Solution to illegal immigration problem is to go after employers

Senators, working with the White House, have reached a compromise on an immigration bill.

Dubbed the "Grand Bargain," the bill would construct a physical and electronic border barrier, hire 18,000 new border guards, construct huge new detention centers, end "catch and release" and require employers to verify the legality of their employees. After certain benchmarks are met, a guest worker program would be established. Illegal immigrants could apply for four-year renewable work visas. Employers would have to certify that no American workers were available before hiring aliens. Heads of household would have to return to their country of origin to apply for the work visas. A point system for legal immigration would be established that would reward more educated applicants, family members and the ability to speak English. The total cost is not clear, but estimates are in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Opposition to the compromise is emerging from the right and the left. The left objects to the point system and the treatment of family members, and on the right there is massive discontent with the visa provisions, which are being called amnesty.

The White House contends the bill is not amnesty, but many ordinary Republicans disagree. Republican senators are being booed at home by GOP audiences because of their support. The compromise hangs by a slender balance in the Senate and could fail with the adoption of any amendments from either side. It faces even tougher sledding in the House, where anti-amnesty Republicans seem eager to defy the White House; Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi is demanding that the White House produce 60 to 70 Republican votes before she will bring it to the floor.

I think Republicans are correct when they call the bill an amnesty measure. Supporters put flowers behind the pig’s ear, but it still amounts to amnesty. It is also highly complex, does not deal seriously with the root cause of illegal immigration and is massively expensive. The bill does provide political cover for the White House and congressional members of both parties. The bill also provides cover for the many U.S. corporations that knowingly violate the law by employing illegal workers.

The more complex the legislation, the less likely it will succeed. Once passed, it will be up to the federal government to enforce it. That thought does not inspire confidence. Given its high cost and given that it is likely to be unsuccessful in stemming the tide of illegal workers into our economy, I am inclined to oppose it. Having said that, I also believe those senators who worked to achieve the compromise were doing so because they believe this bill, although far from perfect, is an improvement on the status quo. I applaud them and President George W. Bush for their efforts to find a workable solution. They might not have gotten it right, but they all risked political capital to try.

I believe there is a workable and inexpensive solution. The most significant reason illegal immigrants sneak into our country is to work. Jobs here pay more than the jobs at home, and many American employers have expressed a preference for foreign workers instead of domestic ones. The problem is market-driven.

The way to alleviate the problem is go to its root cause: jobs. Prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants. The way to do that is to establish a civil cause of action that permits a private citizen to sue any employer who hires an illegal alien. Provide for a fine to be paid by the employer to the citizen who brings the lawsuit, and make the employer pay the legal cost of the successful plaintiff. People will be on the lookout for illegal hiring. Lawyers will be eager to bring suits. The government will not have to enact a single regulation or hire a single person. Taxpayers will pay nothing. As soon as the suits start being successful, employers will stop hiring illegal workers. As the jobs evaporate, the flow will stop.

Some will say this is a full employment bill for lawyers. That is true, but so what? Either illegal immigration is a serious problem or it is not. If it is, and if we can arrange for the cost of solving it to be paid by those who profit most from the illegal activity, how are we harmed? As to effectiveness, who wants to argue that the trial lawyers will be less efficient than the federal government? Remember, either the bill now in Congress will pass or it won’t. If it passes, we get the huge cost, the complex regulations and amnesty. If it doesn’t pass, we keep the status quo, which nobody likes. Why not try a simpler, less expensive solution that actually goes to the root of the problem? The question is: Whom do you like less, trial lawyers or illegal aliens?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tribune columnist Chris Kelly is a former Boone County associate circuit judge and state legislator. Reach him at editor@tribmail.com.

Go read the I-9 form. You, the HR person, are not allowed to specify which of the many forms of easily-forged ID you’re going to accept. You must accept ANY of the stated combinations of ID deemed acceptable by the I-9 form.

Many of the documents listed on the I-9 form are very easily forged, and they look completely genuine. All it takes is a quality printer, ink and the right kind of paper or card stock. Not a problem.

What we need is a mechanism where the employers are given a database or call-in number where they can get the ID #’s on these documents checked against the database of legit ID’s. The response is either “yes, the # is consistent with the person’s name and the date of issue” or “no, there is a problem.”

Then REQUIRE the employer to use this database check before any employment is offered. If the ID check fails, the employer MAY NOT offer a job.

This isn’t rocket science, but because so many people aren’t employers and haven’t read the forms that employers see, they don’t know that the government is the central enabling culprit here: they’ve structured a market in ID theft and forged documents by the very language on the I-9 form.

Constitutionally define an "Employer".

It doesn't matter how I define anything constitutionally - but here's my attempt.

ANYBODY who pays into Social Security using numbers provided by an employee, is my definition of an employer.....in this instance.

"So two wrongs make a right?"

I don't consider EITHER of them to be "a wrong". If you're going to do business, you have to obeys the laws required of business. One of those is to verify the legality of your employees. It is unfortunate that that is needed, but "that's the way it is".

All you "don't burden business" jerks don't seem to realize that these unscrupulous, dishonest, lawbreaking BUSINESS OWNERS are a huge part of the problem. OBEY OUR LAWS, OR BE SHUT DOWN.

All you "don't burden business" jerks don't seem to realize that these unscrupulous, dishonest, lawbreaking BUSINESS OWNERS are a huge part of the problem.

Closet socialist treat business as part of the nanny state infrastructure.

I think that a citizen has a right to trade his property. Just because you want to deny people their property rights does not make it right. A business in nothing more than people exercising their property rights by buying and selling their property.

How about the government doing it's job and secure the border, so we do not have to play border patrol?

It doesn't matter how I define anything constitutionally - but here's my attempt.

It matters to me. All of our laws should be in concert with the Constitution. If there are a class of citizens to be known as "Employers" it should have it's basis in the Constitution.

If some citizens are to subject to their loss of liberty for trading with illegal people, then all citizens should be.

Can you find that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, any where in the Constitution?

“Why is it that there are no calls to imprison doctors/hospitals who treat illegals, or teachers/schools that teach their children here illegally?”

The federal government requires them too do so. Basic humanity requires us to do so. About this aspect of the issue, your gripe and mine is who pays for all this? I suggest that the country of origin pay their citizens bills. Thus you and I no longer have to pay their bills through taxes and insurance and their countries of origin finally have a disincentive in allowing illegal aliens to come here. And yes we do have the ability to make them pay. We just don’t have the will.

Basic humanity requires us to do so.

Please tell me why we have to wait for them to cross our borders first then? You may decide that you want to care for and educate the indigent of the world, but please leave me out of this.

ML/NJ

"I think that a citizen has a right to trade his property. Just because you want to deny people their property rights does not make it right. A business in nothing more than people exercising their property rights by buying and selling their property."

Sure "he" does--as an individual. But once that individual action crosses the line into commercial enterprise, it loses that distinct level of protection. Only individuals have rights---businesses to not.

"Commercial Enterprise" another Constitutional term.

So an Individual with inherent rights, looses his rights, or rather his rights are ignored, if some wise apple comes across and defines his exercising of his property rights a "Commercial Enterprise".

Next I will expect you to suggest that an individuals right to publish is null and void, you know non-inherent, if the publishing is deemed a "Commercial Enterprise".

My point in all of this is simply this.

The federal government should secure the border. This is what we pay the Border Patrol to do. If we are to make individuals in this country, at home, work or play, play Border Patrol, at the risk of their liberty, then we should make all citizens Border Patrol agents.

Interesting that the penalty for a real Border Patrol agent in letting an illegal slip by is not a darn penny. I find it odd that some want to come down with a lead filled Jack Boot, on regular citizens, for failing to play Border Patrol.

Just say NO to Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

how I define anything doesn't matter one bit. The Lawyers get hold of common sense and simple language and pervert it.

Any person who pays into the SS system using a name that doesn't match a number should pay a price. That is a simple and straightforward statement that everyone should agree with.....If you want to make it a constitutional issue - then go at it. Common people with common sense don't have a problem understanding how much of the problem this simple demand would fix.

I don't think you can make a law that denies citizenship to the children of illegals retroactive. We are stuck with those that are here. We CAN change the laws that let the parents stay just because they were here illegally when they had a baby.

Current law makes anyone born here a citizen. We would have to pass a law that says the opposite, and survive a 14th Amendment challenge in order to change things, and it could not be applied retroactively to people who are currently US citizens.

"So an Individual with inherent rights, looses his rights, or rather his rights are ignored, if some wise apple comes across and defines his exercising of his property rights a "Commercial Enterprise"."

Yup. Our Creator didn't grant rights to groups, he granted them to "the people" as individuals. The same way He'll judge us after death.

"Next I will expect you to suggest that an individuals right to publish is null and void, you know non-inherent, if the publishing is deemed a "Commercial Enterprise"."

How does a group can "inherit" anything. There are "some" things in the Constitution that don't fit into the "inherent rights" category, but that are protected because they make for a better society. An example is patent and copyright. But those "rights" are subject to change by law--NOT "inherent". The "rights" of commercial "entities" fits that category.

"Say the Pete and Joe have property rights as individuals, now does God take their rights away if they work together on a project?"

What the Constitution says is that the right to OWN property is protected--not how it is/was gotten. That is your fundamental error. All business law is a legal fiction subject to change by changing the law---not in the same class as the inherent rights---just like patents and copyrights.

"I say no."

And you're wrong.

So God gives us the right to own property, and Man gives us the Right to use it, as trading property is one of it’s uses.

I suppose you also believe that God gave you the right to Publish, but you need Man’s permission to share what you have published.

Listen to what you are saying. God gives you rights, but he will take them back if a government decides you do not need them.

You can not be serious.

"So God gives us the right to own property, and Man gives us the Right to use it, as trading property is one of it’s uses."

God says that the property we have shouldn't be taken from us arbitrarily. Man decides by what avenues one can get such property. Otherwise, we'd be free to traffic in ways harmful to our fellow beings, or obtain property by stealing it from others.

"I suppose you also believe that God gave you the right to Publish, but you need Man’s permission to share what you have published.

"Listen to what you are saying. God gives you rights, but he will take them back if a government decides you do not need them."

I suggest that YOU listen to what I am saying. God grants INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. Above a certain level, government DOES have the right to determine how those rights are implemented. To use your "right to publish" example--the Constitution recognizes "freedom of the press", which ONLY applies to what a newspaper prints. Other aspects of it's business are subject to government regulation, and rightly so.

"You can not be serious."

I'm completely serious. The bogus transition from individual freedoms to "group rights" comes right out of the socialist agenda.

I’m a small business owner, south of York (PA), and say a bigtime ***AMEN*** to your comment, Dave.

I’m drowning in damned gov’t regs and paperwork; and since 1989, it’s gotten 100x worse!

I see illegals being hired by competitors, everyday, and I refuse to overlook their illegal, criminal status, lack of I-9 documents and disdain for out laws. I won’t hire them, no matter how cheap their labor is. I absolutely refuse, dammit!

My competition doesn’t give a rat’s rearend, and they are hiring amd using them in landscape/greenhouse/field worker crews, in ever-increasing quantities. I don’t need the legal and bad PR problems, IMO.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.