Kevin Drum provides a pretty good summary of what I think about this subject:
Mandatory E-Verify works. This is why business conservatives hate it. Building a wall, by contrast, is little more than emotional symbolism, which is why social conservatives love it and business conservatives don’t care one way or the other.
So what did Donald Trump do? Naturally he built a wall and ignored E-Verify. Business conservatives were happy since they knew the wall was little more than a con with no lasting impact. What did the Florida legislature—which was 70% Republican at last count—do when they were given a choice? They voted down mandatory E-Verify. Business conservatives were satisfied yet again and social conservatives were just sort of confused. They’d been suckered one more time.
So the answer to who really controls the Republican Party is: business conservatives. Nearly everyone who’s really thought about it agrees that the most effective single thing we could do to rein in illegal immigration is to pass mandatory E-Verify at the national level and fund it with fines levied on employers. That would piss off business interests, which is probably the best indication that it’s actually effective. It’s also why it’s consistently dead in the water.
Now, this would reduce ordinary illegal immigration, but it wouldn’t necessarily have any effect on asylum filings, which represent a whole different problem. That requires a massive expansion of the judicial system so that asylum cases can be resolved quickly and fairly.
I’m not completely aligned with this part:
So the answer to who really controls the Republican Party is: business conservatives.
since I don’t think that the Republican Party is completely homogeneous any more than the Democratic Party is. I think the party is run by those who contribute to or work on campaigns. Many of the former are business conservatives while many of the latter are social conservatives.
In addition I think that Kevin is underestimating the impact “mandatory E-Verify”, as he puts it, would have on asylum-seekers. Something between 50% and 85% of asylum requests are rejected for one reason or other. When these “asylum-seekers” are interviewed, they’re frequently very frank. They’re looking for jobs and they know that filing a request for asylum is the way to remain in the country and work until their request is decided. If they can’t get jobs here, they will be greatly demotivated to come at all.
One thing Kevin does not mention: a wall is only as strong as the most corrupt border patrol officer. It will be breached wherever that officer is and the coyotes will spread the word very quickly.
I tagged onto the same part as you about business conservatives controlling the Republican party, but I otherwise agree with Drum here.
I think the better way to put it is that business conservatives have a veto inside that party on this particular issue. That is much different from suggesting they “control” the party. This veto is, IMO, a symptom of having weak parties and is something that both parties suffer from.
The social conservatives provide the votes and workers for the turn out to vote efforts. They show up at the rallies. The business part pays for stuff and helps write legislation. They used to control things I think but at best they have maybe a veto right now.
Agree with your point about E Verify having a large effect. If it is true that a lot of these are economic migrants if they can work they have much less reason to come here.
Steve
Too many Americans benefit from open borders, not only for cheap labor, especially cheap child prostitutes, but also for all sorts of contraband. The Democrats also think that all the legal and illegal immigrants are their future supporters.
The main victims, besides the illegal immigrants who are marching to a new Hell, are the white and black underclasses and working classes, who are in direct competition for work with the immigrants. But neither political party is interested in them, and neither does anything for them.
The reality is that the borders are open, and they will remain open, because that is what our Masters want.
Drum’s analysis appears to me to be just an anti Republican screed as he seems to overlook the Democrat Governments of California and Arizona. I do not know how well e verify works but the Social Assistants costs of illegal immigrants suggests that many come for the benefits, not the work. He seems also to jump to conclusions about the boarder walls being ineffective as the US has yet put one up. They did work well for East Germany. IMO, the system is so broken that e verify or other administrative solutions are just band aides. Dave has some ideas for fixing it but I really don’t.
the first time e-verify was introduced, various progressive outlets (ACLU, SEICU, SPLC) were opposed on the grounds the government couldn’t be trusted to do it right. Suspect if there is an effort to bring it up gain, the usual suspects will be screeching and wailing.
Moving on, the East German wall sort worked because of guards with shoot to kill orders, kill zones, barbed wire, and mines, imagine how that will go over here.
Bob has a good point about the underclass/working poor being hardest hit and neglected by the powers that be. Because they neither donate nor vote, well …
I’m not absolutely opposed to San E Verify concept, other than to note that it’s government not doing their job and sloughing off the job on business. Which is to say, consumers.
But I think his view is far too simplistic. Fraudulent identification is rampant, and forcing businesses to be the police borders on silly. Not to mention it’s a lawyers dream.
As was pointed out in comments, assuming a lack of efficacy of a wall is just speculation. Anyone wonder why it was so opposed by Dems. (A sudden wave of fiscal discipline over come them? Snicker).
And also in comments. Wait till the ACLU gets involved.
But I think the point is moot. We have just been informed by Myorkis that the border is secure. So we got that…..
which is why I favor biometric ID.
So is assuming efficacy of a wall. As I say above human nature limits the effectiveness of a wall.
Does it follow that everyone will need a biometric ID to ensure legal permission to work?
I doubt the efficacy of a wall since i have climbed and bypassed a wall intended to keep people out many times. No that hard (when you are young). A wall will only work if you have lots of guards to patrol which means you are getting pretty expensive. As Dave always notes the guards need to be perfectly honest. Also, it would not affect asylum seekers. If for the first time in history you had perfectly honest guards then there is always the air or sea approach and the northern border. Building and maintaining a northern wall would be pretty costly. Pretty lonely for patrols/guards.
Steve
“As Dave always notes the guards need to be perfectly honest.”
Good point. After all, we’ve had complete honesty about other methods of border control, as expressed by the illustrious Mayorkas.
At least he’s gone now. Up next: Liar #2.
“I’m not absolutely opposed to San E Verify concept, other than to note that it’s government not doing their job and sloughing off the job on business. Which is to say, consumers.”
While it’s certainly true that this would be a regulatory burden for businesses, it’s not a huge one since it’s just checking a database. And what’s the alternative?
Not only is it not a huge regulatory burden, since it would be automated it’s a lot less corruptible.