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.
You should get real!
doesn't have a valid SSN
Not a requirement as long as he provides the other papers needed. His SSN can be put under a general fund #. English is not a requirement for employment or proof of legal status. If I turn him away without serious consideration EDD will be on me.
You are telling me to check the data bases; check the laws listed on the WEB boys. There are other things potential employees can provide other than SSN. THis is even spelled out on the I9.
Don't want to read the volumnous rules? Gee, now you know how I feel
The fact is everyone who is using illegals wants to. They will make every excuse they can as to say either they didn't know or don't care.
I stand by my assertion that we should be jailing the managers. If you don't like it, then stop being a manager who goes out of his way to hire illegals.
Isn't difficult to check out their documentation. When 12 of the show up with the same SS# everyone should sense something is wrong.
Stiff fines for first violation then jail time for the next.
I don't care how they do it but get all of them out of this country. Illegal immigrants are the ones exploiting this country. Get them all out now!
"English is not a requirement for employment or proof of legal status. If I turn him away without serious consideration EDD will be on me. "
BS. English can certainly be a requirement. It always has been until you people came along and desired to hire illegals. No English, no job. Perfectly legal.
Absolutely a problem. YES.
Admittedly, I am playing a bit of a devil's advocate, but everything I relate happened.
Yes, you aren't too particular when you have over a million dollars of grapes waiting to be picked. If a tow truck driver stopped to help you in a bad neighborhood at night would you verify his immigration status before employing him. (I won't say your choice is right or wrong, but can you understand?)
Funny how in Australia they manage to grow lots of grapes and make excellent compteitively priced wine and raisins without the benefit of illegal labor.
If you can't come up with a business model that does not involve breaking the law, you should not be in business.
" Stop burdening me with postings and compliances and taxes."
Too bad. You have responsibilities. Get over it. This country wasn't built on anarchy.
Isn't it interesting that you don't want any employer laws but I bet you want all kinds of other laws. How about we do away with all laws so if someone kicks your ass there is nothing you can do about it? You want the right to abuse your employees and abuse your fellow Americans by hiring illegals, how about if your fellow Americans return the favor?
Managers? What about owners? I'm under direction.
By the letter of the law, I did nothing illegal (sound like a politician (I never had sexual relations with my employees)). I should quit managing? You should quit buying US grown produce as your dollars fund this. I thought one of the precepts of this WEB site was a little self responsibility?
I would like to see you run a labor intensive crop in California without hiring even suspected illegals with proper papers.
Too bad. You have responsibilities
So do you. Don't buy US produce. It ALL uses illegal labor.
I am responsible. I comply with all the laws.
Grapes get grown and harvested in other countries using automation and technology as substitutes for most of the labor. As far as I can tell, your insistence that it can only be done by breaking the law speaks to a lack of imagination and poor management. Australian wines are often better and often cheaper than their equivalent California products so I expect consumers would benefit from your industry being deprived of its illegal labor force. I have little sympathy for criminal behavior. Your assets should be seized and sold at auction to somebody who will obey the law.
I am always within the letter of the law.
The problem is people see something they don't like and the first cry is, "The government should do something. Make a law."
I say let the market work. If you do not like how a business operates, DON'T PATRONIZE IT!!!
No law will have a greater affect than that.
The black political factions may be aligning against illegal immigration because they see that it cuts into their share of the welfare pie.
Your right. But many crops aren't machine harvestable. Furthermore small operation cannot handle machine expense (read corporatization). There's a lot of waste in Austrailia's model too.
I don't believe that. Prove it.
Lord, I hate agreeing with a liberal -- if Tucker is starting to see the light, please make her a Republican...
I find it interesting how anxious folks are to seize property on this site.
I assure you; I am within the letter of the law.
Same reason you have to enforce the IRS withholding laws for income taxes and social security -- it's the law.
And I would say, constituinally, not my job. Let the employee report and pay and if he is in violation punish him. Stop burdening businesses with compliance issues.
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.