Liz Peek
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
usa-immigration_1
April 19, 2017

Here’s Why Trump Should Forget the Wall and Push for E-Verify

Liz Peek Articles BORDER WALL, E-VERIFY, IMMIGRATION, TRUMP

Trump has put a conservative on the Supreme Court and has started to roll back excessive regulations, but he has not yet been able to keep some promises – like immediately dumping Obamacare, for instance.  Nonetheless, polls show that “the 45th president’s electoral coalition remains intact,” as The Washington Post reported recently.

Will that still be true if he abandons the granddaddy of all promises — his repeated and oft-echoed pledge to “Build the Wall”?

During the campaign, Trump promised to erect a permanent barrier between the U.S. and Mexico and claimed that our southern neighbor would pay for it. Achieving either of those ambitions appears in doubt. Cato scholar David Bier writes in the libertarian magazine Reason about the numerous legal obstacles complicating the construction of a wall: private property issues, Native American opposition, water rights and even bureaucracy which muddles accessing federal lands.

Practical hurdles to a wall’s effectiveness loom as well: weather-related vulnerabilities, tunneling, and opacity, for example. It turns out it’s harder to prevent the bad guys coming in if you can’t see them. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, Mexican authorities have rebuffed any notion that they will pick up the tab for the wall.

The question is: did voters truly expect that we would build a 1,000-mile concrete barrier along the Rio Grande? Or was it a token, a symbol of a more muscular approach to controlling illegal immigration?

If it was the latter, Trump’s efforts so far to cut back the inflow of undocumented persons would probably win over those disappointed that the wall is a non-starter. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is beefing up border control and threatening to withhold federal monies from sanctuary cities. Significantly, the number of people crossing the border illegally in recent months has plummeted. Still, voters may demand more.

Here’s how Trump can satisfy his base: make E-Verify mandatory for all employers. This approach, which   Trump did champion during his campaign, would permanently reduce the flow of undocumented people into our country. The now-voluntary program is free, reliable and would change the calculus for those prepared to enter the country illegally; they could no longer count on making a living.

This is the central issue. A story in The Atlantic last year concluded that “these overstays make up a third to more than half of the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country.” Those folks would not have been deterred by a wall, but they would have been put off by knowing they might not get a job.

E-verify is an electronic program created by the United States Customs and Immigration Service that allows employers to check whether a job candidate is legally allowed to work. Set up by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, employee information is sent to the Social Security Administration and the Customs and Immigration Service. The data is checked against government records to determine whether the person is authorized to work in the U.S.

Though many states are moving towards mandating E-Verify for businesses employing a minimum number of workers, and especially for those receiving government contracts, it is not required across the nation. Demonstrating the wide range of approaches, Arizona has, since 2008, required all employers to use E-Verify while in 2011 Governor Jerry Brown made it illegal to use the program in California.

Though any serious conversation about clamping down on illegal immigration brings charges of bigotry or xenophobia from the liberal establishment, most Americans recognize that unrestricted entry into the U.S. is not in the best interests of working people. A Gallup poll from last month showed that 59 percent of the country worries “a great deal “or a “fair amount” of people in the country illegally: Almost half of those self-identify as Democrats while 79 percent of Republicans expressed concern.

In response to those concerns, there has been bipartisan support for E-Verify in the past. In 2014, Obama’s Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services touted the program’s success, saying, “Since it was established, E-Verify has experienced exponential growth, increased accuracy, and high customer-satisfaction ratings.” The program at the time had attracted half a million users. That figure has grown to 700,000

Based on the program’s popularity, and because the government has increasingly leaned on employers to rein in illegal immigration, Congress has more than once considered making it mandatory across the country. In January, Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley with several GOP co-sponsors again introduced a bill known as the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act. The legislation would make the system permanent — as it stands, E-verify needs to be re-authorized by Congress every few years.

Opposition to the use of E-Verify, and indeed to any crackdown on illegal immigration, comes partly from those concerned that there won’t be enough workers for U.S. agriculture or other seasonal industries like ski resorts. Tom Tancredo, the former representative from Colorado, argues in a recent op-ed that enforcing the use of E-Verify should be coupled with expanded guest worker programs, to meet those issues head on. He notes that such programs should be tailored to industries that demonstrate a shortage of workers. In other words, “foreign workers should be supplementing American workers, not replacing them.”

Numerous studies have demonstrated that a large undocumented population has been among the factors depressing wages, especially for low-income Americans. In our post-9/11 world, it also poses security risks. What we know is that many people seek to come to the U.S. for a better life – to work and earn money for their families. The best practical way to deter people from entering the country illegally is to make it harder to get a job. The best way to accomplish that is to demand that all employers use E-verify.

Then, we won’t need a wall.

 

Published on TheFiscalTimes.com.

The Threatened Gorsuch Filibuster Will Backfire on Democrats for a Long Time These Expensive Giveaways to Illegal Immigrants Will Backfire on Liberals

Related Posts

Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AM

Articles

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Articles

Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Articles

Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda

Recent Posts

  • Screenshot 2025-05-16 at 8.43.36 AMDOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment
  • Democrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliensDemocrats’ bizarre affection for illegal aliens
  • Republicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agendaRepublicans need to grow a spine and support Trump’s agenda
  • Screenshot 2019-06-26 07.54.58What Kamala Harris buzz is telling us. Read between the lines, America

Tweets by Liz

Unable to load Tweets

Follow

Liz on Facebook

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Liz Peek

2 days ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
I am alternately peeved and sympathetic with Chip Roy, Ralph Norman and the others who torpedoed Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. But after reading the fine print this morning and realizing that reforms to Medicaid don’t kick in until 2029 !!!! I am disgusted. I get that states need some time to adjust to a change in rules regarding Medicaid eligibility – maybe a year or 18 months — but do they really need four years? No, they do not. The extended timeframe is an obvious play to put political repercussions off until after the midterms. Legislators from swing districts fear losing their seats because able-bodied adults lose their free ride. They want to put off any change as long as possible.
On the other hand, those vulnerable legislators will almost certainly get canned if the 2017 tax cuts don’t get extended and Trump’s agenda crashes. We need both to get the bill passed, and to make it tougher.
The conservatives calling for bigger spending cuts are completely correct. Just ask Moody’s, which in recent days downgraded U.S. debt. Imagine, the United States of America has lost its triple-A status. (The other two major ratings agencies had already made this downgrade.) This would be a wake-up call except that most of our country is asleep, lulled into a false sense of complacency by hours spent on Tik-Tok or watching the NFL. We all need downtime, for sure, but we also need to pay attention to what’s happening with our country’s fiscal outlook. It isn’t good. Even the Fed, no friend to the Trump administration or to fiscal austerity, has announced it will cut staff and overhead. Of course, why the Fed has a headcount of 24,000 is a mystery. How can they employ so many people and still get it wrong most of the time? This is the group that never spoke out against Biden’s reckless spending; it’s quite the switch.
Simply put, the country endorsed a huge surge in government spending to compensate for the wrong-headed directives during Covid that shut down schools, businesses and churches. The government under Trump wanted to keep Americans employed and the economy ready to rebound, which it did. Biden kept the spending at max level, refusing to let a crisis go to waste. Democrats in Congress and the Fed went along, spurring the highest inflation in decades.
Now we have to go back to the trend-line pre-Covid spending; the bill on the table doesn’t do that. Republicans must do better if they want to keep the majority.
… See MoreSee Less

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 44
  • Shares: 6
  • Comments: 12

Comment on Facebook

Right on, as usual! Thanks for all your clear-headed messages.

Excellent analysis! Couldn’t agree more.

Just sick of BOTH parties. Neither are there for the Working Americans. BOTH parties responsible for the theft going on. Repubs should have read the bills that gave away money..

Nailed it

We need a balanced budget amendment! Deficit spending needs to end!

Liz Peek Well written, my friend!

Convention of States is looking better everyday.

Honestly you should be somewhere in Trumps administration Liz.. Just sayin

As much as I want a win on the BBB, I’m torn. I find it very difficult to believe that they can’t find more to cut spending

Is TERM LIMITS in this big beautiful bill? Everything else is.
If not, why not?
Past time to cut the deadwood and get “servants” of We the People seated who will do the job more responsibly..

Following.

CUT MORE SPENDING!!!

View more comments

Liz Peek

3 days ago

Liz Peek

What happened to DOGE???
… See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

DOGE isn’t meeting its goals — you can thank the political establishment

DOGE chief has been thwarted at every turn — by judges, Democrats and their media allies, even Republicans.

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 5
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 3

Comment on Facebook

The only "plan" for this entire crooked System is to keep running deficits and keep printing those fiat currencies. The D Brand of crooks can win primaries just by using a few dumb generic words like " affordability" or "fairness" no matter how your real wages and purchasing power spiral downwards.

The Uniparty doesn't want their gravy train turned over.

Democrats are Americas virus.

Liz Peek

5 days ago

Liz Peek

My Morning Rant:
John Hawley, Senator from Missouri, is out with a blistering attack on Republicans in Congress who want to “cut” Medicaid spending. He declares those in favor of Medicaid reforms contained in the House bill “a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing” who are not on board with working-class Americans and who want to “build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor”. www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/opinion/josh-hawley-dont-cut-medicaid.html
What rot. Working Americans of all classes are sick and tired of an ever-growing amount of their hard-earned taxes going to fund those who are not working. This is not a Wall Street issue- it’s a fairness issue. Though some groups say most Medicaid recipients are working, that is not true. A study by AEI showed that “In December 2022, 44 percent of non-disabled working age Medicaid recipients without children worked at least 80 hours” per month, compared to 72% not receiving Medicaid. Focusing on “prime working ages of 25 to 54, the share working at least 80 hours was 51 percent among Medicaid recipients and 84 percent among non-Medicaid recipients.” So why would 49% not be working?
Here’s the problem: the Medicaid changes that GOP legislators want to make don’t target “the working poor”, they target able-bodied men and women who are not working, and who historically would not have qualified for Medicaid benefits. Only when Obama rescinded the work requirements for Medicaid did the program blow up entirely and become the drain on the fiscal purse that we see today. As he states in his op-ed, Hawley’s problem is this: “Today [Medicaid] serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.” Hawley, who was elected last fall by a 14-point margin, fears he’ll lose ground with those million recipients if he embraces fiscal common sense. Or maybe he fears losing the support of healthcare professionals, who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/josh-hawley/summary?cid=N00041620
Our country has seen a long-term decline in able-bodied men working. The labor participation rate for that group is 89.1% which sounds high until you realize that it was 97.1% in 1960. That’s a huge slide, with troubling implications for U.S. productivity. If you believe, as I do, that work is healthy, it is also bad news for the individuals who are, at least in some cases, gaming the system.
Instead of railing about sincere efforts to reform an out-of-control entitlement, why doesn’t Hawley turn his attentions to improving job opportunities and training in his state? Or attracting more employers? And, where are his ideas for cutting federal spending, which is too high and which is hurting our nation? Some $50 billion in Medicaid outlays funds fraud or constitutes “improper payments.” What is Hawley doing to confront that?
Maybe I would be more impressed with his arguments but for his having published his screed in the New York Times- is that the most efficient way to speak to working-class Americans? Bernie Sanders probably thinks so, and so does Josh Hawley.
… See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

Sen. Josh Hawley – Campaign Finance Summary

Fundraising profile for Sen. Josh Hawley – Missouri

Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 4
  • Shares: 1
  • Comments: 2

Comment on Facebook

We have to end the idea that working for McDonalds at the counter is the end game career wise. It’s what you do in high school and college to pay your bills. If you want to be in that industry, you need to think manager then owner as that is the career.

Uniparty in action. They are there to Take money, not help The People.

LOAD MORE

Tags

AGENDA AIR FORCE BIG GOVERNMENT BORDER WALL CHINA CLINTON CONGRESS CYBERWAR DEMOCRATS DRAIN THE SWAMP E-VERIFY ECONOMY ELON MUSK FILLIBUSTER FREEDOM CAUCUS FREEDOM WATCH GOP GORSUCH GRADUATION HACKING HEALTH CARE HILLARY IMMIGRATION INFRASTRUCTURE KUSHNER MEDIA MIDDLE EAST MOODY'S NUNES NYC OIL RAND PAUL STOCK MARKET SUPREME COURT SUSAN RICE TAXES TAX REFORM TECHNOLOGY TED CRUZ TERROR TRUMP TURKEY WALL STREET WEATHER WELLESLEY
[themify_map address="233 78th Street New York, NY 10032" width=100% height=250px zoom=14]
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Radio
  • About
  • Contact
©2017 LizPeek.org. All Rights Reserved.
Site by Steeplechase Strategies