[JoeSF]

How come when the politicans talk about how bad the problem with unemployment is they forget to look at the border problem?
Don't they want to end unemlpoyment?
I propose that the maximum penalty for being caught employing an illegal alien be confiscation of the employers premisis. Just like the drug possesion laws. The technology to register all aliens who want to work here exists. If the alien has a counterfiet card that can be dealt with as another issue. Registering and tracking alien workers would tell us what the true cost of them being here is. When they put their kids in school or go to the emergency room, we would know what the cost of it all was as a group.
How many people would be willing to employ illegals if they knew they had something to lose?
Its time to stop using the taxpayer to subsidise the low hourly wage of illegal alien workers for the benifit of a few cheapskates.

If you think this penalty is too severe, do you agree that the employer is a problem and how sould we deal with the pracitce of hiring illegals?

[Chris Rhines]

There should be no penalty for employing illegal immigrants. Such actions harm no other individual.

- Chris

[DeltaElite]

No, not at all.
The illegals do jobs that Americans won't do and as long as they are paid the minimum wage, I don't care who employs them.
I don't want to see anyone exploited by anyone.

[JoeSF]

So when taxpayers are taxed to pay for unemployment benifts to americans who can't find work because an illegal is doing the job for less they aren't harmed?
When taxpayers pay for emergency room services and schooling for the children of people who are deliberatley underpaid with the knowledge that the government will make up the differnce they aren't harmed?
If there is no harm to employing illegals then whats the fuss with closing the border?

[Art Eatman]

Chris, that's too narrow a view, seems to me. The employment of illegals is what has given us this influx of illegals which has so overwhelmed "the system". If we behaved as do most other countries regarding illegal aliens, we would not have the problems*. Since the penalties for breaking our immigration laws are so light--or non-existent--the incentive to "flood the zone" remains quite high.

Our welfare and tax structures are strongly contributory, of course. This new idea of "totalization" will be just one more fiscal straw upon the back of an already overloaded camel.

Art

* See the myriad writings concerning southern Arizona, among other things...

[Waitone]

The illegals do jobs that Americans won't do and as long as they are paid the minimum wage, I don't care who employs them. Close but no cigar. Change "illegals" to "immigrants" and I'm with you. "Legal immigrants do jobs that Americans won't do and as long. . . ."

Good philosophy, good policy as long as the operative term is "legal".

As far as confiscation of property of employers, it won't happen. Democrats suck up to the illegal lobby because it is a source of currently illegal and in their view future legal votes. Repbulicans suck up to the illegal lobby because business wants immigrants (legal or otherwise). Confiscation of property will p*ss off business and reduce employment for illegals. Both parties of the ruling class will lose. Never will happen.

If congress wanted to get a handle on illegal immigration in a hurry, it could easily be accomplished by enforcing the freakin' law already in place which makes it a crime to hire anyone who can not document their resident status.

[DeltaElite]

Waitone,
Good point, immigrants rather than illegals. Thanks :)

[JoeSF]

Thanks Delta, I agree with the statement about immigrants but what about illegals?

[DeltaElite]

Illegals should be sent back.
The border needs to be sealed.
I am not a racist, I just want people to immigrate legally like my grandparents did.

We already produce enough Americans that are illiterate and unable to do anything other than manual labor, we don't need to import them.

[4v50 Gary]

The penalty is too harsh for the crime. Especially consider the difficulty of identifying the employer. Legally, a contract employee (say your Pinkerton Guard) who works at your store is an employee of Pinkerton, right? But if you start giving the guy too many orders and treat him like your employee (he gets an employee ID card, wins an employee of the month award, you supervise him directly instead of going through a Pinkerton supervisor), he now becomes "your" employee and you're liable for his conduct (respondeat superior). Now, if that Pinkerton guard is an illegal alien, do you lose your store?

Similarly, you send an employee out to get some "labor" and unknowing to you, the employee brings back illegals to work on your yard. Should the house be seized?

I'd rather issue work permits freely to these guys so they can come & go into this country. Cheap labor (especially for farmers) keeps the price of our food down. Besides, most of us won't work on farms or do other menial jobs anyway.

I'd also like to address our own "useless" citizens. You know, the professional "welfare" recipient. I'd cut off the generational welfare system. Can't get a job and won't work, no problem. Starve. I'm sure we've got pauper fields to dump them in. Don't want to starve? Well, we'll give them $2k each for agreeing to get sterilized.

[JoeSF]

Well I did say maximum penalty. Just like the drug law. Do you lose your house for a joint? The examples you gave are good ones. But what about the guy who routinely hires them by the dozens?
As far as the cost of food argument, I'm not talking about banning immigration, but actually using legal documented immigrants to do the picking. I think we could determine the real cost to that job if we knew what the cost of the services the workers received was. A subsidy is a subsidy. If we want subsidised farm labor, why not subsidise Americans to do it ?

