Is it really true that one of the laws being proposed in the US Congress would make it a crime to "give aid and comfort" to an illegal alien? As in give someone who collapsed after crossing the desert a glass of water? I'm sure they wouldn't mean that, but if the law actually says those words, could it be interpreted that, say...a church that gave people a place to flop without first checking their nationality and legal status could be in trouble.
I've been looking for links to confirm/deny this, and I can't find anything specific about the proposed legislation.
Anyone know the specifics?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I wouldn't be surprised... If anyone knows, I'm interested to hear, too.
I'm grumpy that I am not well enough to participate in all the protests.
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
Its written, that its a felony to give help of any kind to an illegal alien
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
LeoJ...link?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
There are two proposals, one in the House and one in the Senate. Newspaper article
quote:On Sunday, two other Senate leaders said they don't want to turn good Samaritans into criminals. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., interviewed on ABC's This Week, said they would work to make sure that a final immigration bill would not inadvertently punish those offering humanitarian help. "Nobody is talking about prosecuting anyone for providing ... soup at soup kitchens or a place of rest for somebody who turns out to be an illegal alien," said Tancredo, leader of a coalition of conservative House Republicans calling for rigorous enforcement of existing immigration laws. Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the House provision "is too broadly stated" and said he would press for changes "to be sure we're not criminalizing people who are providing humanitarian assistance."
Posted by LeoJ (Member # 9272) on :
lets see what this law turns out to be
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Alternatively, we could find out what's being voted on and communicate with our legislators before it becomes a law.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, I'm keenly interested.
What I'd like to see is a barrier to companies using illegal aliens when there are citizens and legal residents who WOULD take those jobs if the wages weren't held artificially low.
I also would like to see giant corporations get in trouble when they hire illegals through a contractor. I've seen it in the hospitality industry (hotels basically) where the big chains hire a sub to bring in contract housekeepers. They know darn well these people are undocumented, but they hide behind the fact that they've got a contractor supplying the workers.
It keeps wages for unskilled labor artificially low. In places like Kissimmee, FL. there are far too many people working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet.
I would also like to see our government figure out a more efficient guest worker program. They issue a ridiculously small number of work visas in this category each year (fewer than 1000 nationally? That's what I read, but it seems insanely low). If we are going to rely on these people to do our most unglamorous jobs, we shouldn't be winking at their legal status. We should bring them in, pay them a fair wage, and make sure they don't overstay their visas.
And, really...if we need them as workers in this country, why can't they become full time legal residents and citizens if they want to? They fill a gap in our society and do useful, productive work.
Let 'em in!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I heard about this on NPR yesterday. Church groups are very unhappy, because it would mean they can be prosecuted for much of their most basic charity work.
It is bizarre and confusing to me that we have to criminalize our own citizens for helping people who should be allowed to have some sort of temporary work status, at least. Then they would have some protections from employers who would exploit them. If we allow more people in under legal work provisions (the limit on those is kinda low) it might help, but politicians don't want to do that because it's bad form to seem soft on illegal immigrants.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
From what I understand it would not be illegal to give someone crossing the desert a glass of water. The way I heard it, non-emergency aid would be against the law. That does not address concerns about charities though.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It is bizarre and confusing to me that we have to criminalize our own citizens for helping people who should be allowed to have some sort of temporary work status, at least. Then they would have some protections from employers who would exploit them. If we allow more people in under legal work provisions (the limit on those is kinda low) it might help, but politicians don't want to do that because it's bad form to seem soft on illegal immigrants.
Why should they have some sort of temporary work status? That implies some sort of legality to illegally crossing the border. What would be confusing to me would be to create a law legally allowing those who illegally came the legal right to work.
The way these immigrants are being used by both sides of the political spectrum is abhorant. Illegal immigration should be shut down completely, starting immediately. Legal immigration should be increased to meet the need previously filled by illegal immigrants. I've seen how these undocumented workers live in fear. It's not right. The results of 'getting tough on illegal immigration' will do more to improve the quality of life for immigrants in this country than the current state of affairs.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Why should they have some sort of temporary work status? That implies some sort of legality to illegally crossing the border. What would be confusing to me would be to create a law legally allowing those who illegally came the legal right to work.
There are already a number of immigrants every year given this status, so your first statement is moot. I'm not saying we should set it up. It's there.
It's an issue of control, too. If we know they are here and where they are working, then it will be easier to track them someone who has never been through the system.
quote:Legal immigration should be increased to meet the need previously filled by illegal immigrants.
