| mdx99 |
HOUSTON -- A new crackdown on illegal immigration is coming. But this time, the immigrants are not the targets. Agents will soon go after the people who hire them, KPRC Local 2 reported Friday.
The plan requires businesses that hire immigrants to ensure they have valid Social Security numbers. If discrepancies aren't rectified within 90 days, employers face fines of up to $10,000 or even criminal charges in aggravated cases.
"It turns out that we have systemic violation of the rules, willful violation of the rules that meet the criminal standard, then employers who commit those kinds of crimes are going to facing criminal prosecution," said Michael Chernoff with Homeland Security.
*****************************************
****Since when did Homeland Security has something to do with immigration problem???? Aren't they supposed to go after the terrorists? Looks like we have to mow the lawn ourselves now.:1: |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
| Yeah, because those illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs you know. . . |
|
|
| cardingtr |
Yep, I totally agree with this crack down on EMPLOYERS. I'm an employer myself and every applicant and employee of my company have to check their addresses, names, DOB, and SS match before we write their SS in DHS forms. It costs money but for me this is how it supposed to be.
Fair game. Every body pays taxes.
FRiend of mine bought a company in New Jersey and found out almost half the employees or contractors don't pay taxes. The employees are upset because she started taking taxes it's unbelievable. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Yeah, because those illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs you know. . .
Not those jobs that American don't care for, such as gardening, low tech farming or factory jobs etc. I am all for legal immigration but they (meaning the Homeland Security) have to shore up the security at the south border as well. Some of the illegals are hard working people trying to make a living while some are hard core criminals. This open border is encouraging illegals to keep pouring in. Even if the criminals are deported, they will just sneak back in the next day. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
| BTW, which port of entry did the 9/11 terrorists enter from? |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
BTW, which port of entry did the 9/11 terrorists enter from?
Does it matter? They will penetrate wherever the most undetected check-point is. |
|
|
| highmath |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
BTW, which port of entry did the 9/11 terrorists enter from?
It was reported from MIA (Miami Intl) and ORD (Chi-O'Hare Intl). |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
Do you really believe cutting down on Mexican nationals crossing the boarder is a fight against terrorism?
If the gov't really wanted to do something, we should stop all immigrants from the the Middle East because last time I checked most of them were Saudi nationals.
This is just like the whole Afghanistan/Iraq issue. |
|
|
| keremoner |
I believe government should have a no nonsense approach. Employers need to be punished severely, not slapped on the wrist, for violating laws. Concentrating on the illegals themselves is like arresting drug users instead of pursuing dealers. We need to reform our immigration laws and processes badly. If you try to come here legally, they make it next to impossible with their bureuacracy and incompetence. Let the necessary labor come in through legal channels such as a guest worker program. We do not need to make these people citizens or residents to accomplish that goal. So:
1) Enforce laws strictly (both at the border and with employers)
2) Create a guest worker program |
|
|
| gmc74 |
I worked in the payroll business in the 90s. We would send the employee SSN to the government (as required for new hires), and here in AZ we got a lot of them back as invalid.
Jay Leno had a funny joke about this topic last night... we are getting mad at the Mexicans who come here to take the jobs that Americans don't want, then we ship all the jobs they do want to India...
I don't have any issues with a guest worker program, there are a lot of jobs here in AZ that are filled by migrant workers, mainly because no one else wants them. Some of these jobs are paying decent money too, not getting rich, but $10-15 dollars an hour for unskilled labor isn't bad. |
|
|
| dj-mdx2 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I believe government should have a no nonsense approach. Employers need to be punished severely, not slapped on the wrist, for violating laws. Concentrating on the illegals themselves is like arresting drug users instead of pursuing dealers. We need to reform our immigration laws and processes badly. If you try to come here legally, they make it next to impossible with their bureuacracy and incompetence. Let the necessary labor come in through legal channels such as a guest worker program. We do not need to make these people citizens or residents to accomplish that goal. So:
1) Enforce laws strictly (both at the border and with employers)
2) Create a guest worker program
There already is a guest worker and temporary visa program, and border patrol is in place, but enforcing the rules is always going to involve finances and cooperation. If employers and ordinary citizens can turn a blind eye to the presence of illegally employed non-residents, then the system breaks down. Not all the burden should lie on the administration nor on reforming the laws, even though the latter are, I agree, quite impenetrable and subject to bureaucracy and misuse. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
Until the cost to an employer is high enough that the risk isn't worth the reward, this won't change too much.
Most employers do the right thing, and even then they have illegals working for them, and don't know it.
