Posted on 04/09/2006 5:56:29 AM PDT by madprof98
If they really wanted to, your representatives in Washington could dry up illegal immigration almost before you could say, "Tom Tancredo is a tiresome demagogue." All they would have to do is require U.S. employers to check the legal status of all employees and impose stiff sanctions — including multimillion-dollar fines and prison time — on employers who flout the law.
After a few executives had done the perp walk, others would get the message. Illegal hiring would drop precipitously. Since the vast majority of illegal immigrants come to this country to work, many of them would leave if they couldn't get hired.
And they'd take the message back home to La Paz and Villa Juarez and San Gerardo: Without legal papers, you can't get a job in the United States.
So why haven't Congress and the White House fixed a broken immigration system? Because it works for so many — illegal workers, business interests and middle-class Americans alike. Industries such as construction and agriculture get a cheap and docile work force, poorly educated men and women who'll work Sundays and holidays and never report their employees for labor violations. Middle-class Americans get the benefit of cheaper products and services, everything from lawn care and domestic work to homegrown fruits and vegetables. And houses. Since home sales are keeping the economy afloat, politicians don't want to do anything to interfere with the massive housing-construction-and-sales complex.
Fringe politicians benefit from the presence of illegal workers, too. Without them, would you ever have heard of a minor-league congressman named Tancredo? A Republican from Colorado, he is now considering a run for the White House, fueled by the name recognition he's won with his nativist rants against the undocumented workers pouring in across our southern borders.
That's not to say illegal immigration is without its costs. In towns and cities that have seen a rapid influx, there is rising frustration over schools having to accommodate non-English-speakers, hospitals overwhelmed by uninsured patients, and higher rates of gang-related crime. (But those taxpayers benefit, too, from lower prices for ditches dug and chickens filleted.) An even higher cost is borne by Americans at the bottom of the wage scale, especially poorly educated black men, who lose out when forced to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs.
But poorly educated black men don't have oily platoons of lobbyists looking after their interests. Big Business does, and it wants to keep those borders open. Overwhelmed taxpayers, meanwhile, are easily placated by election-year rhetoric promising higher walls, stouter fences and more border guards than rattlesnakes along the Rio Grande. Let's call this campaign-season spectacle "Wag the Mexican."
Indeed, the steady flow of workers across our borders became a tsunami in the 1990s because of pressure from business interests. After agents from the old Immigration and Naturalization service raided one of Georgia's Vidalia onion fields in 1998, members of Georgia's congressional delegation — Republicans and Democrats alike — denounced the raid. In response, the INS practically shut down workplace enforcement. By 2000, according to INS figures, the estimated number of illegal immigrants had risen to 7 million, from 3.5 million in 1990.
To understand the inherent and willful contradictions in the laws that govern workers and their legal status, consider this: The Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ large numbers of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security. That law could be changed in a heartbeat, but Congress hasn't done it.
Congress could also appropriate money for a nationwide computer system that would allow all employers to get instant verification of a worker's Social Security number and then require all employers to use it. If Bloomingdale's can give me approval for a credit card in three minutes — while I'm still trying samples at the perfume counter — then the feds can create a system for instantaneous verification. Congress hasn't set aside money for that, either.
That's because it doesn't want to solve the problem. Your political leaders like to rant about the broken immigration system, but they have no intention of fixing it.
We do that. And it is only partly useful. I can call a company and they will only tell me if a person by that name ever worked there. That is where the background check comes in.
It would be the only fool proof way. But the nationwide data base does not currently exist.
I don't disagree but it strikes me as "funny" that we're asking business to do what our goobermint has refused to do.
If securing the borders isn't one of the most fundamental aspects of goobermint I don't know what is. May they fry in oil.
You can check the SS number and it gives you whether it is legit and the name. It does not give you a description, photo, address or anything but the fact that the number is real. That is why we have to ask for a Drivers License to compare. But the DMV's screening process is a joke.
Mary so and so has this number and is working in Utah, it can hardly belong to Jose who is trying to get a job in Texas.
No but it could belong to Mary who is applying for a job in Texas and doing contract work for a company out in Utah.
Thirty years ago, you only got an SS# when you started work, but currently all American citizens get SS#'s assigned at birth, and that's been the case for a while.
Back when I was an employer I had to fill out a state form every quarter for unemployment compensation taxes, that listed the SS# of every employee and how many weeks they worked
All it takes is a central web site where employers log the employee-provided SS# and name. If the number is invalid, it kicks out immediately. If the same number is provided for too many different employers, in locations too far apart to make it seem likely that the same person is really working there, the employer gets a follow-up call. If too many hits occur against an employer, he gets a surprise visit from INS
Your risk to take.
Immigrants are damned if they do, damned if they don't on the job issue. If they come with higher education they allegedly steal good jobs.. if they come without education they allegedly steal jobs from the poor.
The problem is you can have a real number but it isn't for that person. That is what I am referring to. All of these things mentioned are useful and are being used. But as it currently stands it is very easy for someone to slip through the holes.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am in agreement with Cynthia Tucker about anything.
I blame Bush for this.
Some truth to that, but a more important point here is that illegal immigrants are competing unfairly because they provide cheaper labor than the same workers would provide if they were here legally. I think that is why businesses generally would prefer a steady flow of illegals over a vastly increased quota for unskilled (but documented) immigrants.
Just look at the high fives on this thread for rabid liberal cynthia mckinney.
JMO, you all(liberals and immigration zealots) are two different sides of the same coin. Liberals hate business because it produces wealth, some on the right hate business because of who they hire to make beneficial goods and services.
This is the most important issue we have had in the last 20 years. If we as Republicans can draft a bill that will close the border while allowing workers to come across to do the menial labor the country will benefit while being secure. This issue is more than kicking out every Mexican.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Let me guess: You also hire illegals . . . on the cheap, of course?
Why? You both profess that you are the ones who should control and tell how businesses run their businesses.
Don't blame Bush, blame yourself.
Oh BTW, before you say you would pay more for goods and services, we all know that is a crock.
The supply of US oil is limited by the envirowhackos(I.e no drilling in ANWR, etc.etc) and people are complaining about the price of oil.
You would do the same by restricting the supply of labor(a commodity, like oil).
Like I said you all(liberals and some on the right) are two differen sides of the same coin.
Nope, I'm just not like the neo-central committee politburo that you are telling businesses that produce good products and services(construction, food, etc) how to "purely" run their businesses.
The other time she criticized Cynthia McKinney for playing the race card in such a ridiculous fashion.
WOW, When even Cynthia Tucker gets it, the End Times must be approaching!
That is quite a leap. Not much for logic, are you?
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.