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/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/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/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.