For those that willingly break the law, the benefits are pretty big. No workers comp expenses, no state or federal unemployment taxes, usually lower wages, and no medicare/social security tax. You add all of this up, and it gets to be a pretty big savings, if the penalty isn't (for instance) 10 times the benefit, it will still happen.
The problem is, how do you catch people? You can't start going up to people who appear to be from Mexico and ask for proof of citizenship, so what do you do?
What to do isn't the issue, how to do it is. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Do you really believe cutting down on Mexican nationals crossing the boarder is a fight against terrorism?
If the gov't really wanted to do something, we should stop all immigrants from the the Middle East because last time I checked most of them were Saudi nationals.
This is just like the whole Afghanistan/Iraq issue.
I think you are mixing up the 2 different issue. My point is
1. If we want to crack down illegals, both the source, meaning securing the borders, North & South & the employers who hire the illegals should be penalized. It should be the job of Immigartion dept, not Homeland Security who should be out there looking for terrorists (NOT illegals) like the Brits( who did catch some before they acted).
2. Although I would like to racial profile the Middle Easterners but we can't do that in this country or else we are going back 60 years to WWII when we racial profile the American Japanese & put them in concentration camp without any reason. If we do that, we will be like 3rd third world country.
3. Third but not last, we could issue national ID cards like the Canadian citizenship card (Okay, some anti-socialists will be yelling now) but set up some rules so police can't racial profile a certain race. We are carrying driver ID anyway why not another ID card. |
|
|
| cardingtr |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I think you are mixing up the 2 different issue. My point is
1. If we want to crack down illegals, both the source, meaning securing the borders, North & South & the employers who hire the illegals should be penalized. It should be the job of Immigartion dept, not Homeland Security who should be out there looking for terrorists (NOT illegals) like the Brits( who did catch some before they acted).
2. Although I would like to racial profile the Middle Easterners but we can't do that in this country or else we are going back 60 years to WWII when we racial profile the American Japanese & put them in concentration camp without any reason. If we do that, we will be like 3rd third world country.
3. Third but not last, we could issue national ID cards like the Canadian citizenship card (Okay, some anti-socialists will be yelling now) but set up some rules so police can't racial profile a certain race. We are carrying driver ID anyway why not another ID card.
Immigration Dept is under Homeland Security. |
|
|
| cardingtr |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I think you are mixing up the 2 different issue. My point is
1. If we want to crack down illegals, both the source, meaning securing the borders, North & South & the employers who hire the illegals should be penalized. It should be the job of Immigartion dept, not Homeland Security who should be out there looking for terrorists (NOT illegals) like the Brits( who did catch some before they acted).
2. Although I would like to racial profile the Middle Easterners but we can't do that in this country or else we are going back 60 years to WWII when we racial profile the American Japanese & put them in concentration camp without any reason. If we do that, we will be like 3rd third world country.
3. Third but not last, we could issue national ID cards like the Canadian citizenship card (Okay, some anti-socialists will be yelling now) but set up some rules so police can't racial profile a certain race. We are carrying driver ID anyway why not another ID card.
Immigration Dept is under Homeland Security. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
3. Third but not last, we could issue national ID cards like the Canadian citizenship card (Okay, some anti-socialists will be yelling now) but set up some rules so police can't racial profile a certain race. We are carrying driver ID anyway why not another ID card.
I don't have an issue with this. I don't see why we can't have national ID cards that combine drivers info as well. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I think you are mixing up the 2 different issue. My point is
1. If we want to crack down illegals, both the source, meaning securing the borders, North & South & the employers who hire the illegals should be penalized. It should be the job of Immigartion dept, not Homeland Security who should be out there looking for terrorists (NOT illegals) like the Brits( who did catch some before they acted).
2. Although I would like to racial profile the Middle Easterners but we can't do that in this country or else we are going back 60 years to WWII when we racial profile the American Japanese & put them in concentration camp without any reason. If we do that, we will be like 3rd third world country.
3. Third but not last, we could issue national ID cards like the Canadian citizenship card (Okay, some anti-socialists will be yelling now) but set up some rules so police can't racial profile a certain race. We are carrying driver ID anyway why not another ID card.
|
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I think you are mixing up the 2 different issue. My point is
1. If we want to crack down illegals, both the source, meaning securing the borders, North & South & the employers who hire the illegals should be penalized. It should be the job of Immigartion dept, not Homeland Security who should be out there looking for terrorists (NOT illegals) like the Brits( who did catch some before they acted).
2. Although I would like to racial profile the Middle Easterners but we can't do that in this country or else we are going back 60 years to WWII when we racial profile the American Japanese & put them in concentration camp without any reason. If we do that, we will be like 3rd third world country.
