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.
Er, because they're the ones paying illegal immigrants to cross the border, and thus the driving force behind the problem?
Your comments about enforcement "not being your job" are certainly valid. But then again, you also have legal obligations to not break the law. The question is: how does one check the "legal" status of a person without imposing honerous overhead?
That's where the "guest worker" idea comes in. If a person is officially registered and in an official database; and that person provides you with documentation that can be verified against that database; then you have a simple "yes or no" approach to not hiring illegals. (It could also be tied in with your IRS reporting -- put these folks on the tax roles, too!)
I have no problem if the law is written in a way the employeer is not held responsible if the employee uses fake documents. These are rampant. There is a small town of about 800 in Arkansas where about 8 years ago a big bust was done where fake papaers were being made. It is easy. There must be someway the employeer can check and be held not liable for someone else lying.
This is a no brainer. If you dampen demand for cheap, illegal labor, the incentive to come here lessens. As usual, politics discourage direct, common sense solutions.
In Florida I think a true reform of worker's compensation would make a difference in the hiring practices of the Construction industry.
And if Bush would uphold his constitutional oath of office and defend the borders, there wouldn't be any problems.
Cynthia Tucker is wrong as usual, as well as some of her dittoheads on this thread.
Cry me a river. Your statement above screams like an admission ticket to cross the border and come work for YOU.
How hard could it be to check and see if the name matches the social security number being provided by a prospective employee? Both CIS and the SSA have programs.
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program
Okay doke. Before anyone boards a bus, train, or plane, make it a taxi too; one must prove their citizenship; afterall transporting illegals is a crime. Also, I do not think people or car dealers should sell cars to illegals, they would almost certrainly be used for the same purpose.
You do not need to prove citizenship to get a contractor's license, so home owners should ascertain that the contractor they use is legit. For that matter many autoshops and restaurants are owned by illegals; patronizing these services is the same as hiring them.
The deal is these folks that advocate this type of enforcement have no problems placing burdens on businesses and large businesses usually don't mind because these burdens squeeze out little guys. That's why they call for employers to insure employees, aid in housing and to basically play daddy to their employees. I provide a quality product at a competitive price, by doing so you eat, my employees eat and the world is bettered.
Yes, let's do get silly about it. People don't come here illegally to ride taxis. They do come here illegally to take the jobs being offered to them by Americans.
It's irrational to express concern about illegal immigration, and then refuse to address the root of the problem.
Thats a copout and you know it everything you need is on one national data base or another. Sounds like you don't want to take the time to ensure you are hiring legals or do they come higher.
ping
"Meanwhile the rest of us pay the costs that farmers don't"
One way or the other, yes. I'm happy to sell you a $40 hamburger. I think our politicians behave the way they do for economic reasons; we spend about 9% of our income on food (third world nations average about 60%). To upset this balance will cause us to spend more on subsistence and less on the other junk that drives our economy (read depression like conditions). Bad politically speaking as most people have no problem spending the balance of their income on frivolous entertainment. This is also why freenig trade is important to the politicians, let the thrid world feed us, keep the illegals at home, free farm land up for open space, control property more, etc.
What bothers me is I consider our self reliance on food a BIG national security issue. We get weird when oil is threatened, imagine the food supply threatened.
Yeah. let's get silly. When you buy things you will buy what's cheapest assuming quality is comprable. That is why Wal Mart does well (among other reasons). I have Pedro, paper work seemingly intact, wants to pick for $1 a tub, or a machine for $250,000 (if a machine will work on the terrain and the winery accepts machine picked). I have no other alternative. At $50 a tub white folks wouldn't show up to work and no one wants to pay 10 times more for the end product.
I would love to do without these guys, and eventually we will, if worker comp and labor laws continue the way thbey are. But to remain competitive we do what we can within the law.
I have a better idea; be a responsible consumer. Don't patronize businesses known for hiring illegals and make it known. When I can't sell something, I will cease to try or change. Stop making the governemnt be your working concious.
(I may sound sharp, but I really appreciate your reply, thanks)
Bush said nothing of the sort. I bet Tucker did not even hear/watch the speech.
Sterilize and deport. Sneaking into the US will quickly become unpopular among Mexicans. And the ones who try it won't be able to spawn another, bigger generation of illegal border crossers.
Sorry Rey, but I think there are a few holes in your argument. 1) We now export food - we have excess capacity for our needs. 2) We now produce enough oil to produce food for ourselves - it would be tough, but "do-able." And time favors changeover to other fuels. 3) I am already paying the rest of the cost of the hamburger in taxes. I want to know what it really costs me so I can come up with alternatives, if I find the cost too high. I also want others to pay for what they use, and I only want to pay for what I use, I don't want to subsidize them. 4) As far as free trade goes I agree with you. In the mean time the finances in our schools, hospitals and jails will improve without the presence of illegal immigrants. In net, the tradeoffs for American citizens are in favor of sending illegal immigrants home.
Who pays for the data base? You? Me? Business? Either way, it's you and me (taxes and higher prices).
You're right; I don'twant to do it. I have enough to do. Over 70% of my time is spent on compliance issues and here we are talking about adding another. My job is to produce a quality product at a competitive price; not appease government flunkies by filling out their forms and sending them money to show I comply. You can influence how I do my job with your consumer dollar much more.
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.