Replies

You said..."Their ability to stay here should be contingent on their employment and on their ability to meet their financial obligations, and that includes medical bills and all these issues that are being raised here."

I totally agree.

In all fairness, that is one criteria that proponents of a guest worker bill could use as a rationale...and it would be a valid one IF they promised that the language requiring the employers to provide the insurance and health coverage and other social costs such as education, child care, etc. was mandatory in the bill, and IF the enforcement and border security precedent had already been established to vigorously enforce immigration laws.

So, in effect, with an effective guest worker bill..all the existing illegals collecting gov handouts would suddenly be covered by employers health and insurance policies.

But can we realistically expect that to happen?

I doubt it, considering the fact that the rate of illegal immigration has outstripped the rate of new job creation, so one has to assume that a sizable proportion of illegals are currently unemployed. What happens to these people with a guest worker bill?

Of course, then the question becomes, if you require an employer to pay the same costs for a guest worker across the board, maybe higher if you include mandatory health coverage, then where is the incentive to pursue the program in the first place?

Would proponents of a guest worker bill go along with the provision that only the worker himself was allowed in to work...NOT the family? If we need labor...why do we need the attendant social costs of the family as well?

If employers are willing to pay a premium to acquire labor resources they cannot get, and must have to expand or function, then that is one thing.

If they are looking for a cheap, easy way to grow business and increase profits by underbidding the American labor market, using big daddy gov as an enabler, then that is quite another thing.

I do tend to agree with everything you said except...
"Would proponents of a guest worker bill go along with the provision that only the worker himself was allowed in to work...NOT the family?"

For every illegal immigrant I know, and every immigrant I know even with a green card, 98 percent live alone anyway. Very few people take the risk of bring their wives and children across the border because it's dangerous, and it's a big chance to take. Therefore, I don't think many would be opposed to the plan as you and I see it. I think it's more about ending the fear that they will be deported, because they are in a sense, legally here. It also gives them greater access to certain ammenities if they can afford them, such as a cellular phone, land line, cable, etc. where their citizenship, or lack thereof, becomes an issue. All these people want to do is make money, and get back to their families as soon as possible.

If you require that the illegal immigrants get paid minimum wage, it would effectively level the playing field, and then an employer can choose who he wants to do a job that really shouldn't exceed minimum wages. While I'd like to think in many cases, the employer would choose the English-speaking American, over the Spanish/Arabic/Indian/Russian-speaking guest worker, that is sadly not the case, because nine times out of 10, the guest worker would be a better worker.