Solution to illegal immigration problem is to go after employers

Senators, working with the White House, have reached a compromise on an immigration bill.

Dubbed the "Grand Bargain," the bill would construct a physical and electronic border barrier, hire 18,000 new border guards, construct huge new detention centers, end "catch and release" and require employers to verify the legality of their employees. After certain benchmarks are met, a guest worker program would be established. Illegal immigrants could apply for four-year renewable work visas. Employers would have to certify that no American workers were available before hiring aliens. Heads of household would have to return to their country of origin to apply for the work visas. A point system for legal immigration would be established that would reward more educated applicants, family members and the ability to speak English. The total cost is not clear, but estimates are in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Opposition to the compromise is emerging from the right and the left. The left objects to the point system and the treatment of family members, and on the right there is massive discontent with the visa provisions, which are being called amnesty.

The White House contends the bill is not amnesty, but many ordinary Republicans disagree. Republican senators are being booed at home by GOP audiences because of their support. The compromise hangs by a slender balance in the Senate and could fail with the adoption of any amendments from either side. It faces even tougher sledding in the House, where anti-amnesty Republicans seem eager to defy the White House; Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi is demanding that the White House produce 60 to 70 Republican votes before she will bring it to the floor.

I think Republicans are correct when they call the bill an amnesty measure. Supporters put flowers behind the pig’s ear, but it still amounts to amnesty. It is also highly complex, does not deal seriously with the root cause of illegal immigration and is massively expensive. The bill does provide political cover for the White House and congressional members of both parties. The bill also provides cover for the many U.S. corporations that knowingly violate the law by employing illegal workers.

The more complex the legislation, the less likely it will succeed. Once passed, it will be up to the federal government to enforce it. That thought does not inspire confidence. Given its high cost and given that it is likely to be unsuccessful in stemming the tide of illegal workers into our economy, I am inclined to oppose it. Having said that, I also believe those senators who worked to achieve the compromise were doing so because they believe this bill, although far from perfect, is an improvement on the status quo. I applaud them and President George W. Bush for their efforts to find a workable solution. They might not have gotten it right, but they all risked political capital to try.

I believe there is a workable and inexpensive solution. The most significant reason illegal immigrants sneak into our country is to work. Jobs here pay more than the jobs at home, and many American employers have expressed a preference for foreign workers instead of domestic ones. The problem is market-driven.

The way to alleviate the problem is go to its root cause: jobs. Prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants. The way to do that is to establish a civil cause of action that permits a private citizen to sue any employer who hires an illegal alien. Provide for a fine to be paid by the employer to the citizen who brings the lawsuit, and make the employer pay the legal cost of the successful plaintiff. People will be on the lookout for illegal hiring. Lawyers will be eager to bring suits. The government will not have to enact a single regulation or hire a single person. Taxpayers will pay nothing. As soon as the suits start being successful, employers will stop hiring illegal workers. As the jobs evaporate, the flow will stop.

Some will say this is a full employment bill for lawyers. That is true, but so what? Either illegal immigration is a serious problem or it is not. If it is, and if we can arrange for the cost of solving it to be paid by those who profit most from the illegal activity, how are we harmed? As to effectiveness, who wants to argue that the trial lawyers will be less efficient than the federal government? Remember, either the bill now in Congress will pass or it won’t. If it passes, we get the huge cost, the complex regulations and amnesty. If it doesn’t pass, we keep the status quo, which nobody likes. Why not try a simpler, less expensive solution that actually goes to the root of the problem? The question is: Whom do you like less, trial lawyers or illegal aliens?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tribune columnist Chris Kelly is a former Boone County associate circuit judge and state legislator. Reach him at editor@tribmail.com.

I posted this on another thread, but it applies here. The solution is enforce the law vigorously, including employer sanctions.

....If 12 million people suddenly decided to stop paying their taxes, I'll bet they could find all kinds of ways to enforce the tax laws. These people are lying so badly when they say we can't deport 12 million people (who may actually be 20). Only RINOs actually believe that; Dems could deport 12 million white South Africans in a heartbeat. They just don't want to deport 12 million uneducated Mexicans, because they know demographically, they are losing control of the nation unless they do. Their zeal is understandable; that of McCain, Graham and especially Kyl is especially absurd, given that they are agreeing to do away with their own party for generations to come.

