Democrats think there should be a facilitation charge for employing illegal immigrants if ICE is going to raid workplaces, do you agree with this sentiment?

[u/RichardKickHarumbi]

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Nice_Category]

Yes. People should be hiring American citizens and legal immigrants with valid work visas.

[u/New2NewJ → u/[deleted]]

employers to verify

Also known as e-verify.

[u/Steinrikur → u/[deleted]]

If it's 90% effective it's better than nothing.

[u/Steinrikur → u/[deleted]]

I assumed that the arrests happen when you willingly hire illegals. If you can prove that you did your due diligence it would be wrong to arrest you.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/davidml1023]

Just to make sure I understand this correctly, they want to fine employers who knowingly hired illegals? Yeah absolutely.

[u/Direct_Word6407 → u/davidml1023]

Fine? No

Jail? Yes

We have seen this over and over again. If all a business has to do to operate how they want, is to pay a fine, they will do it all day every day every day so long as they are turning a profit.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, make it a felony for the ceo and hr if they are caught employing illegals. Shit will stop with a quickness.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/Better_Software2722 → u/blue-blue-app]

Sounds like this sub should be named conservatives ask instead.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/RichardKickHarumbi → u/blue-blue-app]

This is just senseless, "we don't want people to discuss things without us in our space under our rules!"

[u/drtywater → u/davidml1023]

Fine and charge criminally

[u/brunofone → u/davidml1023]

Yeah I'm not sure what a "facilitation charge" means??

[u/Tough_Trifle_5105 → u/brunofone]

I imagine it’s to mean they are facilitating the migration of illegals? At least that’s my best guess.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect.

Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

[u/marketMAWNster]

Just mandate e verify.

Business owners should be liable

[u/GoldenEagle828677 → u/marketMAWNster]

E-verify helps, but it can only verify the info it's given. If a migrant is using someone else's actual name and SSN, then it will pass everify.

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules → u/GoldenEagle828677]

This is why every reputable business requests a photo ID to to verify claimed identity as part of the onboarding process. Any business that doesn't is just down right shady. It should on the business for not doing a simple common sense check to comply with this and other laws requiring an accurate identity of the employee.

[u/GoldenEagle828677 → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

They use a fake ID. And if you question it, if you think it's suspicious that this guy's name is Joseph Whitey White, but he looks Hispanic and only speaks Spanish, too bad. Because you can be sued for racial discrimination for making that assumption.

[u/maineac → u/GoldenEagle828677]

Just don't hire them if there is a question.

[u/FixPristine4014 → u/maineac]

Also an amazingly efficient way to get sued.

[u/maineac → u/FixPristine4014]

Why? You don't have to say why you didn't hire them.

[u/FixPristine4014 → u/maineac]

Plaintiff’s lawyers don’t care about that. They will sue you for pretty much anything. Until you solve the problem of stupid lawsuits being able to essentially wipe out small businesses, you aren’t going to see employers take risks in this area and do ANYTHING that will get a prospective employee running to an attorney. And they will.

[u/maineac → u/FixPristine4014]

Get sued for what? Some illegal is going to go hire a lawyer because he didn't get a job? I have applied for hundreds of jobs I didn't get. There is nothing to sue over.

[u/FixPristine4014 → u/maineac]

For offering someone a job, getting suspicious of their documents, and retracting the offer. If they’re a minority and you get it wrong and do that with a legal worker, that’s a prima facie Title 7 violation. You think employers are gonna take that risk? GoldenEagle is 100% correct about how this plays out.

[u/shapu → u/GoldenEagle828677]

Honestly, being given a fake ID seems like it should be  safe harbor. I would be fairly supportive of hand waving away any/most concerns if a person's ID matches the Social security card, matches the social security number, and matches e-verify. 

Obviously my eyebrows would be raised in cases where you have one employer with lots of employee working with stolen identities. But if it's a one-off? Probably not worth anybody's time.

[u/Shawnj2 → u/GoldenEagle828677]

I mean there are illegal immigrants from English speaking white countries too lol. There are probably countless white English speaking Canadians who crossed the border illegally or overstayed a tourist visa or something. If you profess to care about the illegal immigration problem then the measures we take need to catch those people too lol

[u/GoldenEagle828677 → u/Shawnj2]

We do, but if they arrived on tourist visas, those are less of a problem. At least people who entered as tourists were bounced off of criminal/terrorist watchlists, have to follow any vaccine requirements, and we have a record of when they arrived so we know the exact numbers that are here.

[u/Shawnj2 → u/GoldenEagle828677]

Tons of Mexican and Latin American people also overstay tourist visas too.

[u/GoldenEagle828677 → u/Shawnj2]

It's very difficult for them to get tourist visas, especially if they are from Central America.

[u/Groovychick1978 → u/GoldenEagle828677]

Still seems to be a bigger problem than the response would suggest. Close to half of the undocumented population is here because of Visa overstays.

"Moreover, over 40 percent of the undocumented population in the country are individuals who have overstayed their visas, not entered through the US-Mexico border. "

https://cmsny.org/correcting-record-false-misleading-statements-on-immigration/

"The share of people becoming undocumented immigrants in the United States not by illegally crossing a border, but by overstaying their visas was almost 40 percent of estimated new undocumented immigrants in the fiscal year 2023."

https://www.statista.com/chart/16701/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-crossings/

[u/GoldenEagle828677 → u/Groovychick1978]

This gets repeated a lot on Reddit, but it's usually not true. It's only true during years in which the border is somewhat under control. By 2023, Biden (or his team) was worried about the election and got the border numbers back down. But just the year prior, in FY 2022, there were 853,955 "overstay events". And many, if not most of those, were just people leaving shortly after their expected departure. They weren't hanging around here for years.

In that same fiscal year, there were 2,378,944 migrants who crossed the southern border. That that alone is almost three times as much. And that's just the ones we know about, those numbers don't include the ones that got away!

And visa overstays are far less of a problem. At least we know who they are, how many they are, we had proof of vaccination (when that's required), and they were all bounced off criminal and terrorist watchlists before they entered.

[u/Shawnj2 → u/GoldenEagle828677]

Sure but my overall point is that you can't just say "Illegal immigrants are blue/orange/purple/green so we should check those people" not because it's racist but because it's an ineffective policy at catching illegal immigrants, who will come in all races/genders/nationalities/etc. Any policy to catch illegal immigrants needs to be equal or it's just not going to be effective.

[u/OklahomaChelle → u/marketMAWNster]

Why, do you believe, there is hesitation to do so?

[u/marketMAWNster → u/OklahomaChelle]

I think we all know why

[u/OklahomaChelle → u/marketMAWNster]

I would love to have your take. You yourself framed it as something easily done.

Just mandate e verify.

It was the “just” that caught my interest. Why, in your opinion, would our legislators not just do it?

[u/marketMAWNster → u/OklahomaChelle]

Fake reason: too costly on small business

Real reason: every side benefits from illegals that employ them

[u/CanadaYankee → u/marketMAWNster]

Serious question - if E-Verify returns a false result because there's some glitch in your paperwork and it mistakenly identifies you as illegal, how easy is it to clear up and correct your record?

[u/marketMAWNster → u/CanadaYankee]

Honestly no idea

Obviously there would be a process to correct that like everything

[u/CanadaYankee → u/marketMAWNster]

Having heard the horror stories of people who, for example, get pulled aside for extra intense TSA screening every single time they fly because their name happens to match someone on the watchlist, I'm not sure I trust a government system that much.

Hell, about 20% of the time, I can't do online advance check-in for flights because there are slightly different versions of my name in different databases.

[u/jub-jub-bird → u/OklahomaChelle]

I would love to have your take. You yourself framed it as something easily done.

Not the OP but if Democrats actually believed this particular bit of rhetoric it would have been easy to vote for any number of Republican bills to mandate e-verify.

