Posted on 11/30/2005 8:40:01 AM PST by epow
To zap illegals, jail those who employ them
Published on: 11/30/05
On Monday, President Bush gave a speech designed to reassure his conservative base that he is serious about protecting the country from illegal immigrants.
Speaking before an invitation-only audience in Tucson, Ariz., the president didn't spend too much time talking about the valuable contributions that immigrants have made or about granting them the opportunity to become citizens. Instead, Bush focused on fences and raids and deportations. In so doing, he reached out to a disaffected Republican constituency that is increasingly hostile to immigrants — especially to those Latinos who enter the country illegally.
Bush's tough talk will certainly have widespread appeal in Georgia, where many voters have become anxious — even angry — at what they perceive as the staggering burden of illegal immigration. There is a backlash brewing — a rising tide of frustration born of resentment over schools forced to accommodate non-English speakers, hospital emergency rooms beset by uninsured patients and perceptions of higher crime rates.
Over the past decade, the immigrant population has grown faster in Georgia than in nearly all other states. Immigrants — with and without documents — find work in carpet mills in Dalton, poultry plants in Rome, farms in South Georgia and construction companies throughout metro Atlanta.
But Bush failed to call for the one policy change that would make the greatest difference in deterring illegal border crossings: harsh penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers. Most illegal immigrants, especially those who come in through the porous Mexican border, are drawn to this country by the promise of work. If jobs dried up, the torrent of illegal immigrants entering the United States would diminish to a trickle. And the best way to curb the hiring is to put employers in prison for hiring illegally.
But the president didn't say one word about harsh penalties for businesses. That's because business executives are a core GOP constituency, and Bush doesn't want to risk alienating them.
Oh, he gave the usual lip service to the idea of responsible hiring. He spoke of his plan for providing temporary permits for immigrants to work in those industries that need their labor, and he described IDs that would be tamper-proof, thwarting the common practice of using fake IDs. He announced the expansion of a program called "Basic Pilot," an automated system through which businesses may determine whether a prospective employee is authorized to work in this country. Basic Pilot is now available for use nationwide. But employers are not required to use it.
Bush didn't say anything about business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants because their labor comes cheap: They will work for less than minimum wage; they don't seek health insurance; they don't complain about safety violations in the workplace.
It's not difficult for employers to check on the immigration status of prospective workers. The Social Security Administration maintains a database of all Social Security numbers. It's easy enough for employers to learn whether a worker's number is valid. But many employers don't do that.
While many industries claim they can't find willing American workers, the truth is that they could find more Americans willing to do tough, dirty jobs if they paid more for their labor. Is it true that poultry plants couldn't find enough Americans to fill job openings? Or is it more likely they couldn't find enough American laborers for the wages they were willing to pay?
Of course, the higher labor prices would be passed on to consumers if the Bush administration and Congress really cracked down on illegal hiring. Homebuilders, for example, get to squeeze out a bit more profit when they use illegal workers, but they also pass some of the savings on to consumers. Houses are cheaper — and so is chicken, farm produce and lawn care, among other things — because illegal immigrants do so much of the labor. Americans who denounce illegal immigrants may not have calculated the additional costs they'd incur once that labor disappears.
It's easy to bash illegal immigrants. They are desperate; they are vulnerable; they don't vote. But they are here only because we've developed a bipolar policy that devours their cheap labor while discouraging their assimilation. If we are serious about curbing illegal immigration, the place to start is with business owners who hire illegal workers.
• Cynthia Tucker is the editorial page editor. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.
The part of her article I disagree with is where she says that Americans won't work at menial jobs for the money that employers will pay. I believe that Americans would work those jobs if the welfare system was cut back to only provide benefits to the truly disabled or otherwise unemployable poor. Hunger creates a powerful motivation to get a job.
Ive always felt that for a first offense there should be a fine that hurts but doesn't put them out of business. A second offense should bring jail.
I've always thought that the day a McDonalds is raided, the owners and managers jailed, and the establishment sold at public auction to the loss of the finance company, there would be a mass panick to fire all the illegals.
Cynthia Tucker wrote this? Cynthia Tucker is opposed to illegal immigration?
Is it possible that a little common sense has oozed in through the cracks at the AJC?
LOL somehow I suspect that would work like a charm.
{The part I agree with is that if there were no jobs available for illegal immigrants there would be little reason for Mexicans to come here here illegally.}
Not so fast. While there are a few businesses that intentionally exploit illegal workers, most are honest but helpless to stop it. For example, when we hire construction laborers, if they provide proof of identity and a SS#, we cannot deny them employment based on their legal status. Further, it is illegal to investigate the authenticity of the documentation they present. A company would have to start a policy of background checks on all employees to stop it. Some already do. But it is cost prohibitive to do background checks in industries where profits are tight, risk is high and wages are low.
"Ive always felt that for a first offense there should be a fine that hurts but doesn't put them out of business. A second offense should bring jail."
Amen
It should be made a felony for Criminals who overstay their legal visas and Invaders.
I believe we should give amnesty to these poor CRIMINALS or INVADERS.
This should be a 2 week amnesty to get the heck out of our Country.
The ones who ignore this amnesty should be buried in a tent city jail and fined $10,000 or buried elsewhere.
All aiders and abettors of these CRIMINALS or INVADERS should get 1 year in a tent city jail and a $10,000 fine for each CRIMINAL aided.
Those in government of Cities should be the first ones charged.
If passed, this will take most of the wind out of the sails of those employers who hire illegals, as the "savings" via hiring same would be far less than the outlay when found out.
But while not paying executive wages they could pay a livable wage, these are fellow citizens we are talking about.
Can a lot of this work not be automated that way we don't need immigrants or a zombfied underclass who we keep around to do these jobs, but wont rebel because they are working for non livable wages.
There's another thing that has to happen and that is for the various states to deny the social services to illegals. When I hear the caterwauling about how much it would cost to round up and deport illegals, no mention is ever made of the billions it is costing us NOT to do it. Tucker has it half right here as far as employers go, but, not surprisingly, fails to address the issues of health care, education, incarceration, etc. which taxpayers are being forced to provide.
Since the feds won't fulfill their obligation to control the borders, maybe each state should be able to set its own policy and give local control over spending on illegals.
Well, yes and no.
First of all, I used to manage a vineyard; when these guys come for employment, if they have the paper work, you MUST accept them. I certain most were illegal, but for me to turn them away would be a discrimitory act on my part, one that is punishable by both the EDD and in civil court. Furthermore, why must I be the enforcing agency of the Fed's laws? I have no training (nor should I) to identify forged documents, or any reasonable means to determine someone's citizenry. I have enough to do with tax compliance, EPA requirements, Fish and Game, county ordinance issues, air quality control, CDF, CHP code enforcements, and a myriad of other things that keep me full-time amusing the government; I don't wish to be the border police too.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not in favor of employing illegals, but why burden legitimate businesses with more?
The added benifit would be to eliminate their high priced garbage from the market place!!
Their hamburgers were horible when they were 13 cents each or $1/doz. and considering the price aren't any better today.
Cynthia Tucker is opposed to illegal immigration?
I doubt it. She opposes Bush, and the main message of this slick piece is that not much is going to get done about those who illegally employ illegal aliens.
Personally, I think cutting ALL forms of assistance to deadbeats would bring actual Americans back to these entry-level jobs pretty quick.
I guess salt is expensive. ;>
Fixed it. What kind of crap was this?
That's because the topic was ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Instead, Bush focused on fences and raids and deportations. In so doing, he reached out to a disaffected Republican constituency that is increasingly hostile to immigrants illegal aliens — especially to those Latinos who enter the country illegally.
Bush's tough talk will certainly have widespread appeal in Georgia, where many voters have become anxious — even angry — at what they perceive as the staggering burden of illegal immigration. There is a backlash brewing — a rising tide of frustration born of resentment over schools forced to accommodate non-English speakers, hospital emergency rooms beset by uninsured patients and perceptions of higher crime rates.
Georgia, meet a couple of California's "perceived" criminals.
Man Accused of Shooting CHP Officer Is CapturedJaime Zavala Garcia, 37, was arrested in Liberal, Kan., on Sunday afternoon with his brother, Antonio Garcia Zavala of Hesperia, who was booked on a "perceived" suspicion of aiding and harboring a fugitive.
CHP Assistant Chief Mike Maples said Garcia was a "perceived" illegal Mexican immigrant whose Pontiac was to be impounded because he was a "perceived" unlicensed driver.
Garcia could face charges of "perceived" premeditated attempted murder of a police officer, and discharging a "perceived" firearm against a police officer — counts that could lead to a sentence of 40 years to life in prison if he is convicted.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
BUT, read the article closely.... perceptions of higher crime rates ....(the president) gave the usual lip service to the idea of responsible hiring
Typical Lib hit piece attacking corporations and the president. She and I may agree on her points, but for entirely different reasons.
There is a way to double check the SSN and name to make sure they match, and you can check other immigration documents against other fed info.
It's a federal database, now optional for employers (I forget the name offhand). It shouldn't be.
They do not like to pay the market wage, they want government subsidy in form of future citizienship for the aliens and their relatives. The perspective of moving to US is a powerful incentive - the immigrants might be willing to work even at the LOSS!
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.