W'S IMMIGRATION FALLACY

New York Post ^ | January 16, 2004 | By HEATHER MAC DONALD

[.cnI redruM]

January 16, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush's proposal to legalize the country's 10 or so million illegal aliens rests on a fallacy: that immigration enforcement has failed to stem the tide of illegal aliens. Therefore, the argument goes, amnesty is the only solution to the illegal-alien crisis.

[.cnI redruM]

We should do one of two things on immigration.

A) Enforce the laws that we have passed.

or

B) Repeal the laws that we as a society are unwilling to enforce.

Either would improve the statis quo. Nothing debilitates a society worse than carrying laws that it will not willing enforce. That corrodes respect for the rule of law.

[goldstategop]

Agreed. The American people don't want amnesty and President Bush isn't going to make a serious push for it in an election year.

[mgist]

Here's how: A ban on illegal labor can work only if employers can reliably determine a worker's employment eligibility. Business and ethnic lobbies defeated worker verification in 1986 and every time it has been proposed since then.

It is capitalism at work, supply and demand, that has employers hiring immigrants. Small business owners that I know are impressed with immigrant workers and consider them necessary to compete effectively. Most of these jobs and services would end up going overseas otherwise.

[.cnI redruM]

It will die in 2004. What about 2005?

[The_Eaglet]

Elections Board votes to study regulations for political ads-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 37

[TomServo]

Already posted here.

[dirtboy]

It is capitalism at work, supply and demand, that has employers hiring immigrants.

Even illegal immigrants? Seriously, if you're gonna condone hiring illegals as smart capitalism and cheaper than hiring American citizens, you also could condone bank robbery as a way to get capital more cheaply than a loan.

[american spirit]

Yeah, those small business owners are impressed illegals because they can pay them minimal wages, have the taxpayers supplement their employees living expenses while EVADING A WHOLE LOT OF EMPLOYMENT RELATED TAXES...who the hell wouldn't want that deal? We've turned into a country where some businesses who deal mainly in cash can flaunt federal law in numerous instances while others are forced to toe the line on fedgov enforcement. The result of this double standard is a race to the bottom in case you need some help figuring that out.

[CMAC51]

>>> But even were immigration authorities to get adequate resources, it would have little effect on the jobs magnet, because the government's tools for prosecuting illegal employment are so weak. Under public pressure to end the illegal-alien crisis, Congress in 1986 banned the employment of illegal aliens and imposed liability on employers who did so. It was a pyrrhic victory. The 1986 law (the Immigration Reform and Control Act [IRCA]) was emasculated at its inception and has been continuously thwarted in its application.

Here's how: A ban on illegal labor can work only if employers can reliably determine a worker's employment eligibility. Business and ethnic lobbies defeated worker verification in 1986 and every time it has been proposed since then.

What we have instead is a system of playacting. Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid documents, and thousands of employers pretend to believe them. The employee merely needs to proffer, and the employer merely eyeball, any two documents from a dizzying list of 25 — all eminently counterfeitable — to establish the employer's compliance with the 1986 law. If the documents are not obvious fakes— scrawled on a matchbook with a red crayon, say — the employer must accept them.

In fact, if an employer looks too closely at a worker's papers, he may face a lawsuit for racial discrimination. Civil rights and ethnic lobbies made sure that IRCA included a whole new anti-bias bureaucracy: the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, which sues employers who demand clear proof of worker eligibility.

Having eyeballed the worker's papers, the employer is now virtually insulated from liability. He can be penalized only if the government can prove that he knowingly hired illegal aliens — an almost impossible burden as long as the worker has proffered some reasonable set of fake work papers.

It is this workplace sham that has guaranteed the onslaught of illegals into the country. <<<



This is the heart of the imigration problem,. uneforceable laws. The author misdirects the blame though, which hides the true solution. The courts have enforced a situation where employers are unable to verify legality. It doesn't matter who does the complaining if the law is upheld. Judges emasculated laws and replacing liberal judges is the only reliable means for developing immigration control.

Liberals will use every form of misdirection they can in this debate to prevent the light of truth highlighting the liberal courts as the root cause. In the grip of emotional fits, Conservatives will for the most part fall for the trick, decrying Bush, wasting their efforts instead of focusing on the Senate and approval of conservative judges.

If you want to fix immigration, fix the courts!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Rather than granting President Bush his election year amnesty, Congress should give immigration authorities the resources and legal tools to protect the country's borders. It would be a novel experiment.

There's a bill in Congress right now that would help do that, it's called the CLEAR Act. Instead of rewarding illegal aliens like Bush wants to do it would send them home where they belong.

[skeeter]

It is capitalism at work, supply and demand, that has employers hiring immigrants.

Yeah, the Japanese said the same thing in the eighties when they dumped memory chips on the US market at below market prices - 'just supplying the demand'.

[navyblue]

It is capitalism at work, supply and demand, that has employers hiring immigrants. Small business owners that I know are impressed with immigrant workers and consider them necessary to compete effectively. Most of these jobs and services would end up going overseas otherwise.

It is a forced shift to the right of the supply curve with the resulting depression of wages on the verticle axis.

Would you care to answer what would happen if illegals were removed from the country and the supply curve shifted left? What would then happen on the verticle axis?

Ah, but Business would not care for that solution, would it?

[mgist]

Crossing the border, or overstaying a visa to work, is as related to bank robbery, as not wearing your seatbelt.

[mgist]

Would you care to answer what would happen if illegals were removed from the country and the supply curve shifted left? What would then happen on the verticle axis?

It happens every day, businesses leave the country, outsource to india (or elsewhere), reduce workforce, or go out of business.

[dirtboy]

Crossing the border, or overstaying a visa to work, is as related to bank robbery, as not wearing your seatbelt.

First of all, the post was directed at the employers of illegals, not the illegals themselves. And second, what part of "illegal" immigrant do you not understand? And if we say it's hunky-dory for employers to hire illegals, why should we care if they come up with alternative ways to raise capital, even if they're illegal?

[mgist]

And second, what part of "illegal" immigrant do you not understand?

It is illegal not to wear your seatbelt, does that make you a menace to society. My point is that your perception of how "bad" these people are, is not necessarily in agreement with the free market, including employers. You are fixated on "illegals" as if by naming them that they are automatically undesirables. That is not the case.

[kevao]

Bush made a vague gesture towards correcting the sham: "Employers must not hire undocumented aliens,"

Yes, and I'm sure all those 124 agents will make sure of it. What a sham!

[dirtboy]

It is illegal not to wear your seatbelt, does that make you a menace to society.

If I don't wear my seatbelt, it only affects me. When illegal immigrants come here, they are an affront to those who take the legal steps to immigrate - and they keep down wages in this country by allowing employers to hire illegals cheaply.

My point is that your perception of how "bad" these people are, is not necessarily in agreement with the free market, including employers.

Free markets still have rules.

You are fixated on "illegals" as if by naming them that they are automatically undesirables. That is not the case.

Ah - I see. If it doesn't apply to all, it doesn't apply to any. You've got to come up with a better grade of strawman for that.

Apparently, the immigration laws were a good idea when they were drafted, but businesses that benefit from cheap illegal labor berate Washington to not enforce the law. Which has driven down the wages in affected industries to where only illegals are willing to do the work. This country used to pursue policies to try and reduce the number of working people living in poverty, but now it tries to encourage poverty.

[Owen]

Bush haters have failed to provide the statistical evidence they are obligated to provide. The ratio of illegal immigrants interdicted at the border by the Border Patrol to the number of illegal border crossings attempted is the only legitimate measure of the extent to which GW Bush has done a better or worse job of protecting the borders than his predecessors.

Bush haters have failed to provide comparison data indicating that Bush's ratio is worse. Their claims that it is worse are therefore unsubstantiated

[dirtboy]

So your response to this sensible criticism of Bush's proposal:

But immigration enforcement has not failed — it has never been tried. Amnesty, however, has been tried, and it was a clear failure that should not be repeated again.

Is to cry "BUSH HATER! BUSH HATER!"

I HATE to tell you this, but this Bush supporter and many other Bush supporters on this forum are less than thrilled by Bush's proposal. And Heather McDonald nailed one of the reasons why, the other being that, whey you reward illegal behavior, you'll tend to get even more of it.