I guarantee you that if someone with old-fashioned sense were in charge, the illegals could be taken care of. It could be done with decency and respect for human rights, and without excessive disruption to our economy. It would take a comprehensive plan, but not one that includes amnesty or even a right to remain.

1. Enforce the law. That means jail and fine employers of illegals.

2. Shut down the financial structures that have been put in place for illegals.

3. Pass a law that says that the children of illegals are not citizens.

4. Pass a law that takes public services away from illegals, and fight that law up the Supreme Court. It is time to revisit that terrible, legislative decision by the Supreme Court in the 80s that said that the children of illegals must be allowed to attend public schools. It was an outrageous exercise of judicial arrogance. That decision is a big part of why immigration has gotten so bad. It's a magnet for families, where it used to be just single men who snuck across.

5. Enforce the Law. Build the fence.

6. Enforce the law. Catch and deport all the illegals that you can. If you have to increase the budget of ICE a few billion, it is a pittance compared just to the health care costs that illegals cost us in San Diego county alone. Nationwide, illegals cost us hundreds of billions per year.

7. Increase the penalties for illegal entry into the US. They forfeit their cars if you catch them driving down the street. If they buy a house with money illegally gained through tax-free work in the US, I would not take their house, but I would impose a hefty fine against it.

8. Enforce the law. If they have fake ID's or engage in identity theft, they should do jail time equal to what you or I would get if we do the same thing.

9. Enforce the law. Station armed national guard troops at the border until the fence is proven to do the trick.

10. Enforce the law. Jail and fine enablers of illegals, who are engaging in conspiracy to violate the immigration statutes of the US. Not for people who are engaged in charity, but those who hide them or otherwise affirmatively assist the crime.

I would also take steps to minimize the disruption caused by 20 years (3 Bush terms and 2 Clinton ones) of neglect and outright contravention from the top. We have to understand that our nation's leaders caused this problem and the people who are here are just responding to a desire for economic betterment. Most of them are not criminals and most are decent people, and we should have respect for them as humans, even while we make absolutely clear that the days of our nation allowing this invasion to continue are over.

I would announce that the laws will begin to be enforced zealously as of a date certain, and allow those who will leave voluntarily a date by which they can leave without penalty, so long as they don't return illegally. Those that own property can apply for a period of time to remain in order to sell it. I don't think it will disrupt the real estate market because very few of them own a home. They can go back, apply as temporary workers, or apply for a visa if they have a skill we need. If they don't leave by that date, they will forever be barred from ever entering the US. That will clear out a lot of them.

I would go after the employers first, so that they release the illegal workers and the workers start self deporting. At the same time there would be some high-profile actions at large employers of illegals--meat packing plants for example. Both workers and employers would be brought to justice. That would lead to more self deporting. The more serious actions, incarceration and systematic large scale deportation, would be for the hard core stragglers, who refuse to leave. However, as time went on, and it became more and more evident that it would be futile to try to continue to remain and work here, the cycle of self deportation would accelerate.

The process would take, all told 3-5 years, I believe.

These are just a handful of measures that could be taken, most of which consist simply of "Enforce the Law". A candidate that makes this his policy will win handily in the next election, I believe. If not, if a majority of Americans will vote for allowing the death of American sovereignty, traditions and culture, then we are done for anyway.

The way to do that is to establish a civil cause of action that permits a private citizen to sue any employer who hires an illegal alien.

First, anyone who thinks private law suits are the solution to policy problems just has been ignorant of what has been happening in the real of so-called juris-prudence in the last 20-30 years in the US.

Second, there is a legal technical issue that arises from this called standing. In order to bring suit you have to be able to demonstrate a substantial injury to yourself as an individual, not an abstract injury, but a real one. It is a fundamental principal of American jurisprudence, deriving from common law, a fundamental constitutional principal, and one that is not lightly cast aside because it means that lawsuits could explode as we file against each other for a host of imagined slights and injuries.

For instance, members of Congress generally lack standing to sue the executive branch over interpretation in enfrocing a statute. Knowing that the meatpacker 1000 miles away hires illegal aliens does not mean that I have a direct injury. I would have to show that I was denied employment as a consequence, or that I suffered food-poisoning as a direct result of using unlawful labor.

This is a simplistic and not well thought out solution to a law enforcement problem.

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.