[Cal4D4]

We have hiring halls for illegals here with a recommended min wage of $8/hr for manual labor. Keeps them off the street corners. I don't use them. Do most work myself. Big job like a $27k reroof, I hire a local contracter. When I look at the labor release form afterward, all 8 of the workers have SSN# within one digit sequentially. Guess the gov't gets another piece of property.

Alot of kids don't go into the trades because even journeyman's wages are driven down by competition with illegals.

[Ed Brunner]

It should be confiscation of the illegals!

[wingman]

No, not at all.
The illegals do jobs that Americans won't do and as long as they are paid the minimum wage, I don't care who employs them.
I don't want to see anyone exploited by anyone."



What,? Your kidding.?

We need to control our borders, both
legal and illegal immigration, we are
now paying approx. $2,400(average)
per taxpayer, per year on this problem.
Schools, hospitals, etc. It is out of control
and only the rich benefit.

[JoeSF]

CAl, when you hire a contractor he is responsible.( I hope he had insurance by the way, if anyone was hurt you could have been sued if he didn't.) So whats you contractor got to lose then for this practice?
When I had my roof done most of the men didn't speak english. They worked hard. I know legal mexican immigrants who complain about the illegals. They are getting their pay cut too.
How can the guy hiring them not be the problem? If there is a problem.

[wingman]

FAQs about Immigration and US Population Growth

Translate



Growth advocates say that people are needed to keep the economy moving, but what is the main cause of...

* Traffic congestion
* Overcrowded schools
* Energy shortages
* Air pollution
* Loss of open space
* Overburdened infrastructure
* Wage depression
* Deteriorating quality of life?


... the main cause is RAPID POPULATION GROWTH!



• What are the components of U.S. population growth?
Natural increases (birth minus deaths) and immigration are the two contributing factors to U.S. population growth.


• Why should we reduce immigration?
According to the Census Bureau figures, more than two-thirds of current and future population growth is the result of immigration. Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Reseach for the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in a January 2001 paper: “Immigration has become the determinate factor in population growth. The 11.2 million immigrants who indicated they arrived between 1990 and 2000 plus the 6.4 million children born to immigrants in the United States during the 1990s are equal to almost 70 percent of U.S. population growth over the last 10 years.”

Reducing immigration therefore is necessary to curb population growth.


• How fast has the immigrant population grown?
The immigrant population in the United States has nearly tripled since 1970, due to legislation passed since 1965 to increase immigration.


• What is the impact of population growth on our environment?
The California Department of Water Resources has forecast serious water shortages 10 years from now, due to population growth, most of which comes from immigration. Continued population growth directly threatens biodiversity and causes species extinction, loss of farmland and open space, and general degradation of environmental quality.


• Will building more roads or schools, or improved mass transportation solve many of our problems?
No. There are no long-term growth management plans that can cope with unlimited population growth.


• What is the impact of rapid population growth on our public schools?
In 1996, the U.S. Department of Education estimated that 2.6 million new students will be added to America's public schools (K-12) for this coming decade. A study by the California Department of Education of the state's public schools revealed that one student in four could not speak English well enough to understand what was going on in the classroom. The school districts of Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Nashville and North Carolina have student bodies in which respectively 80, 85 and 150 languages are spoken.


• Does immigration only affect the border states?
Large numbers of immigrants from many countries have settled in many Midwestern states. The Detroit Metropolitan area has one of the largest concentrations of Arabs outside the Middle East.


• Why is it necessary to reduce immigration in order to achieve welfare and health care reform?
Based on the March 1998 Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau, the poverty rate for immigrants is 50 percent higher than that for the native-born. In 1996, welfare and Medicaid provided to elderly non-citizen legal immigrants alone cost American taxpayers more than $10 billion dollars. The high poverty rate of immigrants will increase the number of residents without health care and needing welfare, making health care and welfare reform much more difficult and expensive to address.


• How does high immigration contribute to our Social Security problems?
Because of the poverty rate and the large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants entering the U.S. every year, a tremendous burden is placed on government budgets, greatly depleting the Social Security Trust Fund in the long run.


• What is immigration's impact on American workers?
The National Academy of Science reported in 1997 that from 1980 to 1995, 44 percent of the decline in the real wages of high school dropouts resulted from immigration. The study conducted by UC Davis Professor Norman Matloff also concludes that large numbers of older immigrant and U.S-born computer scientists are displaced by newly arrived foreign-born computer programmers.


• What groups are most hurt economically by high levels of immigration?
Pro-immigrant Professor Paul Ong of UCLA has said, “In terms of the adverse impact on wage and employment, the adverse impact will be most pronounced on minorities and established immigrants...”

[CZ-75]

Why are we having a discussion that revolves around taking someone's property for violating some statute?

As to whether or not someone loses their house for a joint, people have lost their housed for having a half dozen hemp plants (the kind G. Washington grew, as well as numerous other Americans did until it was made illegal, to make rope).

Asset forfeiture plain sucks. The only exception I see is that the govt. should be able to confiscate property that was directly financed through illegal activities.

Sell drugs to pay for your house, then your house is forfeit. Still, this leaves acres of room for abuse.

If employing illegals is made criminal, then it should be fines that are levied.

From an economic standpoint, this is a ridiculous idea, since the government seizing any business premises would mean that that business is closed, its employees (legal ones) out of work, and its economic contributions negated. The govt. doesn't care since it can just raise taxes to recoup the losses to itself over the long term.

[matis]

Illegal immigration is a problem that may sink the United States unless we get a handle on it.

Illegals, drain the treasury, even if they work, their taxes do NOT begin to cover what Americans must pay for their medical care, the schooling of their children and the jailing of so many of them (before you call me names, check the statistics).

Not to mention the organized and increasing power of the groups who intend to get CA, AZ, NM and maybe Texas "back" for Mexico. The name LA RAZA mean THE RACE. And their growing power is already tearing the US apart and may soon do so literally. Before the advent of the welfare state, immigrants, even illegals made a positive contribution. They HAD to work, did their best to learn English and struggled to become Americans. A large proportion of illegal and too many of even legal immigrants today want the American dream but want to Balkanize the country.

With that said, I think it would be a terrible solution to confiscate the property of employers who hire them. This only empowers the government that refuses to deal with the problem in the first place.

Asset forfieiture, whether criminal or especially civil is an unmitigated evil. It motivates government and police to find reasons to grab our property.

Or to invent those reasons. There is a famous case of a man who owned a spread in the Santa Monica mountains. The parks service tried to buy his land to augment their parkland. He refused to sell.

Eventually he was raided in the early morning by the usual swat type ninjas, got his gun for self-defence and they killed him. This kind of thing is no longer that unusual in the US. The fact that all this eventually came out and his family won a lawsuit doesn't really solve this terrible problem.

As more and newer categories of "crime" become the justification for seizing private property, government gets more and newer motivation to seize that property. What's the matter? They don't take enough from us in the multitude of taxes?

Get stopped on the highway and let the cops find a significant amount of cash on you and they will almost certainly seize it. The burden of proof is then on you to prove the money was not ill-gotten gains. And it is very hard to win in court because they use a doctrine that not you, but the money (or other assets) is guilty. So the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply. Not does "...innocent until proven guilty". And under $10k, forget it. That's about the minimum the legal fees will run to. Gives a new meaning to the phrase, HIGHWAY ROBBERS.

So although the illegal immigration MUST be solved, that is NOT the way to solve it -- and would only compound the problem.

Matis

[Cal4D4]

JoeSF...

Understand about the "seguridad" issue. I demanded everything but "insurance certs". Probably was still barefoot. The illegal culture does not seem to be pursuing liability against contractors or deep pockets. This would change the game muy pronto. What a mess. The liability issue is another reason I don't use them. Alot of domestic kids would be better served in apprenticeships in carpentry, tile work, masonry,etc. No future if after a few years they gotta run against someone at $10/hr. Most local contractors seem to be supervising brown workers. They bid the job but I got more callouses than they do. Economic survival. Injured workers get a couple hundred bucks cash and a trip to county hospital.

[xjer]

I dont think confiscation is the answer but we sure
need to start somewhere.


A little off topic.

Just about everyone who posted on this subject is against
illegal immigration. Every survey I have seen the overwelming
majority is against it.

I would like to know why our state and
federal gov. has no desire to do anything about it. Am I
so simple I'm missing something?

As previously mentioned the drain on our Nation has to
be stagering and is only going to get worse.

Mike

[wingman]

I would like to know why our state and
federal gov. has no desire to do anything about it. Am I
so simple I'm missing something? "


Me too, but I would guess, money and votes.
Numbers I have seen states general
public (69%) consider immigration to
be a problem, approx. (19%) of our people in gov.think so.

[Mike Irwin]

That would be a great big yes.

I've often thought that the US Government NEEDS to go into the restaurant, yard care, laundry, and hotel businesses wholesale.

Best way to do it is ot seize it.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic.

[Waitone]

The gap between the ruling class and the taxpaying class with respect to illegal immigration is startling.

This survey spells out the gep. Wonder why it has not received major play by Big Media.


http://newswithguts.com/article.asp?art_id=2002_12_13_2_51_4

[Frohickey]

I think that we should turn this around.

Instead of talking about private property confiscation of employers that are found to employ illegal aliens, we should talk about a bounty/compensation for businesses or employers that provide information leading to the arrest of illegal aliens.