3. Third but not last, we could issue national ID cards like the Canadian citizenship card (Okay, some anti-socialists will be yelling now) but set up some rules so police can't racial profile a certain race. We are carrying driver ID anyway why not another ID card.
It's not profiling if we set limitations for certain countries or regions of the world. Many countries have limitations on the # of immigrants that are allowed to enter. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I think you are mixing up the 2 different issue. My point is
1. If we want to crack down illegals, both the source, meaning securing the borders, North & South & the employers who hire the illegals should be penalized. It should be the job of Immigartion dept, not Homeland Security who should be out there looking for terrorists (NOT illegals) like the Brits( who did catch some before they acted).
I think there would be a chilling effect. Remember, immigrants, legal and illegal, are the backbone of our manual labor force in America. If you remove them in the entirety, this will either lead to a dramatic increase in costs to us or jobs will move abroad.
I'd rather legalize them entirely and tax their income. At least they would be making contributions to the system. Inf fact, many of the individuals I have dealt with would love to pay taxes if they had the opportunity. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
I think there would be a chilling effect. Remember, immigrants, legal and illegal, are the backbone of our manual labor force in America. If you remove them in the entirety, this will either lead to a dramatic increase in costs to us or jobs will move abroad.
I'd rather legalize them entirely and tax their income. At least they would be making contributions to the system. Inf fact, many of the individuals I have dealt with would love to pay taxes if they had the opportunity.
If you mean legalize as in guest worker, I agree. I don't think you reward people who are here illegally by giving them citizenship.
You will always need people who are willing to do the jobs that most people won't do, and that typically falls towards the immigrants. When parts of my family came from italy in the early 1900s, they were in the same boat. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
If you mean legalize as in guest worker, I agree. I don't think you reward people who are here illegally by giving them citizenship.
You will always need people who are willing to do the jobs that most people won't do, and that typically falls towards the immigrants. When parts of my family came from italy in the early 1900s, they were in the same boat.
Whether you consider it rewarding or not, granting citizenship is not really that detrimental. I believe it would be more difficult to round up the 12M out of status individuals.
We can barely find one guy in Afghanistan. . . |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Whether you consider it rewarding or not, granting citizenship is not really that detrimental. I believe it would be more difficult to round up the 12M out of status individuals.
We can barely find one guy in Afghanistan. . .
I am not claiming to have the answer, I don't think it is that simple.
My plan would be to institute a guest worker plan, and tax them. Make it a criminal offense for a business to hire an illegal alien that doesn't have a guest worker card. Add an enourmous financial penalty on top of the criminal one, and it will start to go away.
If you reduce the employers that are willing to pay, the workforce will dry up as well. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
We can't deport the 12 mil aliens that are already here but than granting them legal status would certainly encourage more aliens to come. So it's a catch 21!
However, if anyone want to imigrate to this country, it has to be done in a legal way, if they chose to do it illegally, so be it, deport all of them. We are still a nation of law. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
I believe it would be more difficult to round up the 12M out of status individuals.
Have you been to Home Depot lately?? |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
Have you been to Home Depot lately??
I just hope we have 12 million "Americans" to fill these unwanted jobs. I don't see white folks picketing outside of Home Depot.
US employers are taxed enough, now we are expecting them to carry out the roles of USCIS/INS. |
|
|
| keremoner |
| Allright, truth is that we do NOT have a smart immigration policy. We should let all the professionals we need come here legally (doctors, technical people, etc.) We sorely are short of many skilled professionals in this country. Secondly, all the unskilled labor need should be met by a guest worker program since these the numbers required are much bigger than the first group and allwing them to come here permanently would be risky (unemployment, welfare type problems) as the economic cycles change. |
|
|
| keremoner |
If we don't have the cooperation of employers, we'd never be able to control the situation. It is not difficult to have a national ID of some sort, or if we don't want that, check the validity of every SS number in your payroll as people are hired. Heck, the government can even subsidize the cost of that by giving some additional tax breaks to employers..
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
US employers are taxed enough, now we are expecting them to carry out the roles of USCIS/INS.
|
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Allright, truth is that we do NOT have a smart immigration policy. We should let all the professionals we need come here legally (doctors, technical people, etc.) We sorely are short of many skilled professionals in this country. Secondly, all the unskilled labor need should be met by a guest worker program since these the numbers required are much bigger than the first group and allwing them to come here permanently would be risky (unemployment, welfare type problems) as the economic cycles change.
If you problem is with out of status folks using unemployment and welfare, simply modify the laws to allow only permanent residents and citizens access. Although, I believe many states are tightening on that now with requiring people to work in order to get welfare benefits. As for unemployment, unless something changed, unless an individual has an SS# he or she cannot apply.
As for the guest worker program, a non immigrant sponsorship program is already in place through USCIS. Again, it's the # of allowed visas that is the problem. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
If we don't have the cooperation of employers, we'd never be able to control the situation. It is not difficult to have a national ID of some sort, or if we don't want that, check the validity of every SS number in your payroll as people are hired. Heck, the government can even subsidize the cost of that by giving some additional tax breaks to employers..
National ID, you mean like a passport or driver's license, right? The US gov't can't even get my passport processed and it's been 5 months already and now they're going to issue national ID's to 300 million people? And how do you suppose we fund this? Another tax? That sounds very democratic of you. I don't know about you, but I'm for less gov't intrusion, less bureacracy.
Face it. This country has been and will always be about the the American dream. There isn't one person on this board whose lineage didn't get here that way. It seems patently unfair that after we have made our way here, that we now want to exclude others. |
|
|
| dj-mdx2 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
National ID, you mean like a passport or driver's license, right? The US gov't can't even get my passport processed and it's been 5 months already and now they're going to issue national ID's to 300 million people? And how do you suppose we fund this? Another tax? That sounds very democratic of you. I don't know about you, but I'm for less gov't intrusion, less bureacracy.
Face it. This country has been and will always be about the the American dream. There isn't one person on this board whose lineage didn't get here that way. It seems patently unfair that after we have made our way here, that we now want to exclude others.
I understand your viewpoints, LL, as I am an immigrant myself. However, I also understand that times have changed. There are people out there whose sole purpose is to disrupt and destroy American lives. Increasing security is only one "inconvenience" for the price of perceived, if not true freedom. Before 9/11 (I was living in New York at that time incidentally), I went in and out of JFK without so much as having my bag checked. Now there's a fricking 2 to 3 hour airport security check that gets irritating but I have to remind myself if this is what I have to put up with to avoid the horrors of that day then so be it.
National IDs don't sound so bad if you consider how much info can be tracked from your SSN and DL already. If a national ID were issued to you at birth 40 years ago, as it is in other countries, nobody would be arguing about it now. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
And how do you suppose we fund this? Another tax?
It seems patently unfair that after we have made our way here, that we now want to exclude others.
Not another tax. Let uncle sam pay for it by cutting on cost of fighting illegal aliens in the long run. We owe trillions already, a few billion more is nothing.
As for the unfairness issue, we all came here legally and after we institute a smart immigration policy, people need to abide by the laws.
It seems to me that you are arguing that no one should be treated as 'illegal' or you don't get my point. I am not saying stop immigration. I am saying do it in a fair and orderly way so people do not have to cross the border illegaly. They are coming here because there is a need for them (therefore we need to allow them to come as a guest worker) or to abuse the welfare system (thanks libs). What other reason do you see? |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
National ID, you mean like a passport or driver's license, right? The US gov't can't even get my passport processed and it's been 5 months already and now they're going to issue national ID's to 300 million people? And how do you suppose we fund this? Another tax? That sounds very democratic of you. I don't know about you, but I'm for less gov't intrusion, less bureacracy.
Face it. This country has been and will always be about the the American dream. There isn't one person on this board whose lineage didn't get here that way. It seems patently unfair that after we have made our way here, that we now want to exclude others.
It isn't about excluding legal immigrants, it is about enforcing legal immigration. My grandparents came from europoe legally...
As for the ID system, it won't be much of an intrusion or cost increase if it is integrated with your drivers license. Do I have all of the answers, of course not.
I am all for less government, and everyone paying their fair share. When people aren't paying their fair share, then the government needs to regulate it, and that is the issue we have now. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
I just hope we have 12 million "Americans" to fill these unwanted jobs. I don't see white folks picketing outside of Home Depot.
US employers are taxed enough, now we are expecting them to carry out the roles of USCIS/INS.
We can always issue guest/worker visas to fill those unwanted jobs, the key is to legalize the system not legalize the existing illegal system (& I don't know what to do with those 12M aliens). |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
The US gov't can't even get my passport processed and it's been 5 months already and now they're going to issue national ID's to 300 million people?
Are you sure you are not in trouble with the LAW?? I got mine in 6-8 weeks when I renewed mine 1 few months ago.
It seems patently unfair that after we have made our way here, that we now want to exclude others.
Are you sure you are not in trouble with the LAW?? I got mine in 6-8 weeks when I renewed mine 1 few months ago.
AND we are not excluding others if they come here LEGALLY.
;) |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
It isn't about excluding legal immigrants, it is about enforcing legal immigration. My grandparents came from europoe legally...
As for the ID system, it won't be much of an intrusion or cost increase if it is integrated with your drivers license. Do I have all of the answers, of course not.
I am all for less government, and everyone paying their fair share. When people aren't paying their fair share, then the government needs to regulate it, and that is the issue we have now.
Well said! I concur, for those who disagree, think of it this way:
If someone intrude & decide to live in your backyard, knocking at your patio door every night, begging for work, use your water from the garden hose, maybe eat the fruit from your tree, etc.... Then your son decided to pay them $1 /hour to mow the lawn without getting permission from you instead of doing it himself. So are you going to let them stay legally in your backyard or rather call the police & kick them out. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
If there are 12 Million illegal workers, then there is a ton of money that can be collected to cover some of these costs if they create a legal guest worker program, and crack down on employers who hire illegally.
Let's look at it this way
12 million people, making on average $8 / hour (I have no way of knowing if this number is accurate, but since I am going to only calculate 40 hours a week, which is probably low, it probably makes this number low too) working 2080 hours a year.
That is just shy of 200 Billion dollars in wages, which, if paid legally would yield 24.8 Billion dollars of much needed funds to Social Security (6.2% from both the employee and employer) 5.8 Billion to Medicare (1.45% from both the employee and employer). Add to that billions in federal and state income tax, and I think we can safely say we know where the money would come from.
Laborlitigator, I am assuming from your name that you work in the Labor Law field. I am not asking specifically what you do, but I am curious as to what your work relates to. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by dj-mdx2
I understand your viewpoints, LL, as I am an immigrant myself. However, I also understand that times have changed. There are people out there whose sole purpose is to disrupt and destroy American lives. Increasing security is only one "inconvenience" for the price of perceived, if not true freedom. Before 9/11 (I was living in New York at that time incidentally), I went in and out of JFK without so much as having my bag checked. Now there's a fricking 2 to 3 hour airport security check that gets irritating but I have to remind myself if this is what I have to put up with to avoid the horrors of that day then so be it.
National IDs don't sound so bad if you consider how much info can be tracked from your SSN and DL already. If a national ID were issued to you at birth 40 years ago, as it is in other countries, nobody would be arguing about it now.
It just seems to me a National ID is a waste. I don't see the purpose over a valid SS card or driver's license. Even if people get stopped, you still need the enforcement portion regardless. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Not another tax. Let uncle sam pay for it by cutting on cost of fighting illegal aliens in the long run. We owe trillions already, a few billion more is nothing.
As for the unfairness issue, we all came here legally and after we institute a smart immigration policy, people need to abide by the laws.
It seems to me that you are arguing that no one should be treated as 'illegal' or you don't get my point. I am not saying stop immigration. I am saying do it in a fair and orderly way so people do not have to cross the border illegaly. They are coming here because there is a need for them (therefore we need to allow them to come as a guest worker) or to abuse the welfare system (thanks libs). What other reason do you see?
The program for the guest worker is already here - seasonal H-2B visas. Creating a guest worker program still does not deal with the 12M or so people that are here already. I'm trying to be practical, not idealistic. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
Are you sure you are not in trouble with the LAW?? I got mine in 6-8 weeks when I renewed mine 1 few months ago.
AND we are not excluding others if they come here LEGALLY.
;)
They must be checking my membership with the Trial Lawyer of America. . .
Even my kids visas aren't yet done. . . unbelievable. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
If there are 12 Million illegal workers, then there is a ton of money that can be collected to cover some of these costs if they create a legal guest worker program, and crack down on employers who hire illegally.
Let's look at it this way
12 million people, making on average $8 / hour (I have no way of knowing if this number is accurate, but since I am going to only calculate 40 hours a week, which is probably low, it probably makes this number low too) working 2080 hours a year.
That is just shy of 200 Billion dollars in wages, which, if paid legally would yield 24.8 Billion dollars of much needed funds to Social Security (6.2% from both the employee and employer) 5.8 Billion to Medicare (1.45% from both the employee and employer). Add to that billions in federal and state income tax, and I think we can safely say we know where the money would come from.
Laborlitigator, I am assuming from your name that you work in the Labor Law field. I am not asking specifically what you do, but I am curious as to what your work relates to.
My practice concentrates in labor and employment litigation, mainly plaintiffs and union folks.
As for your argument, if you just change the guest worker program to legalization (making them permanent residents only) - the same numbers spit out and you've got a taxable income not on a seasonal or limited basis but ad infinitum. Then, you won't have to spend the billions, no sorry, trillions it would take to try to round up the 12 MILLION illegals in the country.
