E-VERIFY VS MASS DEPORTATION: SHIFTING THE BLAME TO THE REAL PROBLEM -CORPORATE GREED

E-VERIFY VS MASS DEPORTATION

SHIFTING THE BLAME TO THE REAL PROBLEM

CORPORATE GREED

Ah, America. The land of opportunity, the home of the brave, and apparently, the world's most competitive game of "Guess Who?" when it comes to verifying employment eligibility. It's no secret that immigration has been a hot-button issue for years, and former President Donald Trump certainly made it one of his soapbox specials. One of his most controversial policies—mass deportation—was a major talking point during his reelection campaign. But amidst all the drama, one question has quietly loitered in the background like an uninvited guest at a party: Why isn't E-Verify being mandated for all industries that employ more than 250,000 immigrants? 

For those of you scratching your heads and wondering if "E-Verify" is the name of some new app designed to ruin your social life, let me clarify. E-Verify is a nifty little system already in place in the U.S., designed to confirm whether someone is legally eligible to work. It's free, it's quick, and frankly, it's the superhero Gotham deserves but keeps ignoring. So why isn't it being used universally? Let's dive into this bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle with a touch of wit and a dash of common sense.

What Exactly is E-Verify?

E-Verify is like the bouncer at America’s employment nightclub. It checks IDs (or, in this case, work authorization documents) to make sure everyone on the payroll is allowed to be there. Employers input information from an employee's I-9 form into the system, and voilà! E-Verify cross-references it with government records. If everything checks out, the employee gets the green light. If not, well, someone’s got some explaining to do.

The best part? It’s free. Yes, you heard that right—FREE. In a world where you can’t even get guac at Chipotle without paying extra, E-Verify costs employers absolutely nothing. It’s also almost instantaneous, which means no waiting around for weeks like you're trying to get approved for a mortgage. So why hasn’t this system been rolled out across all industries? Good question.

The Elephant in the Room: Employers

Let’s be real for a moment. Employers are not exactly tripping over themselves to adopt E-Verify. Why? Because some of them are playing a game of “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes to their workforce. Hiring undocumented immigrants often means cheaper labor and fewer complaints about working conditions. For these employers, using E-Verify would be like voluntarily installing a security camera in your house when you’ve been sneaking cookies from the jar at midnight.

Here’s the kicker: If we criminalized employers who fail to use E-Verify—complete with hefty fines and penalties—it might actually make a dent in illegal immigration. Think about it: If there were no jobs available for undocumented workers, many wouldn’t risk the perilous journey to come here in the first place. No jobs, no incentive. It’s Economics 101 with a side of common sense.

But Wait—Won’t That Hurt Immigrants?

Let’s address the inevitable counterargument: “People just want to work!” And you know what? That’s true. Most immigrants—documented or otherwise—aren’t coming to the U.S. to start underground fight clubs or steal your Netflix password. They’re coming here to work hard and build better lives for themselves and their families. But here’s the thing: If we really want to address illegal immigration, we have to tackle it at its root cause—opportunity.

By mandating E-Verify across industries, we’re not targeting immigrants; we’re targeting employers who exploit them. It’s like putting out a “No Vacancy” sign at a hotel. If there’s no room at the inn (or in this case, no job opportunities), fewer people will show up looking for one. It’s not about punishing hardworking individuals; it’s about holding employers accountable.

The Politics of Procrastination

Of course, implementing E-Verify on a national scale isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. There’s red tape, political gridlock, and plenty of finger-pointing to go around. Some argue that mandating E-Verify would be too burdensome for small businesses or that it could lead to discrimination during the hiring process. Others claim that the system isn’t foolproof and could result in false negatives for eligible workers.

But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. No system is perfect—just ask anyone who’s ever tried to use self-checkout at Walmart. The key is to improve and refine E-Verify, not abandon it altogether. If we can send people to space and create AI that writes mediocre poetry (looking at you, ChatGPT), surely we can figure out how to make E-Verify work for everyone.

 The Bigger Picture

At the end of the day, immigration is a complex issue with no easy solutions. But one thing is clear: We can’t keep kicking this can down the road forever. Mandating E-Verify for all industries that employ more than 250,000 immigrants would be a step in the right direction—a way to ensure that employers are playing by the rules and that job opportunities are reserved for those who are legally eligible to work.

It’s time for America to stop treating immigration like a political football and start addressing it with practical solutions. E-Verify might not be a silver bullet, but it’s certainly better than doing nothing while we argue about walls and deportations.