I think this exactly what I said, so I will assume we are in agreement. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: What I'd like to see is a barrier to companies using illegal aliens when there are citizens and legal residents who WOULD take those jobs if the wages weren't held artificially low.
Without going into the issue itself--threads on immigration usually end up pissing me off, one way or another--I would quibble with this point: the wages aren't being held artificially low. Laws creating a crimp on the supply of labor are intended to keep the wages artificially high. If most people the world over will stock shelves for $2 an hour, then that is really what the work is "worth." Now, here in this country we might think it's a good idea to limit the worker pool so that their wages will be higher, but this is not the natural or "real" state of affairs.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
My apologies, I thought you were saying we should set one up, not acknowledging that one was already there. My bad. However since this system already exists, this just serves to highlight the inconsistencies of the current system.
I think most of the ideas for immigration reforms now being floated are without question good (leaving aside the comments of the extremists on either side). Heck, my wife and I have had conversations for the past 3 years where we had already come to the conclusions that are now being discussed- so it's not like it's some brilliant new plan, it's merely public recognition of a long standing and growing problem. The real sticky part for both sides to come to a compromise on will be the question of amnesty. It's difficult for so many reasons.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Icarus- I respect your opinion. Why do immigration threads usually upset you? What's your POV on what has been called the growing immigration problem?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Immigration threads usually upset me because I am latino and the children of immigrants, and it doesn't take long before people start posting stuff like that we should limit immigration because they're all criminals, or culturally/morally inferior, or because they're changing our demographics to an unacceptable degree. Also, because many people argue these things in abstract, but to me it's very real, not simply because of my background, but because I'm friends with a rather large number of the people affected. If this law were passed, I would be a violater of it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Trust me Icarus, it is very real and personal to me as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ic, it's like what I've argued before: move to increase legal work permits/immigration, and lower the minimum wage a bit to compensate.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I also would like to see giant corporations get in trouble when they hire illegals through a contractor. I've seen it in the hospitality industry (hotels basically) where the big chains hire a sub to bring in contract housekeepers. They know darn well these people are undocumented, but they hide behind the fact that they've got a contractor supplying the workers.
I have a lot of sympathy for this idea, but I'm also skeptical about how much responsibility one company should have for a vendor's compliance with the law. Had we been subjected to this requirement, we would have either had to ignore it (the risk would be very low for us that an illegal would be used on any of our jobs) or go out of business.
And there are serious advantages - to customers, vendors, and employees - to outsourcing secondary services. Many of those benefits would be lost if the customer organization has to repeat the HR work of the vendor. I'm not sure how much we want to mess with that. I realize illegal immigration eats almost all the benefits for the employees, so I favor strict enforcement against the actual hiring company.
I'm also not sure why it's necessary. If we can go after the hotel, why can't we go after the housekeeping vendors?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Boy do I hate republican p.o.v.'s...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Ic, it's like what I've argued before: move to increase legal work permits/immigration, and lower the minimum wage a bit to compensate.
-Bok
And then watch as minimum wage earners around the country struggle to support their families.
This is rapidly becoming a moot point anyways, as more and more states mandate higher minimum wages than what federal law indicates, the federal government will have less and less control over the minimum wage, and will have to appeal to individual states. Good luck with that. With every state that raises the minimum wage, the federal government will come closer to raising it for the whole nation. Senators and Reps who have it in their home state will all vote to raise it nationally, to prevent cheaper labor in neighboring states, and because it's virtually a free vote for them to try and finagle some sort of concession out of someone else.
I am however in support of a guest worker program.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even among low wage workers, few people get paid minimum wage. If someone's getting $5.35, and the minimum wage gets lowered to $5, are they going to lower that person's pay to $5.20? The answer is pretty definitively no.
Wages are a result of economic realities, for the most part, not some anti-wage agenda on the part of employers.
We do have data on increases in the minimum wage, and it does decrease employment such that the total amount flowing into the pockets of low wage workers is less (total increase in salary among minimum wage workers remaining minus previous salary times number of jobs lost). Furthermore, there is a strong argument, backed up by some data (good data on it being hard to get), that increases in the minimum wage are closely matched by increases in cost of living for low income families. That is, there's no real benefit.
Oddly, after all of this, I'm not for eliminating minimum wage. I'm for keeping the minimum wage approximately where it is as a guard against exploitative practices. There are some people who are in various ways coerced to accept lower wages (often through intimidation or control of information), and having a bright line standard we can point to aids immensely in pursuing exploiters. I think the current minimum wage is at approximately that point, though there may be some edge cases worth addressing. The easiest way to address them would be to repeal the national minimum wage and let it be set purely on a state/locality basis.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The minimum wage is ridiculous, considering that in many parts of the country more than 80 hours a week at minimum wage will still just barely pay the rent and utilities and maybe a little food...
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
One thing I don't get about this whole issue. I saw a bunch of people marching in cities all around the countries, and a lot of them were proudly waving the Mexican flag, wearing ponchos and huge sombreros that said "MEXICO" in large letters, and doing whatever else they could think of to embody all of their racial stereotypes.
What is that supposed to mean? I can understand if illegal Mexican immigrants were waving the American flag to show that they want to join us and be treated as equals, but what is the Mexican flag for? Is that to show us that they don't give a rat's ass? "I'm Mexican, and I'm movin' in, and bringing the rest of my country with me, so get outa my way and learn to speak Spanish, gringo."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
They were showing pride in their heritage, that they're not just American, they're Mexican by culture. *shrugs* I grew up in L.A., that stuff is mild compared to the people who favor t-shirts espousing giving California, Arizona, etc. back to Mexico-- or rather, not Mexico, but the Native component of Mexico, and forming an Aztec state...
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
To continue what kq said about pride in their heritage, it's also because many of the immigrants are not here because they want to become American, they're here because of economic necessity that has forced them to come here to find jobs to support their family. They're reaffirming their culture and additionally may be raising awareness of their situation.
Also, not entirely on topic (I tend to stay out of immigration law debates) but related - I watched a program on one of the discovery channel spinoffs earlier today that followed the journey of several Hondurans to the US and one who was facing deportation in Canada. Although I certainly know about the dangers immigrants encounter trying to cross the border from Mexico, I had not realized how much they have to go through to even reach the border. It was pretty interesting.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Is that to show us that they don't give a rat's ass? "I'm Mexican, and I'm movin' in, and bringing the rest of my country with me, so get outa my way and learn to speak Spanish, gringo."
Yup, that's exactly what it is. We hate America. Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote: They were showing pride in their heritage, that they're not just American, they're Mexican by culture.
And if this were a debate over a law that tried to force people who had come here through legal channels to stop acknowledging their Mexican culture, I could understand that type of protest. But this situation seems like the exact opposite.
quote: ...many of the immigrants are not here because they want to become American, they're here because of economic necessity that has forced them to come here to find jobs to support their family.
This is another attitude that bothers me. If someone feels that they need assistance and they ask me to help, I'll do what I can. But people who think that because they're having a hard time they have the right to steal whatever they want from honest people don't get as much sympathy.
Unrestricted immigration or unlimited amnesty for illegal immigrants will have, according to many learned people, powerful negative effects on America's economy. People who wantonly put that burden on our society without asking permission because they think they deserve it are no better than some punk in an alley with a gun, or Ken Lay and his buddies.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote: Yup, that's exactly what it is. We hate America.
I'm not saying that all Latin Americans have contempt for the USA. I'm saying that I don't understand what constructive views in this debate are being served by people wrapping themselves in the Mexican flag and marching on Washington.
And, because I realize that your comment was partly tongue-in-cheek and not as offensive as that last paragraph made it look, here's a smilie back atcha. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Baron Samedi: while I'm pretty much never in favor of unlimited anything, I've seen no research showing either of those would be bad for the American economy, and plenty showing that, albeit in a simple theoretical framework, the more the better.
In fact, while I'm seen plenty of people asserting it would be bad for the economy, that assertion has always been based on some other, usually unsupported, assertion. For instance, that amnesty programs would cause such an influx of immigration that the economy would collapse (how that would happen is never provided), or that without tight restrictions on immigration immigrants will take jobs away from Americans (again, that this actually happens on any appreciable scale has, as far as I know, never been demonstrated).