I would say, 1 month of business tax exemption, for every illegal alien found, to a maximum of 2 years of tax exemption, and no more than 3 instances per fiscal year.

I could see businesses tattletailing on their competitors in order to squash on their competition, and also get a boost to their bottom line with the tax exemption.

The bounty/compensation would be taken out of the pool of money that was supposed to have been spent all this time on border patrol, which the politicians have not seen fit to fund adequately. So, it ultimately will be coming from some of their social welfare pet projects.

[Airwolf]

Waitone, thanks for posting that link. I've always known there's a disconnect between the government and the people when it came to this problem, I just never knew how much of one it was.

Very disturbing.

[zook]

most of us won't work on farms or do other menial jobs anyway

Yeah, and maybe that's why we have the problems we do. When, and why, did tasks such as providing food become "menial"?

[Tamara]

Go and see how much fun asset forfeiture (http://www.fear.org/) has been so far before encouraging its wider usage. :mad:

[Blackhawk]

Enforcement of immigration laws isn't the responsibility of employers.

[Chipper]

In reading this thread the question bantied about the most is why isn't the government doing anything to stop this immigration?

Many have offered their thoughts on job/wage competition or illegal immigrants getting on the dole. Some have even mentioned that politicians are reluctant because they are pandering to the illegal immigrant lobby in order to gain re-election.

If we look beyond this day and beyond this year and beyond the next election cycle, you will see that the baby-boomers are going to start retiring en masse in 2012. That's nine years away. When these boomers retire they are going to want their social security. The problem is, the boomers didn't produce enough children to keep the ponzi scheme of social security going. Another problem is that there are no (and never have been) individual accounts. There is no (and never has been) any trust fund for social security money. The brilliant, all-knowing and all-caring people that you believe actually represent your interests in DC made social security money part of the general budget back in the 80's.

In order to keep the ponzi scheme going there must be more people paying into it. Since we don't have enough of our own, we must import them. Since we can't legally import the quantity needed, it's easier for the government to close it's eyes and ignore all the illegal mmigrants that flood over our borders daily. This is why there has been amnesty for illegal immigrants in the past and why there will be more in the future.

The ideas of political boosts to the republicrats and lower wages being paid by employers are just frosting on the cake. A bonus. Employers who can pay lower wages can increase their profit margin which will also make them more likely to vote to keep the republicrats in power. You simply cannot afford to have people voting on actual principles if you are to stay in power

The government will have to work fast and furiously to stay ahead of the curve on this. They will have to have something up their sleeves to maintain payment against this high level of withdrawal from their coffers. Since the fedgov is still enamored with Keynesian economic theories, you can expect many more military actions. This is also why the "war on terrorism" is so important. This is the perfect war without end. An ill-defined enemy that has no nation-state to call it's own because it is already in all nation-states. Jorge Arbustos (W to you Americanos del Norte) is busy as a bee laying the ground rules. Pre-emptive attacks, we will pursue terrorists to the four corners of the earth ( how much you wanna bet we won't pursue them in Russia, China, England or France?), we will fight terrorism as long as it takes to defeat it. Amazingly the figure of thirty has been bounced aroung gov circles. Yes, I would say that this will take a generation or longer, which by all calculations is just long enough to get us through paying all the boomers until they all die off.

Of course, in the event of unseen changes, other terrorist attacks could occur here in high population centers where retirees are a clear majority. This would be a great tragedy but, fortunately there will be plenty of young, healthy, newly minted Americans who will be able to handle the task of rebuilding.

Looks like the Rolling Stones were right, what a drag it is...getting old.

Chipper

[JPM70535]

Wow! For the first time in quite a while, a poting where the majority opinion reflects the viewpoint I have held regarding Illegal immigration.

How can so many of us hold the same view and be so far out of step with our Governments posture?

The time is long since past to seek a solution to this problem, and while as I have said on numerous occasions, I oppose the use of the military to handle what is basically a civil problem, I believe that the solution to the illegal problem could best be solved using the Army to seal off our southern border. I can think of no other viable alternative.

[wingman]

Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado agrees but can do little
as one voice in a group of people
who want to be PC at all cost to
the taxpayer.


http://www.house.gov/tancredo/

[Kaylee]

Chipper, re social security... this is very much the case for legal immigrants, particularly the Indian tech workers in high paying fields I think. However, I don't think illegals are even IN the system to pay into it, are they? Perhaps their nationalized children will be, and those kids will be entering into the work force about the time the social security/boomer bomb hits.... but I don't see how even a politician could think that a bunch of poorly educated, unskilled first generations could possibly make up that kind of tax revenue in the first few years of their working lives. Even in large numbers. :confused: :confused:

To the original point though... I agree the best thing that could be done is to severly cut back the welfare system until it's at best a true short-term locally administered safety net, or even non-existent. Thus, we both remove some of the incentive for illegals crossing the border, and make it easier to find folks willing to work those jobs that are already here. I'd expect an unintended consequence though of that action being a rise in crime rates due to a combination of folks on the bottom rungs not having the cash they used to, and being angry about losing it.