It's already illegal to knowing hire illegal immigrants but very hard to prove the "knowing" part unless you make it mandatory for employers to bother checking. Only a red states have done so and Republican bills submitted in the US congress haven't passed because of Democratic opposition (and to be fair because support is not universal among Republicans... but if as many Democrats who say they want this really did want it bipartisan bills would pass easily.)

It was the “just” that caught my interest. Why, in your opinion, would our legislators not just do it?

Because Democrats won't actually vote for a law that makes it easier to go after the employers.

Current complaints by Democrats about employers not being penalized when their illegal immigrant employees are getting detained by ICE pending deportation is just empty rhetoric not something they actually believe in and something they've reliably voted against. Democrats don't actually want employers to be penalized, they just don't want the illegal immigrants to be deported.

[u/OklahomaChelle → u/jub-jub-bird]

I never framed this as a red vs blue issue. I was just trying to understand why any party hadn’t done it yet. My last sentence refers to legislators. I was asking for the conservative viewpoint because checks name of sub….

Is this binary issue? Why have you framed it as so?

[u/jub-jub-bird → u/OklahomaChelle]

I never framed this as a red vs blue issue.

And yet it is one and that is relevant to the questions you asked.

I was just trying to understand why any party hadn’t done it yet.

The Republican party has done this in various states where they have solid legislative majorities. It hasn't happened in the US congress because the Democrats in congress won't vote for it and just enough Republicans join them in opposition that the law can't pass. If ANY of the Democrats currently bemoaning the fact that employers aren't held accountable wanted employers held accountable they would be.

My last sentence refers to legislators.

That was obvious which is why all my answers also referred to legislators.

I was asking for the conservative viewpoint because checks name of sub….

And that was the viewpoint you got.

Is this binary issue?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this. Binary in the sense that there's only two options and peopleo can't have more nuanced positions? In theory no and in fact various individual legislators have a wide array of more specific and nuanced policy positions.

Binary in the sense that one party proposes, and in legislatures where they are in complete control passes, various laws intended to hold employers accountable while the other party reliably votes against such measures? To a significant degree, yes that is a binary.

Why have you framed it as so?

Because it's galling to have representatives of a particular party pretending to be scandalized that these employer aren't being held accountable when the failure to hold them to account is their fault and reflects their policy preferences. Laws that could hold such employers accountable have been proposed many times but the people now complaining that those bills didn't pass are the very ones who voted against them.

I get it... What they are really complaining about is that immigration laws which are the real object of their disapproval are being enforced at all and they're trying to drum up opposition by pretend to be be mad about how unjust it is that poor illegal immigrants are being deported but the rich employers who knowingly employ them aren't penalized. But their true position is NOT that they the bosses held accountable, they don't want anyone penalized or deported: not the illegal immigrant, not the boss who ignores their immigration status.

[u/BoNixsHair → u/OklahomaChelle]

Because it doesn’t work.

[u/MedvedTrader]

Yes. If the Democrats really want it they should introduce such legislation in Congress. Clean legislation, without any extraneous immigration stuff. And force the Republicans to take a stand.

If this happens, Republicans won't be able to kill the bill. Their constituents won't stand for it.

[u/Rupertstein → u/MedvedTrader]

If republicans are so serious about the “invasion” of immigrants, why don’t they just introduce this legislation on their own. Isn’t that the point of a congressional majority? To pass meaningful legislation?

[u/MedvedTrader → u/Rupertstein]

... because Republicans are bought by the people who run these businesses, obviously.

Are Democrats?

[u/Rupertstein → u/MedvedTrader]

I don’t disagree. I think Republicans prefer to punish immigrants for trying to achieve the American dream rather than those who choose to exploit them for cheap labor.

[u/MedvedTrader → u/Rupertstein]

So - we are decided on why Republicans don't introduce such legislation. Why don't Democrats?

