Posted on 06/10/2007 8:39:55 AM PDT by rface
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.
Alberto-boy won’t do his job and enforce the law. You are dreaming. Build the fence.
UH...then we’d have to go after the GOVERNMENT too!
Just like any crime, if it isn't detected, it is unlikely to be punished. The deterrent "usually" comes from those cases where it "is" detected and the perpetrator is punished. In the case of illegal alien hires, the law isn't being enforced, no one is punished, so the deterrent is non-existent.
And that is how the "rule of law" is destroyed, eventually.
But you obviously don't understand THAT.
RRROOOOFFFFFLLLLLL!!!! THAT is FUNNY!
I fully realize that some will stay and work the cash day labor market, but it is just sheer madness to presume that we cannot squeeze most Mexicans back where they came without imposing privacy-invading magic ID cards on all US employees. We already have all the tools that are needed to audit employers, if we would only use them.
The various state and Federal agencies that get employer payments and reports of wage and tax payments have data that it appears they don’t want to know about- when they see multiple paychecks on the same day to the same SSN/name in more than one state or distant locality, this is a simple red flag that someone is stealing a citizens’ identity for the purposes of holding a job.
Any credit bureau could figure this out. It is clear that the Social Security department doesn’t want to.
Every employee has already filled out an I-9 form. Why not just audit those filings? The fact that only a nominal amount of auditing goes on is yet another red flag that government doesn’t want to solve this problem. This just sinks.
If we had 12 million US taxpayers evading taxes we know full well that the IRS would be working 80 hour weeks to audit employers and employees to put the fear of the law back into lawbreakers. The fact that the IRS, the SSA and the states don’t seem to care one whit that they have 12 million extra taxpayers who are unlikely to file claims for refunds just proves a very, very sad fact about US government today: it is all about money and power, their money and their power.
Oh yeah. Let’s put even more of a burden on business. Watch more jobs go overseas.
When they passed Simpson Mazzoli, which required that employers fill out a form I9 for each employee to verify their US citizenship or legal residency status, employers were warned that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on national origin. The implication was clear. You must fill out a form I9, but you may not express a suspicion that the employee is illegal because of their national origin, or that the employee has shown false documentation.
I acknowledge that there are unscrupulous employers, but there far more scrupulous employers, who are already over burdened with taxes and paperwork. What we don’t need is more burdens on businesses.
What we need to do is make it much harder to come here illegally, but much easier to come here legally. We do need, and always have needed, a steady stream of immigrants, immigrants who want to come here to become Americans, and to earn their keep.
We also need to diminish the welfare state, and make illegal aliens ineligible for any government servicers, except for the trip back across whatever border they crossed to get here. We also need stronger border enforcement so that we don’t have our own version of a Gothic army rampaging through our heartland, destroying our civilization.
A few days ago, I talked to a woman who emigrated here in the early 1980s from Romania. That madman Ceaucescu had not yet met his fate, and was still in charge. She does not understand why Americans whine about their lives. We are a beacon to the world, and everyone wants to come here. These people can become our strongest defenders, and we should permit far more of them to come here, and to earn the right to call themselves Americans. However, if that is not what they have in mind, back they should go.
Great point! That's EXACTLY correct!
Employing more than five illegals would be prima-facie evidence of intent to break the law, just as writing a check with insufficient funds is evidence of intent to defraud.
I would also extend this law to landlords. Rent to more than 5 illegals, go to jail.
Why more than 5? To provide a margin of error against honest mistakes. I can believe that someone might unknowingly employ or rent to one or two illegals. I have a very hard time that one could employ or harbor 6 or more without knowing.
Stripped of employment and lodging most of the illegals would just go home on their own, saving us the costs of deportation.
LOL! Illegal aliens are just as unpopular as trial lawyers. But if the U.S. adopts the advise in this article, and if it works, then at least one of these distasteful groups---namely the trial lawyers---will get rid of the other group. Sounds like a win-win for both the lawyers and the rule-of-law Americans.
A true win, win is to deport both groups! Problem solve, however it should be noted that illegal contribute more to society than attorneys do.
No, the solution to the illegal immigration problem is to shut down the welfare state. Employers are hiring illegals because that’s the only free market for labor. It’s the only way employers can pay workers what they’re worth to the employer, for as long as the employer needs and wants them, and no more.
So two wrongs make a right?
Constitutionally define an "Employer".
Individuals have property rights. Part of property rights is the right to trade property.
Shouldn't all citizens be jailed if they exercise their property rights with people the government has not granted permission to exist here. My question is if you believe all citizens should be treated equally or not.
Well said Buckwheat! Now all you got to do is get 51 Senators and
225 HouseCritters to buy into it and the
problems done!!
Luck...!
If they can not buy food they will leave.
I think putting the burden on Employers is just NIMBY thinking, put the burden on the other guy, type of thinking.
If one person is going to be jailed for trading with illegals, then everyone who commits commerce with them should be jailed.
Did you even read the comment I responded to? No, that’s what I thought, by virtue of your response. Mark was whining about why employers should be punished for hiring illegals. That’s what I was responding to, not the article per se.
I guess I don't want a system that makes me go through a background check in order to buy a six pack and a bag of chips. I expect to have to run such a gauntlet when I go to get a job.
One could come up with a system that says "no cash purchases", along with no debit or credit cards issued for those who cannot prove citizenship, but I think a lot of us here really wouldn't want to live in a place where 100% of our transactions were trackable.
I agree that it should not be 100% on employers, but jobs are the major magnet in this situation. They don't come here just to buy things that they cannot get in Latin America. I don't have a problem with legal foreign visitors spending money here. I have a problem with them taking jobs from citizens or legal residents. I have a problem with them getting free education, free medical services, and clogging up the legal system with their misbehavior, without the ability to pay the fines to cover the costs of this malfeasance.
“Oct 4, 2006 SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - President Bush on Wednesday signed a law that will pay for hundreds of miles of new fences along the U.S.-Mexico border”
And on that day, I posted that it would never be built, and I got flamed : )
What I’ve been telling as many people as possible is to READ the I-9 form. When they do, they will find out that what Dave has said here (ie, that the employers are warned about violating the ‘64 Civil Rights Act on the I-9 form) and the multiplicity of documentation accepted as “proof” of employment eligibility for the I-9 form (as ridesthemiles points out about phoney docs) makes the I-9 form a useless bit of paper, and the ID requirement for employment isn’t a barrier any more. What the ID requirement has become is a black market for stolen ID’s and manufactured ID’s to be presented to employers.
Here is what needs to happen:
1. The I-9 form must be submitted to the government; it is no longer to be a “safe harbor” bit of paper.
2. BEFORE the I-9 form is to be submitted, the doc #’s submitted as proof of employment eligibility must have been called in (or entered into a web site) for confirmation that the docs are legit. The employer must record on the I-9 form the confirmation # the government employment verification check on the I-9 form.
3. Immigration “reform” passed must give all employers safe harbor from criminal or civil charges of racial discrimination if the employer can clearly and unequivocally show that a prospective employee failed the pre-employment ID check. No successful ID check, no job. If the government (SSA/IRS) comes back to the employer at any time an employee is employed, and the gummint says “Hey — we just discovered problems with these documents” — you, the employer, are not required as employers are required today — ie, to give the employee chance after chance after chance to rectify their ID issues. You, the employer, should be required to give the employee no more than one month (28 days) of written notice that there is an ID problem and that the employee will be terminated 28 days after notice is given (and notice must be given within 10 days of the employer receiving the ID discrepancy notice) unless the employee can clear up the ID issues.
Again, the employer must be given safe harbor from CRA sanctions if they can show that the sole reason for termination of employment was the ID issue.
Businesses are already burdened with the SAME amount of paperwork as my proposal would create now — with the exception that they can’t act on the ID issues because of ‘64 CRA liabilities.
Then we need to radically increase the legal penalties for ID theft.
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.