As to the original question:

With that said, I think it would be a terrible solution to confiscate the property of employers who hire them. This only empowers the government that refuses to deal with the problem in the first place.

Asset forfieiture, whether criminal or especially civil is an unmitigated evil. It motivates government and police to find reasons to grab our property.

Or to invent those reasons.

Can I be a dittohead now? :p

-K

[nemesis]

There should be no penalty for employing illegal immigrants. Such actions harm no other individual.

That sounds like a statement from someone who has never been there. Welcome to the Rio Grande Valley!

We are overwhelmed by illegal aliens who actually make up a very large and significant part of our population as the INS has chosen to offer little opposition to allowing them to get this far and positions the official "immigration line" sixty miles further north.

The illegals who "harm no other individual" are frequently paid less than minimum wage, in cash, with no taxes or withholding paid and are subject to unsafe working environments. One highly qualified welder, actually an American, said he couldn't find work at fair pay rates and could only get a job if he would accept the wages being paid to illegals and that was under $6 per hour.

Anyone interested in caring for these poor people, who "are just trying to improve their lives" still has an opportunity. Just give me your address and I'll send you a couple of busloads.

[Chipper]

Kaylee,

In a prior post on this thread it was stated that these illegal immigrants are using socsec numbers (they were sequentially numbered). No doubt that these cards are fraudulent but the gov doesn't care because it is still a supply of FRTs into the system. As amnesty is granted these people will be issued bona fide numbers which, of course, the fedgov will still accept. Remember, this isn't a one-wave thing. This ilegal immigration has been going on for some time and will continue to go on if fedgov has it's way.

You're point about these illegal immigrants having children here is excellent. They too, will continue to help feed the system.

As to legal immigrants such as tech workers, this also is a good point especially due to their higher levels of income. I could very well be wrong on this but if memory serves there is something like a limit to socsec contributions on the order of about $35k/year. of course this would only apply to people making a little over $450k/year gross at current percentages of tax sSomehow I don't the tech folks are pulling in quite that much. Even so, it would take 60 illegals making $7500/yr on the books to make the $35k "contribution" of one with the higher income. If the illegals are making the gov-mandated min. wage and doing a little overtime, it would take only 30 illegals to match the high level "contribution". You start running the numbers on this and you soon see that it works out very well for fedgov

You're right, I did go off-topic. I do not support property seizure. If anything here, fedgov is wholly at fault. Let's be honest, this is an unarmed invasion. Quite frankly the only reason for banding together in Union as a nation is for defense. Just as fedgov failed miserably and tragicly on 9/11, 2001 so also is it failing here. If fedgov fails at it's most fundamental reason for existence, then why have a federal government? We are a nation of consumers. Anything that is used up or no longer seves a purpose we toss in the trash. Why not the same for the federal government? It only exists because we continue to comply with it's dikta. Cease compliance and it will wither and die. What's to be afraid of? you still live in a community or a county/parrish in a state. Are not those two or three levels of government enough? Do we really need a central vacuum system in our house?

Anyway, those are my on-topic thoughts.

Chipper

[xjer]

You make some good points. Food for thought for sure.
It seems like the drain from the illegals would offset a
lot of the benefits to socsec. Regardless the will of the
American people should prevail. No matter what the outcome
to the socsec system is.

Kaylee hit the nail on the head!

Welfare reform would be a good start. A saw a show a few
years ago where a small town in Texas had 1000's of P.O.
boxes. The town only had 3 or 4 hundred living there. Every
month bus loads would cross the border to pick up their
welfare checks that were mailed to the P.O. boxes.:cuss:

1) make it harder for the illegal freeloaders to steal our money.
2) close the border to illegals.
3)Decide what to do about the ones that are here.

If a check or two bounces to Pakistain or (fill in the blank) because
we need it for socsec checks so be it.

Mike

[Chipper]

xjer,

I don't think that I quite understand your post. I understand the part about welfare reform and I would go so far as to totally eliminate it for both foreign people and American citizens.

The parts I don't understand are where you said, " Regardless the will of the American people should prevail. No matter what the outcome to the socsec system is."

The next is, "If a check or two bounces to Pakistain or (fill in the blank) because we need it for socsec checks so be it."

Are you saying it doesn't matter what we sacrifice as long as the American people get their socsec checks? Or, it's OK to sacrifice foreign aid to keep socsec going?

I would have to say let socsec die along with foreign aid, corporate welfare, and a whole host of other government activities and expenditures.

Socsec, though it directly benefits the government by removing dollars from our pockets and putting them into the hands of the government to spend at will on other programs to make us dependent on it, it is still a welfare program. Regardless of what the American people want, it needs to go. That's the inherent danger of democracy, once it is discovered that the treasury can be looted there will be no end to demand for that loot.

As to illegal immigration, it is an invasion which the congress is duly authorized to stop. Yes welfare reform will remova an incentive to come here but that is a law and could take years or decades to pass. Illegal immigration must stop now. Ban it. Put a moratorium on it for 10 or 20 years. Deport all illegals here and allow the legal immigrants time (not money or any other assistance other than what is common to American generosity) to assimilate and become Americans.

As to the government paying heed to the will of the American people, it simply won't happen. The government does not give a rat's posterior about it's citizens. It cares only about perpetuating itself, enriching itself and empowering itself even further. If what the American citizen's want presents itself as a tool to achieve one or more of those three aims of government, the government will do it's darnedest to implement it selling it to you as what you want but constructing it so it benefits their purposes.

Another thing, in current negotiations with Mexico, one point that both governments are seeking agreement on is folding Mexican citizens into OUR socsec system. I don't have the link at hand but a google search will bring up the info. As I understand, the Mexican citizens will pay into it now in order to receive the benefits later in life. This is the same garbage that was sold to the Americans of a couple of generations ago.

Yes. Food for thought.

Chipper

[JoeSF]

How about if we make the punishment up to a $25,000 fine per illegal in your employ with a $1,000 minimum? Is employing illegals in the first place part of the problem? The employers are breaking the law aren't they?

[QuickDraw]

Lots of good points and food for thought.
Here in the bay area a few years ago,the INS tried photographing,documenting,contractors,and others picking up illegals for day work.They would send a letter to the registered owner stating the immigration laws, and if it was seen again,fines,etc.
The city I live in has TOLD the INS not to come here and "hassle"
the illegals.
I'm a contractor,its my job on the line.
I bet people would have a different opinion if their wages and
job were threatened by waves of illegals!
Oh by the way,before all the illegals,I was doing those jobs that nobody else would do.
Still do.:)
To stay on topic, I would say yes to fines,no to confiscation.


QuickDraw

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm not very happy about legal or illegal immigration, but will endeavor to stay on topic here.

Property forfeiture is rife with civil rights problems as it's practiced in the WOD, but would not have to be in this case. I would be in favor of hefty fines for the first conviction. If they couldn't pay, or refused, sieze the property and auction it off.

For subsequent convictions, jail time for the employers.

Welfare reform, certainly, but eliminating it, as some here have advocated, would be inhumane. We should take care of the neediest of our own who genuinely can't take care of themselves.

[shu]

Where are all the Libertarians on this board when you need them.

You want smaller government and more liberty when it comes to firearms ownership. Lets get the Feral Gummit out of the unemployment compensation, education, health and medical, and minimum wage business also. Let the individual be responsible for his own welfare. Open the borders and let people migrate to wherever they best fit on the planet.

[Chipper]

Malone LaVeigh,

I really like your nick. I am jealous that I didn't think of it first.

We'll go backwards on this.

No welfare. None. Nada. Zip. Goose egg. 0. Not for foreigners. Not for businesses. Not for Americans. None. For people there are churches and secular charities. I don't care if they are handicapped in any way, bedridden for life, comatose, lazy, shiftless, laid-off or otherwise between jobs. I don't care if they have 432 children. You do not take from my mouth or my table or my family to feed, clothe, medicate, house or in any wise support another from the sweat of my brow. I give to the charities that I choose whom I believe are doing the best to help others with a hand up, NOT a handout! The government has neither moral right or constitutional justification to pursue this madness. And that, my friend, is precisely what it is when you plunder people of their property to redistribute to another for ANY purpose (of course skimming from the top to line their own pockets in the process!) This is an absolute denial and abrogation of the fundamental right of all people, the right to their own property. It is exactly this type of thing that unravels the fabric of any society.

The federal government supported by this nation is charged with and authorized by the constitution to defend the borders of this nation. If it is their job to perform this function, how then can it be sloughed off onto employers? If anyone is liable for this awful mess it is the government for failing to perform. It is the government that failed to adequately guard the borders thus allowing this invasion. It is also the government's fault for legislating into existence the great and many incentives for illegals to enter. We didn't this problem to this degree until the government threw open the doors to the treasury for all take as they will. Illegals prior to that time came here for basicly three reasons:1) they actually wanted to take part in the American dream and come here for the great opportunities; 2) they were escaping political oppression; 3) they were criminals on the lam. Since Johnson threw open the doors to the treasury and Teddy Kennedy invited everyone to jump in the pool, every Pedro and his idiot hermano has tried to get here to suck on the federal teat.
The employer, yesterday's or today's, did not bring this about. It is fully due to the efforts of your duly elected representatives. Why then should employers be forced to give their property to pay fines for the crimes perpetrated by your government? If you need someone to punish for this mess then punish your federal government. Punish your state government for not having the huevos to stand up to the federal government and stop this mess. It is within their power if they had the intestinal fortitude to act.

