« The Case Against Abdul Rahman to Be Dropped | Main | Quote Of The Day - Pot Call Kettle Black Edition »

Criminals threaten to strike: why is this considered bad?

With the mass protests against the proposed immigration reform, we see once again President Bush's trademark political tactic: find the difference between what your opponents SAY they want and what they REALLY want, then offer them exactly what they ask for. Then the fun begins: the delight of watching them promptly toss aside everything they had been demanding and revealing their true agenda.

For years, we've been hearing from the "immigration advocates" over and over again that they don't want an amnesty program, that there has to be a crackdown on those who hire and exploit illegal aliens, and that the existing laws are unenforceable and unworkable. So Bush put forth a plan that said no to amnesty, eased enforcement, and put penalties on those who hire illegal aliens. And as a sop to the right, a plan to build a wall along a small portion of our southern border.

And will you just look at how the "immigration advoates" react? Huge protests. Massive rallies denouncing the idea of strengthening and enforcing existing laws. And lo and behold, a demand for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Several "immigration advocates" all cited the same generic sob story: the poor illegal alien who has lived and worked in the United States since 1986, simply trying to support themselves and their families, never getting into trouble, and now they find themselves targeted by a draconian law.

But why 1986? Why did several of the "immigration advocates" all come up with that magic year?

Because in 1985 the United States did grant amnesty to illegal aliens. And despite the insistence of some that there would never be another amnesty, and the pledge of "immigration advocates" that they would never ask for another amnesty, here it is again -- just as I and so many others feared.

The fundamental question behind all this is stunning in its simplicity: does the United States have the right to maintain and secure its own borders, to regulate and control who comes into the United States, when, how, and why?

I think the answer is yes, we do have that right. And the "immigration advocates" agree with me -- in theory. They just want to carve out exceptions, special cases, exclusions, and enough other loopholes to render the whole concept meaningless. They are willing to live with the appearance of actual border security, as long as it doesn't actually involve anything beyond symbolic gestures and vague platitudes.

The "immigration advocates" are planning a one-day "work stoppage," a day when no illegal aliens will show up for work. I hope they extend it indefinitely, because I suspect their claims of just how dependent we are in illegal alien labor are vastly overstated. And I'd really, really like to find out.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Criminals threaten to strike: why is this considered bad?:

» Demonrats linked with Protest This You Criminals!

» Conservative Outpost linked with Rally for "illegal alien rights"

» Searchlight Crusade linked with The Illegal Immigration Debate

» Man in the Middle linked with Why not Illegal Immigration? (updated)

Comments (51)

After we ended slavery, we ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

After we ended slavery, we adjusted and the cotton eventually still got picked.

JT,They tried that... (Below threshold)
Taz:

JT,

They tried that one day strike in Phoenix last year and none of the illegals failed to show up for work. When people really want to work, they tend to show up. It's a great opportunity for the illegals to 'show they are not illegal by coming to work' on the day that illegals are not supposed to work.

By the way, where were the INS yesterday in LA for the arrest of nearly 500,000 illegals?!

This whole political move is a sad joke. Bush has nothing to lose or gain on the immigration issue, only now he can flush out the true feelings of the immigration advocates as you say; but there is a danger that some conservatives feel the same way. There could be some unintended consequences politically here, especially in the Boarder States.

Should bring every bus in 1... (Below threshold)
Dan S:

Should bring every bus in 1000 miles to those big demonstrations, load them up and drive them straight to El Paso to unload at the crossing.

Let them come back if they go through proper channels. I'm willing to forgive their current illegal status if they return to go and start over. I'm not willing to just forget it and leave them in situ.

I am sure that a massive gu... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I am sure that a massive guest-worker program in this country would further enhance the incentive for Vincente Fox to continue to sit on his fat posterior and feel no major obligation to aggressively improve economic conditions within his own country. Well, I guess we have so-called bedroom communities outside of large cities. Maybe Mexico will eventually be labeled the first "bedroom country" for the United States.

I live four miles away from... (Below threshold)
tyree:

I live four miles away from the home I grew up in. The local high school was 94% white in 1978. All the restaurants had waiters and cooks. The service stations had attendants and the hospitals had nurses. In 1979 the Mexican economy went into free fall and almost collasped. The illegal-immigrants flooded north. The Governments of Mexico and the USA let them. The illegals made Los Angeles the second largest Mexican city in the world. My children grew up in a world so completely different from the one I was raised in I sometimes feel like I am living in a different country. I have gone days on end without hearing english spoken in the streets. The local high school is now 80% hispanic. When my son was child he was one of only 6 english speakers in his kindergarden class of 40. A huge bond measure was passed to ease school overcrowding. I will be paying those bonds for thirty years so that Mexico can get rid of their surplus poor population. Each child of theirs enrolled in school eventually costs a minimum of $120,000 to educate. If they are ever going to pay that much in taxes, then they are not holding down a job nobody else wants. I know they work hard. They still cost me a fortune. The insurance rates are sky high because of illegal immigration. Three members of my family were rear ended in auto accidents by hispanics that fled the scene or provided forged documents and fled. You can imagine what has happened to our car insurance rates. A friend's wife had a stroke and it took his doctor over and hour to find an emergency room who could take her, they were all filled with illegal immigrants who use the emergency rooms as their personal doctors. With our insurance, we had to pay, on average, $3000 out of pocket to cover the delivery each of our children. A bargain given the level of medical care they were given. The mexicans for the most part pay nothing. They have been taught to simply put down incorrect addresses on the forms and they will never get a bill.

Immigration and illegal immigration do help some people in America, but there is a huge cost that is passed on to others, who don't always get the benifits.

The sad part is, we don't need any new laws, all we need to do is enforce the ones still on the books. I have written letter to all my elected officials asking which laws I get to break. I am still waiting for one of them to give me the list.

Because in 1985 the Unit... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Because in 1985 the United States did grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

There have been other amnesty programs since 1985. In fact, in 1987-8, there were two programs put in place. One covered people who could prove they had been in the U.S. since 1982. The other covered "special agricultural workers." The 1986 date most likely comes from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which strengthened enforcement of existing laws.

I'm happy to see you opened... (Below threshold)

I'm happy to see you opened with an enlightening paragraph. It tells the truth and says it all.

My message to the left: You... (Below threshold)
Tim:

My message to the left: You can no longer make the complaint..."there are no jobs out there except McDonalds and Walmart". Illegals are not only taking higher paying jobs, but believe it or not, some have even joined unions. You also can not scream "discrimination". I've witnessed companies that have a high percentage of illegals working, and those companies have a tendancy to shy away from American workers simply because they wouldn't fit in with the hispanic workers. Example: A sheetrock construction firm with a tradesmen pay level and an all illegal hispanic crew. A young American fresh out of high school, with no hope of college, trys to find employment in construction. But is turned down because he doesn't speak spanish and would disrupt the "flow of work" done by the hispanic crew. If this were a crew of white males, and it were a young black guy, you would be screaming discrimination. If it were a female you would be screaming discrimination. The simple fact is, illegals ARE taking American jobs. And higher paying American jobs. You may think they are lower paying jobs that people don't want, but that simply isn't true. It may not seem like a lot of money to some, but a union sheet metal worker making $25 an hour can be a lot of money to a high school grad.

The U.N., The Atlantic Alli... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The U.N., The Atlantic Alliance, The Federal Reserve System and Federal Income Tax Laws, NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA: ALL of these unfortunate FACTS OF LIFE were accomplished "behind the scenes" by extra-governmental bodies before being gift-wrapped and rubber-stamped right under our noses; folks: it's happening again (keep your eyes on the Crawford Ranch late this month; google the last "Crawford Summit" for background). These La Raza demonstrations are just one half of a classic political pincers movement ("pressure from below"). The grand object is this: "Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010" http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/view/?document_id=395&area_id=1

Hmmm.Personally I ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Personally I hope they continue these massive demonstrations. The one positive thing coming out of it is that a lot of people are looking at this and wondering wtf is up with all those Mexican flags and chants of "Mexico! Mexico!".

Mickey Kaus is wondering why the flying of Mexican flags is offensive while the flying of Italian flags on Columbus Day isn't. It's because the Italian-Americans are flying those flags while Mexicans are flying the Mexican flag on American soil.

This crap has got to end right now.

I was born in Los Angeles a... (Below threshold)

I was born in Los Angeles and lived my whole life in So. Cal. Tyree only gives a glimpse of what has happened here.

My eldest is a paramedic covering an area dominated with illegals. Her company is lucky to collect 30% of their monthly billings. Ambulances are taxis to illegals (and many 'poor') and ER's are 'free clinics'.

To make it unattractive for illegals to be here:

No public assistance for illegals. No education, no food stamps, no medical care outside of bonafide emergency (a person with the sniffles in the ER should be shown the door or have the INS called). Banks should be forbidden to offer bank accounts without proof of citizenship or make mortgage loans to illegals.

ARREST AND PROSECUTE EMPLOYERS. Start busting contractors, landscapers...Make public examples of these scofflaws.

This is going to take lawsuits.

The pictures of the LA "demonstration" with Mexican Flags and calls by La Raza to return "the stolen Southwest" to Mexico was disgusting.

Pass these pictures around and it may HELP pass the legislation the illegals are demanding be defeated.

As the wife of a recent nat... (Below threshold)
goddessoftheclassroom:

As the wife of a recent naturalized citizen, I have ZERO sympathy for illegals.

Darleen, you're absolutely right. Better yet, have INS liaisons in hospitals to begin deportation proceedings as the emergency is treated.

One more step: adjust the law so that to be born an American citizen, the child's parents must already be Americans. Jesus was born in a stable, but that doesn't make Him a ox.

Good story. This will proba... (Below threshold)
Rob Filomena:

Good story. This will probably be the touchstone issue for the run up to the 2006 elections and is worth exploring. With congress up for election (or a good part of it) the incumbents need to sure up support at home and immigration is an issue that is on everybody's mind.

First, I wholeheartedly agree that we are not as dependant on low-wage illegal imigrant labor as everyone says. At least we don't have to be. I'm no economist, but when I think of this topic, I'm reminded of Adam Smith's assertions that an economy is an evolutionary science with natural laws of selecion. It occurs to me that the over-employment of illegal subverts these economic natural laws by keeping companies that pay ultra-low wages to these illegals competetiive in a business climate that might have snuffed them out if they were forced to pay more competetive wages. Laws that prohibit the hiring of off the books illegal aliens would help re-establish the balance and force many sectors of the domestic economy to pay wages that are acceptable to an average American worker and erase the illusion that illegals are taking jobs that Americans think they are to good to do.

Second, I am all for legal immigration, and even for a program, that puts existing illegals (the ones who are contributing to our society and culture, not just feeding off it) on the road to citizenship, but I think we have once again reached the "full line" with respect to immigration. Immigration advocates, especially the immigrants themselves, seem to think we should let everybody in to bask in the warm glow of our prosperity. This is not possible for a number of reasons, and I think it's time to call the current 15 odd year long wave of unbridled immigration that has addded some 40 million people to our ranks, not including the undocumented illegals, over for a while.

It's not a question of race, color or creed, it's simply a practical issue, but one that resonates at a fundamental level for many Americans. America cannot allow another PC guilt trip to put our culture, our economy, and in some ways with regard to border security, our safety in jeopardy.

I remember my first busines... (Below threshold)
leelu:

I remember my first business trip to St. Louis twenty-some years ago. I was eating at the counter at the coffee shop, near the kitchen door. I suddenly struck me that I could understand the staff!

High-school kids (mostly white), working their afternoon/evening jobs. Learning things like punctuality, responsibility, and the value of honest work.

What a concept.

Tim wrote (March 26,... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Tim wrote (March 26, 2006 11:37 AM):

I've witnessed companies that have a high percentage of illegals working, and those companies have a tendancy to shy away from American workers simply because they wouldn't fit in with the hispanic workers.

It's not just that. I used to work at a company that employed Hispanic workers (mostly female) for almost 100% of our low skill, low pay productions jobs. Management had found over the years that the Hispanics would regularly show up for work and do a good job... unlike many of the Americans the company had hired and fired over the years.

At any rate, I don't see why the States don't take matters into their own hands. Why do we have to wait for the feds to take action? Is there some reason that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California can't start building walls and fences along their borders with Mexico? What prevents the States from using their state police forces to find, arrest and detain for later deportation illegal aliens? I'm not suggesting roadblocks, house-to-house searches, or "Ihre Papiere, bitte", but I don't see why a state trooper who stops a Hispanic driver can't do a quick computer check to see if the person is in the country legally.

Oops. I guess that would mean that the States would have to stop issuing driver's licenses to illegals...

A friend of mine is an OB/G... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

A friend of mine is an OB/GYN M.D. in a large hospital in Long Beach. She tells me that 70 percent of the births there are to Mexican women, illegal aliens, many of them emergency services patients. And guess who pays for them?

Well, I was going to make s... (Below threshold)

Well, I was going to make some long-winded comment on this thread, until I read Darleen's post, and realized it summed up all of my opinions already.

The word "illegal" sums it up entirely... I would not go so far as to say they should be arrested on sight (though I am close), but their presence illegally in another nation should be heavily discouraged. That means, no health care, no driver's licenses, no jobs, no nothing. At all. Ever.

Sorry, but the US is a soveriegn nation, and that allows it to define and defend its borders. Such is life... best deal with it.

There will only be progress... (Below threshold)

There will only be progress towards a solution when both aspects can be dealt with simultaneously: enforcement and guest workers.

Until and unless both sides are willing to deal with it that way, and acknowledge the reality rather than spouting simplistic slogans, little will get done, and what does get done will be ineffectual.


Unfortunately, it seems almost impossible to have a rational conversation about the issue. There are too many frenetic fanatics on both sides for reason to be heard.


If you don't understand what I am talking about, or are ready to declare me on the other side from your own, then you are part of the problem.

So, what Jay Tea is saying ... (Below threshold)
TLB:

So, what Jay Tea is saying is that this was all a brilliant political move on Bush's and Rove's part?

Bush allowed millions of foreign citizens to enter the U.S. illegally.

Now, we've got those foreign citizens marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled.

If we don't give them what they want, things will only get worse.

If we give them what they want, things will only get worse.

If we invite millions of "guest" workers into this country, won't they march too? And, won't the marches just be larger?

What happens in the unlikely event that we ask our "guests" to go home?

Won't they march too? Won't they make demands and present tremendous shows of force?

Because, that's what these marches are: shows of force.

President Bush has allowed millions of foreign citizens into the U.S., and they're now agitating and showing their physical and political power.

And, it's good what President Bush did?

Blaming Bush alone is a che... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Blaming Bush alone is a cheap shot. Both political parties and Congress are as much to blame.
First blaming employers is easy and false.
As an employer I cannot legally deny employement to someone who cannot prove legal status. I can be sued for discrimination. Also I cannot ask the SSA to validate an SS number.
When Congress solves that matter then one can blame employers for hiring illegals.
Another thing Congress can do is force the welfare parasites to take the jobs illegals are doing. The illegal workers are doing the jobs to many Americans are to lazy to do. Anyone collecting unemployment or welfare ought to given the simple choice of taking the jobs available or doing without government benefits. They aren't doing the taxpayers any favors with their money.
Build the wall.
Make it tougher to remit money to Mexico via Western Union or other money transfer services.

The big US banks are terrified that if the remittances to Mexico are severely reduced, Mexico will default on it's foreign debt as they rely on the remittances for debt cash flow. They take a hit and it's a major shit storm with the Federal Reserve Bank. Plus it would entail a major political reform in Mexico and a possible risk of a huge crises there with millions fleeing overnight.

The reforms I mentioned can be done for the most part rather easily and quickly. But we must be mindful of possible severe consequences.

Until we recognize we have ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

Until we recognize we have created a black market for labor in this country, and address the problem accordingly, all of this is just pissing into the wind.

Before these protests, I wa... (Below threshold)
SJBill:

Before these protests, I was pretty ambivalent on the issue -- meaning I wasn't directly "threatëned" by illegal Mexicans. I see them all the time at local Home Depots, etc., but they are looking for work and trying to grind out a living. So, with the protests, the "lights in the kitchen came on" and we see millions of Mexicans (presuming most have other than legal status) marching in our cities and streets -- all of a sudden I'm not quite so comfy. It's pretty scary.

Maybe we can guess what Vincente Fox's reaction would be if 500,000 illegal Gringos were marching and demanding instant citizen status in Mexico City, Juarez or Tijuana. He'd be scared crapless as well.

I see a credible threat to our nation's security, and we should do what we can to send these folks back home if they cannot abide the law of our land. That's *not* being a xenophobe.

DocJim said:"At... (Below threshold)
JD:

DocJim said:

"At any rate, I don't see why the States don't take matters into their own hands."

We've tried. California passed Proposition 187 - banning all state-funded services to illegal aliens (education, public assistance, Medi-Cal insurance) but it was thought unconstitutional by a judge in - you guessed it - Los Angeles. This judge has not rendered a final ruling, you understand, so it cannot be appealed. And even if it were, the Attorney General has changed from Dan Lungren, a Republican, to Bill Lockyer, a LIBERAL Democrat (in CA, that's saying something), who is less than inclined to see the will of the people carried out in such a manner as this.

Arizona just passed Proposition 200, doing many of the same things that 187 tried to do, and the Governor is doing backflips in order to prevent its being carried out.

I fear that the only barrier that will work right now is one that could be constructed inside the current border of the United States, consigning the zone in between Mexico and the wall as a variant of Victor Davis Hanson's Mexifornia.

Docjim,Sometime ag... (Below threshold)
Taz:

Docjim,

Sometime ago, when this subject last arose, I posted about the "budgetary cost shifting" the illegal alien question creates.
The states do not have enough funds for policing/enforcing the current laws; also, it is the Federal Gov'ts responsibility to defend the borders of the USA.
This circular arguement creates the current situation of total government irresponsibility.

The real question is 'who is responsible for monitoring border crossing?'

O yea...sorry to digress a ... (Below threshold)

O yea...sorry to digress a bit but watched an epidsode of "Crossing Jordan" and the attorneys actually trying to prevent the illegals from "furthering their cause " were villianized!..pfftt!

A first step would be askin... (Below threshold)
Tim:

A first step would be asking why we are giving a 3 year tourist visa to a 20 yr old Guatemalan. That's one LONG vacation. I've even emailed the Governor's office here in North Carolina to inform him that illegals were working on the restoration of the Governor's mansion. The only response I got was when I opened the paper a few weeks later to find out illegals can now get in state tuition at UNC.

JD and Taz,Yeah, I... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

JD and Taz,

Yeah, I know... It irritates me that the politicians can always find a way to hide from doing their duty. Guess it's easier to pass the buck than have the unbiased media run all sorts of stories about what a jerk you are.

Sigh...

Up here in Canada we have t... (Below threshold)
Duke:

Up here in Canada we have ton of illegals. The difference is that most of them don't work. Many are involved in crime ... mostly drugs, money launering, human sex trade activities ... and most of them are also waiting for an opportunity to get into your country .. the USA.

Here's what we do with them. We let them stay here indefinately, pay them about 2400. CDN (2000 US)
We give them full medicare and meds for free. Eventually they get papers if they want them.

This is a socialist, politically correct, multicultural (officially) nation with not a lick of common sense.

When I look at the world today, I think they only real change that is going to do anything effective is the freaking asteroid that will eventually hit and end this misery for us.

That's 2400. per month ... ... (Below threshold)
Duke:

That's 2400. per month ... and almost none of them are Mexican. Rather they are from the Middle East and South East Asia.

Trade ya!

cubanbobWith all d... (Below threshold)

cubanbob

With all do respect,

bull

When restaurants, contractors, landscapers, FAMILIES, hire FOR CASH -- busboys, waiters, pizza deliverers, framers, nannies, yard cleaners -- off the books there is no excuse about "but I didn't know s/he was an illegal!"

I'm sorry, but I had to present all sorts of documentation including my SS number to my employer.

No docs, no job. And if an employer cannot comeup with copies on file of employees docs... Fine or jail. No exceptions.

NO MORE EXCUSES. Mexico has a militarized southern border, Mexico criminalizes illegal, Mexico give preference in jobs and benefits to its citizens.... WHY does the US have to act any differently?

TLBYes, all 11 mil... (Below threshold)

TLB

Yes, all 11 million illegals all crossed the border at the end of January 2001.

Ah the mental pitfalls of BDS!

There will only be progr... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

There will only be progress towards a solution when both aspects can be dealt with simultaneously: enforcement and guest workers.

And why is this Adjoran? Why does the U.S. need a guestworker program? Please before you go frothing at the mouth at those who may disagree with, could you lay out some reasoning?

If you don't understand what I am talking about, or are ready to declare me on the other side from your own, then you are part of the problem.

Please enlighten me because I'd hardly call myself a frenetic fanatic, but would definitely be against the idea you're proposing. What's wrong with wanting the laws already on the books being enforced? Or is that part of the problem as you see it?

And ditto what Darleen said... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

And ditto what Darleen said to Cubanbob and TBD!!

