Deportation and other Immigration issues

Maya22

Graduate Poster
Maya22
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,446
Location
Teal Town
This is the first time I remember that two presidential candidates and a former presidential candidate criticized a policy of the administration of the current president of the same party. Do you remember other instances of this?

Clinton, Sanders reaffirm opposition to Obama immigration raids
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-obama-immigration-raids/

Our Immigration Policy Is Not Only Unjust - It’s Un-American
Written by Martin O'Malley
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-martin-omalley/our-immigration-policy-is_b_9876288.html
 
If our government would actually monitor the border and stop encouraging people to flee their land and come here, we wouldn't have this problem!

Politics and big business will not let that happen. It's a humanitarian issue to us, the citizenry, but to them it's money and politics.

For every person we save from either Africa or Central/South America, how many more will take their place in a short time? The populations continue to grow out of control in these areas. This will never change, no matter how many people we take in, and it will never get better.

Poverty in these regions must be dealt with in those regions. Are we just going to continue to take people in until these continents are empty? What's the end game? Without one it's just politics and bullspit.

ETA:
Why are we bothering with raids when we have an open border? What's the reason for this sudden interest in illegals?
 
Last edited:
I think We the People probably want to stop illegal immigration. But both parties want to encourage it, or one or the other would have put a stop to it by now.

And my reading lately that Obama has been deporting more than ever before is that he changed the definition- they now count those turned back at the border. Phoney up the stats, make it look like he is tougher than he is on illegals.

And why do they want population growth? Because 'Growth is Good", no matter the cost. We need their income taxes to pay for our government programs. But on the average, more people = more costs, what with the way the gov spends more than it takes in . Always.

So, a different tax scheme beside income taxes is what would fix the problem at the source. Anybody know of a country whose taxes are property based instead of income based?
 
Sanders wants higher wages while encouraging illegal immigrants, who are attractive to employers specifically because they'll work for less than Americans will.

As long as we keep importing foreign workers solely because they'll work cheaper than domestic labor there will be no upward pressure on wages at the bottom of the income scale.

Yet another reason why Bernie is a moron.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Your ancestors were all immigrants at some point. Many of them came without passports or approval of the locals.
Click to expand...
As it turns out we're out of land to settle to defend our claim against the Indians, British, Spanish, French, Confederates, etc. And we no longer have an economy composed of 90% low-skilled workers.

Thus, the need to more properly control who can immigrate.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Your ancestors were all immigrants at some point. Many of them came without passports or approval of the locals.
Click to expand...

Hey, we stole this land fairly, according to the rules of play at the time.

But now some of us want to change the rules, to prevent the current immigrants from taking over. Do you think we need a Constitutional Convention, or would the mere enforcement of current laws do?
 
After rising at a pretty steady rate for about sixteen years, illegal immigration began to level off in 2008. Since then it has stabilized.

​

Reportedly, the Republicans in Congress had agreed privately to support immigration reform but needed the Obama Administration to give them some cover by ratcheting up deportations. The Republicans thought they could get their constituents to accept immigration reform if they could point to rising numbers of deportations. That they could say, "Look we're getting tough, we're cracking down, but we need to revisit some of these laws."

I think Republicans discovered illegal immigration is such a hot button issue with the GOP rank-and-file that there was just no way they could get anywheres near enough public support to reform immigration law.
 
WildCat said:
Sanders wants higher wages while encouraging illegal immigrants, who are attractive to employers specifically because they'll work for less than Americans will.
Click to expand...


Please provide a link to an article or website which proves this. Thank you.
 
newyorkguy said:
After rising at a pretty steady rate for about sixteen years, illegal immigration began to level off in 2008. Since then it has stabilized.
Click to expand...
Stabilized by sending the economy into a deep recession.

newyorkguy said:
Reportedly, the Republicans in Congress had agreed privately to support immigration reform but needed the Obama Administration to give them some cover by ratcheting up deportations.
Click to expand...
Deportations did not increase, in fact they decreased substantially. The Obama Administration changed the definition of deportations (to include those sent back at the border) to give the illusion that they increased while using the old definition the greatly decreased.
 