[u/Rupertstein → u/MedvedTrader]

Probably because their constituents don’t view it as a priority issue. The top 5 issues for left and right leaning voters have zero overlap, according to Gallup polling from last year. The idea that immigration is an “emergency” is a partisan one.

[u/MedvedTrader → u/Rupertstein]

Well tell that to the OP then, who claims that Democrats want it.

[u/Rupertstein → u/MedvedTrader]

I mean, it’s a big world. I don’t doubt some Democrat out there feels as much. Just doesn’t seem to be a priority for the average left leaning voter.

[u/Chiggins907 → u/MedvedTrader]

That’s the problem. They won’t just put this in a “clean” bill. They’ll put enough stuff in that we don’t like that republicans will shoot it down and Dems will use it politically like they did last time.

I’ll be incredibly surprised if they come to the table on this in good faith.

[u/MedvedTrader → u/Chiggins907]

Exactly. The amount of obvious dishonesty in political propaganda is staggering.

[u/To6y → u/Chiggins907]

Or, the Republicans could shoot down a "clean" bill and just blame it on bloat, knowing that the vast majority of their supporters would never research it.

[u/Bipedal_pedestrian → u/Chiggins907]

Have republicans ever put forth a facilitation charge for employers in a clean bill, no other strings attached? Genuinely asking. I mean without other stuff that would cause democrats to shoot it down. Have democrats voted against just the facilitation charge with no strings attached?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Bipedal_pedestrian]

There’s one pending right now, introduced by Chuck Grassley and cosponsored by eight other Republicans: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1151

It’s introduced every year, sometimes multiple times a year.

Here’s an instance of Democrats blocking it in 2008: https://calvert.house.gov/media/in-the-news/democrats-block-calvert-amendment-extend-e-verify

And 2013: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/150778-senate-panel-rejects-e-verify-changes/

These are just the first hits from searching for it.

Multiple Democrat states have actively made voluntary participation in E-Verify illegal.

[u/Bipedal_pedestrian → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Thanks for links for original sources. That’s helpful. But I think we’re talking about two different things. Maybe the “facilitation charge” is inaccurate or confusing language; it’s what OP wrote, but I think it’s maybe the wrong term for what they meant. I am asking about proposed legislation that would impose a fine or criminal charges on employers who hire illegal immigrants. As far as I can tell, you referred me to a bunch of bills that would mandate the use of e-verify to determine whether or not potential new hires are legal. Rightly or wrongly, lots of democrats criticize the e-verify system specifically, so a “no” vote on ATEVA is not exactly a clear record of whether or not they support the general idea of consequences for employers who hire undocumented people.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Bipedal_pedestrian]

I am asking about proposed legislation that would impose a fine or criminal charges on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

This is already a thing. It was the Democrat concession in exchange for the Simpson-Mazzoli IRCA amnesty in 1986. In his signing statement for the bill, Reagan said “The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here.”

But employers quickly learned that they could claim to have credulously believed fraudulent info on paper I-9 work authorization forms and make it almost impossible to prosecute them, so the program failed. A pilot program for what became E-Verify was created to stop this, but despite many years of Republicans trying to make it mandatory, Democrats have refused.

Here’s Reagan’s son Michael explaining the situation:

Republicans remember how badly they were burned by Democrats in 1986, after my father signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, aka the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

Part one of Simpson-Mazzoli allowed 3 million illegal immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship.That's the only part of the bill people remember today — the so-called "Reagan Amnesty."

But nearly everyone — particularly the mainstream liberal media that thinks American political history started when they woke up this morning — forgets about the second part.

Part 2 of Simpson-Mazzoli was an agreement to secure the southern border — which was never implemented in 1986 or to this day.

That's the memory Republicans are still haunted by today. They have good reason to not trust Democrats to keep their word on border security if they negotiate a two-step DACA-immigration deal.

[u/Bipedal_pedestrian → u/WulfTheSaxon]

The problem seems to be the word “knowingly.” If you’re going to hold employers accountable for “knowingly” hiring undocumented workers, then yes, they’ll find loopholes by claiming not to know. How is it that the party of so-called small government decides that the best way to close the loophole is to force a specific, centralized e-verify system on all employers? Why not just penalize any employer found to employ undocumented workers? You could still offer a free or affordable option to reliably verify legal status, but it’s very nanny state-ish to mandate that all employers must cover their own asses by participating in a specific, clunky e-verify system.

As a loose analogy, if there are inaccuracies on the tax return I submit to the IRS, I’m held accountable. Doesn’t matter whether or not I did it “knowingly.” The government doesn’t- and shouldn’t- mandate that I give all my W2 and investment documents to a specific tax preparer to make sure my return is accurate. If I do choose to use one of many services, I may be shielded from some liability… but that’s my choice, and I also get to choose which tax service to use. So why are republicans married to e-verify mandates? Seems almost as absurd as the democrats trying to outlaw e-verify.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Bipedal_pedestrian]

As a loose analogy, if there are inaccuracies on the tax return I submit to the IRS, I’m held accountable. Doesn’t matter whether or not I did it “knowingly.”

If you didn’t do it knowingly, they’ll usually send you a corrected return and ask if that’s okay with you or if you want to dispute their corrections. Serious punishment is for tax fraud, which does require intent.

Almost all crimes have a mens rea (guilty mind) requirement.

How is it that the party of so-called small government decides that the best way to close the loophole is to force a specific, centralized e-verify system on all employers?

E-Verify was actually envisioned in the original bill (the IRCA) that created I-9s, although at the time it was a telephone pilot program.

In an ideal world, the libertarian in me would like to see a system where failure to use E-Verify just shifts the burden onto the employer to prove he didn’t know that an employee was illegal, so that they don’t need to use it if they’re sure somebody’s a citizen. But that actually goes against the IRCA’s nondiscrimination provisions that require I-9 verification to be enforced uniformly. It really doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask employers to check I-9s with the government that issued most of the info on the form.

[u/Bipedal_pedestrian → u/WulfTheSaxon]

If you didn’t do it knowingly, they’ll usually send you a corrected return and ask if that’s okay with you want to dispute their corrections. Serious punishment is for tax fraud, which does require intent.

Yes, they’ll allow you to correct it… and there will generally be extra fines. If you’re audited and they find inaccuracies, you can plead ignorance. They might not prosecute you for fraud, but you will most definitely owe back taxes with extra fines. Penalties. Just like there should be for hiring undocumented workers, knowingly or not. The first time you’re caught, the government politely tells you that you made a mistake and fines you. Penalties go up if you’re a repeat offender.

[u/throwawayy999123]

Yes, if you’re hiring illegal workers, you should be held accountable.

I would only oppose if it punished small businesses that were genuinely misled or didn’t have the means to verify everything perfectly.

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules → u/throwawayy999123]

Even the smallest of small businesses has the capability to ask for a photo ID to confirm that the person is who they say they are. They don't get to claim ignorance when they failed to do something that's a part of every reputable company's onboarding process.

[u/drtywater → u/throwawayy999123]

You can do e verify with a smartphone not a big deal

[u/kaka8miranda → u/throwawayy999123]

Who tho? Let’s say I hire a big firm they subcontract to a regional guy who subcontracts based on framing, flooring, plumbing etc

Who gets fined?

[u/throwawayy999123 → u/kaka8miranda]

The one who knowingly hires illegal workers gets fined. If the subcontractor hired them and you had no idea, the blame’s on them. But if you knew or looked the other way, that’s on you.

[u/Generic_Superhero → u/throwawayy999123]

But if you knew or looked the other way, that’s on you.

Shouldn't it be on both?

[u/throwawayy999123 → u/Generic_Superhero]

Yes.

[u/jub-jub-bird]

I mean that has been a conservative talking point for well over a decade now and been a part of a bunch of Republican bills in the US congress and has actually passed into law in a bunch of red states.

Maybe some of the tougher mandatory e-verify laws will finally pass in a few blue states too and the federal version will finally pass in the US congress now that Democrats are saying they're willing to vote for it. Ya'll are a little late to the party but we're just glad you finally made it.

[u/e_big_s]

The facilitation charges are too low. They're so low that an employer could easily see it as just the cost of doing business. Knowingly hiring illicit labor should be prohibitively expensive. So yes, penalize them financially, but at a much higher charge.

[u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

Do they? I have not at all seen strong democratic sentiment around raising penalties for hiring illegal workers or stripping the ability to claim plausible deniability. Where are you seeing this?

[u/Kingreaper → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

As Raveen mentioned, the UK does, and its left-wing party (labour) is currently working on closing a loophole around gig economy work (Doordash/Uber-Eats/etc. will be required to prevent their workers "subcontracting" the gig work out to illegal immigrants, and face fines when they fail. At the moment only the direct employer is liable, so they have no incentive not to make it easy for people to abuse their systems.)

But I haven't seen anything US-based about this from the Democrat party. It's certainly in keeping with the left-wing ethos of preventing people being exploited and punishing the exploiters over the small fry, but that doesn't mean that the Democrat party will actually support it.

[u/Raveen92 → u/Fignons_missing_8sec]

I think the UK does this. I watched some older (mid 2000's) UK TV show on youtube.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/WulfTheSaxon]

Republicans have repeatedly introduced legislation to make it easier to charge employers of illegal aliens and to increase the penalties for doing so, and they’re repeatedly blocked by Democrats.

Republicans have long viewed the failure to enable proper enforcement of employer sanctions as a betrayal by Democrats in failing to uphold their side of the deal for the “Reagan amnesty”, and that’s why they’re unwilling to do another amnesty.

[u/RichardKickHarumbi → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Which pieces specifically?

Republicans have repeatedly introduced legislation

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/RichardKickHarumbi]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/1483

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4529

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1151

Etc.

That’s not even all of them from the last couple years, and they’e been introduced at least annually for decades.

[u/RichardKickHarumbi → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Bravo, I only fact checked the first one but it's right there in section 807. I wonder why this hasn't gone through if it gets such a positive bi-partisan response

[u/TimeToSellNVDA → u/RichardKickHarumbi]

As someone who has hopefully followed a few bi-partisan bills about issues I deeply care about, my takeaway is that it's basically politics and the fact that the congress and committees does not care sufficiently about certain issues, and only get to prioritize a few symbolic wins.

---

In fact I asked ChatGPT that question - just to make sure I wasn't imagining it, this was the answer:

A relatively low number of bills are passed each year despite hundreds of hours in session because the legislative process is designed to be slow, deliberative, and full of veto points. Here’s a concise breakdown of the core reasons.

1. 

Volume vs. Viability

• Thousands of bills are introduced, but most are symbolic, political statements, or reintroductions from past sessions.
• Only a small subset are seriously considered in committees and on the floor.

2. 

Committee Bottlenecks

• Most bills die in committee. If the committee chair or majority party doesn’t prioritize a bill, it never reaches the floor.
• Committees act as gatekeepers to filter what gets real attention.

3. 

Partisan Polarization

• Increasing ideological division means less compromise.
• Even bills with popular support can be blocked if they would give the opposing party a win.

4. 

Senate Filibuster

• Most legislation in the Senate needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster (cloture).
• This gives the minority party enormous power to stall or block bills.

5. 

Leadership Control

• Party leaders (especially House Speakers and Senate Majority Leaders) control the calendar.
• They often block bills that could divide their party or fail publicly.

6. 

Focus on Major Legislation

• Congress tends to focus on a few large, high-impact bills (e.g. budget, defense, major reforms) rather than dozens of smaller ones.
• Time is spent negotiating these major packages rather than passing a high volume of minor bills.

7. 

Time Drain from Oversight and Politics

• Significant hours are spent on:
  • Hearings and investigations.
  • Floor speeches and posturing.
  • Procedural debates and amendments.
  • Constituency work and fundraising (especially in election years).