And Cubanbob, would you care to give an example to back up this statement:

As an employer I cannot legally deny employement to someone who cannot prove legal status. I can be sued for discrimination. Also I cannot ask the SSA to validate an SS number.

That pretty much runs counter to every job I have ever applied for and company I've worked for. Especially the being sued for discrimination business!! Seriously, I would love an example.

[email protected] cubanbob</p... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ cubanbob

As an employer I cannot legally deny employement to someone who cannot prove legal status. I can be sued for discrimination. Also I cannot ask the SSA to validate an SS number.

BULLSHIT.

Google search for: "verify ssa ssn"

SSA SSN Verification website

That took me literally 3.5 seconds.

It is federal law that you must provide verifiable documentation showing that you, the worker, has the legal right to work in the United States. These documents must be provided to you, the employer, because you, the employer, must provide these documents on request to prove you're not employing illegal aliens.

And yes you fucking well can deny employment to someone who doesn't have the proper identification or documentation. You cannot demand they provide a specific type of documentation, but you can demand that they fulfill the requires of the Department of Homeland Security's Employment Eligibility Verification form. And yes you fucking well can verify the goddamn SSN number. And if you don't care to use the SSA's website to verify SSNs then there are a dozen private companies that would do so for a fee.

DHS Employment Eligibility Verification (pdf)

Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any individual (other than an alien not authorized to work in the U.S.) in hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee because of that individual's national origin or citizenship status. It is illegal to discriminate against work eligible individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because of a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination.

Bullshit.

"And despite the insistence... (Below threshold)
Omni:

"And despite the insistence of some that there would never be another amnesty, and the pledge of "immigration advocates" that they would never ask for another amnesty, here it is again -- just as I and so many others feared."

Surprise surprise... NOT. Beware of anyone, or any group, that claims they'll never ask for thus and such ever again as a ploy to get something now, because they're virtually always lying, and, worse, people have short memories and won't recall that claim when the inevitable next request comes along.

Once again, Bush has shown that he's the MAN.

Omni

Last October I worked on a ... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Last October I worked on a jobsite at Duke University. When a rumor of a homeland security raid got out, the cell phones started ringing, and I watched 230+ illegals walk off the job. At THAT point the contractor knew without a doubt they were illegal. But yet he told them to return the following Monday. And these guys weren't day laborers working for cheap. They were highly paid skilled tradesmen taking American jobs. It's totally the employer !!!

ed,Thanks for post... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

ed,

Thanks for posting the DHS link. I have been out of the US for 3.5 years now, but I did recall the requirement for (what used to be called) the "I-9 Form". Yes, you can't demand a specific document vs any one of the kinds of docs allowed to meet the I-9 requirement, but you CAN demand some kind of proof vs none at all.

And from a common-sense POV, not checking docs that someone provides if you believe the docs are fraudulent - on the basis of a perceived discrimination lawsuit - just doesn't scan.

Personally I think Vincente Fox is the biggest hypocrite on the face of the planet, on the immigration issue. I don't see him allowing say, Guatemalans or Hondurans to freely emigrate to Mexico to take Mexican jobs. Yet he insists that the USA just leave the back door wide-assed open for fleeing Mexicans.

Unreal.

Meanwhile, if I were al-Queda, I'd be landing suicide cells in Mexico left and right, especially where their appearance would allow them to be mistaken at first glance for Mexicans.

Unfettered illegal immigration is an issue that touches BOTH domestic security AND the economy. I can only hope and pray the voters remember it come election time later this year. I know I will.

All:I'd very stron... (Below threshold)
TLB:

All:

I'd very strongly suggest abandoning partisanship in this matter. It doesn't make you look good.

Especially considering that the Georgia illegal aliens march was organized by a former Mexican Consul General. This transcends partisanship, no?

CubanBob:

Millions of illegal aliens have come into the U.S. under the Bush administration. No, they aren't responsible for most of them. However, they've completely failed to stem the tide. And, Bush has even made it worse than it would have been otherwise by outright supporting illegal immigration through calling the MMP "vigilantes" and extolling the virtues of illegal labor.

He's gone further: the FDIC is working with the Mexican consulate to give home loans to illegal aliens. That started under Bush. The Bush administration also called off minor immigration sweeps.

So, unless you're a reflexive Bush supporter - and there are a lot of them - you have to admit that he's a very major part of the problem.

Ed and Darleen I call bulls... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Ed and Darleen I call bullshit on both your bullshit calls.
Someone gives you a SS number, you can't get instant verification on the fly if the number is legit or not. You will get a notice later after you have hired and trained ( at your expense)if the number is suspect.
Documentation: you can't demand proof of citizenship as a pre-condition of employment. You can take action after the fact ( employment), but then again you already gone to the expense of employing someone. You have to take the documentation given to you at the time of the application as good. If you don't and don't hire for that reason, better have a good lawyer and insurance package in place just in case. So unless your actually running a business and have had to deal with employment discrimination matters don't mouth off on what you don't know.
As for the point about hiring those workers off the books, yes your right. But that has always been illegal for an employer to do even if it's a American citizen getting the work. It's called tax and labor laws evasion. But then again why is that it's mostly illegals who are willing to do the nasty, shitty jobs instead of welfare parasites who would rather mooch off the taxpayers. Somehow they manage to survive in this country. One would think that an ambitious welfare recipient would game the system by collecting benefits and take the off the books cash jobs the illegals are now doing. But that takes ambition a quality not usually found among the welfare class.