Like I said, it has already cost us, the good ole US of A, $450B to try to catch one fella in Afghanistan, via Iraq, of course. How much more will it cost us to round up an additional 11,999,999 other people.:2: |
|
|
| keremoner |
laborlitigator:
First, the idea is to create a national i.d. that is not easy to forge (like SS cards or like driver licenses that states like MD give to everyone, even illegals). Once this is done, then employers can play their role in not hiring anyone who doesn't have that i.d. (or else suffer the consequences).
Next, you create a guest worker program. H2 visas aren't a comprehensive guest worker program! A Mexican cannot go to the authorities and ask for a H visa to wash dishes. These visas are good for mainly white collar jobs and a few service sector jobs. If you create the program, in conjunction with a national I.D., you don't have to round anyone up. You ask all illegals to come in, register, and get their guest worker visas that need to be renewed every so many years. This way, they will start paying taxes, and be traceable. Illegals will not have a reason not to register because there is no deportation, and if they did not register, employers will find out and fire them unless they want to be fined an obscene amount (like million dollars per illegal they are harboring)
The advantage of guest worker program is that if the economic conditions warrant, you do not have to renew them and the people who have them cannot sap our welfare system like they would if you legalized them by making them residents. Also, you can defray the cost of their healthcare, welfare, etc. with the billions you collect from them. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
I will agree with that plan in that the purpose is to tax them and keep them away burdening our resources.
However, how will you deal with a guest worker who gives birth to a US citizen. Is that US citizen not allowed the same rights and privileges? If the parent is then required to leave at the end of the guest worker program, what does one do with the citizen child? Does the citizen child follow the parent or become a burden of the state? Also, if that US citizen child then not eligible to assistant programs that other US citizens can avail themselves of?
It all sounds well and good, but the practicality side still rears its ugly head. You will still have the same problems of resources and crime. How does the guest worker program cure those? |
|
|
| keremoner |
I would propose amending the constitution. Anchor babies should not automatically become US citizens. Maybe, they would have the right to become US citizens automatically at age 18+ when they can live here independently. Until then, they should be guests in the US, like their parents.
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
However, how will you deal with a guest worker who gives birth to a US citizen. Is that US citizen not allowed the same rights and privileges? If the parent is then required to leave at the end of the guest worker program, what does one do with the citizen child? Does the citizen child follow the parent or become a burden of the state? Also, if that US citizen child then not eligible to assistant programs that other US citizens can avail themselves of?
|
|
|
| dj-mdx2 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I would propose amending the constitution. Anchor babies should not automatically become US citizens. Maybe, they would have the right to become US citizens automatically at age 18+ when they can live here independently. Until then, they should be guests in the US, like their parents.
You just opened up a can of worms with this one. There is plenty of legal precedent in other countries for implementing such a rule, but part of the American dream for many immigrants, including your ancestors most likely, is the idea of establishing a home in a free world and raising your children in a free world and all the privileges and responsibilities that entails. Just my .02. |
|
|
| keremoner |
I don't see any incompatibility with what this country is all about. These are not legal immigrants that we are denying the god given right for their children to be Americans. They are just temporary workers/visitors here. A loop hole that allows them or any other tourist to copulate and reproduce here in order to become automatic citizens is a foolish one IMO
quote:
Originally posted by dj-mdx2
You just opened up a can of worms with this one. There is plenty of legal precedent in other countries for implementing such a rule, but part of the American dream for many immigrants, including your ancestors most likely, is the idea of establishing a home in a free world and raising your children in a free world and all the privileges and responsibilities that entails. Just my .02.
|
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
They must be checking my membership with the Trial Lawyer of America. . .
Even my kids visas aren't yet done. . . unbelievable.
I am pretty sure they racial profile those who had been in & out of the sensitive countries.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I would propose amending the constitution. Anchor babies should not automatically become US citizens. Maybe, they would have the right to become US citizens automatically at age 18+ when they can live here independently. Until then, they should be guests in the US, like their parents.
Lots of countries already have that law, I think it's Japan, maybe Taiwan(not so sure), |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
It just seems to me a National ID is a waste. I don't see the purpose over a valid SS card or driver's license. Even if people get stopped, you still need the enforcement portion regardless.
SS # is useless, just a piece of paper without magnetic strip & illegals can buy it from the internet easily, driver license ID's are not consistent throughout the country, California recently required fingerprints & SS# but not every state. We do need a nationalize ID card & even better, authorize the police to check for ID from suspicious illegal aliens. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Like I said, it has already cost us, the good ole US of A, $450B to try to catch one fella in Afghanistan, via Iraq, of course. How much more will it cost us to round up an additional 11,999,999 other people.:2:
I appreciate the humor, but this isn't about catching people (talking about the workers here).