Maya22 said:
Please provide a link to an article or website which proves this. Thank you.
Click to expand...
That proves what, that Sanders wants to allow in anybody who wants to come here or that employers like immigrant labor, especially illegal immigrant labor, because they'll work for less than domestic workers will?
 
Maya22 said:
This is the first time I remember that two presidential candidates and a former presidential candidate criticized a policy of the administration of the current president of the same party. Do you remember other instances of this?

Clinton, Sanders reaffirm opposition to Obama immigration raids
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-obama-immigration-raids/

Our Immigration Policy Is Not Only Unjust - It’s Un-American
Written by Martin O'Malley
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-martin-omalley/our-immigration-policy-is_b_9876288.html
Click to expand...

Somebody at ICE seems to be trying to drum up controversy over what is really just routine enforcement activities that have been happening for a long time. This is not a new policy by Obama or anything.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.
Click to expand...
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has now told field offices nationwide to launch a 30-day "surge" of arrests focused on mothers and children who have already been told to leave the United States, the document seen by Reuters said. The operation would also cover minors who have entered the country without a guardian and since turned 18 years of age, the document said. Two sources confirmed the details of the plan.

The exact dates of the latest series of raids were not known and the details of the operation could change.
Click to expand...

So these are "hundreds" of people who have already been ordered deported. (Out of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. It's not a huge percentage.) It's people who have already had their day in court.
 
Getting back to illegal immigration, the deportation numbers now include people turned back at the border. My understanding is, these are not people who are merely 'turned back,' but taken into custody on American soil as they enter illegally and deported. Would some people prefer illegal immigrants be allowed to enter, stay for a while and then we can go looking for them? That's a more satisfying deportation? That makes no sense.

Anyway, a good indicator of how successful the enforcement action has become is that reportedly coyote fees, money paid to Mexican guides, has increased dramatically because of the stepped up border enforcement. Another indicator is that we're recovering from the recession but the decades long, steady increase in illegal immigration remains stopped.


WildCat said:
Stabilized by sending the economy into a deep recession...
Click to expand...
I hope the claim isn't that sending the economy into a deep recession was part of Bush's strategy to stop illegal immigration! Seriously, it does seem to validate what many people, including politicians in Mexico, have been saying for a long time. The United States has a powerful way to stop or at least dramatically decrease illegal immigration by enforcing labor laws prohibiting their hiring.

Why don't we do this? It's not like we don't know where they are. Research groups have done extensive studies of illegal workers. If college researchers and advocacy groups can find them the INS should be able to.

Twenty years ago the manufacturing company I worked for always had a percentage of illegal workers on the assembly line. Then INS began cracking down. It was relatively easy. The company was required to validate the workers' social security accounts. Anyone whose SSN couldn't be verified could not work. The Social Security Administration cooperated by immediately flagging what appeared to be fraudulent SSNs. The company was on notice that INS would levy large fines (in the $10,000 range) if we didn't cooperate. The company would then notify any worker whose SSN could not be verified that, "We're very sorry," but until they could straighten it out with Social Security, "We can't schedule you." I heard a lot of the people flagged wound up returning to their country of origin.

But it seems this policy has not been followed everywhere in every state. If illegal immigration is such a big deal I have never understood why that is.
 
Last edited:
I've always thought too that if only legal citizens could work in the US way fewer illegals would have a desire to sneak over the border. I'd say instead of demonizing these people just trying to make a better life for themselves maybe we crack down more on companies and individuals who hire them.
 
WildCat said:
That proves what, that Sanders wants to allow in anybody who wants to come here or that employers like immigrant labor, especially illegal immigrant labor, because they'll work for less than domestic workers will?
Click to expand...