My point is that as an employer I'm not a cop and I don't want to held actionable for things I have no right or ability to do up front. If the government wants me to do job of deputy give me access to the tools to do the job and immunize me for legal consequences as long as I act within the law and in good faith.

I am not against the US for controlling it's borders. I support the wall idea. And making harder to send money back to those countries. That more than any one single thing will slow down the illegal migrant flow. They come here to make money to send home. If they can't a lot fewer will come.
But lets not delude ourselves that there won't be some negative consequences. Like the big banks taking huge hits and crying to the Fed's for a sweetheart loan bailout. Or a lot higher interest rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages to cover the losses. Or all the above most likely.

Perhaps we should let the ones here stay and Mexico giving us Baja in return, then clamp down.
Until Mexico gets serious about internal reform this will be a long term problem. We should soberly analyze the situation in all it's aspects and complications and work at a complete solution.

TLB, I'm not a pimp for Bus... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

TLB, I'm not a pimp for Bush. When he is wrong I have no problem calling him on it. But where the Hell is Congress, you the know the legislative branch? And I don't see any one from either party putting the squeeze on the Federal Reserve or the banks and money exchange and transfer houses.
Fox is looking to the US as an escape valve for Mexico's unwillingness to address the corruption and bad governance as well as leftist policies that causes it's economy not to grow fast enough for it's citizens to get by without emigrating.
But that is the curse of all Latin American countries.
Tim when it comes to Duke I would not put it past those commies to insist the contractor hire illegals in a solidarity movement with the oppressed. So why didn't you call the labor dept. or the ICE? Was the contractor paying them less ( the skilled guys) less than going rate for legal employees? If they are not paying lower wages then perhaps there is a labor shortage in the area.

Cubanbob I did call I.C.E. ... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Cubanbob I did call I.C.E. in October. It's now almost April and nothing has been done. They are backlogged by the shear volume they have to deal with. Furthermore I called and emailed every representative I have from State to federal. You're missing the point when you say "there must be a labor shortage in the area." Here's how it works: A sub contractor on a large project is usually from out of town/state so they hire local tradesmen. These projects usually last about a year or so. One or two illegals apply with fake SS cards and get hired. The next project/sub contractor comes along and those 2 get a few of their friends hired on. By the time a 3rd or 4th project comes along, they can hire on as an entire crew. A sub contractor will hire an entire crew of 20 over 20 individuals anyday. The sub contractor doesn't care if they're illegal. All the sub contractor cares about is getting the job done on schedule. They usually do hire a handful of American skilled tradesmen "just in case there's a raid." So they pay the illegals just as much as the American skilled tradesmen. Once the project is complete, the illegals hire on with the next sub contractor. I've literally seen job applications that ask your name, SS number, then ask..."what other SS numbers have you used in the past?" ... I was asked by one sub contractor to work on another project out of state, but the project was in a sensitive area and I would have to pass a criminal background check. I had no problem passing it, but they asked me because the illegals obviously couldn't pass it. So out of principle, I said "no thanks". I was laid off 2 days later. My whole point is that American skilled tradesmen have been slowly wedged out by illegals hiring on as a crew. The illegal crew can communicate better with the other illegal crews on the jobsite, so therefore they are more attractive to the sub contractor in terms of getting the job done. If you think these illegal crews are working for cheap, you are dead wrong. They are being paid the same as American skilled tradesmen. And I'll say it once again ... Some sub contractors are unionized. The illegals are actually IN THE UNION making union wages!!!

[email protected] cubanbob</... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ cubanbob

Sorry cubanbob but I'm going to give you a serious spanking right now. I don't think you necessarily deserve it. But you are going to get it.

1.

Ed and Darleen I call bullshit on both your bullshit calls.
Someone gives you a SS number, you can't get instant verification on the fly if the number is legit or not.

You very obviously did NOT actually visit the webpage I linked to at the SSA (Social Security Administration) at

SSA

Otherwise you'd have noticed this little blurb:

Verify up to 10 names and SSNs (per screen) online and receive immediate results. This option is ideal to verify new hires.

2.

Documentation: you can't demand proof of citizenship as a pre-condition of employment.

Completely wrong, as I outlined in my comment. You cannot demand documentation of CITIZENSHIP AT ALL. However you CAN legally demand proof of eligibility to work! As it is required by federal law.

As I outlined and even included a link to the required Employment Eligibility Verification document itself which states this.

Frankly you really should have taken the 2 minutes to actually visit the links I provided.

3.

You have to take the documentation given to you at the time of the application as good.

Correct! But there's no law under the sun that REQUIRES you to hire people on the spot is there? I'm 41 years old and I've had a lot of jobs in my lifetime. There haven't been that many where I was hired within minutes of handing in an employment application.

You are legally allowed to take the time to verifiy the applicant's eligibility to work.

4.

So unless your actually running a business and have had to deal with employment discrimination matters don't mouth off on what you don't know.

I have owned my own business. I have had to hire people. I have had to fire people.

You cannot discriminate against people for not being citizens, as non-citizen LEGAL aliens WITH valid Employment Eligibility Verification documentation ARE allowed to work.

However federal law forbids you from hiring people who are NOT eligible to work.

5.

But then again why is that it's mostly illegals who are willing to do the nasty, shitty jobs instead of welfare parasites who would rather mooch off the taxpayers.

