Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, May 26, 2006

Darned if You Do!

One of the myths of the immigration debate is that employers have the tools to prevent illegal aliens from getting jobs. The myth goes on to say that employers are only giving jobs to illegals because they'd rather pay lower wages to illegals than higher wages to people authorized to work in the US. The truth is generally different: the government has set it up that employers cannot make a judgement upon whether or not someone has a fake set of identificaton.

From the governments very own. EEOC Compliance Manual 13-6-B:

While federal law prohibits employers from employing individuals lacking work authorization, employers who nonetheless employ undocumented workers are prohibited from discriminating against those workers




Ok that's clear as mud. Anyway it's an easy job for employers to know whether or not a new hire has proper documents, right? The answer is no. If an employer reviews the documents "too vigourously" they can be sued for discrimination. From the US Senate Republican Study: (page 5)

"The system is broken because, from the moment the employers begin the paperwork process, the law places them between a rock and a hard place. That is while one provision punishes them with heavy fines if they fail to sufficiently inspect the documents, another provision makes thtem liable for discrimination if they too vigoursly inspect the documents."

"The employer may not refuse to "honor documents tendered by the employee that on their face reasonably appears to be genuine....that section of law also prohibits employer retaliation...against an employee....such as dismissing the employee, even if he suspects him to be and illegal alien, and such retaliation...is considered discrimination per se under the law.


Another source for the same information: The first paragraph is an error an employer may make that would create a discrimination claim. The second paragraph is the "right" way to do it.

Inaccurately concluding that documents are false. To avoid employer sanctions, employer routinely calls government agencies to determine whether documents offered by applicants are legitimate. Employer relies upon information to incorrectly decide that applicant does not have work authorization and refuses to hire him or her.

A better approach: Employer reviews all documents to see if they reasonably appear to be genuine and does not routinely investigate authenticity of documents unless they clearly appear on their face to be false.


I would propose that it's easier, faster and probably cheaper for someone to get a fake identification than it is to get the real thing. The law is clear that if the ID "looks ok" an employer has to accept it. They MAY NOT contact a government agency for help in determining if the ID is real.

I came across this little tidbit in the LA Times: It doesn't really fit in but but I had to link to it:

The number of federal workers who focus on finding illegal immigrants on the job has dropped in recent years, from 240 in 1999 to 90 in 2003.


How do we know enforcing the current law won't work? The government certainly hasn't made any effort to do so. And why would one think that they will enforce it now?

Enforcement first, then we'll talk about what to do with the current illegals. Heck if we enforce the current law the problem very well may take care of itself to a great degree.

Comments

Avatar for Sphagnum

Rather than debating any specific point, I’ll just ask this.  Since comprehensive immigration legislation is now in conference and could soon be on the President’s desk, why do you bother saying things like:

Enforcement first, then we’ll talk about what to do with the current illegals. Heck if we enforce the current law the problem very well may take care of itself to a great degree.

That battle is lost.  A comprehensive package will soon be passed and then be made law, why keep debating it as though there is another option out there similar to what you propose?

Sphagnum on May 27, 2006 at 05:06 am
Avatar for The Whistler

why keep debating it as though there is another option out there similar to what you propose?

You mean the House bill does not exist?

The battle is not lost as it the house bill was much better.  The House Republicans need to get what support they can get to stand firm.

If a enforcement first bill comes back to the Senate we need to put the pressure on them to pass the conference bill.

If the ammnesty does come through conference and the President does sign it into law, the politicians that supported this need to be held to account.

For example this very well could be the nail in the coffin for John McCain to get the Republican nomination.

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 05:17 am
Avatar for The Whistler

By the way, I must note that our “debates” about this issue amount to you quibbling about whether the term amnesty should be used, when I make a case that amnesty is the wrong thing to do.

You claim that there’s “harsh penalties,” I point out the penalties don’t nearly match the crime.

What is the compelling argument for this law-breaker forgiveness plan?  Because if you haven’t noticed I don’t get it.

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 05:31 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

That battle is lost. A comprehensive package will soon be passed and then be made law, why keep debating it as though there is another option out there similar to what you propose?

OH NO, Not a comprehensive package! How dare they try to pass something comprehensive.

realitybasedbob on May 27, 2006 at 05:50 am
Avatar for The Whistler

RBB:  Rewarding thosee that broke our laws is in “the comprehensive bill” I think that’s a mistake and it should be debated seperately. 