So here’s my challenge to lawmakers: Stop procrastinating and start mandating. Because if we can’t even agree on something as straightforward as using a free system to verify employment eligibility, how are we ever going to tackle the bigger issues? It’s time to put E-Verify in the spotlight where it belongs—before we all end up on an episode of “America’s Got Problems.”

Which US industries employ the most immigrant workers? https://usafacts.org/articles/which-industries-employ-the-most-immigrant-workers/#:~:text=native%2Dborn%20workers.-,Which%20industries%20employ%20the%20most%20immigrant%20workers?,%2Dborn%20workers%20(0.36%25).

 E-Verify https://www.e-verify.gov/ 

Understanding E-Verify | Study in the States https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/students/work/understanding-e-verify 

What is E-Verify and How Does It Work? https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/E-Verify via @EyeOnTech_TT. 

THE ART OF SAY THE RIGHT THING: PETE HEGSETH'S MOMENT OF TRUTH (OR NOT)

THE ART OF SAY THE RIGHT THING

PETE HEGSETH'S MOMENT OF TRUTH (OR NOT)

Ah, politics. That delightful realm where words are weapons, truth is optional, and consistency is a quaint relic of a bygone era. Enter Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, who recently delivered a statement so perfectly crafted for the moment that you could almost hear the applause from political strategists everywhere. “Women are great in the military and in combat,” he declared, with the confidence of someone who had never, ever said anything remotely contradictory before. Spoiler alert: there’s a video.

Yes, there exists a clip of Hegseth saying, with all the subtlety of a bullhorn at a silent retreat, that women “suck” in the military and don’t contribute to the overall lethality of our forces. But hey, why let a little thing like recorded evidence stand in the way of a good soundbite? After all, in politics, what you say today matters far more than what you said yesterday—or even five minutes ago.  

This is the age of political gymnastics, where flipping, twisting, and contorting one’s stance is not only accepted but celebrated as a form of performance art. And let’s be honest: nobody does it better than the MAGA crowd. They’ve turned lying into a full-blown art form, complete with sequins and jazz hands.  

Take Republican Supreme Court nominees, for instance. Remember when they all solemnly swore during their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was “settled law”? They said it with such conviction that you could almost believe they meant it—until they got their robes and promptly yeeted Roe into the legal abyss. It’s like promising to babysit your neighbor’s goldfish and then frying it up for dinner.  

And then there’s the maestro himself: Donald J. Trump. The man lies so frequently and with such gusto that fact-checkers have developed carpal tunnel syndrome trying to keep up. You practically need a timestamp to figure out where he stands on any given issue. One moment he’s calling for the prosecution of the January 6th Committee; the next, he’s shrugging it off with an “Oh, well, maybe not.” He says he wants a border deal but then torpedoes it in Congress faster than you can say “Build the Wall.”  

Heather Cox Richardson—a historian who has become something of a decoder ring for modern America—recently dissected Trump’s *Meet the Press* interview on her Substack *Letters from an American*. It’s worth a read if you enjoy peeling back layers of obfuscation to find… more obfuscation. Trump managed to give answers that were simultaneously on both sides of the truth, like some kind of Schrödinger's politician. If you’re not a news junkie, you might miss the lies entirely. And if you’re a MAGA supporter? Well, chances are you’ll just ignore them or chalk them up to “Trump being Trump.”  

This brings us to the million-dollar question: what happens to democracy when its foundation is built on lies? Can a government survive when its leaders treat truth like an optional upgrade? It’s a sobering thought, but let’s not get too serious—we’re here for wit, after all.  

So let’s circle back to Pete Hegseth and his magical transformation from “women suck in combat” to “women are great in combat.” Maybe he had an epiphany. Maybe he watched 'Mulan' and was inspired. Or maybe—just maybe—he said what he needed to say to get confirmed. Call me cynical, but I’m betting on door number three. 

In the end, politics is like improv comedy: you say whatever you need to keep the audience engaged, even if it doesn’t make sense in retrospect. And if you’re really good at it, people will laugh—or cheer—even as they forget what you said five minutes ago.  

So here’s to Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, and all the other political performers out there. May your words be as flexible as your principles and your careers as long as your list of contradictions. And may we, the audience, never stop watching the show—even if we occasionally cringe at the plot twists.

Letters from an American Heather Cox Richardson  December 9, 2024  https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/december-9-2024?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 Key Republican senator reports ‘good discussions’ with Pete Hegseth  https://wapo.st/4g4mFG9