This is a horrible reference, I realise that up front, but it is a very accurate description... now that the disclaimer is done with. I live in Arizona, 1000 yards from mountains and untouched desert. Five years ago, this was untouched desert, and filled with scorpions. They are still here, but not in my yard, because I eliminated their food source (i.e. other bugs).
If you eliminate the ability for those that are here illegally to get employment, by cracking down hard on the people employing them with huge financial penalties, and institute a program where legal workers can make an honest living, then the problem will begin to solve itself.
I am assuming that the 12 mil number is accurate, I have no idea, but it does seem high (4% of the total US population). |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
I will agree with that plan in that the purpose is to tax them and keep them away burdening our resources.
However, how will you deal with a guest worker who gives birth to a US citizen. Is that US citizen not allowed the same rights and privileges? If the parent is then required to leave at the end of the guest worker program, what does one do with the citizen child? Does the citizen child follow the parent or become a burden of the state? Also, if that US citizen child then not eligible to assistant programs that other US citizens can avail themselves of?
It all sounds well and good, but the practicality side still rears its ugly head. You will still have the same problems of resources and crime. How does the guest worker program cure those?
That is one aspect I have not considered.... mandatory sterilization! :) Sorry, couldn't help it... that is a burden that would need to be addressed, but considering the billions in revenue, it would probably be a small price compared to the problems we have today.
The same issue happens today, it is just with illegals, not guest workers. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
SS # is useless, just a piece of paper without magnetic strip & illegals can buy it from the internet easily, driver license ID's are not consistent throughout the country, California recently required fingerprints & SS# but not every state. We do need a nationalize ID card & even better, authorize the police to check for ID from suspicious illegal aliens.
I am not in agreement on the last part. Here in AZ, if you are latino, you are automatically looked at as if you could be an illegal from Mexico. We have had some issues with the police rounding up suspected illegals... some were, others were not. Singling someone out for how they look (i.e. the color of their skin) is wrong, how they act however is not.
AZ tried the SS# on the drivers license, but now they won't allow it. Too many issues with identity theft.
I think the key to the ID system is a smart card based system with a picture on it that replaces the Drivers license. This would allow you the security of a smart card for the data (like the ones the armed forces use, at least the air force does) and a picture which you don't have on an easily reproduced SS card. You can add thumb prints or other identifiers as well.
It isn't about the fact that you have an ID, it is that you can, with out a doubt, prove who is legal and who is not, instantly, with a uniform card. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I would propose amending the constitution. Anchor babies should not automatically become US citizens. Maybe, they would have the right to become US citizens automatically at age 18+ when they can live here independently. Until then, they should be guests in the US, like their parents.
Why don't we just place "anchor" babies into an indentured servant program? Or perhaps ship all US born citizens, that cause us any grief, off to China. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I am pretty sure they racial profile those who had been in & out of the sensitive countries.:rolleyes:
Yeah, my kids just got back from their weekend in Havana.
Still, the point is gov't is inefficient at its very core. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by keremoner
I don't see any incompatibility with what this country is all about. These are not legal immigrants that we are denying the god given right for their children to be Americans. They are just temporary workers/visitors here. A loop hole that allows them or any other tourist to copulate and reproduce here in order to become automatic citizens is a foolish one IMO
[/QUOTE
By your rationale, those on the Mayflower should not have been allowed to "copulate and reproduce".
If you're born here, you're a US citizen. There are no provisions. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
I appreciate the humor, but this isn't about catching people (talking about the workers here).
This is a horrible reference, I realise that up front, but it is a very accurate description... now that the disclaimer is done with. I live in Arizona, 1000 yards from mountains and untouched desert. Five years ago, this was untouched desert, and filled with scorpions. They are still here, but not in my yard, because I eliminated their food source (i.e. other bugs).
If you eliminate the ability for those that are here illegally to get employment, by cracking down hard on the people employing them with huge financial penalties, and institute a program where legal workers can make an honest living, then the problem will begin to solve itself.
I am assuming that the 12 mil number is accurate, I have no idea, but it does seem high (4% of the total US population).
Many businesses have been built on the backs of immigrants, legal and illegal. To now discard an entire section of our society, due to political rhetoric, is unacceptable.
Prior to 9/11 or Iraq, illegal immigration was never a major issue. Now, just because a group of Saudi nationals blow up the WTC, we should now concentrate on all Central and South Americans, defies logic. It's a red herring to distract us from the fact that this war is misplaced and how much we cowtow to the Saudi's oil. |
|
|
| keremoner |
I am starting to think that you are against any measure to stop the problem of illegal immigration. What then is your proposed solution?
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Why don't we just place "anchor" babies into an indentured servant program? Or perhaps ship all US born citizens, that cause us any grief, off to China.
|
|
|
| keremoner |
Come, come now! You are smarter than that. When the pilgrims came here, there were no immigration laws being broken, were there? So they were not illegals unless you can point to some native american laws from the 16th century. The situation now is completely different because there are laws in the books. And you, as an attorney, should be able to tell the difference I would hope.
[/B][/QUOTE
By your rationale, those on the Mayflower should not have been allowed to "copulate and reproduce".
If you're born here, you're a US citizen. There are no provisions. [/B][/QUOTE] |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I am starting to think that you are against any measure to stop the problem of illegal immigration. What then is your proposed solution?
1. Legalize those that are already here.
2. Tax them - the same way you and I are taxed.
3. Restrict the amount of benefits they can receive from social programs ie. one child or only when they become citizens after 5 years.
4. Employers who hire illegal immigrants after a certain date will be subject to fines, etc.
Everybody gets something. It's a compromise. |
|
|
| keremoner |
No one is promoting the idea of getting rid of them. Just bring them to a legalized status and make them pay taxes on the services they sap the system for. I for one, am tired of having my taxes go to supporting leaches who do not pay taxes.
Also, illegals mean everyone, not just latinos. Finally, this issue is seperate from the war, so don't try to associate them. 9/11 started the war, justified or not, and our dependence on Saudi oil has nothing to do with why they flew those planes into the WTCs.
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Many businesses have been built on the backs of immigrants, legal and illegal. To now discard an entire section of our society, due to political rhetoric, is unacceptable.
Prior to 9/11 or Iraq, illegal immigration was never a major issue. Now, just because a group of Saudi nationals blow up the WTC, we should now concentrate on all Central and South Americans, defies logic. It's a red herring to distract us from the fact that this war is misplaced and how much we cowtow to the Saudi's oil.
|
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Come, come now! You are smarter than that. When the pilgrims came here, there were no immigration laws being broken, were there? So they were not illegals unless you can point to some native american laws from the 16th century. The situation now is completely different because there are laws in the books. And you, as an attorney, should be able to tell the difference I would hope.
[/QUOTE
By your rationale, those on the Mayflower should not have been allowed to "copulate and reproduce".
If you're born here, you're a US citizen. There are no provisions. [/B]
[/B][/QUOTE]
K,
I was being sarcastic.:D
Or republican, which I am a proud member of. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Many businesses have been built on the backs of immigrants, legal and illegal. To now discard an entire section of our society, due to political rhetoric, is unacceptable.
Prior to 9/11 or Iraq, illegal immigration was never a major issue. Now, just because a group of Saudi nationals blow up the WTC, we should now concentrate on all Central and South Americans, defies logic. It's a red herring to distract us from the fact that this war is misplaced and how much we cowtow to the Saudi's oil.
It may have become a national issue recently, but talk to those of us in states that border Mexico, and you will find that the issue has been big for a long time. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
1. Legalize those that are already here.
2. Tax them - the same way you and I are taxed.
3. Restrict the amount of benefits they can receive from social programs ie. one child or only when they become citizens after 5 years.
4. Employers who hire illegal immigrants after a certain date will be subject to fines, etc.
Everybody gets something. It's a compromise.
If you can't find them to remove them from the country, how do you find them to legalize them?
They won't believe that the "gift" they are giving is real, and will probably not come out of hiding.
I still don't believe that you reward someone for breaking the law, and legalizing those that are here does just that.
BTW, I am a registered Republican, though more of a Libertarian, as well... |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
If you can't find them to remove them from the country, how do you find them to legalize them?
They won't believe that the "gift" they are giving is real, and will probably not come out of hiding.
I still don't believe that you reward someone for breaking the law, and legalizing those that are here does just that.
BTW, I am a registered Republican, though more of a Libertarian, as well...
Back in 2002, Congress granted a similar program and such was successful. Believe me, if it is granted, people will file.
As for the rewarding process, you can require a high filing fee ($3 to 5K) if that make you feel better. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
It may have become a national issue recently, but talk to those of us in states that border Mexico, and you will find that the issue has been big for a long time.
Fair enough. As an East Coaster, we don't have too many immigrants here. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
BTW, I am a registered Republican, though more of a Libertarian, as well...
So you should be "uber"free market, right? Less gov't, the better. I think we're on the same wavelength in our disdain for bigger fed involvement. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
So you should be "uber"free market, right? Less gov't, the better. I think we're on the same wavelength in our disdain for bigger fed involvement.
Absolutely! I do believe you give a helping hand to those in need, but not an on going handout. I also know that the government has had little, if any success, in providing a better, cheaper solution than the private sector in anything. Anytime they are involved, the problem grows and the costs go | | | |
