs, to not contest (which leads to immediate termination, because at that point you are then knowingly employing a person without legal authorization to be employed in the U.S., which could lead to fines in case of ICE/DOL audits).

Lastly, E-verify is a tool that enforces the laws already on the books about the employment of persons not legally authorized to work in the U.S. The laws are nothing new - it is indeed illegal for an employer to knowingly employ a person who is not legally authorized to work in the U.S. There are hefty fines and criminal penalties for that. They have been in existence for several decades.

[KeepItReal]

5. Louisiana's anchorbaby-in-chief hating on other immigrants

GOP hypocrisy rolls on

[laureloak]

13. Are you saying that the Gov is an illegal immigrant?

[Lance_Boyle]

14. anchor babies are not illegal aliens

they are the US-born children of illegal aliens.

[KamaAina]

19. Ewwwwwwwww.

Why hate on him 'cause he's Indian, when there are so many other reasons to hate him, like the anti-choice BS?

Besides, his mom was already pregnant with him when they got here, plus they came legally. Hardly Lou Dobbs' idea of an "anchor baby". :eyes:

[TheDeceptiCON]

6. Amazingly, this is how you stop illegal immigration.

You ELIMINATE the incentive for coming here to begin with...namely the JOB!

Now it remains to be seen how tightly this is enforced. Especially when harvest time comes rolling around. Apparently Jindal didn't pay that much attention to nearby Georgia who lost MILLIONS in crops rotting in the fields because they passed a similar law and there were not enough workers to pick the crops.

I would propose that FINES aren't enough and that 30 days jail time for each illegal would do the trick. INCLUDING THE CEO. Ignorance is no defense in a criminal case.

[Iliyah]

8. Probably won't go after

(India) citizens, where quite a few are over here illegally also and working under radar.

[WatsonT]

10. Meh, I'm sure the US lost a lot of crops when all those slaves were freed

but things sorted out after a bit.

Getting rid of illegals will undoubtedly have a short term impact. But I suspect in the long term, after the panicking dies down, things will settled back to normal, except with legal workers in place of illegal ones and fair wages in place of slave wages.

[Iliyah]

11. It took years for the plantation

owners to finally release the slaves which gave the owners enough time to replace them or just offer and hire them for pay. Its a difference here. How many Americans want to work long hours in the hot sun at extremely low wages? Most states have a minimum wage in place and how many owners want to pay the minimum wage? The farm owners are going to lose quite of bit of money until the states, which will happen in some, repeal the minimum wage.

[WatsonT]

9. That's the best way to go about getting illegal immigration under control

get rid of the jobs and they will leave.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Personally, I think the best way would be to get them out of their desperate situation. nt

[WatsonT]

34. Perhaps we should invade every struggling third world nation sending us

their citizens and rebuild them in our image?

[ZombieHorde]

36. Invade them with love, understanding, and cash. nt

[WatsonT]

37. Sure thing. Strap yourself with cash then walk in to mexico to spread

your love and understanding.

Let me know how that goes.

[ZombieHorde]

41. I was thinking about small business loans and education help,

not your silly silliness.

[WatsonT]

53. Right, so other people put their necks on the line

not yours. Naturally.

[ZombieHorde]

56. What people, and why are their necks on the line? nt

[jwirr]

12. Okay, I hear what the unions are upset about - invasion of privacy.

Immigration groups are worried about this invasion of privacy being targeted at them as it is in Arizona. However, if it is against the law to hire illegals then it is the ones who do the hiring that need to be held responsible. These two bills do that.

Does the E-Verify law require anymore information than a birth certificate or social security card?

I do see racial targeting as a problem and there needs to be a way to deal with that. It would be wrong to do this type of checking to just a few groups. If it could be simplified to a social security card - most of us already get asked for our card when we start a new job.

As to the crops - exempt agricultural employees from the law on a seasonal basis. We did it during WWII. As you all know in Iowa they closed a packing plant because of illegal hires. The field workers in agriculture are needed but there were plenty of people who are willing to work in the packs. They pay good wages, have good benefits or at least the used to have those things. There are no shortage of workers in packs. This is also true in construction jobs. We need to recognize that there is a difference between farm labor and factory/construction.

And yes, that still leaves the question of wages for farm labor. There is no simple answer for that one. If they make more picking the food then we pay more at the grocery store. I do not have an answer for that one. I don't think anyone does.

[ZombieHorde]

16. This is really scary for families who are here illegally.

We are fucking families over because of paperwork.

I feel disgusted.

[WatsonT]

17. Law enforcement is always scary to those who are breaking laws.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I'm sure Bush was really scared. Oh wait, he's rich and those families are poor.

The line has been drawn by other people, and the side you're cheering for is not the side your standing on.

[WatsonT]

21. So you are pro-illegal immigration?

Why?

Is it that it undercuts unions and american laborers?

Or do you like the idea of cutting labor costs so that CEOs can pocket a few more billion dollars every year?

Exactly which of those "progressive" ideals do you support?

[ZombieHorde]

23. They're not bad people; they're poor and desperate people.

We should be making their lives easier, not harder.

:graybox:"Is it that it undercuts unions and american laborers?"

They're Americans too. They're also humans. They are just as worthy as you and me.

:graybox:"Or do you like the idea of cutting labor costs so that CEOs can pocket a few more billion dollars every year?"

I like the idea of not attacking innocent families. I am more concerned about helping the poor than hurting the rich.

[WatsonT]

32. Who says they're bad people?

But they are breaking the law and they are undercutting American labor.

People who lament the unfair labor practices of forcing American workers to compete with third world workers and then bitch constantly about outsourcing immediately turn around and support the exact same thing here.

Everyone on earth is human, but not everyone on earth is an American or has the right to live/work here. Every nation has borders.

Try go working illegally in any european nation without their permission, see if the enlightened social democracies see eye to eye with you on this.

And how does undercutting American workers at a time like this help the poor? All illegal immigration does is provide a stop-gap solution to looming problems in mexico. But exporting their poorest people and getting some money back from them Mexico is able to avoid making real structural changes to prevent the need for such immigration. We are helping to keep Mexico poor and dependent on us. And people like you are on the front lines of that.

So congrats, you are contributing to the poverty and deprivation of brown people to line the pockets of rich white Americans.

/Hey, maybe we could sponsor some revolutions in Mexico, really make things bad there so we get even more cheap exploitable labor that we can pay even less! Wallstreet has only made out like bandits so far, lets make them robber-barons!

[ZombieHorde]

35. I will try to address all of your points.

:graybox:"But they are breaking the law..."

I don't care about the law. Almost no one does. How many Americans illegally download music? How many Americans drive over the speed limit? How many Americans smoke pot?

Do you really care if someone illegally downloads music off of the internet?

:graybox:"...and they are undercutting American labor."

I am pretty sure the Republican/corporate/Wall Street folks are the ones who are doing this best.

:graybox:"People who lament the unfair labor practices of forcing American workers to compete with third world workers and then bitch constantly about outsourcing immediately turn around and support the exact same thing here."

I doubt I have any posts complaining about outsourcing labor. People in third-world countries need jobs too. Though a politician who says outsourcing is good is likely to loose elections.

:graybox:"Everyone on earth is human, but not everyone on earth is an American or has the right to live/work here. Every nation has borders."

According to my philosophy, humans trump imaginary things, such as boarders. Boarders aren't real; they're just game rules.

:graybox:"Try go working illegally in any european nation without their permission, see if the enlightened social democracies see eye to eye with you on this.

Just because other people enjoy being authoritarian, doesn't mean I enjoy being authoritarian.

:graybox:"And how does undercutting American workers at a time like this help the poor?"

I care about all struggling workers, not just Americans workers. Poor versus poor is not going to make us any money. Our problems are with corporations and regressive taxes.

:graybox:"All illegal immigration does is provide a stop-gap solution to looming problems in mexico. But exporting their poorest people and getting some money back from them Mexico is able to avoid making real structural changes to prevent the need for such immigration."

They're hungry today. They're desperate today. I am all for our taxes helping Mexico out, but in he meantime, they need to eat.

:graybox:"We are helping to keep Mexico poor and dependent on us."

This is the Republican's complaint about social programs in the US. They say if we stop giving poor people food and health care, the poor will be forced to figure it out for themselves. Liberals are generally against this way of thinking because people need to eat, children need to go to school, and we feel some powerful people are working against the poor.

:graybox:"And people like you are on the front lines of that."

You flatter me; you really do.

:graybox:"So congrats, you are contributing to the poverty and deprivation of brown people to line the pockets of rich white Americans."

If only ZombieHorde didn't post on DU! All those brown people would be better off if ZombieHorde didn't post his thoughts on illegal immigration.

Come on. You had some valid points, don't mess it up with crazy bullshit.

[WatsonT]

38. I see this is pointless

laws are not imaginary. You may continue to believe so but I think you'll find that doesn't work out so well for you.

[ZombieHorde]

40. Anything that solely exists within our imagination is imaginary.

Laws don't exist outside of our imagination.

I have other points in my post too; feel free to address them.

[WatsonT]

54. Be sure to convince the cop that those laws are all in his head

preferably while screaming and acting belligerently.

I'm sure he'll come around.

[ZombieHorde]

55. Some suicide bombers blow themselves up because they want the celestial virgins.

Imaginary concepts can make people act, but the concept is still strictly imaginary.

[WatsonT]

57. Sure thing buddy

still in that rebellious anarchist phase?

[ZombieHorde]

58. You cannot argue against my points, so you address me instead.

Doesn't matter what label your mind drapes over me, laws are still imaginary. I'm surprised this isn't more obvious to more people.

[WatsonT]

59. No, your points are silly and don't warrant a response

If you were to lay out a screed for illegal immigration based on the tele-tubbies I wouldn't bother responding to each of your points either.

[ZombieHorde]

60. You're outmatched in this debate. If I am wrong, prove it.

I am expecting more personal insults and/or other dodges, but my fingers are crossed against it.

Maybe you can pm some DUers who agree with you, and they can help you form a proper argument. You began with proper arguments, but you fell apart during the rebuttal.

[WatsonT]

61. When the discussion is on law enforcement and one side jumps in

with "laws are make believe so I don't have to follow them" the discussion is basically over.

Like if two physicists were debating string theory then you run up and say there is no universe it's all a clever artificial creation of the machines to keep us docile so they can harvest us for energy.

Once you determine that the entire concept being discussed doesn't exist and you refuse to budge from that stance the conversation cannot progress.

[ZombieHorde]

63. I don't feel like I am claiming anything wild; e.g., the universe doesn't exist.

Consider a dog. Dogs probably have no concept of tumors, yet they can still be affected by tumors. The universe exists and tumors are a part of it.

If all humans lacked the concept of laws, then laws would never affect us. The concept of laws is real, just like the concept of celestial virgins is real, but those concepts only exist in our imaginations.
Congratulations, you have found the secret message!!!
Anything that only exists in our imaginations is imaginary.

[MellowDem]

44. In response to your points....

I don't care about the law. Almost no one does. How many Americans illegally download music? How many Americans drive over the speed limit? How many Americans smoke pot?
Do you really care if someone illegally downloads music off of the internet?

That's a silly comparison. Does driving over the speed limit undercut the wages of working Americans? Why do more progressive countries enforce their immigration policies much more strictly?

I am pretty sure the Republican/corporate/Wall Street folks are the ones who are doing this best.

You ignored the issue completely. And Wall Street and corporate Republicans love illegal immigration. So ya kinda shot your argument all to hell there. There is a reason the Chamber of Commerce teamed up with the ACLU against the strict illegal immigration laws recently. It ain't human rights.

I care about all struggling workers, not just Americans workers. Poor versus poor is not going to make us any money. Our problems are with corporations and regressive taxes.

The problem is a lack of government regulation of immigration. That does pit the poor vs the poor. You want the poor in their countries to change their governments, not run away and act as a pressure release on bad governments while undercutting labor here and beneffiting big business.

And for the record, the NYT had a recent excellent article on how illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped a ton over the last couple years. The recession in the US and stricter laws are part of it. But a lot of it is because Mexico's economy has been growing a lot throughout this decade, no thanks to illegal immigration. Not to mention women in Mexico only having 2 or so children now. So Mexico has become a better place to live, minus the drug war. Still lots of illegal immigrants from other Central American countries though who have many problems.

I know some on here like the idea of lots of Hispanic immigrants because it helps Democrats, but predictions of whites becoming the minority by 2050 are all based on current rates of illegal immigration staying the same, not to mention birthrates, which has always seemed rather stupid to me. Now illegal immigration is way down, and Hispanics are having far fewer children. In other words, we can't build an electoral strategy around identity politics like the Republicans have done. Besides being tasteless, it's also unpredictable.

[pampango]

45. Please. These state immigration laws are all pushed by republicans not progressives.

I'm fairly sure these repubs have not come around to the idea of protecting American wages. Nor have the unions, progressives and civil rights groups who oppose these laws stopped caring for workers.

Progressive have much more liberal immigration laws than we do. Canada, Europe, you name it, they have a higher rates of immigration than the US.

[MellowDem]

48. Legal immigration...

yes, but not illegal immigration. There's a reason for that. And actually, the US has very liberal immigration laws, even for legal immigration, compared to many European nations.

The unions, progressives, and civil rights groups are generally after political power, and that is why they sell out on their values on this issue.

And the corporate conservatives love the status quo.

[pampango]

49. If you think that unions, progressives and civil rights groups are only seeking political power,

and "corporate conservatives love the status quo", does that just leave Blue Dog Democrats and the republican base (teabaggers?). Obviously teabaggers have been a driving force behind these state immigration laws. What are the Blue Dogs up to?

Do you really believe that the union members, progressives and civil rights activists who are protesting these laws and filing suits against them are "sell-outs" just after more political power? (I think there are a couple of radio talk show hosts and a cable TV network that would agree with that take on what unions, progressives and civil rights activists are really up to. ;) ) Do you apply that same standard every time progressives, union members and civl rights activists protest (are they always power-hungry sell-outs) or just when you don't agree with the issue they're protesting about?

The US does have liberal immigration laws. Thankfully Democrats changed them back in 1965 to open up immigration after the most restrictive immigration laws in our history passed by republicans in 1921 and 1924. (Many conservatives would now like to revert back to the 1921/1924 laws and reduce even legal immigration to a trickle.) However, Canada's rate of legal immigration is 4 times that of the US. And European countries have open immigration borders with each other and consequently have a higher percentage of foreign-born residents than we do. While our immigration laws are good, they are not as good as those of progressive countries.

Don't tell the Dutch Freedom Party, the Sweden Democrats, the True Finns Party, and a host of European political parties that they don't have a problem with illegal immigration. Those parties all rely on the old "too many 'others' are here and more are coming" electoral tactic. It has worked, too (at least somewhat) to get their popular vote up to the 10%-15% range which in most countries is enough to get them representatives in the parliaments. The True Finns are often compared "to the Tea Party movement in the United States and other similar nationalist and right-wing populist movements (like the Dutch Freedom Party and the Sweden Democrats) in Europe that are critical of globalism..."

[MellowDem]

50. That's a poor comparison...

sure, Europe allows more free immigration within the EU, but that's because it is an economic zone where all the member states have agreed to the same regulations. And once again, that is legal immigration. What European nation allows such huge numbers of illegal immigration? You bring up Canada as well, but once again, that is legal immigration. Canada has a relatively small population as well, with some room to grow. So rate comparisons are hard to take too seriously as meaningful when the US population is 10 times larger in a smaller country.

I think any progressive group would be for human rights of illegal immigrants, but I am talking about opposing laws that discourage illegal immigration as a source of labor. A lot of the hee-hawing on that issue by some Democrats is usually politics. They think illegal immigration and the Hispanic vote are one and the same, and labor takes a back seat. Unions have little political power any more, and many industries that illegal immigration have undercut are not unionized heavily. Some unions are hoping that amnesty will allow them to cultivate illegal immigrants as a new source of union labor in the future.

Once again, the issue here is illegal immigration. Comparison to other countries on legal immigration are moot. It's how other countries treat illegal immigration, and that answer is much more harshly than the US does. And illegal immigration is bad for legal immigration as well.

The sheer mass of illegal immigration over the last couple decades was largely allowed by the US. They could have done something about it, in terms of enforcement, but conciously chose not to because it is an economic boon to business.

[ZombieHorde]

46. Hi! I don't know what to write in my subject line.

"That's a silly comparison. Does driving over the speed limit undercut the wages of working Americans?"

No, but illegal music downloads is stealing from workers.

"Why do more progressive countries enforce their immigration policies much more strictly?"

I imagine if you asked the citizens in the countries you are thinking of, you would get many different answers. This is a really big question involving the history, culture, and politics of multiple countries. We can speculate xenophobia, pragmatism, old laws, etc., but I doubt any one answer would tell the true story.

"You ignored the issue completely. And Wall Street and corporate Republicans love illegal immigration. So ya kinda shot your argument all to hell there. There is a reason the Chamber of Commerce teamed up with the ACLU against the strict illegal immigration laws recently. It ain't human rights."

~and~

The problem is a lack of government regulation of immigration. That does pit the poor vs the poor.

Illegal immigrants are not the reason our economy sank. We had illegal immigration under President Clinton, yet our economy was fairly OK. Republican policies under President Bush is why jobs are scarce.

You want the poor in their countries to change their governments, not run away and act as a pressure release on bad governments while undercutting labor here and beneffiting big business.

If they have food and shelter, then yes. You have to take care of your own basic survival needs before you can take on the elite. They have basic needs, and they are just as worthy as anyone for earning money to fulfill those needs.

"And for the record, the NYT had a recent excellent article on how illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped a ton over the last couple years. The recession in the US and stricter laws are part of it. But a lot of it is because Mexico's economy has been growing a lot throughout this decade,"

A little bit of good news for both us in there.

"I know some on here like the idea of lots of Hispanic immigrants because it helps Democrats,...Besides being tasteless, it's also unpredictable."

You have some valid points in this paragraph, but I am not interested in helping Illegal Immigrants because of elections. I just care about their immediate basic needs and their family's well being.

I don't think I have more of a right to feed my family than those from Mexico. The US government says I do, but I think they are wrong.

[MellowDem]

47. In response...

Illegal immigrants are not the reason our economy sank. We had illegal immigration under President Clinton, yet our economy was fairly OK. Republican policies under President Bush is why jobs are scarce.

Nothing in my post said anything about illegal immigrants causing the economy to sink. They have undercut wages however in quite a few industries.

[ZombieHorde]

51. OK. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but my points still hold.

I agree undocumented workers can lower wages on some jobs, but they have the same human right to feed and shelter their families that I do.

Additionally, our main economic problems come from Republican policies.

[Zavulon]

26. Outstanding.

:applause:

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

If you ever get sensible answers to either of these two questions, please let me know. I ask them all the time and the best I get in response is "But...but...but...they're POOR!"

[WatsonT]

33. Yeah I'm starting to notice that

Supporting any other issue that is 100% aligned with the interest of the wealthy and to the direct detriment of workers and the poor here would get you banned PDQ.

"I support raising taxes on the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich!"

"I think we should cut social spending in order to fund more wallstreet bailouts!"

"We really need to break the Unions so that CEOs can thrive!"

Etc.

Same thing, all completely unacceptable. Add a racial component though . . .

[ZombieHorde]

42. I've been addressing the points; feel free to jump in.

The person I have been chatting with could use the help.

[KamaAina]

18. Good thing most of the buildings in New Orleans have been repaired

Not a whole lot of people who were rebuilding after Katrina were of a mind to check the papers of the person who showed up to rebuild their home. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

22. Toss the employers who hire illegals into jail -- the way it used to be done!!

[No Elephants]

25. Are these people obsessive, or what? Between the aftermath of

Katrina and (was it Rita) and the Gulf Oil Spill, don't the Louisiana legislature and Jindal have enough to worry about without brown people and women?

BTW, the only contractors who my friend just outside Jefferson Parish could get to her home after Katrina were Mexican. I don't think she asked for their papers, either.

[LetTimmySmoke]

27. Go after the employers. I don't agree with Jindal often, but here I do.

[pampango]

29. Do you also agree with the republican governors and legislatures in Georgia, Alabama,

Arizona, and South Carolina? You'll notice there are no Democratic states on the list of states adopting these laws concerning illegal immigration. In fact Maryland and a few other Democratic states have passed and signed versions of the DREAM Act.

The Obama administration has been the "best" at enforcing immigration law (record numbers of deportations) and in slowing the flow down to a trickle, but repubs and, particularly, teabaggers only want to talk "attrition through enforcement".

One would hope we could move on to a discussion of comprehensive immigration reform, but of course, repubs want that large group of illegal immigrants to stay so they can be exploited. It's the unions and progressive caucus among others that want a path to citizenship as a part of an immigration solution. They don't want conversation to stop at enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, but to expand to a comprehensive solution.

These tea party-inspired immigration laws being adopted in republican states are about the only times that I've seen DU support for republican governors and state legislatures.

I wonder if Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio suddenly started focusing on the BIG problem of illegal immigration, they might be able to get some support from DU (at least, in the form of "broken clock" analogy).

[Quantess]

28. Good.

[alarimer]

31. Note that illegal immigration is at its lowest point in many years.

Partly due to improving conditions for workers in Mexico and worsening conditions for all workers here.

So the "illegal immigrant" bogeyman is dead.

But of course the racist pieces of shit all support this type of legislation, because it, like so many other bills like this, is aimed squarely at brown people.

This is somewhat ironic and hypocritical of Jindal since much of the post-Katrina recovery work is being done by illegal immigrants. Company being paid shitloads of money by the government, ripping off their cut and hiring the undocumented so they can pay them shit wages.

[pampango]

39. Repubs got to have an "us vs them" boogeyman to scare people with.

It's how they do business.

Opposing this "us workers vs them workers" mentality is probably one reason that organized labor opposed these state immigration laws so consistently.

[Nossida]

43. A God Start, However

The Penalties for Private Employers,
are no where near Harsh enough.
The now out of control Illegal Immigrant
issue was indeed created by mostly these
privileged Private Employers. These tiny
Fines, and no threat of incarceration,
amounts to a slap on the wrist, and more
political theater to give the appearance
of actually addressing the issue. Any
State Agency hiring Illegal's should
result in instant termination of any and
all State employees involved. Business
People, and cheap private citizens created
the problem. Them alone. Hold them
accountable.

[pampango]

62. The "now out of control Illegal Immigrant issue" is not.

Illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle (at least the cross-the-border kind; the overstay our visa kind - 40% of the total- hasn't changed). And no administration has deported more illegal immigrants.

"The extraordinary Mexican migration that delivered millions of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 30 years has sputtered to a trickle, and research points to a surprising cause: unheralded changes in Mexico that have made staying home more attractive."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?hp

All republicans can hope for now is the current illegal immigrants stay here and stay illegal. Repubs seem to think if they pursue "enforcement, enforcement, enforcement" they'll be enough loopholes that there will still be plenty of easily-exploitable workers who are going anywhere. That, of course, is why union and the progressive caucus push for comprehensive reform that gives these folks a path to citizenship and an end to their "exploitability". Repubs know this and fight the path to citizenship ("amnesty" in the loaded language of the right).

[unkachuck]

52. Louisiana only wants....

....dryfronts, wetbacks need not apply....

....another racist, bagger-pandering move by a fascist governor and state who's dead-last in every category in a nation of mediocrity....we need to save all those excellent minimum wage bottom jobs for Bubba and Cousin Earl....

[TheFarseer]

65. Jindal is about the last guy I wanted to give any credit to

but I have to say he's done a good thing here. Hope more states make this law.