Yesterday, I was looking for articles about wages of farm workers. It seems that wages vary from farm to farm. Some farms pay ny the hour, while other farms pay by the quantity of the produce harvested by each worker. I could not find any articles about farm workers being paid less than minimum wage. Unfortunately, that might still be happening on some farms.
 
mgidm86 said:
If our government would actually monitor the border and stop encouraging people to flee their land and come here, we wouldn't have this problem!
Click to expand...

I totally do not understand this perception that the government is not monitoring "the border." And the phrase "turned away at the border" conveys a misleading image, IMO. People penetrate the border and may be caught sooner rather than later, but they are not being greeted at the border and rebuffed.

Much of the border is virtually uninhabited and it includes every kind of terrain - including areas that commonly reach 115 degrees, and where hundreds die each year.

Also: some 50 percent of illegal immigrants did not cross illegally (several sources on this); and, border security has probably significantly accelerated Latin American population growth in the past couple of decades. People who would come to work seasonally could no longer easily come and go, so more families started coming and putting down roots.

And President George W. Bush got plenty of criticism from Republican candidates, though not from McCain, since the two had very similar views: Allow those here to register, pay a fine and stay, pending background checks. Reagan presided over a massive amnesty program.

You can't seal this country up like a tub of Tupperware. In my experience, people who live near border areas (and perhaps coastal areas) have much more realistic images and expectations than those in the center of the country.

Without getting into the merits of mass deportation or "open borders" (whatever those are), I can promise you that many people have no idea of the logistical issues involved.
 
Last edited:
Maya22 said:
Yesterday, I was looking for articles about wages of farm workers. It seems that wages vary from farm to farm. Some farms pay ny the hour, while other farms pay by the quantity of the produce harvested by each worker. I could not find any articles about farm workers being paid less than minimum wage. Unfortunately, that might still be happening on some farms.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage has squat to do with it. What you need to look at is what the wage would have to be if immigrant labor, both legal and illegal, was not available. Farm labor is difficult and dangerous work, and the pay is nowhere near commensurate with that reality. It shouldn't be paying minimum wage, it should be paying 4-5 times minimum wage. But there's no incentive for agriculture corporations to do that when they have a nearly unlimited supply of immigrants desperate enough to do the work. No incentive at all to increase pay and improve working conditions to attract domestic labor.
 
Minoosh said:
You can't seal this country up like a tub of Tupperware.
Click to expand...

Why not? Canada manages, because they actually enforce their immigration laws both at the border and on employers who would hire them. The USA merely lacks the political will, the Dems want future Dem voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.
 
twinstead said:
I've always thought too that if only legal citizens could work in the US way fewer illegals would have a desire to sneak over the border. I'd say instead of demonizing these people just trying to make a better life for themselves maybe we crack down more on companies and individuals who hire them.
Click to expand...

I've often had the same thought myself. If you truly wanted to crack down on illegal immigration, that would be the best way to do it. But it seems like it doesn't happen much, and even if it does, the employers only have to pay a fine, they don't go to jail.

http://cis.org/ICE-Records-Reveal-Steep-Drop-Worksite-Enforcement-Since-13

Judging from a recent widely reported case in Washington state,4 the deterrence value of the Obama administration's audit strategy appears to be limited. In 2012, ICE audited Broetje Orchards, one of the largest commercial apple growers in the country, and found that the company had employed about 1,700 illegal workers, which was more than half of the company's work force. Following such a finding, the company is supposed to terminate the illegal workers and clean up its hiring practices, for example by re-training personnel, enrolling in E-Verify, and using the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS).5 Instead, the Broetje Orchards management reportedly tried to pull strings in Congress to avoid sanctions. Any personnel reforms that were implemented were short-lived, because when ICE came back two years later for the follow-up audit, agents found that 950 of the illegal workers identified in 2012 were still on the payroll.

The government's response to this continued flagrant and large-scale violation of the law was a settlement negotiated by ICE's scandal-ridden legal office,6 in which Broetje Orchards will pay a fine of $2.25 million, but will admit no wrong-doing and is now immune from any further liability related to this matter. ICE lawyers appear to have had no interest in proving any wrong-doing, either, which probably would not have been hard to do, especially if ICE agents were allowed to speak to any actual illegal workers.