The last time we had a comprehensive bill we rewarded the illegals and got more of them.  The promised enforcement never came.  Now we’re told we need another comprehensive amnesty bill and this time they’ll do the enforcement.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

One of the reasons why I made this post (besides being unable to go to sleep) was that the President sent his press secretary on the Rush Limbaugh show this week.  The press secretary outright said that employers could look at an ID and say “looks good to me” (wink wink).

Shame on him.  He knows that employers cannot vigoursly inspect these documents and he knows that the government will do nothing to help employers.  I always liked Tony Snow up until then.

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 05:56 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

Yeah, I know. Bush and Snow hate America.

realitybasedbob on May 27, 2006 at 06:02 am
Avatar for The Whistler

I wouldn’t say that.  I would say they are showing contempt for their base.

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 07:29 am
Avatar for The Whistler

Another out and out lie of Clintonian proportions is Bush’s assertion that these illegals aren’t jumping to the head of the line in front of those that are obeying the law, waiting to come here.

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 07:30 am
Avatar for diane

It’s nice to see this coming from Whistler.


I wouldn’t say that. I would say they are showing contempt for their base.

Oh, they’ve been doing that for sometime.  The base just doesn’t want to see/admit it.  In fact, showing contempt is one of Bush’s most consistent ‘attributes’.

diane on May 27, 2006 at 08:02 am
Avatar for robert108

Actually, being a leader is the President’s most consistent attribute.

robert108 on May 27, 2006 at 09:41 am
Avatar for robert108

BTW, “a comprehensive package” is politicianspeak for trying to please everybody and doing nothing to address the real problem.  Without border enforcement, none of the rest has any meaning.

robert108 on May 27, 2006 at 09:45 am
Avatar for robert108

All we need is someone like Murtha telling us we should cut and run from the Southwest US, because we have already lost to the illegals.

robert108 on May 27, 2006 at 10:01 am
Avatar for The Whistler

Well we all know that in the last comprehensive plan we were going to get amnesty and enforcement.  (amnesty for the libs and enforcement for the conservatives to support).  We all know that we only got the amnesty.

That was 20 years ago and a different administration and mostly different Congress.

Five years ago we had an education plan with plenty for the libs and school vouchers for the conservatives.

Anyone here of vouchers lately?

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 10:02 am
Avatar for The Whistler

All we need is someone like Murtha telling us we should cut and run from the Southwest US, because we have already lost to the illegals.

That would be the President and I believe 61 Senators.

The Whistler on May 27, 2006 at 10:04 am
Avatar for TwoHotel9

Please to explain why we cannot enforce the laws on immigration that allready exsist. Making a new, and convolute, set of laws is fucking stupid. If we are totally unwilling to enforce laws that allready exsist why the hell would anyone be dumb enough to believe we will enforce a whole new set layered on top of the old ones? Everyone wants to attack business. Why? Because business has money to steal. What better way to steal it than through the judicial system. Illegals don’t have money, and they will never, not fucking ever, pay $2000 fines OR back taxes. The ACLU is already hard at work to see to that.  So please to explain why we are not enforcing laws that allready exsist. And exactly which political party has worked tirelessly for 40 years to see that we don’t enforce our immigration laws? A simple, one paragraph explaination will suffice.

TwoHotel9 on May 28, 2006 at 02:44 pm
Avatar for robert108

Laws create power for the political class, which includes the govt employees and their unions.  More laws, more money and power.  Here are a few thoughts on the matter:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/pauljacob/2006/05/28/199070.html

robert108 on May 28, 2006 at 02:49 pm
Avatar for TwoHotel9

Already read Mr. Jacob’s piece. MudMarine gave me a pile of printout sheets in the early AM.

TwoHotel9 on May 28, 2006 at 04:15 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

Frankly what punishment can we do to illegal aliens?

We don’t want to support them in our jails.

They don’t have enough money to fine them. 

The proper penalty is fingerprint them and let them know they can never legally come to this country.

So what can we do if they keep sneaking across the border after that?

The Whistler on May 28, 2006 at 05:12 pm
Avatar for diane

HotelBoy wonders why we don’t enforce existing laws.  First good question I’ve ever heard you ask.

