Posted on 02/23/2005 5:15:25 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
So, in other words, you are moving the goalposts.
Do you know how many employers were convicted for hiring illegal immigrants?
Uhhh... how do you propose to gain the convictions needed to make any sort of "get tough on employers" policy work?
Juries to date have rarely convicted.
Everyone wants employers of illegals shut down, except the ones in their town.
Companies pay the bulk of local ad valorum taxes, not working stiffs. Many of the employers of illegals also employ citizens, often times in good paying white collar positions.
But there is a lot of stress involved in hiring illegals. Not just the civil and criminal liability, but problems with bonding and insurance. Illegals usually don't drive and thus may have trouble getting to job sites.
They can't get licenses required to do basic mechanical work such as handling refrigerants or chemicals. They may get busted by ICE or mugged for the cash they have to carry.
If legal employees were available, I don't think anyone would to go through the stress of hiring illegals.
Moving the goalposts?
My goal is for there to be no preference for becoming a legal guest worker JUST because someone broke our laws and came here illegally.
Juries to date have rarely convicted.
Juries have rarely convicted because there was no legal alternative to the worker without closing the company down.
When there IS a legal alternative, I believe you will see more convictions.
Although as I previously stated, if they can't do it now I don't see how they are going to do it then.
They currently cost us about $10 billion at the Federal level and they costs the State of California $9 billion and they cost Arizona about $1.3 billion annually NET OF THE TAXES THEY PAY.
If we keep letting in more and more of them don't you think it is reasonable to assume that these costs will keep going up?
Aren't all these tax dollars a waste of assets?
I have responded to each of your questions but you have not responded to my questions in my first post to you. Until you answer them, I don't feel any need to continue this discussion.
Whatever.
The President is trying to establish that legal alternative. Until it is established, the status quo will continue.
And as I have said before, I support the initiative. The devil will be in the details.
I still see no need to give governmental preferential treatment to people that have broken our laws if there will be a legal alternative.
Isn't it interesting that all we hear about illegals is that they just come here to work but we still end up getting hit for billions in welfare $ to support them which allows employers to pay them minmal wages and EVADE a whole lot of state and fed'l payroll taxes......none of the cheerleaders ever seem to address that issue. Either we all have a set of rules to abide by in doing business or we have a banana republic which seems to be the path we're heading on.
How do we go about deporting those already here without breaking the bank or having the average person go ballistic when it shows up on Fox News or the morning network shows?
I would find this more believe-able if there was not so much evidence that wages are falling in job categories that used to put American citizens in the bottom end of the middle class. But wages for things like framing, dry wall hanging, roofing etc have seen 25% to 50% reductions in areas where illegals are colonizing these job categories.
If there was a labor shortage wouldn't common sense and the laws of supply and demand suggest that wages would be going up?
Exactly! Check my tagline.
Most taxes are paid by corporations and their wealthy owners, not working families. Without employees, companies fold or relocate. That's why no cities want the employers of illegals in their towns busted.
Productive employees are an asset to a community, not a liability. I see where your Legislative Analysis Office has projected a $6 Billion budget surplus for California for 2006 based upon the economic boom you are experiencing. Where would you be without 15% of your workforce?
So get your local law enforcement agencies to enforce voting laws instead of whining about immigration law.
See my post #86
In addition maybe you make the offending employer pay for the deportation.
Not in Texas. Maybe in states that have traditionally been dominated by trade unions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.