bbauska
What is your point?
My point is that you don't seem to have considered the consequences of your policy suggestion.
I'm with you on the notion that companies should be hiring only documented workers. The origins of the immigration problem was really lax enforcement and regulation for employers. Lax because it was to their economic benefit.
And note, that it was largely congress that watered down requirements for enforcement because corporate interests in meat packing and agribusiness lobbied them.
Today, if you were the dictator and could bring in the policy you espouse the consequences would be a collapse in the agricultural sector and in meat packing.
The almost immediate effects of which would certainly out weigh the potential benefits you forsee.
There are not enough people willing to work, or with the right physical skills and ability to work in either business. Even if wages are raised to better compete for labor.
Certainly there has to be a well thought out strategy that will both secure a path for citizenship for currently employed undocumented - especially in certain industries. The businesses have a duty here to be involved as sponsors and witnesses for their long term employees.
At the same time with a move to the stringent form of penalties and enforcement at the employer level that will provide genuine deterrence to illegal aliens . If it becomes well known that you can't find work as an illegal, people would stop coming. If it becomes well known that employers would be punished, they would be strict about hiring.
However, industries that do require immigrants will pressure the government to allow more immigration to meet their needs, perhaps through sponsorship by the industries. That would be a more responsible approach that would balance the needs of industry and offer a more just resolution to long time employed residents who have been long term contributors.
Tom
a Republican problem yet in 1986 Congress was 58% Democrat and it was the Democrats who made enforcement of Reagans hiring restrictions tougher.
The house was 58% democrat.
The senate was republican majority.
The "affirmative defence clause" that was the huge loop hole in the Bill was a bipartisan effort but was introduced in the Senate subcommittee. (majority republican).
The great hope for better employment regulation was e-verify. The opposition to e-verify came from both the far right and the far left. And the opposition to it was financed by certain industry groups.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 2570020918