A second Republican [Massie] breaks with party on House GOP border security bill

[Brian4Liberty]

A second Republican breaks with party on House GOP border security bill
by Reese Gorman - May 08, 2023

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) will be voting against House Republicans’ sweeping border security bill, citing concerns with the electronic verification of work authorization provisions in the bill.

The immigration bill, HR 2, would reimplement former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program, end catch-and-release policies at the border, restart construction of the border wall, and mandate electronic verification of work authorization through a system called E-Verify.

A Massie spokesperson confirmed to the Washington Examiner that the Kentucky Republican would not be voting for the bill because of those E-Verify provisions. In a tweet on Sunday, Massie compared the E-Verify provisions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

“Republicans are about to make a huge mistake,” Massie tweeted. “Biden forced millions of Americans to take VACCINES by threatening their JOBS, and turning EMPLOYERS into enforcers. Imagine giving Biden the ultimate on/off switch for EMPLOYMENT called E-verify. Might as well call it V-verify.”

A source close to Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) said the congressman also has concerns about the E-Verify provisions and is working with leadership to ensure those concerns are noted.
...
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) told Axios the bill would be brought up for a vote on Thursday.

Scalise has called the bill the “strongest border security package that Congress has ever taken” up.

Spokespeople for Scalise and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) did not respond to a request for comment.
...
More: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/massie-vote-no-on-gop-border-bill

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1655219404009873409

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Massie is correct. Nothing in the bill would stop illegal migrants from working for cash, or as is popular now, working as slaves.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1655874681788850178

 

[Occam's Banana]

Good for Massie! He's (once again) demonstrating why he's the best Congressman we have (House or Senate).
(I don't even live in Kentucky - but as far as I'm concerned, he's my House Rep.)

The problem with public immigration policy is that it's a choice between poison pills - any "open border" policy is going to be abused by the Democrats and the left in all the ways (and for all the purposes) they have abused it for since at least 1965 (artificially engineered demographic change, welfare-state expansionism, etc.), but any "closed border" policy that does not implement some kind of totalistic "papers, please!" Gestapoism is going to be toothless and ineffective.

That's why I oppose and do not support any public immigration policies. Immigration should strictly be a matter of private (property) policy and nothing else. Unfortunately, however, that's just not going to be in the cards any time soon (if it ever is). Thus, such public immigration policies as we do end up with (whether "open" or "closed" or whatever) should be as local as feasible (and ideally, the feds shouldn't have any say in the matter at all).

 

[jmdrake]

Good for Massie! He's (once again) demonstrating why he's the best Congressman we have (House or Senate).
(I don't even live in Kentucky - but as far as I'm concerned, he's my House Rep.)

The problem with public immigration policy is that it's a choice between poison pills - any "open border" policy is going to be abused by the Democrats and the left in all the ways (and for all the purposes) they have abused it for since at least 1965 (artificially engineered demographic change, welfare-state expansionism, etc.), but any "closed border" policy that does not implement some kind of totalistic "papers, please!" Gestapoism is going to be toothless and ineffective.

That's why I oppose and do not support any public immigration policies. Immigration should strictly be a matter of private (property) policy and nothing else. Unfortunately, however, that's just not going to be in the cards any time soon (if it ever is). Thus, such public immigration policies as we do end up with (whether "open" or "closed" or whatever) should be as local as feasible (and ideally, the feds shouldn't have any say in the matter at all).

This time the abuse isn't coming from the left and the Democrats. It's coming from so called "conservative" Republicans. When I was in law school I went to a Federalist Society talk by Bay Buchannan, Patrick Buchannan's sister. She railed about the dangers of illegal immigration (among other things) and talked about the "need" for E-Verify. After the talk I brought up her statements about E-Verify told her I had supported Ron Paul and that he said he was against a national ID card. She told me she loved Ron Paul and was totally against a national ID card. But she never explained how E-Verify would work without one. Regardless, there's your problem. Over focus on a problem IS the problem. Meaning, if you are willing to "cut corner" on liberty to fix some "problem" there will always be a problem that fits your ideology. But sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing.

How can doing something be worse than doing nothing? When I was a kid, the survival manuals I used to read (yes those were my comic books) told you to use the "constrict, cut and suck" method to treat snakebite. Now those methods are pretty much totally shunned. The advice now is to keep the person calm and get them to a hospital as quickly as possible. What to do in a SHTF scenario where hospitals are out of the question? The Native Americans used the plantain herb.