You mean like at Wal-Mart and other stores? Illegals aren't picking fruit anymore. And what exactly does this little sidestep into bashing welfare have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

You know you don't have a leg to stand on. I know you don't have a leg to stand on. Trying to change the subject isn't going to get you anywhere because I won't let you.

6.

My point is that as an employer I'm not a cop and I don't want to held actionable for things I have no right or ability to do up front.

Tough shit. As a taxpayer I don't want to have to cover YOUR profit margin with my taxes. I don't want to pay huge healthcare costs because of illegals bankrupting hospitals. I don't care to pay enormous property tax bills to pay for the schooling of the illegal alien kids of your workers. On average that's about $11k per year per kid. How many illegals do you employ? How many kids do they have here in the USA?

What is the ratio of costs between what you and they contribute to the tax base vs. what gets paid out to cover their expenses?

And federal law requires you to be proactive in not hiring illegal aliens. And I suggest you be proactive right the hell now because pretty soon it'll be a *felony* to employ illegal aliens if I get my way.

3-5 years cubanbob. In prison.

Still don't want to do that verification thing?

7.

I am not against the US for controlling it's borders. I support the wall idea. And making harder to send money back to those countries.

As long as it doesn't require you to do anything.

8.

Perhaps we should let the ones here stay and Mexico giving us Baja in return, then clamp down.

That's amnesty and that's not going to happen. All amnesty does is make more calls for amnesty. All that ends up happening is more people enter the country illegally hoping for yet another amnesty.

And if you think for a goddamn moment that Mexico will give us Baja, you're smoking crack.

9.

We should soberly analyze the situation in all it's aspects and complications and work at a complete solution.

As long as it doesn't require you to comply with federal law, doesn't put you to any trouble or exertion and as long as it won't impact your bottom line.

That's not going to work either. And I'll point out, yet again, that you've diverged from the point of this discussion.

I'm going to paint one more... (Below threshold)
Tim:

I'm going to paint one more picture for cubanbob. This is exactly why employers who hire illegals should not only be held responsible, but should be jailed if they do. Last year I worked a construction shutdown at G.E.in North Carolina. One illegal on the job had walked across the Arizona border. There were no criminal background checks, no questions asked. The guy never spoke, but just shook his head yes or no. This G.E. facility manufactured fuel rods for nuclear reactors. If the guy had of been an arab terrorist, he would have had access to all the enriched uranium he wanted.

Ed put the crack pipe down.... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Ed put the crack pipe down.
Yes you can run the number through the site. It can come back clean. Months later you can have a problem
with the government. The government doesn't guarantee anything. The employer is still liable. True if you do things by the numbers, like I do, realistically you don't have problem if you act in good faith. But that ain't bullet proof. And I don't like being held accountable for things I have no control over.
Ask the IRS to do your tax return. Then ask them if they will give you a 100% guarantee of accuracy. Don't hold your breath or bet the farm on that. The bastards always have an out to come after you.
True you don't have to hire on the spot, but depending on the position there may not be hordes of applicants. An example, 2 applicants, a white guy with long gaps in his employment history or a latin with what appears to be ok documentation but something tells you they may not be kosher. Who do hire? Labor lawyers make plenty of money with the discrimination racket and it's damn near impossible to beat a discrimination suit in court.

I spend plenty of money every year complying with the Feds, from ICE, the IRS dept. of Commerce etc.
But in the end of the day most of regs are useless bullshit. But you have to comply. The regs the government ought to put in place to keep illegals from coming here and staying here, simple common sense stuff that they don't do. Would it be to much for the Feds to deputize labor inspectors, cops and building inspectors in so far as having the ability to call for immigration checks at job or work sites? That ain't rocket science. Or to withhold federal funds from states who issue drivers licences and other id to illegals, or cities with sanctuary ordinances. It's just easier to blame employers.

Employers who willfully break the law are criminals and ought to be punished. I just don't see why as an employer I'm supposed to be held to a higher standard than unions or state,local and federal government agencies.

As for the welfare crack, I rather see an able bodied welfare recipient hanging sheetrock rather than living of my taxes.

As a taxpayer unless your paying taxes in 7 figures rest assured you never subsidized me in either income or property taxes.

I guess "cubanbob"(assumin... (Below threshold)
headpunch:

I guess "cubanbob"(assuming he is an ethnic cuban) never learned from the priests or the nuns that everything human is imperfect. He won't use the SSA online verification because it is has no 100% bulletproof guarantee of accuracy. What the hell does? Re the comparison with the IRS: verifying a number is a rather simple task compared to interpretation of the incredibly complex US tax code.

Jay Tea: <... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea: The fundamental question behind all this is stunning in its simplicity: does the United States have the right to maintain and secure its own borders, to regulate and control who comes into the United States, when, how, and why?

That's not the fundamental question behind all this.

The fundamental question behind all this is whether the United States government has the right to impose restrictions on whom United States citizens can invite into their own homes, sell land to, rent to, provide services to, or employ. Because you realize that's what your little policy proposals involve, right? Bigger government and more restrictions on the freedom of those American citizens who do not agree with exclusionist immigration policy?

To illustrate, consider this little plan for less immigration:

Linoge: I would not go so far as to say they should be arrested on sight (though I am close), but their presence illegally in another nation should be heavily discouraged. That means, no health care, no driver's licenses, no jobs, no nothing. At all. Ever.