This settlement sounds large, but is more of a light slap on their huge wrist. ICE has emphasized that the $2.25 million fine is one of the largest ever imposed on an employer, but it amounts to just $1,300 per illegal worker, a sum that must be far less than the company saved over the years on wages, taxes, and benefits by hiring the illegal workers.
Click to expand...

So even when employers are caught red-handed, they have to pay a fine, they can reach a "settlement" in which they pay a nominal fine, but admit no wrongdoing, and they can simply continue on with business thereafter.
 
WildCat said:
Why not? Canada manages, because they actually enforce their immigration laws both at the border and on employers who would hire them. The USA merely lacks the political will, the Dems want future Dem voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.
Click to expand...

Canada makes it easier for Mexicans to get in legally. It recently dropped visa requirements. After years in the shadows of the U.S., the writer's friend

U.S. should copy Canada's immigration policies: Guest opinion
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/us_should_copy_canadas_immigra.html
decided to apply for legal entry into Canada. After 18 months and paying approximately $1,500 to the Canadian government, he was granted approval to enter Canada. As soon as he entered the country, the immigrations officer handed him a sheet of paper letting him know he is eligible to sponsor his extended family members into Canada as well. He lives and works in Canada, with all the rights and responsibilities of a permanent resident. After four years, he will be eligible to apply for citizenship. He is relieved to finally be free of the stress and anxiety of living as an "illegal." He loves Canada!
Click to expand...

And this:

Canada to lift visa requirements for Mexicans
http://fusion.net/story/236131/canada-to-lift-visa-requirements-for-mexicans/
Anecdotal, sure. I'm open to reading cites you can provide.

Do you think the U.S. doesn't enforce the law at the border? Twenty thousand border agents might disagree. Again, IMO, many Midwesterners underestimate the logistical problems. Plus, Canada has a vastly different strategy if the above article is to believed. I'm sure you have links of your own to support your claims.
 
twinstead said:
I've always thought too that if only legal citizens could work in the US way fewer illegals would have a desire to sneak over the border. I'd say instead of demonizing these people just trying to make a better life for themselves maybe we crack down more on companies and individuals who hire them.
Click to expand...

If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules. It's not a completely undesirable practice - it keeps the cost of goods lower.

I'd be fine letting people stay here and work legally. But then they would have workplace rights, and could then be undercut by another wave of people wiling to work in the shadows at the under-the-table rate.
 
Minoosh said:
If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules. It's not a completely undesirable practice - it keeps the cost of goods lower.
Click to expand...

It keeps the cost of those uppity laborer also low and utterly distort the labor and goods market. It is a totally undesirable practice (tax, health care, and various other factor get by passed this way) which is why it is illegal, but since corporation and politician blow job each other in many western countries, it is never really punished leaving only the local resident shafted.
 
Minoosh said:
Canada makes it easier for Mexicans to get in legally. It recently dropped visa requirements. After years in the shadows of the U.S., the writer's friend

U.S. should copy Canada's immigration policies: Guest opinion
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/us_should_copy_canadas_immigra.html

And this:

Canada to lift visa requirements for Mexicans
http://fusion.net/story/236131/canada-to-lift-visa-requirements-for-mexicans/
Anecdotal, sure. I'm open to reading cites you can provide.

Do you think the U.S. doesn't enforce the law at the border? Twenty thousand border agents might disagree. Again, IMO, many Midwesterners underestimate the logistical problems. Plus, Canada has a vastly different strategy if the above article is to believed. I'm sure you have links of your own to support your claims.
Click to expand...
Canada requires immigrants to have cash to enter legally. They don't allow poor, low-skilled workers who will immediately apply for welfare benefits nor do they allow illegals to stay.
 
Minoosh said:
If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules. It's not a completely undesirable practice - it keeps the cost of goods lower.
Click to expand...

Then don't complain about stagnant wages and the disappearing middle class when you decide low wages and poor working conditions is good policy.
 