Point is, the panic of "I must do something" can easily lead to doing the wrong "something."

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] any "open border" policy is going to be abused by the Democrats and the left in all the ways (and for all the purposes) they have abused it for since at least 1965 (artificially engineered demographic change, welfare-state expansionism, etc.), [...]

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” -- Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA), re: 1965 Immigration Act
​

Poor Teddy. He went 0 for 4 on that one. (Or maybe ... do you suppose it's possible he was just lying through his teeth? )

[...] but any "closed border" policy that does not implement some kind of totalistic "papers, please!" Gestapoism is going to be toothless and ineffective.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Massie is correct. Nothing in the bill would stop illegal migrants from working for cash [...]

Where there's a jackboot, there's a way ...

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1655811814804844544

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1655219404009873409

That's a lie! It won't happen, because ... ummmm ... well, it just won't ...

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1655810326946824193

 

[Occam's Banana]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

This time the abuse isn't coming from the left and the Democrats. It's coming from so called "conservative" Republicans. [...]

Agreed.

But the "conservative" Republican abuse is a reaction to the "progressive" Democrat abuse (and so the merry-go-round spins on and on).

Fortunately, though, this particular bill doesn't really stand a chance of surviving a certain veto by Biden (assuming it even passes the Senate) - and the Republicans just as certainly know that. But election season is upon us, so chains need to be yanked, red meat needs to be tossed to the base, and the usual empty posturing and theatrics need to be exhibited (all as liberty continues to dwindle and become more and more disvalued by both sides).

Otherwise, we'd be apt to end up with the worst of both abuses.

 

[PAF]

Thomas Massie Says National E-Verify Would Be Bad for American Workers. He's Right.
May 09, 2023

But the bill wouldn't just target undocumented immigrants, as Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) has pointed out. He tweeted that a section requiring employers to use E-Verify systems to verify workers' citizenship status would be like giving the government "the ultimate on/off switch" for employment.

"I will NOT vote to require EVERY American to get [President Joe] Biden's permission if they want to work," Massie continued. "Giving the federal government more power over YOU is a mistake."

Massie is right to point out the potential for government abuse. Mandatory national E-Verify would mean more government meddling in the affairs of private businesses—and more state control in general. Though it's "being sold to you as a security measure," former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) argued, "E-Verify is laying the foundation for national biometric databases, [central bank digital currencies], and a social credit system, giving the state almost absolute power over your life."
.
.
Supporters of national E-Verify argue that the system can be fixed. But making E-Verify work flawlessly and ensuring total compliance from employers would require far more government funding, far more punitive enforcement, and potentially invasive biometric proof of identity—all of which would come back to bite American citizens.

Still, the idea has sticking power on the right. Former United Nations ambassador and current GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley supports mandatory E-Verify. So do Florida Republicans, who last week passed a bill requiring private businesses with 25 or more employees to use E-Verify.

If passed by the House, the Secure the Border Act would likely die in the Democratic-held Senate (and Biden has said he would veto it anyway). But the fact remains that the E-Verify proposal would be problematic in ways similar to domestic surveillance measures and vaccine mandates, and it has broad GOP support regardless. Massie is right that Congress shouldn't give the federal government yet another opportunity to constrain civil liberties and privacy rights.

 

[unknown]

Wonder who owns/runs E verify.

That's something which would clearly lead to their ultimate goal, which is a centralized individual digital record of everyone which can be controlled deactivated etc.

 

[jmdrake]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.



Agreed.

But the "conservative" Republican abuse is a reaction to the "progressive" Democrat abuse (and so the merry-go-round spins on and on).

Fortunately, though, this particular bill doesn't really stand a chance of surviving a certain veto by Biden - and the Republicans just as certainly know that. But election season is upon us, so chains need to be yanked, red meat needs to be tossed to the base, and the usual empty posturing and theatrics need to be exhibited (all as liberty continues to dwindle and become more and more disvalued by both sides).

Otherwise, we'd be apt to end up with the worst of both abuses.

Is the real reason for the border crises progressive abuse, or militaristic intervention in Honduras, Venezuela, Haiti....etc plus the CIA drug trafficking / DEA drug war screwing up Mexico?

 

[PAF]

Is the real reason for the border crises progressive abuse, or militaristic intervention in Honduras, Venezuela, Haiti....etc plus the CIA drug trafficking / DEA drug war screwing up Mexico?