I'm in favor of the highest limits on immigration possible, where the highest possible is a very large number much higher than our current restrictions, a very easy path to legitimizing illegal immigration given a lack of criminal activity and evidence of productivity, and a very easy path to citizenship.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
On the globe in my living room, Mexico is purple. Last time I flew to Mexico City, I made a point to look out the window. Guess what? From the air there is no purple. The real time fact is; if there is a border, it starts at Boise. We need to approach reality as we try to modernize this law. We need the immigrants to make our national economy work. The immigrants need the jobs to make their personal economy work. Everything else is politics and posturing. Now, work it out.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I'm no economist myself. But I know some, and I've heard the opinions of others, and the overwhelming majority of the opinions I've been hearing seem to agree that unrestricted immigration would be a very bad thing. Not only that, but it makes pretty good sense.
If you've got any research that demonstrates convincingly that this is true, I'd like to see it. I realize that sometimes truth is counter-intuitive, but I usually like to see some evidence before I believe it.
Nevertheless, I don't think you're going to find many illegal immigrants who carefully studied the evidence and jumped the fence because they believed it was in the best interests of the American people. Whatever we believe about the economic implications of their actions, it's the sense of entitlement that bothers me.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
No, they come because it's in the best intrest of them and their families. They find work here because it is in the best interest of the American people.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hey Icarus...
quote:If most people the world over will stock shelves for $2 an hour, then that is really what the work is "worth." Now, here in this country we might think it's a good idea to limit the worker pool so that their wages will be higher, but this is not the natural or "real" state of affairs.
The problem with this is that local (national) economies are the unit in which everyone lives. It does no good to have shelves stocked in Peru if you need the goods in Kissimmee, FL.
And, of course, the people living in Kissimmee, FL need to make enough money so that they don't starve or go homeless while living in Kissimmee. We haven't figured out a way for them to work in Kissimmee and then be beamed to Mexico to sleep at night.
having said that...I'd just like to add one thing to my statement. I am in favor of massive increases in legal immigration. I think our current policies on immigration, legal and illegal make very little sense and contribute to much human tragedy.
One of the things that I think makes very little sense is the way we allow some illegal immigrants to stay in this country if they set foot on American soil whereas if they are floating even a foot offshore, they get turned around. And, that rule about "if they touch the soil" only works for some groups, and at some times. Other groups and at other times, we incarcerate and deport.
Baron... Yes, if we made our immigration policies less strict a lot of poor people would come to this country. They would take low-wage jobs and try to make a better life for their children. Some would turn tail and go home as soon as they'd amassed sufficient wealth to live better back where they came from. Most would stay and have children.
Have you looked at all at the contributions of 1st generation Americans to the success of this country throughout our history.
I think barring people because they are poor is about the stupidest thing we could do. Making it really tough for people to come here (either to work or to relocate) is incredibly short-sighted given the demographics of our population sans immigration.
I see you calling on others to post "studies" but I don't see you posting any of your own. You cite unnamed experts who, oddly enough, seem to be telling you what you already believe to be true. Could it be you're just listening to one side of the issue?
Maybe if you looked at a broader swath the research you'd come away with a little less certainty (like most of the rest of us, really) and, perhaps, even a little better understanding of some longer term issues.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, simple economic theory says that unrestricted immigration would be a grand thing for the economy, since restrictions on the movement of a resource (humans, in this case) lead to inefficiencies in the market. Who are some of these economists saying immigration would be bad for the economy?
edit: and sort of the entire basis of modern economic theory is that the self-improving actions of individuals tend to lead to the most efficient market outcome, so its a good thing from an economic point of view that immigrants are out for themselves. However, I suspect you will find few have any sense of entitlement; its hard to divine entitlement from working a job paying a small wage and sending most of the income back to Mexico (as is common). If anybody has an unjustified sense of entitlement, its Americans who frequently refuse to do that sort of work.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yes, but does modern economic theory that you're talking about include our growing social services, healthcare being one example? Social security another?
Are you suggesting that an unlimited influx of poor immigrants would leave any room for some sort of national healthcare plan, social security, WIC, welfare, public education, medicare, medicaid, etc etc?
I believe that an unlimited number of poor immigrants would either lead to the breakdown of all the above social services, or make everyone in this country flat broke from the tax burden.
I just came across a Newsweek article that uses a study by two Harvard economists as a source. I'm aware it's not a scientific paper- it's the media- but Newsweek isn't exactly the publication of choice for the redneck, Bible thumping, and inbred.
Or, you know, we could reduce expenditures in certain other areas to increase the amounts available for social programs, education, etc.-- which I think we need to do anyway...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's no such thing as an unlimited number of poor immigrants.
Also, there's nothing saying immigrants must immediately gain access to all social services. Not to mention that the amount we spend on the poor is tiny in comparison to the amount we spend on the old -- and the more people earning money in this economy the better we are able to support the increasing retired population.
Some useful things to note: none of the negative conclusions about economic impact in the newsweek article source from the economists who ran the study. They "merely" collected and analyzed a lot of data. Furthermore, almost all the problems of the mexican immigrant population mentioned in the article can be directly traced to inadequate access to the resources most of the rest of America enjoys, such as effective education and protection from crime. Indeed, note this observation from the economists:
quote:Low skills seem to explain most of the gap, he says. Indeed, after correcting for education and age, most of the wage gap disappears.
Just think, lots and lots of people who can likely become vastly more productive if we were to only educate them!
I'm not sure exactly what study newsweek was talking about, but one of the economists, Borjas, has done some fascinating work. For instance, a calculation based on just current taxes paid by immigrants and current welfare expenditures reveals immigrants (legal only, mind you) are contributing a little under four times the cost of their welfare to society. Borjas does note no study exists that anticipates social security and infrastructural costs, but I suspect will likely be similarly overmatched by the tax contribution, merely narrowing the gap.
Or then there's another paper by him, which abstract has this telling quotation:
quote:The available evidence suggests that the economic benefits from immigration for the United States are small, on the order of $6 billion and almost certainly less than $20 billion annually. These gains, however, could be increased considerably if the United States pursued an immigration policy which attracted a more skilled immigrant flow.
(this second paper is more recent, so its likely a calculation taking the aforementioned additional factors into account; I haven't had time to read the paper itself yet)
Yes, the benefits from immigration are small right now, but they are positive. The people coming into our economy are a net gain; they just might be a bigger net gain were they more skilled.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know a single latino, legal or otherwise, who feels or exhibits a sense of entitlement.
I would suggest that if, in a protest, they are wrapping themselves in their native flags, it's probably as a very visible way of identifying themselves as latino, to perhaps drive home the point of how many latinos there are in this country, that there are many legal latino voters, or simply so you know who the protesters are.
-o-
Bob, the illegal immigrants who come to Kissimmee, Florida, and do work for less than minimum wage don't sleep at night in Bogotá or Managua. They sleep in Kissimmee. All I'm saying is that, in any local economy, if you can get people to do a job for $2 an hour, then that is what that job is worth.
Really, though, as I said, it's just a quibble. Obviously, I'd like to see people, legal and other wise, enjoy greater buying power and greater prosperity. I'm not sure that raising minimum wages is a way to achieve it, is all. But I don't dispute your aims.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and its worth noting that all those economic calculations are talking about the direct benefits accruing to existing people, mainly through taxes. The increased benefits including such things as additional monetary circulation and greater market efficiency are not included in the calculations.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Joe.
I wasn't sure where you were going. The problem with $2/hr jobs in Kissimmee is that, to live there, $2/hr isn't enough. I don't know how these folks make it (if they really are taking those jobs at $2/hr).
I'm more familiar with the situation in the hospitality industry. Housekeepers who work directly for the hotels make the same hourly wage as the hotel pays the contractor -- give or take. Where the savings come in for the hotel is in not having to pay other benefits (anywhere from 30-50% of base pay). The contractor, in turn, makes money by giving their illegal workers less money than the base pay of the regular workers. And no benefits.
And the people aren't free to leave. Usually, they don't speak English well enough to communicate with anyone but the other workers and the owners of the company. If they try to quit, they risk deportation. And, yes, they do want to stay even though they are abused by the company because it's still better here than back in Russia or the Ukraine (where most of the ones I knew of came from).
Dag earlier mentioned how difficult it is to go after the big corporations subbing out their illegal worker hiring to 3rd parties. The funny thing is they KNOW. It's not like they don't know. Really. It's just hushed up. But everyone working with these folks knows they are here illegally. If (as happens infrequently) the immigration enforcement folks stop by the property, all the workers disappear. And every once in a while one of these folks gets picked up for some petty crime, or a traffic stop. They NEVER have papers. The hotels know.
But they also know that the little business that runs the illegals into the country isn't the kind of thing that's going to go through a lenghthy prosecution or investigation. If caught, they disappear. One day, the contract workers just fail to show up.
And they go hire another company to supply workers from some other economically depressed region of the world.
In Kissimmee FL, they ALL do it. At least all the hotels large enough to need a big housekeeping staff. That's how the hotel rates stay as low as they do.
And, realistically, I'm all for it, if it didn't mean that the hotels also got away with keeping wages for their regular workers so low. There's always the threat that they can be replaced with illegals working for a shadowy contractor.
It's the seedy underbelly of the tourist economy in this country.
And it means that someone who works 8 hour days cleaning rooms generally has to go work nights somewhere else.
And then, guess what...people decry the fact that kids in immigrant families are unsupervised, that parents aren't "paying attention" and yada yada yada.
It's one of those unintended consequence things that always seem to bite us in the butt because we are so short-sighted in this country, and are ruled by dollars instead of taking a longer view.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag earlier mentioned how difficult it is to go after the big corporations subbing out their illegal worker hiring to 3rd parties. The funny thing is they KNOW. It's not like they don't know. Really. It's just hushed up. But everyone working with these folks knows they are here illegally. If (as happens infrequently) the immigration enforcement folks stop by the property, all the workers disappear. And every once in a while one of these folks gets picked up for some petty crime, or a traffic stop. They NEVER have papers. The hotels know.
Maybe it's just that I can't break out of the legal mindframe here, but imputing knowledge under those conditions is a dangerous precedent. There are lots of situations where knowing about something and tolerating it can lead to serious consequences. Think drugs and asset forfieture as an example.
When we impute knowledge like that, we are creating either a strict liability crime (think statutory rape charges for having sex with a person working in a bar who also has a license that says she's 23) or negligence (which we usually limit to instances of physical harm to other people when speaking of criminal liability).
If they make knowledge an element and require proof - not mere inference - then I have no problem. But making them responsible without requiring proof of knowledge is too dangerous in my mind.
Alternatively, you could require them to fill out I-9s for everyone they hire. This would remove my legal philosophy objections. But I still have economic objections - it would make it very hard to hire people you only need for a short time.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
fugu,
Sorry, I'm a bit confused here, are we talking about legal or illegal immigration? It sounds like those are benefits of legal immigration. I don't have a problem with vastly increasing (although unlimited would be a stretch for me) legal immigration, in fact I strongly support it. However, I was speaking of illegal immigration. The kind where taxes & SS aren't paid by employer or employee. My doubts are that the economy could support illegal iimmigration (which I interpreted unrestricted to mean)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The problem I have with these discussions about how we should just raise minimum wage so everyone who makes it can live off it, is that it isn't feasible. If you say everyone in the country should now make a minimum of, say, $8.00 an hour, you're going to see a tremendous impact on the small business community. And the vast majority of people in this country work for small businesses.
It may be wonderful to think that people stocking shelves should make enough to support their families, that is until you find that you can no longer to buy milk for your family because the grocery store has to raise the prices so much to cover the new minimum wage. Remember it's not just the impact of the wage, but the additional amounts the store has to pay in taxes, unemployment, etc. All of that goes up when the wage goes up.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, what about some sort of certification process for companies that provide contract labor? The process could include periodic audits of their payroll and their process for checking their workers' documentation. Hotels or other companies that use certified contractors are in the clear, but those who use uncertified companies are liable if it turns out their workers are undocumented.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, what about some sort of certification process for companies that provide contract labor? The process could include periodic audits of their payroll and their process for checking their workers' documentation. Hotels or other companies that use certified contractors are in the clear, but those who use uncertified companies are liable if it turns out their workers are undocumented.
I would absolutey favor this assuming the problem is as severe as Bob says (and I don't doubt it, I just have no first-hand knowledge of it). It would need some careful drafting, but would be easily doable.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that the problems of immigration should actually be fairly easy to solve.
First- address the putative concerns of the nationalists. They say that immigrants pay no taxes and put a burden on the social services the country provides. Fine- allow illegal immigrants access to free health clinics etc. but provide no welfare checks to anyone without a valid social security card. That should be simple enough.
Next- set up a workable temporary solution that encourages illegals to become legal. This would require a one-time amnesty grant to illegals currently in the country and a system for future immigrants. Do it something like this:
create a legal status- call it something like "legal immigrant". Require three things-
1- The applicant for legal immigration status posts a bond equal to the average cost for a plane ticket back to their home country. This amount could be made standard based on statistical probabilities of sending immigrants home etc.
2- The person then must show that they file and pay their taxes each year.
3- The person must not be convicted of any felonies.
After 5 years (or some other arbitrary time period) of completing the above, allow the person to apply for citizenship. Also, require a streamlining of the current INS documentation process which is absudly complex, expensive and difficult. Perhaps hire private companies to handle the process using broad guidelines.
Finally, allow a much higher number of immigrants to enter legally in this way.
Obviously there would be some complexities to work out. Preference should be given to families over individuals. If a minor committed a felony the whole family could get the boot back home- this would give some impetus to reduce crime committed by immigrants.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can't see anything wrong with any of that, Jacare. (I would also encourage taking INS out of the hands of the petty tyrants, but that's a much more nebulous goal, and hard to come up with concrete steps for.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bush is on television talking about Immigration Reform right now and I'm curious about something. He says that by using the guest worker program, it will eliminate people coming across the border in search of work.
Now, unless the guest worker program is literally unlimited, as in, we can pass out as many guest worker cards as people who want them, then there will always be people trying to cross the border. Especially, how is this guest worker program going to stop families from smuggling themselves across the border?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If there are no restrictions on the immigration, it must by definition be legal (legal impediments are restrictions).
Also, I'm not advocating truly unlimited immigration, but immigration with as few limits as are feasible. There are some social/policy reasons there should be limits. However, from a purely economic perspective that's likely not so, which makes me dubious when hearing about economists supposedly saying immigration is bad for our economy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
None of them allow for unrestricted immigration. So I fail to see how those who don't fall under the umbrella of the new program will simply decide to stay home. Hundreds of thousands cross the border every year, these bills don't cover all of them.
Further, what is the point of charging them huge fines for being here illegally? A lot of them are poor, they can't afford to pay a fine, and what are we going to do, lock millions of them away? Seems like more of a paper tiger to me.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
fugu- I see what you're saying about the economy. Without agreeing or disagreeing about whether massive immigration is good for the economy, I think that when people use the term economy it includes many other factors: taxes, social services, etc.
It seems simple to me. If you greatly increase the amount of people who do not pay any taxes in a nation (since if they are unrestricted they are undocumented and therefore not paying taxes) yet you massively increase the amount that social services (funded by taxes) must put out, there will be some point where the above social services will not be able to continue to function.
quote:First- address the putative concerns of the nationalists. They say that immigrants pay no taxes and put a burden on the social services the country provides. Fine- allow illegal immigrants access to free health clinics etc. but provide no welfare checks to anyone without a valid social security card. That should be simple enough.
Sure, there's no sense of entitlement. This fellow just wants to give every illegal immigrant that comes into this country free healthcare- something American citizens do not even enjoy, and at the expense of American taxpayers. That sounds suspiciously like entitlement to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where do you get that unrestricted equals undocumented and not paying taxes? Not that anybody is actually arguing for unrestricted immigration, but even that extreme isn't how you're casting it.
Btw. if you think free health clinics constitute free healthcare, I suggest you spend some time with the homeless .
I'm for significantly reducing illegal immigration, I just think this is best done by making legal immigration much easier.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We benefit when an adult worker crosses into our country. We have a social security crisis from not having borne and raised enough workers. I mean, yeah it's not fair to the law abiding to live with these law breakers, but the law abiding have not created a sustainable social security system. Should there be any limits on who we let in? How many people here are not descendants of immigrants in one form or other?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Large scale imigration is very analogous to large scale oil importation. Could we do without it. Yes, but not without a substantial impact to our present way of life. I ride a bike to work every day. How many of you are willing to sign up for that? I enjoy being able to buy fresh produce in my local market. I guess I could go back to imported sardines and crackers. But, I'm not willing to do that. There is not an EEUU person on this forum that does not benifit from the avalability of that workforce.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:First- address the putative concerns of the nationalists. They say that immigrants pay no taxes and put a burden on the social services the country provides. Fine- allow illegal immigrants access to free health clinics etc. but provide no welfare checks to anyone without a valid social security card. That should be simple enough.
Sure, there's no sense of entitlement. This fellow just wants to give every illegal immigrant that comes into this country free healthcare- something American citizens do not even enjoy, and at the expense of American taxpayers. That sounds suspiciously like entitlement to me.
erm, fugu is, as far as I know, American. how can he possibly be evidence of an immigrant's sense of entitlement?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think fugu said the quotation in question . . . though he is American. However, that one person wants to give people something, even were that singular person an immigrant, would not be evidence for immigrants having a sense of entitlement.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:First- address the putative concerns of the nationalists. They say that immigrants pay no taxes and put a burden on the social services the country provides. Fine- allow illegal immigrants access to free health clinics etc. but provide no welfare checks to anyone without a valid social security card. That should be simple enough.
Sure, there's no sense of entitlement. This fellow just wants to give every illegal immigrant that comes into this country free healthcare- something American citizens do not even enjoy, and at the expense of American taxpayers. That sounds suspiciously like entitlement to me.
erm, fugu is, as far as I know, American. how can he possibly be evidence of an immigrant's sense of entitlement?
And there IS a certain degree of free health care for American citizens. He was referring to FREE CLINICS, which do exist for American citizens. I know in this city, there was (thanks, Katrina) a free hospital, as well as a free mental health clinic which would provide generic medication and counseling for free. I don't know what the requirements were to qualify, but such things DO exist.
And why should we want immigrants running around unable to care for their own health, anyway?
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Where do you get that unrestricted equals undocumented and not paying taxes? Not that anybody is actually arguing for unrestricted immigration, but even that extreme isn't how you're casting it.
Btw. if you think free health clinics constitute free healthcare, I suggest you spend some time with the homeless .
I'm for significantly reducing illegal immigration, I just think this is best done by making legal immigration much easier.
If a person is required to do some sort of documentation in order to work, then that is a restriction. No restriction could mean no documentation. If there is no documentation, then there would be no records for paying taxes, no contributions to social security by employer or employee.
I have heard people arguing for unrestricted immigration, Bok for one, and you implied that it wouldn't be a problem but a benefit.
If I've cast the arguments wrong, I apologize, however the same has happened to me. People are implying I'm against immigration. I'm IN FAVOR of greatly increasing LEGAL immigration and in cutting the red tape involved. However, it really seems as if the only way to do that is to greatly reduce illegal immigration.
This hurts Americans, as well as legal and illegal immigrants. For example, if we increase legal immigration dramatically, illegal immigration would directly hurt those legally immigrating. The unskilled workers that come in the legal way would be in direct competition for jobs with illegal immigrants, who work for cheaper than the minimum wage requirements for permanent residents and citizens.
It really bothers me that just because I'm for solving the illegal immigration problem, people's responses have implied that I am against immigration. They are two seperate things people. It really is possible to be strongly pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. To me, they go hand in hand.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:It really bothers me that just because I'm for solving the illegal immigration problem, people's responses have implied that I am against immigration. They are two seperate things people. It really is possible to be strongly pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. To me, they go hand in hand.
Yes it is possible. Unfortunatly the politics and posturing of our elected officials as they play with the biases and fears of the electorate will probably prevent it happening any time soon.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote: I think that when people use the term economy it includes many other factors: taxes, social services, etc.
I don't have access to the numbers any more, although I did at one time. But, generally undocumented workers and workers using eroneous documents do pay taxes. They may use some general services. But, they do not use individual services to the extent that citizens do, as they are reluctant to identify themselves to "the government". Most do not ultimately qualify for Social Security retirement benefits. But, they do pay Social Security taxes. On the balance they are not a net cost to the Nationwide system of social services.
Today, I saw an article in our local press that said that many more families are immigrating as a unit. If that is the case, the children may use the public education system. However, we need to remember; that system was set up to benefit society and not to benefit individuals. If the child remains in this country, society will enjoy the benefit no matter the immigrant status of the parent.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: If the child remains in this country, society will enjoy the benefit no matter the immigrant status of the parent.
And the disbenefits of a bunch of kids who AREN'T educated are enough to convince me that, no matter what the cost, we should provide the best education we can afford regardless of legal status.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
BaoQingTian, I don't think I'm misconstruiing your p.o.v., just disputing whether the statement you quoted is evidence of a sense of entitlement.
(Also, when people say "unrestricted immigration," I take it to mean with documentation, etc. So yeah, it is "restricted," but only in the most minimal way. I don't know that anybody is for allowing people to be legally undocumented. Then again, perhaps I am misinterpreting this.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry to double post, so to speak, but I was having technical issues.
Lou Dobbs brings up some good points.
What is the plan to secure the borders? Is it the high tech, surveillance plan? or is it the increased manpower plan? or some mix of the two?
And how are illegal workers supposed to verify how long they have been here? their tax records? their good citizenship? Any of the things that Congress is using as a benchmark to determine who stays, who goes, and what rank they are put in?
There's still too many unanswered questions for people who are sitting around patting themselves on the back.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)