Libertarian business idea to address populist immigration concerns....

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Start a consumer advocacy group that performs an independent third party verification for the place of birth for all employees.

Employers have an opportunity for a voluntary market solution.

Promote companies in this advocacy group as companies that have stated a preference to utilize citizen labor.

If we do it we only hire libertarians... no need to hire and help out the statist cause :)

[Vessol]

I'd prefer this over a state-run system that does this.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Maybe I should go post something about Rand in the Rand Paul forums. They would be all over it but drop a good market idea or market based solution in people's lap enabling them to achieve their ends without force, profit at the same time, and.....

http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/985/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_758509.jpg
Did you hear that?

[RM918]

It's been 1 hour on a Friday night! Do you think we're all pasty losers hunched over before our keyboards at all hours of the day?!

...actually, don't answer that.

Anyway, while a good idea to those that care about that sort of thing, my take is that people aren't mad at illegal immigrants because they're 'taking our jobs' as is the stereotype, but because they broke the law to get in here while there's people on ten-year-long waiting lists who aren't breaking the law who will never be given an amnesty.

[constituent]

It's been 1 hour on a Friday night! Do you think we're all pasty losers hunched over before our keyboards at all hours of the day?!

...actually, don't answer that.

Anyway, while a good idea to those that care about that sort of thing, my take is that people aren't mad at illegal immigrants because they're 'taking our jobs' as is the stereotype, but because they broke the law to get in here while there's people on ten-year-long waiting lists who aren't breaking the law who will never be given an amnesty.

Is breaking unconstitutional laws a problem for you?

[torchbearer]

From American Jurisprudence

(footnote numbers excluded: 29-47)

16 Am Jur 2d CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 256

D. EFFECT OF TOTALLY OR PARTIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES

1. TOTAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

§ 256. Generally.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. No repeal of such an enactment is necessary.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statue creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid.

[constituent]

rock on. :)