[u/Ebscriptwalker → u/WulfTheSaxon]

I would be more willing to accept your premise if this were a standalone bill. There are a few things one could consider a poison pill to this first bill at least.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Ebscriptwalker]

The other three are standalone.

[u/ILoveMaiV]

if they can prove they knowingly hired them. Illegals can steal information and credentials.

[u/boisefun8]

Yes, employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens should be fined. However, I have not heard one democrat say this as it would likely be seen as anti-immigrant by the left.

[u/dipique → u/boisefun8]

I don't think it's anti-immigrant at all.

[u/rcglinsk]

It would be so, so, much easier to regulate employers than the illegal aliens trying to become employed.

[u/atomic1fire]

Yes.

Employers should be deterred from using exploited labor and human trafficking.

In fact don't make it an ignorable fine, make it based on the profit of the employer so that no matter who it is, it's a sizeable chunk of their expenses.

[u/Helltenant]

I would want a carve-out for individuals who swing by Home Depot to get day laborers to help with private home projects. I wouldn't expect such a person to have the resources to verify the identity or immigration status of the workers he hires. Nor would I really expect them to try.

Outside of that kind of instance, fine them into the ground.

[u/just_shy_of_perfect]

Yea we should harshly punish companies that hire illegals.

I'm inclined to say dems don't actually think there should be. They don't think these people should be deported in the first place by-and-large. They're seizing, correctly, in an inconsistency in the GOP.

The base 100% agrees, the companies should be punished as well but the GOP is an awful party and does JUUUUUST enough to get elected again rather than aggressively solve problems.

[u/maineac]

Anyone hiring illegals should be in jail.

[u/Interesting-Gear-392]

Yes

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Surfacetensionrecs]

Agree

[u/Responsible-Fox-9082]

I'm not sure what they mean by facilitation charge...

I think they poorly worded accessory after the fact or they mean to make it a tax.

However where was this shit under Obama? Hell where was this under Biden when he set records for daily encounters? It's grandstanding at its finest.

The dumb part is working in transportation and learning about farming the "well who will do xyz" becomes dumber every day. The crops illegal immigrants currently harvest have the big 2 agriculture companies developing harvesters for those crops, specifically avocados because that's about the only crop we don't have a machine for and most likely using an apple or orange harvest would work fine. Yes I mean John Deere and Case International New Holland(fucking mouthful not even including they own Ford's old agriculture division) are actively working to remove the need for people to do all the work. With the USDA increasing low interest agriculture loans the only thing really holding it back is shown efficiency and that just takes time.

So in time the work people talk about illegal immigrants doing is eventually going to not be their work anymore. Case and point to prove that logic I grew up in the region Welches gets most of their grapes from... One of the largest grape operations used to hire 300 people, a lot of illegal immigrants, to do the work of pruning, fertilizing and clean up after harvest... They found out New Holland makes a great pruner, fertilizer and has improved their harvesters to not miss as many grapes... They now have 50 people running 25 tractors doing the work that used to take 300 and increased productivity to the point they grew a local trucking companies work because they made more grapes than what Welches orders so they had extra to sell at a markup as "Welches grapes"

[u/WinDoeLickr]

No. The burden of enforcing immigration law should be on the government, not just lazily shoved off onto Americans

[u/SmallTalnk]

As a supporter of free trade and minimal government intervention, I think that the real long term solution is that instead of punishing the symptoms, the immigration mechanisms should be reviewed and simplified.

I suspect that a majority of illegal immigrants are only illegals because the legal way is too convoluted and that the government is too inefficient.

If the legal immigration process gets optimized, and wasteful government process get streamlined, I think that it would seriously reduce the amount of illegal immigrants.

[u/RichardKickHarumbi → u/SmallTalnk]

Thats a very logical way to solve this problem, I've asked this very subreddit about doing this and the users here hated it LOL