To: EternalVigilance
Read the many posts on this forum about the fining of employers who hires illegal immigrants and the raids that the law enforcements conducted against these employers places.
769 posted on
05/17/2007 1:57:59 PM PDT by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: jveritas
Read the many posts on this forum about the fining of employers who hires illegal immigrants and the raids that the law enforcements conducted against these employers places. Read the facts, and weep:
780 posted on
05/17/2007 2:01:01 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(It wasn't a debate. It was a mass interview....)
To: jveritas
You got that? Clinton did a better job than Bush.
788 posted on
05/17/2007 2:03:06 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(It wasn't a debate. It was a mass interview....)
To: jveritas
Read the many posts on this forum about the fining of employers who hires illegal immigrants and the raids that the law enforcements conducted against these employers places.
The short answer is that the market penalties are not strong enough to overcome the market rewards. If the law specified seizure of assets for those who employ illegals, instead of penny ante fines, then employers would rationally choose not to hire illegals.
My state gives in-state college tuition to illegals. It recently opened a special lane over the Rio Grande to allow Mexican schoolchildren to be educated at public expense.
A visit to my county hospital emergency room will show you that illegals get free health care.
Market forces reward illegals and their employers. And market forces can be used to reverse the process.
Unless, of course, you believe that markets are incapable of influencing behavior, which is just plain sad.
807 posted on
05/17/2007 2:08:29 PM PDT by
horse_doc
(Visualize a world where a tactical nuke went off at Max Yasgar's farm in 1969.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson