|
Post by bruce on Apr 10, 2009 15:12:20 GMT -5
tpfkalarry,you're right on with your post.The right wing will never cooperate with Obama on anything.The concessions given didn't cause the Republicans to vote for the stimulus.They would rather see the country sink rather than admit that the new policies and programs of the administration are,or will be,successful.Thinking they won't be a success is one thing;hoping so is another.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 10, 2009 15:36:17 GMT -5
Bruce, Larry, I am not so sure that there will be a strong front put up by the Republicans if Obama sticks to his campaign platform.
Bush wanted a fast track for not only coming "out of the shadows", he also wanted a faster path for illegals to become citizens. When the hacks in DC kept adding more to the Act, it became not only a liberal fantasy, but, also a conservative, meaning business, dream. It was rewarding people hugely for breaking the law. That was more of what got us riled up in the first place. It even got to the point in the proposed Act that members of MS-13 that were illegals were going to be rewarded if they would just stop wearing a T-shirt that said "Kiss Me, I'm A Gangbanger!" (hyperbole)
I suppose we'll have to see what direction the president leads congress. I don't think he will do much for a few months other than task some study groups. He's been kinda preoccupied, I hear.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 10, 2009 17:02:52 GMT -5
Hatch,
I think it would not hurt for them to do some fact finding prior to even start drafting legislation. The reform has got to deal with the negative impact of illegal immigration on both society and the immigrant. If the reform does not address the symptoms than it will never be a cure. I would prefer they miss big rather than aiming small.
In regards to the size of the fine it has to be a magic number. Meaning it has to be big enough to satisfy the public (and it wouldn't hurt if it pays for at least part of the administration of the program-say the identification system) but small enough so that illegal aliens will be willing to pay it.
This could be the rock upon which the republican party fractures itself. If the party is not going to be able to count on a large number of disenchanted moderates leaving the democrats they are going to have to present both a candidate and a platform that can draw them. As dysfunctional as the democrats always are the republicans really have to mend the divide so that fiscal conservatives, evangelicals and moderates can have something that excites them. I don't think Palin is it.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 10, 2009 17:48:53 GMT -5
Larry, I've always appreciated how you've looked into this crisis. And I do consider it a crisis, at least for the southern border states.
These days, one could argue that there are misdemeanor fines that are excessive. In actuality, violations by illegals of immigration law barely rise to the level of a federal misdemeanor. It is altogether different for an American citizen that violates federal employment law or one that simply provides aid and assistance to someone entering the country illegally, 1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a). Heck, in theory, a San Diego cop could conceivably arrest a citizen that he witnesses helping a person crossing the border as a result of 247(g) and Muehler v. Mena and 18 U.S.C. 3041(I think- memory sketchy). There are others, but, they become redundant and boring.
If an employer, regardless of his ability to pay, can be fined up to $10,000 and face jail time, it stands to reason that an illegal alien should be subject to the same degree, not dollar amount!, as an American citizen- equal protection(?).
But, I see and accept your point about drawing the illegal out into the sun light. But, in a way, aren't we at risk of trying to bribe an illegal with his own money, if we make it too low? I think we have to be careful of that if only because of OUR own Constitutional protections under the same amendment that is so often discussed- the 14th. I am talking about equal protection and equal treatment under the law. We cannot have one group of people that happen to be here by means of breaking a law being given a softer penalty than those that are here legally that give employment, aid or shelter to the first group. It is much the same as giving a life sentence to a multiple murderer for his crime and the death sentence to the poor schlub that gives him a loaf of bread while the killer is on the lam.
If Congress drafts legislation that keeps this in mind, I will be pleased. At the same time, if they add wording that moves the illegal to the back of the naturalization line, one of Obama's platform planks, I will also be satisfied.
The anchor baby and chain migration problems are difficult for me to see through to a globally just solution. Again, it can be considered a reward to lawbreakers if this is ignored in any Act and unjust to all those that have suffered through the process of naturalization and became citizens.
These new citizens have a right to the same equal treatment under the law as anyone else. That they are citizens is proof of that suffering. That suffering should not be denigrated by those yanking their entire families across the border legally because their beloved illegal relative just paid a fine and lost some stigma.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 10, 2009 18:53:13 GMT -5
For once,I pretty much agree with your post,Hatch(I must be getting soft).It was well thought out and well researched. I do think that those who hire them should be dealt with more severely than the illegals because they are the cause of illegal immigration.No jobs,no illegals.I don't mean those who once in a while let an illegal slip through due to high quality false documents,but those that regularly and purposely hire them,e.g. packing plants,car washes,agricultural conglomerates,hotels,etc.As I said before I am leery of anti-immigrant activists because of some of the racist statements made but I am not in favor of it at all in as much as my people have suffered quite a bit,particularly in the inability to obtain employment.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 11, 2009 1:04:06 GMT -5
For once,I pretty much agree with your post,Hatch(I must be getting soft).It was well thought out and well researched. I do think that those who hire them should be dealt with more severely than the illegals because they are the cause of illegal immigration.No jobs,no illegals. I don't mean those who once in a while let an illegal slip through due to high quality false documents,but those that regularly and purposely hire them,e.g. packing plants,car washes,agricultural conglomerates,hotels,etc.As I said before I am leery of anti-immigrant activists because of some of the racist statements made but I am not in favor of it at all in as much as my people have suffered quite a bit,particularly in the inability to obtain employment. I think this is an issue where most here are pretty much in agreement. We may differ in how to obtain the goals though. As far as your statement about those who hire illegals, to effectively prosecute them, you need to give them the tools to insure they hire legals. E-verify was a very good tool, maybe not perfect, but still very good. The Democrats have done everything possible to eliminate it. I am also concerned about the pre-screening and re-verify in the following statement: Employers may not use E-Verify to pre-screen job applicants or to re-verify current employees and may not limit or influence the choice of documents presented for use on the Form I-9.This is found on a poster. Check it out at: products.sanofi-aventis.us/careers/EverifyPosterEnglish.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 11, 2009 6:35:12 GMT -5
Tired-the problem is,those who want to hire illegals are not going to use E-verify so it is fine for those that want to hire people who are here legally but doesn't really deal with the root of the problem.When a Tyson plant has 300 illegals working there,E-verify is not the anwer unless it's made mandatory.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Apr 11, 2009 10:01:44 GMT -5
Tired-the problem is,those who want to hire illegals are not going to use E-verify so it is fine for those that want to hire people who are here legally but doesn't really deal with the root of the problem.When a Tyson plant has 300 illegals working there,E-verify is not the anwer unless it's made mandatory. Bruce, If an employer is presented documents and those documents look legitimate then the employer is not responsible. The problem is there is no way for an employer to determine if a document is valid. I’ve seen forgeries and they look perfect, with E-Verify or some other means employers would use the system. It is unreasonable and unfair to hold businesses responsible. Solve the problem and make E-Verify mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 11, 2009 10:59:38 GMT -5
It's Tricky,
The legislation has to be comprehensive. The fine for providing water at aid stations should be much less than the fine for collecting fees for arranging transport. There should be some level of fines for empolyers. There needs to be a consequence for employers who do not perform due dilligence and there needs to be a stiffer penalty for those knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Verification cannot be a see no evil, hear no evil, so I commit no evil. There needs to be incentives to comply and consequences for non-compliance but clearly the system needs to be re-worked so that employers have the ability to perform due dilligence. Employers cannot be the enforcement mechanism, but if they are able to make a determination than that alone will discourage future illegal immigration. I think E-verify needs to be part of the fact finding. How much of the 8% error rate can be quantified and how much of it is systemic, meaning if the actual error rate less name changes from marriage and failure of participants to keep their own records updated is comparable to say SSD records as a whole or even drivers license records than it should be mandated. But that part of the system needs permanent funding and staffing at levels to handle adding the information for illegals whose status changes as a result of the reform and some level of customer service so that disputes can be addressed quickly. Nobody is going to come out of the shadows if the sunlight is mired in red tape.
I have no idea how you would set the level of fines for illegal immigrants. Clearly there is no mathematical model that fits. Using "market" mechanisms of supply and demand to set the price seems flawed. You do not want the illegal immigrants to wait until the fine goes on sale. But what is clear is that the participants will need to be able to see the benefits of the program. There is some intrinsic value to eliminating the fear of discovery that illegals have to live with, but I think there has to be some other benefits as well. It is not a program if nobody signs up.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 11, 2009 11:15:04 GMT -5
CM-Businesses that puposely hire illegals,that's what I said earlier,should face stiff fines.Some of the fake ID's look like legitimate ones,I've seen driver's licenses on sale in the main park in Tecate,I couldn't tell they were fake,soI know the problem.The meat processing plants,big farms,hotels,janitorial sevices need to get big fines,if it puts them out of business,that's the breaks.Those who inadvertently hire a guy with authentic looking papers is a different story.Also I agree with Larry that employers should not be part of immigration enforcement,that's the job of the feds.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Apr 11, 2009 13:08:53 GMT -5
Under the present system employers should not be responsible and here’s why.
After you cut through all the details the bottom line is an employer can not discriminate. When a person is hired they have 3 days to provide documentation including a picture ID, for this example let’s say an original SS card and a California driver’s license.
Under the law the employer can not question the provided documentation or ask for further proof. In the case of the driver’s license; the date of birth puts the person at 25 yet the picture looks like a person of 50. An employer can not ask why there is an oblivious difference, quite simple; the person may have had a medical condition that they do not want to reveal to the employer. The employer is restricted to perform due diligence.
I know of a case in San Diego: Bob walks in applies for a job as a dish washer, provides the required documentation and is hired. Two weeks later Bill walks in applies for a job as a cook provides the required documentation and is hired. Bob’s SS number is one digit different than Bill’s SS #. The chances of that gotta be one in a million if not more; the employer can not question Bill or Bob. The employer is restricted to perform due diligence.
Another San Diego example: Sally applies for a job and is hired on the 3rd day Sally provides the required documentation, the employer is suspicious the driver’s does not look valid. Sally is sent home to get a passport or another legal picture ID. Sally never returns. Weeks later the employer is hit with law suit. Ridiculous yes, think it does not happen, well the attorney’s name is in the yellow pages and it is his game.
There has to be a system that protects both sides and would penalize both sides. There is none now until a system is in place the employer is in a catch-22.
I have someone that is very close to me that knows the current system inside out and has battled the above attorney more than once, when I return home, I’ll get details how the law reads, interpretation and decisions.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 12, 2009 8:31:28 GMT -5
The I-9 is a shameful sham. Forged identification is as readily available as corn chips. They are just less fattening.
As CM described, an employer is not even empowered to ask for other specific ID if those initially presented are obvious fakes. An employer is not allowed to be a part of the solution. He can, however, face penalties whether or not he hires the illegal with fake ID, phoney-looking or not. The Constitution does not allow for this.
Bruce keeps bringing up the same very valid point that the burden should be on the employer. If that burden amounts to simply providing a form, glancing at fake docs, and providing a file folder, file drawer and file cabinet for said fake docs, his skirts should be clean.
The whole idea of being a storage facility for fake documentation is nuts. It forces an employer to participate in the sham. It allows the government to NOT do its job, the illegal to land a job and a system to continue on being broken.
E-verify would make sense. The errors made can be fixed. The law states that if a question comes up from, say, SSA, the employer must advise the employee about where to go to resolve the problem. The employee then must do what is necessary to prove eligibility. And that is where some people start foaming at the mouth: the employee shouldn't have to do anything in their eyes.
A National ID card with a magnetic stripe could make sense if the data on the stripe is incorruptable. But, in my pea-sized brain housing group, I can't think of anything that could possibly come out of Washington that could be even remotely considered "incorruptable".
Sump'n's gotta give.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 12, 2009 11:06:28 GMT -5
Hatch you bring up an excellent point. There is nothing more detrimental to accountability and the feeling of accountability than going through the motions. The more times you ask an employer to pretend they are engaging in due dilligence, when they know they are not, the sooner you arrive at a situation where the employer has no attachment or investment in the program. What you create is not compliance but contempt.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 12, 2009 14:26:34 GMT -5
We shouldn't forget the political aspect of this debate. When large numbers of Irish and Italian immigrants were coming into America in the 19th century, the Anglo-Saxon establishment was worried that it's political power would be diminished by the Papist hordes. And it was in many ways. And the same thing is happening now. I'm sure that there are many people who would like to see not just illegal but legal Hispanic residents head back to their home countries, but only the undocumented are vulnerable. Can you imagine the outcry if legislation was introduced to allow yearly legal immigration from Mexico to be increased by a factor of ten?
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 13, 2009 16:06:22 GMT -5
Larry, I appreciate your pointing out the excellence of my point. Had you not brought light to it, it would have been just another bit of useless trivia.
I have to admit that the "motions" are meaningless. It sets up a mindset wherein compliance is impossible and accountability cannot exist.
Does this pull us back into serious consideration of national ID cards? All applicants for a job, whether citizen or not, must fill out the I-9 form. An employer cannot play detective. The government has given us a technical impossibility to work with. That impossibility still leaves us open for prosecution. It is a sick, twisted Mobius strip.
Would you consider advocating the perfection and continuation of E-Verify? If so, should a certain amount of the administrative functions and budget be channeled through ICE or a similar government organ?
Or is the Card the way to go?
|
|