+ Rep


There was an article that I posted a couple of years ago concerning this very topic, something something "Circular" (I can't recall what the title was).

In other words, "one hand feeds the other", while we pay more and our rights keep on dwindling.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Is the real reason for the border crises progressive abuse, or militaristic intervention in Honduras, Venezuela, Haiti....etc plus the CIA drug trafficking / DEA drug war screwing up Mexico?

Yes.

And I mean that seriously, not wise-alecky. There shouldn't really be an "or" in the question. Everything you mentioned after "or" can be directly attributed to the rise and follow-on consequences of Wilsonian "internationalist" progressivism. (And of course, Republicans tend to be on board with those things, too, because as we've seen time after time after time, conservatism is really just "progressivism driving the speed limit".)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1655965764799586305

 

[Occam's Banana]

Of course, being a "conservative" outlet, The Post Millennial pretends that Massie (and Duarte ?) "vote[d] against border security" instead of against e-Verify. In fact, when it comes to e-Verify, they could only be bothered to make a single, brief, and innocuous-sounding comment about it at the very end of the article - as if it is of little significance and no concern.

House votes YES on Secure Border Act in 219-213 vote, includes e-Verify requirement, with 2 Republicans joining Democrats to vote against border security
The bill passed 219-213.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-house-votes-yes-on-measure-to-secure-us-mexico-border
Hannah Nightingale (11 May 2023)

[...]

//

 

[PAF]

Wonder who owns/runs E verify.

That's something which would clearly lead to their ultimate goal, which is a centralized individual digital record of everyone which can be controlled deactivated etc.

[SNIP]

E-Verify is a United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website established in 1996.

On 31 August 2007, the program began to include facial image data to help enhance searches. The 14 million images kept by federal immigration authorities are being used in the program, and the government is in talks with some states to cross reference with state drivers license records.

In the U.S. government fiscal year 2017, E-Verify was used in 34,853,666 cases, returning a TNC (Tentative Non-Confirmation) in or 383,390 cases. An estimated 13.6% of these TNCs were issued in error, resulting in an estimated 10,000 work-eligible individuals being denied employment. Due to the sheer number of cases, even a small error rate has a significant impact. Prospective employees who are erroneously flagged can find themselves navigating a Kafkaesque system involving multiple government agencies.

Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union opposes E-Verify, citing concerns that it could expand into an onerous national ID system: "Employers are not police officers, except in this one context where we suddenly want them to be law enforcement agents who are going to police their workforce."

The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes E-Verify and stated in July 2011 that it "could have a significant, negative impact on U.S. farm production, not only threatening the livelihoods of many farmers and ranchers in labor-intensive agriculture but jeopardizing as well the health of the grural economy, where agriculture plays an important role."
​

I can't even imagine the number of new government employees that will be added. John Galt, do you know the answer?

 

[unknown]

That's good shit.

Need more.

 

[donnay]

Massie is spot on! 2012, Mitt Romney ran telling everyone how wonderful E-Verify is. That should speak volumes to people, if Mitt Romney was pushing it.

 

[PAF]

Massie is spot on! 2012, Mitt Romney ran telling everyone how wonderful E-Verify is. That should speak volumes to people, if Mitt Romney was pushing it.

I remember Flip-Flop-Mitt saying that too! It was horrible!

But, most Americans have short memories, and while some might remember Mitt saying that, most die-hards probably forgot that Trump said it too, with thunderous applause. You can watch it here:

 

[PAF]

The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes E-Verify and stated in July 2011 that it "could have a significant, negative impact on U.S. farm production, not only threatening the livelihoods of many farmers and ranchers in labor-intensive agriculture but jeopardizing as well the health of the grural economy, where agriculture plays an important role."

Us folk, who think there are far simpler and cheaper solutions, while protecting our Bill of Rights, are considered Globalists [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION]

Upon deep thought over the years and months, I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact the closed-border folks who are in fact Globalists; lining the pockets of multi-national and public/private corporations, shredding our very Bill of Rights, and the reduction/elimination of Private Property and bi-lateral contracts.

That border was a $1 Billion per day economy.

Now I am thinking to myself, "let them eat bugs", and instead of an awesome burger w/cheese, Bill Gates would love to roll out his "synthetic beef".

Well, at least they took it out for now [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]. But the way things work is typically gradually, like the frog in water.