The answer?  Because our legislators and our President are worthless.  The CURRENT administration saw the closing of the border patrol checkpoint a few miles from me.  The Border Parol agents here have been on talk radio for years talking about how this administration doesn’t support them and ties their hands.

There’s your answer.

diane on May 28, 2006 at 09:05 pm
Avatar for Sphagnum

Please to explain why we cannot enforce the laws on immigration that allready exsist.

Not the point of the thread, but since you are begging… The laws have not been enforced for decades.  That is done, it’s in the past.  Suddenly enforcing these laws on millions of people in this country would be a terrible, terrible thing for our country.  Our economy would suffer incredibly, the GOP would suffer immensly, the mass migration of millions of people southward would bring Mexico to their knees (which would not help our border situation any).  It’s illogical to think…

Let me try it this way.  What if no one had been paying federal income tax for 20 years.  The laws have been on the books, but they were nearly impossible to comply with and never enforced.  Suddenly, the IRS decides to start enforcing the law and every working citizen in the country is slapped with a 20%-of-their-income bill that they had come to not expect for the past two decades.  Do you think that would be the best way to go about it?  Or do you think it would be better to have some sort of transition from massive failure to enforce tax law into getting everyone legally to pay taxes every year?  It would be insane to simply “enforce the law” after such a time of incompetence on the part of the lawmakers…

Same goes for this situation.  We can’t simply start enforcing the law without massive negative consequences.

You mean the House bill does not exist?

Of course it does, but it has 0% of becoming law. Be realistic.

Sphagnum on May 29, 2006 at 11:49 am
Avatar for The Whistler

From Powerline (who quote the Washington Post)

The Washington Post reports this morning that prospects for the Senate’s immigration package are dimming, due to House members’ concerns about November’s election:

Republican House members facing the toughest races this fall are overwhelmingly opposed to any deal that provides illegal immigrants a path to citizenship—an election-year dynamic that significantly dims the prospects that President Bush will win the immigration compromise he is seeking, according to Republican lawmakers and leadership aides.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) will not allow a vote on a House-Senate compromise that does not have the support of most GOP lawmakers or one that would undermine the reelection chances of his at-risk members, aides said. According to GOP lawmakers and strategists, about 75 percent of the 231 House Republicans are steadfastly opposed to the Senate bill or even a watered-down version of it.

The Post’s article cites poll’s that supposedly show strong support for the administration’s plan, but, as one House member says, “they must not be polling anyone in [my] District.”

The Post’s reporters clearly think it’s unfortunate that the House may be knuckling under to the wishes of the voters:

Many senators, by contrast, represent more diverse populations and are therefore more sensitive to the concerns of Hispanics. Moreover, only one-third of senators face reelection this fall, so it is easier for them to ignore the short-term Republican politics, which are dominated by concerns about any program that resembles amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 04:53 am
Avatar for The Whistler

Replying to the tax amnesty analogy you came up with.

In order to make your tax analogy correct we wouuld have to grant perpetual tax amnesty to those that haven’t paid their taxes in the last 20 years.

You see, the one and only thing illegals haven’t been able to steal is legal status.  The Senate bill grants them this one golden prize that’s worth many more times what they’ve already illegally taken by coming and living here.

By the way Sphag, in the 1986 amnesty we were promised enforcement along with amnesty for the illegals that were here then.  The illegals got their amnesty and we got zero enforcement.  That amnesty made things perhaps 4 times worse. (3 vs 12 million)

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 05:40 am
Avatar for The Whistler

Not the point of the thread, but since you are begging…

To be honest you’re the one that took the thread off course from the post with the first comment.  I’m not complaining mind you, civil discourse is why most of us are here, but don’t complain about it when you’re the one that started it.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 05:42 am
Avatar for The Whistler

Our economy would suffer incredibly, the mass migration of millions of people southward would bring Mexico to their knees

In order to believe that one would have to believe that these illegal workers in the US are good while the very same people would be toxic to their own economy. 

the GOP would suffer immensly

I disagree.  I think that if they do pass an amnesty plan it’s the end of Republican control of the Senate, House and Whitehouse.  If conservatives ever come into power again it would be with a third party.  (Rasmussen has a poll saying that a third party controlled immigration party would be in a virtual tie with the Democrats (32% to 31%) leaving the old-line Republicans at 20%.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 07:14 am
Avatar for robert108

Sphagnum:  “Suddenly enforcing these laws on millions of people...”
This is the Straw Man argument.  It isn’t a black and white thing of either giving them citizenship or immediately(suddenly) enforcing the law.  It is about making it far less attractive for them to be here.  If they are caught for doing anything out of line, traffic ticket, whatever; deportation.  Dry up the welfare and other benefits, and make it hot for employers who hire them.  Most of them will leave of their own accord.  Figure it out:  They come here because they can easily exploit our prosperity.  When they can no longer do that, there is far less reason for them to come here, and the ones that are here know that they will eventually be caught.  Let’s be reasonable.

robert108 on May 30, 2006 at 07:47 am
Avatar for TwoHotel9

Our government has refused to enforce the anti-illegal immigration portions of the blanket amnesty that was passed in ‘86, with the specific endoresments from the Dem leadership of the time that those portions would be enforced. Just what the hell makes you think those same assholes will allow these new laws to be enforced? It is the same set of assholes as 20 years ago. They have the same deconstructionist attitudes and agenda they had 20 years ago,30 years ago, 40 years ago. How bloody naive can you be?

TwoHotel9 on May 30, 2006 at 01:48 pm
Avatar for diane

The only good thing about it is will keep the National Guardsmen out of harm’s way in Iraq.

Thankfully, the chickenhawk is unwittingly saving some lives there.

diane on May 30, 2006 at 02:38 pm
Avatar for Sphagnum

I think that Sphag is out to lunch on his don’t enforce the immigration law screed.

Lol…

Robert, you make a good point that it doesn’t need to be all or none, and now that you bring it back up, I admit that is true.  But there is no doubt in my mind that even a slow mass deportation (or whatever you would like to call the forced or volentary migration of some 10 million people out of our country) over the next decade or so would damage our economy terribly.  And it would damage Mexicos too.  Whistler, you addressed this with:

In order to believe that one would have to believe that these illegal workers in the US are good while the very same people would be toxic to their own economy.

Yes, this is true in a sense.  If you think about it, what you are in essense doing is removing millions of people from our workforce (which with such low unemployment we can’t afford to do without throwing the economy off balance) and adding millions of people to Mexico’s workforse (which with the poverty down there, their economy cannot handle such a flow of workers… that’s why they are here int he first place!) You also said:

To be honest you’re the one that took the thread off course from the post with the first comment.

I adimently protest your accusation that I hijacked this thread.  I simply took your “enforcement first” idea and asked why it was still even relevent to debate when I believe the battle on that one is over at this point.  You can say that I broadened the scope of your post a bit, but in no way did I hijack it…

Lastly, addressing my tax analogy:

In order to make your tax analogy correct we wouuld have to grant perpetual tax amnesty to those that haven’t paid their taxes in the last 20 years.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying.  The given in my comparison is that very few people took the time and effort to comply with tax law for two decades and your position would, to be consitent, be that we simply need to start seizing 20% of everyone’s incomes even if it were to bring the economy to it’s knees (even more so in this example than the immigration scenario).

My point with the analogy is that when an error has been made to the degree that it has been with illegal immigration, you can’t go cold-turkey from one to the other.  If we simply built a fence and started deporting any illegal we found (which would send millions running for the border volentarily), it would greatly damage our own country.

We NEED to address the issue of the people here illegally and rectify that without shooting ourselves in the foot by killing our economy.

Sphagnum on May 30, 2006 at 03:23 pm
Avatar for robert108

Sphag:  I was with you until the part where you say we can’t enforce our laws without ruining our economy.  Even if we could magically transport all the illegals out of the country in the twinkling of an eye, it wouldn’t ruin the economy.  First of all, our social services would be able to recover from the ruination they have experienced, which would lower expenses/taxes.  Secondly, capital would move to where it would do the most good, which might be to spawn businesses engaged in bringing in legal workers and sponsoring citizenship for desired workers.  It would also flow to automating labor-intensive segments of the economy.  After all, farm labor is already 76% legal workers, so the shortfall wouldn’t be that great.  We would have to pay more for strawberries and the like, which would increase the capital available for innovation.  Econ 101, all of it.
The first step is to lock down the borders.  Period.  Nothing else will work until that is done.

robert108 on May 30, 2006 at 03:31 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

Ok take your tax analogy again.  Suppose you had 5% of the population that wasn’t paying their taxes.  You’re not really claiming that enforcing the tax law on the 5% would cause the entire US economy to grind to a halt?

Especially when you consider that the 5% are twice as likely to be on welfare than the general population. Or that these 5% are much more likely to check themselves in at the Emergency room and stiff us with the bill.  Especially when you consider that the 5% of the population is more likely to be involved in crime.  I heard that in California a large propotion of the prison population is composed of illegal aliens.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 03:31 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

The first step is to lock down the borders. Period. Nothing else will work until that is done.

Lock down the border and as illegals make their way home we can phase in new immigration and perhaps a guest worker plan. 

I’d rather see more immigrants than a guest worker plan because we can assimilate immigrants.  However I expect there’s room for both.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 03:39 pm
Avatar for robert108

Yes, let it be about supply and demand in the workplace, not politics and the lust for ignorant voters and new union members.

robert108 on May 30, 2006 at 03:44 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

ME:

To be honest you’re the one that took the thread off course from the post with the first comment.

Sphag:

I adimently protest your accusation that I hijacked this thread. I simply took your “enforcement first” idea and asked why it was still even relevent to debate when I believe the battle on that one is over at this point.

My post was more concerned with proving that the government has never been serious about enforcing the 1986 plan.  The side proposing amnesty are also falsly accusing private employers of not trying to enforce the law.  It’s a fact that if employers did try to enforce the law the federal government would most likely run them out of business.  (Do you know how much it cost to defend a discrimination lawsuit when the government is coming at you with a limitless supply of money?)

Finally you keep saying the battle is over.  As I linked to Powerline and they quoted the Washington post the battle is not over.  It’s in conference right now and it will go on to the House or Senate depending on who wins at conference.  It’s very misleading of you to say the battle is over.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 03:45 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

and the lust for ignorant voters and new union members.

and new welfare consumers.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 03:46 pm
Avatar for robert108

The battle isn’t anywhere near over.  What happens in the ‘06 congressional elections will be the next volley.

robert108 on May 30, 2006 at 03:49 pm
Avatar for Sphagnum

The first step is to lock down the borders. Period. Nothing else will work until that is done.

I can agree with you on this point.  We need to stop the bleeding before we do surgery, that’s fine.  I just don’t comprehend how you can argue that the migration of 10 million people from a 300 million person country in a relatively short period of time would NOT damage our nations economy…

Economies are fragile, they can be spured and destroyed very easily. Just look at the effect the death of 3000 people and two buildings had on our economy after 9.11.  The airline industry took a huge hit and we can attribute something like a million jobs lost because of that day.  Now spread that “economic hit” to the agricultural industry, constuction industry, food industry, etc… you get my point.  If you disagree, I can’t explain itbetter.  We’ll just agree to disagree because the scenario will never be played out in real life.  You can I can both agree, I think, on at least that last point, no?

I heard that in California a large propotion of the prison population is composed of illegal aliens.

A very large percentage.  It is a huge problem and it is eating up a lot of resources.

Ok take your tax analogy again. Suppose you had 5% of the population that wasn’t paying their taxes. You’re not really claiming that enforcing the tax law on the 5% would cause the entire US economy to grind to a halt?

My scenario assumed most citizens weren’t paying their taxes because most immigrants aren’t immigrating legally.  The point being that even were it 5% of the workforce of America, suddenly enforcing the law as it should have been all along is not really a viable option because, yes, it would greatly effect our economy.  A high percentage of those people would forclose on their homes or default on rent because they can’t pay the taxman and landlord.

The specifics aren’t the important part though, it’s the principle.  Would you support simply enforcing the law even were it to cripple our nation’s economy? I hope not.  I beleive the “enforcement first” movement would do just that if it got 100% of what it wanted and started a mad dash of illegals southward…

Sphagnum on May 30, 2006 at 03:56 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

I think you’re just grasping at straws here now Sphag:

Would you support simply enforcing the law even were it to cripple our nation’s economy? I hope not.

ME: I heard that in California a large propotion of the prison population is composed of illegal aliens.

Sphag: A very large percentage. It is a huge problem and it is eating up a lot of resources.

If the border had been secured we wouldn’t have this cost and we wouldn’t have had the higher cost of the crimes that they committed.

The Whistler on May 30, 2006 at 04:15 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.