Let's set aside for the moment the question of how you could discern somebody's immigration status "on sight" for the purposes of the arrest, and ask a different question. In the United States, health care and jobs are not (usually) provided by bureaus of the government. They are (mostly) provided by private doctors (nurses, midwives, etc.) and by private employers. If I happen to be a doctor, and I want to treat a paying customer without checking her or his immigration status, this policy proposal would require that the government use physical violence in order to stop me from providing health care whichever paying customers I want to. If I happen to have a job I need to get done and willingly hire a good worker to get it done, this policy proposal would require that the government use physical violence against me in order to stop me from hiring whomever I think is best qualified. Where in the world do you think that big government bureaucrats in Washington get the knowledge, the virtue, or the right to go around giving me orders about how I can run my own business, or provide healthcare to whoever needs it?

I'm confused. Ed's point 2,... (Below threshold)
Jim B.:

I'm confused. Ed's point 2, at 11:11 am: "Verify up to 10 names and SSNs (per screen) online and receive immediate results. This option is ideal to verify new hires." That's on the Overview page; but on the Handbook page, I find: "It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors or in the preparation of tax returns."

As far as I can see, this only makes sense if it means that you must hire a person before you can verify his SSN.

Also, in bold, in a box, "If you rely only on the verification information Social Security provides to justify adverse action against a worker, you may violate State or Federal law and be subject to legal consequences."

So if the verification fails, you need more investigation before you can fire. Is that it?

Sorry, ed's point 1, at 11:... (Below threshold)
Jim B.:

Sorry, ed's point 1, at 11:11 am, not point 2

Hmmm.So i... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

So if the verification fails, you need more investigation before you can fire. Is that it?

lol.

Isn't that amusing. Yet another example of the government's inane approach to illegal aliens. So yes this does invalidate my point about the SSA's service since it cannot be used to screen potential hires.

But that does not preclude a new service by the DHS that would allow the screening of existing employees and new hires. Sure it wouldn't be acceptable to hold employers accountable if there's no means of effectively screen new hires. But with such a system in place there cannot be any justification for not screening such new hires.

Is that better?

[email protected] cubanbob</p... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ cubanbob

Yes you can run the number through the site. It can come back clean.

Jim B. kinda put paid to that point. But at some point employers must be held accountable. If that requires the creation of a new verification system then that's what it'll take.

Or perhaps what's needed is the use of a private service. There are plenty that offer such services that don't involve the SSA.

Ask the IRS to do your tax return.

No thanks. Yes if you do ask the IRS to do the returns you can still be held liable for any mistakes they make on your returns.

And I don't like being held accountable for things I have no control over.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that a system be created, if necessary, that would provide a one-stop place to verify eligibility for employment. With that in place then I don't see any reason to not hold employers accountable.

Labor lawyers make plenty of money with the discrimination racket and it's damn near impossible to beat a discrimination suit in court.

That's another situation that needs reforming, but that's out of the scope of this discussion.

Really what you're demanding is a system that would allow you to screen new applicants for eligibility and I support that. If the system comes back and shows that the new hire is eligible then that should innoculate you from harm as the onus should be on the system, not you.

But the corresponding penalties for violating the system then should be much higher.

It's just easier to blame employers.

I'm not doing that. The entire system needs to be overhauled and employers are one part of it.

I just don't see why as an employer I'm supposed to be held to a higher standard than unions or state,local and federal government agencies.

I'm not suggesting that. But as the primary aim of illegal aliens is to gain employment, employers are the crux of the problem.

As for the welfare crack, I rather see an able bodied welfare recipient hanging sheetrock rather than living of my taxes.

Then we are in agreement.

As a taxpayer unless your paying taxes in 7 figures rest assured you never subsidized me in either income or property taxes.

My taxes are just under $100k. And no I'm not happy about it. But I'm not talking about subsidising you personally, but rather your business. There are far more indicidental costs associated with illegal aliens that aren't covered by businesses. It's these costs that are borne by the taxpayers and ratepayers who have to fork over the money to keep the system afloat.

These costs aren't borne by many businesses who instead profit from cheap labor and shift the costs of that labor onto the public dime.

Ed your almost there, but n... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Ed your almost there, but not quite there.
All my staff is to the best of my ability to confirm 100% legal. So your not subsidizing my business either. And I provide all my staff 100% employer paid HMO health care ( employee only), disability insurance, life insurance, broadly defined accidental death and dismemberment travel coverage among other benefits. So your not subsidizing my staff either.
And since I am an immigrant ( legal)and a naturalized citizen and therefore potentially subject to denaturalization and deportation I make it a point to comply with the law to my maximum ability and often beyond what the government requires. Like Caesar's wife, not just beyond reproach, but beyond the appearance of reproach.

Reform wont be serious until the funds transfer is tightened up. Most illegals come here to earn money to feed their families back home. Dry up the funds flow and that more than any single thing will slow the illegal immigrant migration. Reform won't truly be effective until all the various parts and aspects are dealt with coherently and comprehensively. One thing there is the law of unintended consequences. If for the sake of argument illegal immigration is for practical purposes stopped, their will be a number negative consequences. I'm not saying this to avoid reform, the cost of the status quo is worse than the cost of a total stopping of illegal immigration, but to point out there will be a cost. Rarely is anything an absolute win-win with no downside.

Headpunch, read before you bark. I did not say I did try to verify, only that the game is rigged against an honest employer.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy