Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 10:07 am

With the latest crime in Maryland (Rockville rape in the school), there are calls for immigration reform.

How about this:
Sanctuary cities get no Federal funds
Business that hire an illegal immigrant are fined MASSIVELY (25K/day?)
No government services for an illegal immigrant (Drivers license, welfare, schooling, et. al.)
Charge foreign nations the cost of government services for all illegal immigrants

I want both the businesses to stop supplying jobs to them, government to stop funding them, and border security to allowing them entrance without going through a visa process.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Mar 2017, 6:18 am

bbauska
Business that hire an illegal immigrant are fined MASSIVELY (25K/day?)

For each illegal? Or for any illegal?

About half of all US Farm workers are undocumented.
About 20% of all employees in meat packing are undocumented.
How do you think your rule would affect these industries and what would it do to the economy?

bbauska
Charge foreign nations the cost of government services for all illegal immigrants.

And how did that go with Trumps wall and Mexico?

Corporations did take advantage of undocumented workers to reduce wages in some industries. And it was a republican Congress that gutted the enforcement provisions required of employers in 1986 that would have made it harder for undocumented workers to find employment. Why?
In 86 the amnesty allowed undocumented workers who had arrived in the US before 82 to have a path to citizenship. In large part because there were industries that required the pool of labor they represented.
I fail to see how the situation is really all that different today. Scrupulous enforcement would destroy two industries. Perhaps construction in some states. And maybe more?
If someone has been in the US for more than a decade, has a family, employment and roots.... perhaps its time to recognize them as legal and offer a path to citizenship?
After all, there is a statute of limitations for a lot of crimes....why not immigration laws too?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 Mar 2017, 6:47 am

funny how this is a Republican problem yet in 1986 Congress was 58% Democrat and it was the Democrats who made enforcement of Reagans hiring restrictions tougher. Yes the President was a Republican but the Dems took away the tougher aspects of Reagans amnesty deal. Not what you are trying to feed us here.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Mar 2017, 12:52 pm

Yes, for EACH illegal.

Give them 90 days to change the hiring practices, and hire citizens and documented workers.

If each worker should be getting a "Living wage" (your desire), then it should not matter if a documented worker or citizen in there. If the cost does not matter, it will not affect the industry.

Are you saying that we should not enforce regulations against businesses because it would affect the industry? Are you saying that the employee should not be paid a normal wage because the employee if an illegal immigrant?

What is your point?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Mar 2017, 1:44 pm

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
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Mar 2017, 2:41 pm

I have considered it. I don't care. I come from an Agri state. I grew up on a farm. You pay enough, and people will work.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Mar 2017, 12:05 pm

bbauska
I have considered it. I don't care. I come from an Agri state. I grew up on a farm. You pay enough, and people will work.


Then why is this contradictory information wrong? (see below) Should I believe the various sources quoted in this well researched piece or your memories of childhood?
I doubt that the migratory nature of many field hands work is what you remember.

The competition for workers has sent average farm worker wages up 5% in the past year, to $12 an hour, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture figures. That's $2 higher than California's $10 minimum wage, with some farmers saying they pay as much as $15 an hour, according to Nassif.
And costs keep rising. Two weeks ago, California said it will expand its overtime rules to include migrant farm workers starting in 2019. That means farm owners will have to pay one and half times the employee's regular rate after they have worked a certain number of consecutive hours.
With increased competition for labor, workers are also asking for and winning better working conditions, such as a 15-minute shade break for each hour of work.
"If they don't like how they're being treated or what they're being paid, they'll just go to another farm," said Nassif.
Still, the increased pay, improved working conditions and overtime benefits have failed to attract many American workers.
"Of the 300 workers I have in the field, two are Americans," said Joe Del Bosque, a farm owner in Firebaugh, California
.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/29/news/ec ... m-workers/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 25 Mar 2017, 1:25 pm

You see RickyP, that you are the one who is being inconsistent. You say the farm workers are the ones who have the farm jobs because the evil farmers are taking advantage of the poor illegal immigrants. Now you say that they are making a wage higher than minimum wage. What is it, anyway?

If wages go to $15/hour, you would be getting more people applying for those jobs, would you not agree? Wouldn't that be what you are wanting? A "living wage"?

I am saying that someone should be ensuring that illegals are not hired, or the business gets fined. Are you ok with that? You have said that in the past. Now you back off of that position.

Give me a proposal of how illegal immigrants/business/government should be resolved that will take away the impetus for immigrants to illegally enter the US. I would like to see your opinion, not just what HuffPo et. al. says. I would like to see your brain and thought process at work.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Mar 2017, 2:49 pm

bbauska
You say the farm workers are the ones who have the farm jobs because the evil farmers are taking advantage of the poor illegal immigrants. Now you say that they are making a wage higher than minimum wage. What is it, anyway
?

Illegal immigrants drove down the cost of labour on farms and in meat packing plants in the 80s, 90s and 00's. The improvement in mexico's economy, increased border security and the increase in ICE arrests (under Obama) affected the farm labour market. With decreasing illegals the cost of attracting farm labor is increasing.

bbauska
If wages go to $15/hour, you would be getting more people applying for those jobs, would you not agree? Wouldn't that be what you are wanting? A "living wag
e"

The evidence I linked to you suggests that there are more factors than just the wage. One is the migratory nature of the job Two is its physical challenges.
There is also low unemployment levels in the US, and much of those unemployed could not handle the physical requirements of farm labor or are a great distance from the centres of agriculture. (Say West Virginia).

As always, the situation is complex and evolving . And there's more to it than just the wage. But yes, there should be a living wage for farm labor.

bbauska
Give me a proposal of how illegal immigrants/business/government should be resolved that will take away the impetus for immigrants to illegally enter the US

I did.
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.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Mar 2017, 11:25 am

sorry Ricky, you can't have it both ways. It sure looks like you are arguing against yourself. The market is working, wages are increasing but you are never happy with a free market, government intervention is what you want in every situation. It's kind of obvious you are fighting yourself as much as Brad here...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 5:23 am

The proposed federal cut off of funding for sanctuary cities is very interesting. In this case, Democrats are asserting local rights whereas the Republicans are using the power of the federal government to enforce their position vis-à-vis the states. Although I am heavily pro legal immigration (and tend to be very sympathetic to illegal immigrants, esp. when you hear their stories, I do find the Republican legal position to be stronger.

No matter which side you are on, the irony is breathtaking.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 5:34 am

Ray Jay wrote:No matter which side you are on, the irony is breathtaking.


Hear, hear.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Mar 2017, 6:55 am

Irony or hypocrisy? What state's rights....
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Mar 2017, 7:54 am

They have a right to choose no Federal funds.

Reminds me of when Western States didn't accept transportation funds because of Federal speed limit requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 12:00 pm

freeman3 wrote:Irony or hypocrisy? What state's rights....


See the Arizona case.

Federal law, supremacy clause, and all of that.

I think the hypocrisy is heavy in CA. They keep releasing convicted felon illegal aliens and then say (with a straight face) that it's about "keeping families together."

Sure. Tell that to Kate Steinle's family--and many others.