Minoosh said:
I totally do not understand this perception that the government is not monitoring "the border." And the phrase "turned away at the border" conveys a misleading image, IMO. People penetrate the border and may be caught sooner rather than later, but they are not being greeted at the border and rebuffed.

Much of the border is virtually uninhabited and it includes every kind of terrain - including areas that commonly reach 115 degrees, and where hundreds die each year.

Also: some 50 percent of illegal immigrants did not cross illegally (several sources on this); and, border security has probably significantly accelerated Latin American population growth in the past couple of decades. People who would come to work seasonally could no longer easily come and go, so more families started coming and putting down roots.

And President George W. Bush got plenty of criticism from Republican candidates, though not from McCain, since the two had very similar views: Allow those here to register, pay a fine and stay, pending background checks. Reagan presided over a massive amnesty program.

You can't seal this country up like a tub of Tupperware. In my experience, people who live near border areas (and perhaps coastal areas) have much more realistic images and expectations than those in the center of the country.

Without getting into the merits of mass deportation or "open borders" (whatever those are), I can promise you that many people have no idea of the logistical issues involved.
Click to expand...

I have explained to you several times why this is incorrect. With math and everything. And yet you persist. As the saying goes, it is hard to reason somebody out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.
 
WildCat said:
Canada requires immigrants to have cash to enter legally. They don't allow poor, low-skilled workers who will immediately apply for welfare benefits nor do they allow illegals to stay.
Click to expand...

If Canada requires no visa, then those people wouldn't be illegal. And many illegal immigrants have mad skills.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I have explained to you several times why this is incorrect. With math and everything. And yet you persist. As the saying goes, it is hard to reason somebody out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.
Click to expand...


The last person I remember citing this was Ted Cruz. Not that I necessarily believe him, but someone probably did the research. I rebutted your statement at the time but can't go looking for it at the moment.

What figure do you put it at? With cites and everything?
 
Aepervius said:
It keeps the cost of those uppity laborer also low and utterly distort the labor and goods market. It is a totally undesirable practice (tax, health care, and various other factor get by passed this way) which is why it is illegal, but since corporation and politician blow job each other in many western countries, it is never really punished leaving only the local resident shafted.
Click to expand...

I have a different perspective - I think the remittances have an up side, not just for Mexican families but by potentially encouraging those families and others to invest in Mexico, so that working illegally in the U.S. is less appealing. Those immigrants BTW do pay tax.

But my world view has room enough to acknowledge your points as well.
 
Minoosh said:
The last person I remember citing this was Ted Cruz. Not that I necessarily believe him, but someone probably did the research. I rebutted your statement at the time but can't go looking for it at the moment.
Click to expand...

You didn't rebut my statement any more than you could rebut the statement that 25% is less than 50%. It is undisputed that the majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico or Central and South America (the numbers were 56% and 80%, respectively in 2006). Assuming that US visas are granted to citizens of other countries at rates roughly proportional to the population, and, except for Mexican border crossing cards, that seems to be the case, then it is nonsensical to believe that anywhere near 50% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays. This is the visa statistics page of the State Department. For, 2015, there were 10,891,745 non-immigrant visas issued, of which 1,479,109 were for Mexicans. Of course, that latter number includes 1,166,668 border crossing cards (BCC), which are supposedly issued only to Mexicans who have very strong ties to Mexico and whom the State Department has good reason to go back to Mexico. If that in fact is not the case, then I would consider that to be an illegal border crossing, not a visa overstay. Regardless, even with BCCs included (and I think it makes no sense to include them), Mexican visas represent 13.5% of visas, yet Mexicans represent 56% of illegal immigrants in the US. It is quite obvious that visa overstays cannot even come close to accounting for the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, and therefore the number of illegal immigrants generally, unless people from Mexico overstay their visas, and some huge multiple times the number that other visitors do.

What figure do you put it at? With cites and everything?
Click to expand...

Well, using the data I linked to, I see roughly 600,000 visas (excluding Mexican border crossing cards) issued to people from Mexico and Central America. This is out of 9,725,000 total (once again, excluding Mexican border crossing cards). So 6.1% of visas are issued to Mexican and Central Americans, but they account for well over half of the illegal immigrants - say 75%. I'll assume uniform visa overstays across nationalities, since I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case, and I've never heard anybody suggest otherwise. Then if X% of the illegal immigrants were visa overstays spread uniformly across the world, and 100% of the rest (which is almost certainly too high) were due to illegal border crossings by immigrants from Mexico and Central America, we would expect the percentage of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America to be 6.1%*X%+100%*(100%-X%) = 100% - 93.9%*X, which would have to match 75%. This gives X% = 26.6%. Of course, this number could be much lower if illegal border crossings weren't exclusively being done by immigrants from Mexico and Central America. In any case, X% can't be anywhere near 50% unless for some reason Mexicans and Central Americans were vastly more likely to overstay their visas than any other visitors. In which case, of course, we should restrict the number of visas we grant to people from those countries.
 
Minoosh said:
If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules...
Click to expand...

That's not true, or at least it doesn't have to be true. Once caught employing undocumented workers the company could be required to enroll in the Social Security Number Verification Service and it works very well. Huge fines are a deterrent. From an earlier quote:
The company is supposed to terminate the illegal workers and clean up its hiring practices, for example by re-training personnel, enrolling in E-Verify, and using the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS)
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration has reduced ICE enforcement action on employers. Why that is I don't know. But I prefer work place enforcement to raids, wall building or stepped up border enforcement. Work place enforcement is much less costly and in the long run will be much more effective. The illegal workers come here to find jobs and earn income. If they can't do that they won't come.

Undocumented immigrants probably pay more in taxes than they receive in any kind of benefits:
The U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2013 undocumented immigrants—and their employers—paid $13 billion in payroll taxes alone for benefits they will never get. They can receive schooling and emergency medical care, but not welfare or food stamps. link
Click to expand...
 
sunmaster14 said:
Assuming that US visas are granted to citizens of other countries at rates roughly proportional to the population,
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that?

sunmaster14 said:
and, except for Mexican border crossing cards, that seems to be the case,
Click to expand...

"Seems to be the case"? That's your authority?

sunmaster14 said:
then it is nonsensical to believe that anywhere near 50% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays.
Click to expand...

Rubio says 40% of illegal immigrants stayed in the U.S. after their visas expired
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/

Rated mostly true.

Nearly 500K foreigners overstayed visas in 2015
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/19/immigration-visa-overstays-department-of-homeland-security-report/79026708/

USA Today puts the illegals-here-because-they-overstayed-visas here at 40 percent.

sunmaster14 said:
Mexican visas represent 13.5% of visas, yet Mexicans represent 56% of illegal immigrants in the US. It is quite obvious that visa overstays cannot even come close to accounting for the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, and therefore the number of illegal immigrants generally, unless people from Mexico overstay their visas, and some huge multiple times the number that other visitors do.
Click to expand...

You are failing to account for the fact that visa overstays would have a cumulative effect over time. How many overstay their visa in a given year is just one piece of it.

sunmaster14 said:
I'll assume uniform visa overstays across nationalities, since I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case, and I've never heard anybody suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You'll assume because you've never heard differently? As long as we're going on assumptions, how about assuming that visa overstays would be more likely among people who have extended families in the U.S.? Maybe because of a 2,000-mile long land border? I'm suggesting an issue of critical mass: Large communities of Mexicans and other Spanish speakers, with complicated mixtures of legal and illegal family members, might provide cover and increase motivation to overstay.

sunmaster14 said:
In any case, X% can't be anywhere near 50% unless for some reason Mexicans and Central Americans were vastly more likely to overstay their visas than any other visitors.
Click to expand...

I've given you one possible reason.

sunmaster14 said:
In which case, of course, we should restrict the number of visas we grant to people from those countries.
Click to expand...

I don't see any "of course" there. I am not afraid of a Mexican invasion. Per my experience many Mexicans like Mexico, and if there was more freedom of movement they might come and go in response to market demands for labor. But any chance of expanding legal avenues for temporary workers is held hostage by the continuing stalemate over comprehensive reform.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The Obama Administration has reduced ICE enforcement action on employers. Why that is I don't know. But I prefer work place enforcement to raids, wall building or stepped up border enforcement. Work place enforcement is much less costly and in the long run will be much more effective. The illegal workers come here to find jobs and earn income. If they can't do that they won't come.
Click to expand...

Being something of a seasonal worker myself I've had to provide ironclad documentation of my right to work legally in the United States probably 6 times in the last 6 years. Employers demanded to see my actual Social Security card (issued when I was 13, more than 40 years ago). I had to get a new card, and to get that I needed a new birth certificate, and to do that I don't really remember the hoops. Maybe a couple of expired passports did the trick.

With the amount of money that must be involved in under-the-table transactions, someone will find a way to tick the boxes so that the documentation bar is cleared. Until we all have tamper-proof biometric ID, that is.
 
WildCat said:
Why not? Canada manages, because they actually enforce their immigration laws both at the border and on employers who would hire them. The USA merely lacks the political will, the Dems want future Dem voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.
Click to expand...

That's the key. We don't have a problem with people coming here who don't need jobs, we have problem with people coming here to take very low paying jobs. Eliminate the jobs and you will see what Romney called "self decoration". That is what the chart above proves.
 
Minoosh said:
Being something of a seasonal worker myself I've had to provide ironclad documentation of my right to work legally in the United States probably 6 times in the last 6 years. Employers demanded to see my actual Social Security card (issued when I was 13, more than 40 years ago). I had to get a new card, and to get that I needed a new birth certificate, and to do that I don't really remember the hoops. Maybe a couple of expired passports did the trick.

With the amount of money that must be involved in under-the-table transactions, someone will find a way to tick the boxes so that the documentation bar is cleared. Until we all have tamper-proof biometric ID, that is.
Click to expand...

You probably work for companies that are large enough to have in-house HR. Smaller companies who contract for you company are probably not so careful, such as ht cleaning crew and grounds crew.
 
With the amount of money that must be involved in under-the-table transactions, someone will find a way to tick the boxes so that the documentation bar is cleared. Until we all have tamper-proof biometric ID, that is.
Click to expand...

I don't think we want to give up on workplace enforcement just based on an assumption it won't work. I'm certain many employers will cooperate. A company I worked for once had maybe 15%-20% undocumented workers on the assembly line. Most were hired on the recommendation of (documented) friends or relatives already working there. It was usually a case of, "They really need a job. They are a good worker. Please hire them." And they usually were good workers. They were probably illegal? Ummm...

It was just something that came about. There was no plan to it. In the cyber world every action has an evil motive -- :( -- but in the real world things don't always work that way.

It didn't save our company any money either, undocumented workers were paid the same scale as everyone else. Once INS got serious, they came into the facility, they took people into custody, they levied a large fine, the owners decided as a matter of policy we would no longer employ any undocumented worker. It went from having no consequences to becoming a problem.

Many of us felt bad. Some of the people had been good workers and good people. We knew they had families back in wherever and it was very difficult to earn any kind of living back there.
 
Dr. Keith said:
You probably work for companies that are large enough to have in-house HR. Smaller companies who contract for you company are probably not so careful, such as ht cleaning crew and grounds crew.
Click to expand...

Not especially big. A couple were tutoring agencies with 2 owners and no employees, just contractors. They were as picky as anyone else.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't think we want to give up on workplace enforcement just based on an assumption it won't work.
Click to expand...

My issue with workplace enforcement is not that it won't work. It's that I don't care if it works. I'm not worried about Mexicans stealing jobs.
 
Minoosh said:
If Canada requires no visa, then those people wouldn't be illegal. And many illegal immigrants have mad skills.
Click to expand...
Canada only allows those with money on hand and job skills that show they can support themselves. They don't allow penniless low-skilled workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom