Bush Offers Migrant Plan Conservatives Can Support

Arizona Republic ^ | January 18, 2004 | Jeff Flake

[JackelopeBreeder]

I'm already paying $20/lb for strawberries. The only difference is that $16 of it is hidden in my tax bill.

Since I live on the border I also pay for them in ways you don't want to even begin to imagine.

[hobson]

So if the illegal immigrants couldn't work, because nobody would hire them, but by law (CA courts ruled Prop 187 illegal) you can't deny them benefits, such as welfare and medical, instead of working, they would all be on welfare. So how would that improve the illegal immigrant problem?

Sounds like the voters in CA created this problem. Why don't they take away the incentive by repealing 187?

[junta]

This ought to be posted under a special section, "Lettuce shortage catastrophe" or something like that.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Wow!

Was that a typo or do you really know nothing about Prop 187?

Prop 187 tried to bar illegal aliens from any welfare. One ding-a-ling judge ruled against it and Gov. Gray Davis caved and refused to appeal the decision. The same Gray Davis who tried to give driver's licenses to illegals to get enough votes to survive a recall.

[Marak]

[I don't know where you live]
Southern Florida

[there is a major corporation that has hired illegals]
Tyson Foods for one

[Corporate farms, perhaps? Nahh, they use the guest worker program that we already have in place,] Actually there are plenty of illegals on the corporate farms here. They even are organized and give interviews to the newspapers.

[The places you'll really find them is in construction industries] Yes, discovered working on a Federal building in Miami among other places. The jobs were NOT jobs that Americans would refuse either.

[They've got a huge market in landscaping.]
Very huge. In fact, legal landscapers down here can't compete. Many of them are folding up.

The point is, it has to be painful to ignore the law. That is the ONLY way there will be any adherence to it. If subcontractors go out of business for knowingly hiring illegals, great. The legal contractors will have more jobs and require more legal workers.

If the case of Walmart and companies like that that utilize subcontractors to get around the law, I think they should be liable if it can be proved they knew that illegals were being used.

I am not declaring that I know the answer to this problem, but I think by discussing it a better plan can be found than the one the President is proposing.

I see three areas to address:
1) at the border. Make it harder to get in.
2) the employer. Make it harder for him to turn a blind eye to the practice of hiring illegals.
3) the illegal immigrant. Make the punishment for violating our laws hurt him. Whether that includes a fine, jail time, removal from the legal immigration process, etc.

Think about it. Maybe you will come with better ideas, but something needs to be done besides a blanket acceptance of the law breakers.

[HennepinPrisoner]

I am not even going to bother to read what this amnesty-cheerleadering journo has to say. I have read far too many articles here on FR and thus far not one has convinced me that this plan will be anything but an economic disaster for lower and middle income workers in America.

I think this guy has spent way too much time setting up those water stations in the Arizona desert...tends to fry the brain.

[babygene]

"That is the WORST solution"

You don't seem to get it Mr. Fair Opinion...

When a company hires an illegal at substandard wages the taxpayer ends up paying to support them. A family can't live and provide for them self on even minimum wage. He!!, it cost $10000 a year to insure a family of four, and as much as $20000 a year to send two kids to public schools. Who do you thiks pays for this when the worker makes $12000 a year?

When an employer hires these people at these wages, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing his payroll. These people do not contribute to our economy.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Two minutes with a knife turns a water station into a plastic recycling site.

[kingu]

All the companies have to do is verify the legal right to work in this country. They can use the SSN listed on the W4 filled out by the employee. Verify that the SSN is valid for the name given. This should not require a massive background check. If there are not systems in place today to handle this trivial detail, we should create it. It is a far better solution than ignoring the problem or trying to forciblly deport 12 million people.

Ghads, wouldn't it be nice if an employer could simply pick up the phone, enter in the social security number, and get back the name assigned to the number as well as the legal status?

Oh, bugger - there's a hole in that. One legal gives out his number to others to use. Yes, Jose is legal to work in this country - he's just working at 12,000 different places. To make something like that actually work, you're almost back to a national ID card.

Ironic that the average bus pass is harder to copy than a social security card.

[Marak]

[In other words: make businesses close down or move to Mexico, because they couldn't stay in business.
I guess you want to pay $20/lb for strawberries too.]

If $20 per pound for strawberries is what it takes to live in a country where the rule of law means something, count me in. If you want cheap strawberries, move south.

If businesses cannot remain solvent without illegal labor, then we have problems other than one of immigration.

If the minimum wage is too high, lower it.

If your product cost is too high with legal workers, get out of the business.

If there are not enough legal workers, increase the quotas for LEGAL workers.

A simplistic statement that we must have illegal workers or our businesses will die isn't working towards a viable solution. I think we can do better than that.

[hobson]

Oops, I read that wrong. Anyway, there must be a way for CA to rectify that problem.

[Marak]

[So if the illegal immigrants couldn't work, because nobody would hire them, but by law (CA courts ruled Prop 187 illegal) you can't deny them benefits, such as welfare and medical, instead of working, they would all be on welfare.]

Perhaps if some were deported while seeking benefits, the problem might be less than you think. Maybe there will have to be some mass deportations, but I believe that most will not want to live where they can't make a living and have to live under the threat of discovery and deportation.

Maybe California needs to take another shot at 187. I don't know the answer.

[FairOpinion]

You are both making the very points, why Bush's guest worker program is a step in the right direction.

Bush is addressing a serious problem, which existed and has been getting worse for the past 15 years.

As for the cost, I guess you don't mind paying for all the lazy bums collecting welfare, just as long as they are citizens.

As I said, on another thread, the illegal problem is strongly tied to the welfare problem. Many healthy people in the US rather sit and collect welfare, than do menial work -- that's what makes illegal workers attractive for employers.

[AGreatPer]

"I am not even going to bother to read what this amnesty-cheerleadering journo has to say"

I read some of it but just have one word. ILLEGAL

[kingu]

1) at the border. Make it harder to get in.

It is already harder to get in, but not impossible. Seems like the convicted felons that we deport somehow come back to join with their gangs. The borders need to be kept up, but I'll give the border patrol one thing - they're finally doing a better job. But how do you stop someone coming here through the border checkpoint itself? Mexicans are allowed to come into the United States to shop, to be tourists, etc. A reservation at the Disneyland Hotel and they have a foolproof method of entry.

2) the employer. Make it harder for him to turn a blind eye to the practice of hiring illegals.

There's no survey to back it up, but I'd say that the biggest employer of illegals are illegals themselves. You don't need to submit worker papers when you're being hired as a subcontractor, and faking a license is FAR too easy. Nailing those who pick up day laborers would be a great thing, except the courts have basically made it impossible to case those sites and nail the employers.

3) the illegal immigrant. Make the punishment for violating our laws hurt him. Whether that includes a fine, jail time, removal from the legal immigration process, etc.

Jail time? I don't want to pay for them in the first place, and now I have to pay $40,000+ a year per illegal? Fine them? Ok, if you nail the money in their pocket, you've got their nest egg. You've already said it - these people are already underpaid, what makes you think you'll get a successful fine? And as to removing them from the immigration process - they don't want to become citizens in the first place! They're here because they can make more money than in Mexico. They participate in their home elections through the consulate.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Anyway, there must be a way for CA to rectify that problem.

Cali has borrowed a few ideas from Arizona and revived 187. Instead of changing existing law, just make sure it existing law is amended to make it enforcable.

[FairOpinion]

"Perhaps if some were deported while seeking benefits,"

==

I am all for that -- problem is the US courts, stuffed with liberals, who overturn any sensible measures voters try to pass, such as Prop. 187.

Some are trying to resurrect a different version of it.

[Texasforever]

Quietly clapping.

[MattAMiller]

This is complete fiction. The federal tax was supposed to be temporary too!

Let's see what legislation is proposed before we start making these judgements. We shouldn't just rely on promises to reverse beaurocratic inertia, a difficult task even if the Administration wants to take it up. But we can put an end to anchor babies and ban consular IDs and matricula cards. We could also have both employee and employer bond over some amount of cash, that would inspire some self enforcement.

[Marak]

[To make something like that actually work, you're almost back to a national ID card.]

Hardly a national id card. Reporting of the SSN is already required by the government to work. Also known is the age and sex associated with that number. As for 12,000 people using the same id, it sure would be easy for the government to locate and round up the offenders. Oh, some might get by with using someone else's id, but there are easy ways to halt the massive use of a single SSN.

Again, I am not making a proposal here. I am making suggestions. If you find holes in my logic, think about them. Maybe you will find a way to fill them. It certainly is better than throwing our hands into the air and saying it can't be done.