Yes. These are interesting ideas because this is the kind of thing it takes to be a nation which is something that your elected officials have lost sight of long ago.

Chipper

[matis]

Quote:
"Can I be a dittohead now?

-K"

Kaylee,
You can be a dittohead if you can explain to me how cum Tamara can accomplish with one sentence --

Quote:
"Go and see how much fun asset forfeiture has been so far before encouraging its wider usage."


...what it takes me a page 'n a half to attempt.

Thanks for that excellent site, Tamara (see her post above for an easy url to click on -- I don't know how to put it here).


Matis

[Malone LaVeigh]

Chipper:

I hear you, and, though I don't agree with the totality of your position on welfare, I think you're coming from an ethical and consistent place. I won't try to argue with you on the theoretical bases, just to point out that welfare for the truly needy fulfills certain practical goals. Keeping the children of the needy from starving so they can eventually be productive citizens is one.

On the topic of government, I think you are ascribing too much importance to welfare. Most of the illegal immigrants aren't here to collect welfare, they're here to work. We have an economic system that rewards employers for paying the lowest wage possible. That has a lot of benefits in the market, but when there is no control on entry to the labor market, it creates a situation where wages are driven down. A permanent servile class is just what certain sectors of our economy want.

You are blaming the government for not placing an "artificial" control on the availability of labor. I put the word in quotes, because it's debatable whether cheap labor from outside of the country is artificial or not. Our most strident libertarians would say it's just one big market, and doesn't matter where it originates. Others, including me, would say that the market concept only works within some sort of contained system. Native workers in this country are constrained by the costs of living here while having to compete in a market that has been opened to workers who live under a different framework.

I would like to see a market-based (not the same as market-controlled) solution. Expecting the government to seal the borders will never work in the face of the market reality.

[Zander]

Most of the illegal immigrants aren't here to collect welfare, they're here to work. -- MVThe experience in, for instance, the southern part of the PDRK would contradict that opinion.

And I do mean 'opinion', as it has little to do with fact. In certain states, the "welfare programs" have everything to do with increasing the number of illegal aliens rewarded for being here in contravention of our laws and almost nothing to do with short-term aid.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality...

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well, your opinion's as good as mine, I suppose. I'm not going to bother looking up any stats, because I really don't care. My point was that if anyone expects illegal immigration to be significantly changed by welfare reform, they're in for a surprise. The flux of people across the border is powered by strong social and economic forces. With or without a handout, the difference between economic opportunities here and there is going to draw more immigrants than the legal system can handle.

Sure, we should not pay any welfare to illegal immigrants. If for no other reason than it'll disabuse a lot of folks of the opinion that it makes any difference.

[Zander]

I'm not going to bother looking up any stats, because I really don't care. -- MVAt least you're honest enough to admit that it's self-inflicted.

[CZ-75]

Property forfeiture is rife with civil rights problems as it's practiced in the WOD, but would not have to be in this case. I would be in favor of hefty fines for the first conviction. If they couldn't pay, or refused, sieze the property and auction it off.

Make the punishment fit the crime. Asset forfeiture is nearly never a just punishment, and certainly not warranted for employment violations.

I'm a bit worried how cavalierly the concept is brought up here. Perhaps we're inured to the concept of the government having claim to what is ours (i.e., property tax = RENT).

Kinda reminds me about those folks who attribute the success of the American economy and its capitalist (originally) underpinnings to the government, then claim it's only fair that we fork over a large chunk of our incomes for the privilege of being given the opportunity to work for what we get.

[Chipper]

Malone LaVeigh,

In your reply you stated, "...just to point out that welfare for the truly needy fulfills certain practical goals. Keeping the children of the needy from starving so they can eventually be productive citizens is one."

How does keeping children from starving justify armed robbery? This is exactly what taxation is, armed robbery. Where in the constitution is this authorized? If this is justified for the government, why is it against the law for you to rob me?

Certainly I can understand the sentiment, I have children of my own. This is definitely not some heartless and cruel position that I am taking here. There are churches and secular organizations that actively and successfully work in staving off hunger. The only practical goals remaining then are those of enslavement. When a government takes it upon itself to feed, clothe and shelter people, it does so at great cost to the productive people under it's rule. This is what is most heartless and cruel, when by your tender mercies you make merchandise of another human. A commodity to serve you at your will. All you need to do is provide for maintenance. You remove drive. You diminish dignity. You deprive of independence. You chain liberty. You have slaves, not citizens. Then the most cruel of all consequences, the children also are enslaved for they have never had the opportunity to experience liberty. This is how we domesticate animals. This is how chattel is gained.

From time immemorial this has been a proven recipe for disaster. Disaster for individual adults, their children, the community they live in and the nation at large. This, for the people of any nation, spells imminent doom. Liberty and freedom are inherent in human nature. People will have freedom. It may take 600 years to reclaim what is by right and by nature theirs but , rest assured they will reclaim it.

I am saddened that we do not see eye to eye on this. Perhaps this is just one more example as to why America needs to divide into separate countries. The things that truly divide Americans are much deeper than race, ethnicity, religion or any other topic on which we contend amongst ourselves. It is a matter of ideology. A matter of belief. We strive for similar ends but by vastly differing means.

I've enjoyed our conversation and am particularly glad that it was handled in a civil manner. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to speak again. I wish you well.

Chipper

[1goodshot]

I would hold all illegals that where caught until the government of their home country or family(or they worked it off themselves) payed to get them back. I would fine any employer that knowing hired them.I would also allow groups of immigrants to come to this country to work temporarily provided they past a back ground check and payed taxes.

[foghornl]

Deport the illegal aliens and the employers, too...............


///smarmy smart-xxx mode off

[George Dickel]

Back in the mid 70's while stationed at Ft. Hood, Tx, I worked as an MP and at that particular time I was a Desk Sergeant. On my way to work I passed by a huge construction project that was building on post housing for military families. I don't know how many people worked the site but it was several hundred. One particular day I was going in to work the swing shift and I watched a large INS contingent drive into the construction area. It looked like someone had kicked an ant hill. There were people running in every direction. About an hour later at work the INS came in and asked permission to use our facility to process the illegals they picked up at the site. They brought in 4 of the large 60 plus passenger busses filled to the brim. They worked until almost midnight processing that bunch. For the next week nothing was going on at the construction site. All the workers that were not caught by the INS stayed away for awhile in fear of another raid. Nearly everyone working there was an illegal. For those who believe that illegals hurt no one, consider this. Jobs in the Ft. Hood/Killeen, TX area are far and few between. These illegals were taking jobs that could have gone to US citizens living in the area and there would have been no lack of willing applicants for those jobs. Many of the illegals were paid cash under the table so no taxes were collected and no social security paid by them. Locals would not work for the wage offered by the contractor because it was so low. Only a small portion of that money stayed in the local economy becasue the illegals sent the bulk of thier pay to Mexico and Central America to their families. I don't buy the idea that they work only the jobs americans won't. Pay an American a realistic wage and they will take those jobs.

[George Dickel]

Back in the mid 70's while stationed at Ft. Hood, Tx, I worked as an MP and at that particular time I was a Desk Sergeant. On my way to work I passed by a huge construction project that was building on post housing for military families. I don't know how many people worked the site but it was several hundred. One particular day I was going in to work the swing shift and I watched a large INS contingent drive into the construction area. It looked like someone had kicked an ant hill. There were people running in every direction. About an hour later at work the INS came in and asked permission to use our facility to process the illegals they picked up at the site. They brought in 4 of the large 60 plus passenger busses filled to the brim. They worked until almost midnight processing that bunch. For the next week nothing was going on at the construction site. All the workers that were not caught by the INS stayed away for awhile in fear of another raid. Nearly everyone working there was an illegal. For those who believe that illegals hurt no one, consider this. Jobs in the Ft. Hood/Killeen, TX area are far and few between. These illegals were taking jobs that could have gone to US citizens living in the area and there would have been no lack of willing applicants for those jobs. Many of the illegals were paid cash under the table so no taxes were collected and no social security paid by them. Locals would not work for the wage offered by the contractor because it was so low. Only a small portion of that money stayed in the local economy becasue the illegals sent the bulk of thier pay to Mexico and Central America to their families. I don't buy the idea that they work only the jobs americans won't. Pay an American a realistic wage and they will take those jobs.

[JoeSF]

For those of you who thought the question was "is property confiscation a good idea", I agree it isn't. I suppose I sould have used a penalty that would have led understanding the question and not leading you astray.
Having worked as a carpenter in the late 70's in New Mexico for Four dollars an hour,I remember my boss telling me about the low pay "I can't get the jobs if I pay more because so and so is using illegals and can bid lower." Eventually I left, went north to Colorado and got 8 and then 12 bucks an hour doing the same work. But there weren't any illegals there at the time to speak of.
I do believe employers of illegals are on about the same level as drug pushers. And if you think about it, they are giving some of us what we want , while breaking the law just like a dealer. A cheaper this or that.
There is is a cost to the practice of hiring illegals. Not to mention the fact that when they are caught there is an expense to processing them. I believe that cost should be shouldered by those employing them. And you know if they keep hiring them after they have been caught well..I'll let you guys decide ....
Thanks for your responses everyone. America isn't perfect but it is the best.