GOP disses US farmers

[Tender Branson]

PATTERSON, Calif. — Farmers across the country are rallying to fight a Republican-sponsored bill that would force them and all other employers to verify the legal immigration status of their workers, a move some say could imperil not only future harvests but also the agricultural community’s traditional support for conservative candidates.

The bill was proposed by Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It would require farmers — who have long relied on a labor force of immigrants, a majority here without legal documents — to check all new hires through E-Verify, a federal database run by the Department of Homeland Security devised to ferret out illegal immigrants.

Farm laborers, required like other workers to show that they are authorized to take jobs in the United States, often present Social Security numbers and some form of picture ID. Employers, many of them labor contractors providing crews to farms, have not been required to check the information and are discouraged by antidiscrimination laws from looking at it too closely. But it is an open secret that many farmworkers’ documents are false.

Supporters of E-Verify, an electronic system that is currently mandatory for most federal contractors but voluntary for other employers, argue that it would eliminate any doubt about workers’ legal status. But farmers say it could cripple a $390 billion industry that relies on hundreds of thousands of willing, low-wage immigrant workers to pick, sort and package everything from avocados to zucchini.

“This would be an emergency, a dire, dire situation,” said Nancy Foster, president of the U.S. Apple Association, adding that the prospect of an E-Verify check would most likely mean that many immigrant workers would simply not show up. “We will end up closing down.”

That sentiment is echoed by growers like George Bonacich, an 81-year-old apricot farmer who has been working the same patch of land in Patterson, 80 miles east of San Francisco, since 1969.

This year, Mr. Bonacich employed up to 100 farmhands to pick a total of 50 to 100 tons each day, often in triple-digit heat. He speaks passionately about his employees — “They’re good people, hard-working,” he said — and plainly about what would happen if E-Verify were to become the law of the farmland.

“If we don’t have enough labor at peak time, the fruit goes on the ground,” he said. “The fruit will only stay on the tree so long.”

While Mr. Smith’s bill seems to have a good chance of passing the House, the Senate, controlled by Democrats, appears more skeptical. Democrats have said they will point to a Congressional Budget Office report on a similar bill that concluded it would cost the federal government $22 billion over a decade, from lost tax revenues now collected from the paychecks of illegal immigrants ineligible for services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/politics/31verify.html

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Imagine this crisis played out across the country:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

tax revenues now collected from the paychecks of illegal immigrants ineligible for services.

Now there's the real scandal.

[Lief 🗽]

Republicans sure do hate the U.S. economy, don't they? Every day they seem to come up with a new scheme to hurt it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the GOP is now longer beholden to the Agri-business lobby? Lol, the insiders realizing the full impact of the GOP base being so politically attentative, now?


Keep in mind that, Boehner is definately well connected with this lobby, and so it's possible that Boehner might slow the bill down if not halt it altogether. In a previous time, he would for sure. But the Speaker is not the almighty institution that it was even under Pelosi. 

It's not like it will pass the Senate, more or less ever come up for a vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

tax revenues now collected from the paychecks of illegal immigrants ineligible for services.

Now there's the real scandal.

Well, there certainly shouldn't be lower taxes on people here illegally.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The relationship between the Republican Party and rurals has been severely abusive for ages. Im Westen nichts Neues.

[dead0man]

Yeah, screw those Mexicans, they don't deserve a living wage.


Seriously though, this is a small, but good step in the right direction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would agree with you if it was coupled with some sort of, you know, immigration reform. Or anything remotely resembling real support for agricultural communities (emphasis on communities, not combines) in general. Ever.

[dead0man]

I would agree with you if it was coupled with some sort of, you know, immigration reform.

Agreed.  The borders need to be properly secured.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

meh, they are doomed anyway

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The big-time farming corporations are a group that ought to be dissed, though not in this fashion & probably not now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would agree with you if it was coupled with some sort of, you know, immigration reform.

Agreed.  The borders need to be properly secured.

That isn't what I meant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

meh, they are doomed anyway
[/quote]

That's a problem.

[dead0man]

That isn't what I meant.

I know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

meh, they are doomed anyway
[/quote]

That's a problem.
[/quote]Is it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

meh, they are doomed anyway

That's a problem.
[/quote]Is it?
[/quote]

Yes. There are many good things about a certain amount of urbanization but once it reaches the point at which the countryside is just a blighted mess and the people who still live there are written off as a lost cause, it's gone way too far. It creates and then exacerbates yawning gulfs in lifestyle, culture, and living standards, and indiscriminately destroys aspects of traditional cultures that there's no reason to destroy except some sort of weird belief in urbanization for its own sake. The loss of culture as the countryside empties is not a phenomenon that is limited to developing countries.

ETA: Also, economies that semi-deliberately de-emphasize primary industries are inherently unstable in that they're incredibly susceptible to financial gimcrackery. The United States is essentially the modern equivalent of one giant Hanseatic port that has been underwater for a while now.

[courts]

Yeah, screw those Mexicans, they don't deserve a living wage.


Seriously though, this is a small, but good step in the right direction.

E-Verify has no place in a country like what america used to be.

[Yelnoc]

Imagine this crisis played out across the country:

It's really quite sad.  Hears to hoping Nathan Deal is reelected.  A crony like him never should have been in the first place.

[tpfkaw]

It can't be too bad - dead0man supports it so it must be libertarian!

(Not only that, but sensible.  He's a "sensible libertarian!")

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, screw those Mexicans, they don't deserve a living wage.


Seriously though, this is a small, but good step in the right direction.

E-Verify has no place in a country like what america used to be.

Just how does E-verify contradict American values or the American dream? It's a simple and effective mechanism, that will actually allow employers to do what they are required to do by law, but have claimed was impossible. Now that it has been made possible, they claim they can't comply because they are too dependent on the illegal behavior. I don't see any added legitimacy, more or less sympathy, for their position as a result of this arguement. In the end it boils down to whether you think immigration laws should be enforced, or should just be ignored completely forever. I think it has been demonstrated quite clearly that no real or effective enforcement was ever intended to be allowed, and thus we were right to question the promises of such made as part of any kind of compromise. And this is why any amnesty must be prevented from passing.

There is also nothing about America's history as being a nation of immigrants, that somehow precludes or makes any attempt at real enforcement, a contradiction to that history. Yet this history is conveniently co-opted on a regular basis to try and provide cover to, and legitimize,  a push for completely open borders (which is undeniably the end result of allowing no real or effective enforcement mechanisms). Without such a contorted cover, this move would be deemed so radical as to preclude any real chance of it being accomplished or moved towards.

[memphis]

At least e-verify would force the US to make a decision. Either much more expensive produce or legalize Mexican farm workers. The current situation is dishonest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At least e-verify would force the US to make a decision. Either much more expensive produce or legalize Mexican farm workers. The current situation is dishonest.

Indeed, politically speaking, this could be the last chance for Amnesty to pass as a result of populist outrage over high produce prices. Of course food prices are rising sharply already as product of oil prices, supply shortages caused by environmental problems and other factors. So it's possible people wouldn't attributed it to E-verify.

[courts]

Yeah, screw those Mexicans, they don't deserve a living wage.


Seriously though, this is a small, but good step in the right direction.

E-Verify has no place in a country like what america used to be.

Just how does E-verify contradict American values or the American dream? It's a simple and effective mechanism, that will actually allow employers to do what they are required to do by law, but have claimed was impossible.

Social Security was never meant to be an ID system and FDR himself promised it wouldn't be. Mandating E-Verify would entrench that program even more and move us in the direction that's contrary to our professed values by definition.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, screw those Mexicans, they don't deserve a living wage.


Seriously though, this is a small, but good step in the right direction.

E-Verify has no place in a country like what america used to be.

Just how does E-verify contradict American values or the American dream? It's a simple and effective mechanism, that will actually allow employers to do what they are required to do by law, but have claimed was impossible.

Social Security was never meant to be an ID system and FDR himself promised it wouldn't be. Mandating E-Verify would entrench that program even more and move us in the direction that's contrary to our professed values by definition.

Social Security was never meant to pay out benefits to a large percentage of the population and FDR himself said it wouldn't work in the future. It seems to be a consistent pattern with social security doesn't it. It always ends up doing more then people intended or expected. And FDR was a politician like any other and as politicians go, they usually make promises they can't keep. And now, 65 years after his death, he can't prevent the Social Security system from being altered so asto keep his promise. That's gov't for you.

What professed values does E-verify contradict? The only values being contradicted are the current system's contradicting our values of intregrity, honesty and rule of law.

[courts]

Yeah, screw those Mexicans, they don't deserve a living wage.


Seriously though, this is a small, but good step in the right direction.

E-Verify has no place in a country like what america used to be.

Just how does E-verify contradict American values or the American dream? It's a simple and effective mechanism, that will actually allow employers to do what they are required to do by law, but have claimed was impossible.

Social Security was never meant to be an ID system and FDR himself promised it wouldn't be. Mandating E-Verify would entrench that program even more and move us in the direction that's contrary to our professed values by definition.

Social Security was never meant to pay out benefits to a large percentage of the population and FDR himself said it wouldn't work in the future. It seems to be a consistent pattern with social security doesn't it. It always ends up doing more then people intended or expected. And FDR was a politician like any other and as politicians go, they usually make promises they can't keep. And now, 65 years after his death, he can't prevent the Social Security system from being altered so asto keep his promise. That's gov't for you.

What professed values does E-verify contradict? The only values being contradicted are the current system's contradicting our values of intregrity, honesty and rule of law.

Freedom from unwarranted intrusion, free association, free enterprise, limited government.. Not that anyone cares about those things or that I would necessarily oppose other forms of ID. But it sort of seems contrary to the values of the LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE to have to show your serial number (which you received at birth to collect federal benefits from) every time you apply for a job so someone can run it through a database regardless of whether you were born here or not... And it definitely comes off as cognitive dissonance to attack a program and suggest it should be privatized or phased out then argue it should be mandated as a form of national ID for workers. But I'm sure all the teabaggers collecting 'disability' or medicare benefits that aren't large enough for them are thrilled by this.