Posted on 06/10/2007 8:39:55 AM PDT by rface
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 pigs 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 wont. If it passes, we get the huge cost, the complex regulations and amnesty. If it doesnt 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.
Oh, please! We hire police to track down criminals. Would you fine/imprison some business owner who turns out to have hired a bank robber or a child molester? It's not reasonable to expect a farmer, etc., to be come a document expert. We have huge numbers of government employees whose JOB it is to rid us of these people, and they don't do it They are the ones who should be strung up.
ML/NJ
>>Pass a law that says that the children of illegals are not citizens.
If you do that, the problem population balloons to something over 30 million.<<
No, that law would apply only to future births. You can’t revoke citizenship like that.
But you can bet that the ACLU and others would say that law violates the 14th amendment, and there would be a long court battle. I don’t know who would win that battle — there are arguments on both sides.
Enforce the Existing Laws
Deport as ILLEGALS are found
Repeat as necessary
De-fund sanctuary cities !
Mr. President, Tear Down This Immigration Bill
http://www.orthodoxnet.com/articles/Banescu/MrPresident_Tear_Down_This_Bill_2007-06-05.php
Oh, twaddle. By LAW the people whom I am speaking of are not allowed to be here at all.
ML/NJ
Did you even read the article before posting this? That is exactly (not the amount) what the article says. It is simple, click on the excerpt thing on the bottom to see the full article.
This may be what is supposed to happen, but I would be surprised if any goverment agency does anything right. I do not believe they want to enforce new or existing laws and never will. Now, am I cynical of government or what? :=)
Regards.
The laws are on the books for employers to have to ascertain the status of prospective employees. They must fill out a form called an I-9 and look at documents provided my the applicant.
The biggest problem with that is that the phony parers and cards are VERY good. Some Soc Sec cards I have seen are better than my own, and I know that is legal!!!
I've been advocating that for a long time. There are a lot of people who care passionately about this issue and they'll spend their own money doing something about it. They just need something effective and legal to do.
But it won't succeed on its own. There must be a clear cut way for employers to tell if a potential employee is legal. A guest worker program is also needed so they have a legitimate way to get the labor they need. Another idea to magnify the effectiveness of the civil suit approach is to let illegals be whisteblowers and reap a share of the judgement. That would drive a deep wedge between illegals and potential employers.
The flow in would stop and many illegals would leave which a fence will not do. We probably wouldn't need to build a physical barrier so there'd be a bunch more money for port security etc.
Oh, please, yourself. It's not illegal to have hired either a bank robber or child molester (I assume once they've served their sentences). It "is" illegal to hire "undocumented Americans".
"It's not reasonable to expect a farmer, etc., to be come a document expert."
OH, PLEASE. If you had even a remote clue to the amount of federal documentation ANY farmer has to go through to understand the various federal agricultural programs, you wouldn't make that statement. Verifying the legality of workers is trivial next to THAT load.
"We have huge numbers of government employees whose JOB it is to rid us of these people, and they don't do it They are the ones who should be strung up."
And if the EMPLOYERS don't provide the information, how are those government employees ever going to know??? Don't be stupid.
>>If I remember right, he said it is impossible to enforce this because it is illegal to hire illegal aliens, but it is illegal for emplyers to check to see if their papers are false or not.
Juan Kyl is just making more excuses. Every employer in this country must obtain documents verifying immigration status on employees as it is. If they do withholding for taxes (which many criminal employers of illegals don’t bother with, because it is just a pesky business expense anyway), then the IRS actually does part of the verification job for them because the IRS will tell employers if an SSN turns up fake.<<
What if it’s valid but used by different people? BTW one of Chertoff’s touted “triggers” for the amnesty bill, the new “EEVS,” does not seem to fix that problem either. But even if EEVS did work, why would they need amnesty? I guess the answer is that is Teddy and George demand it.
That's a great idea. One simple thing we can also do is call the Home Depot and Lowe's stores that allow illegals to congregate, and tell them that we won't do business there as long as they allow groups of lawbreakers to assemble in their parking lot.
then the HR person is putting the company at high risk
Employers are one of the chief magnets for illegals. I have sympathy for them in not being able to run SSN's through a database to find out who's legal, and who's not, but the same system should be mandated for any other magnet, such as schools, hospitals, etc.
Cut off the gravy train, and the illegals have no incentive to stay. The wall is a fundamental part of the solution to the problem, but so are measures designed to eliminate the illegals that are already here.
I guess that's me, really stupid.
But using your logic, employers don't have to worry because without them the police would never know.
(And BTW, Sherlock, I wasn't referring to bank robbers and child molesters who had already done their time. I was referring to ones not yet apprehended. I guess I thought this obvious.)
ML/NJ
We need only enforce the laws as they are. Fine the employers, kick the illegals out of our schools, out of the welfare system, out of our hospitals, and take the shackles off of law enforcement and border patrol to do their job. Prosecute the ones how falsify documents and steal SS numbers. Put the ones convicted in in desert jails when caught to serve their time, eating peanut butter sandwiches in open tents behind barbed wire fences. They can have all the tap water they want to drink. If they riot, shoot to kill.
Presto chango! Illegals gone.
NO COMPROMISING!!! BUILD THE DOUBLE FENCE - ALL OF IT; DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN FELONS; ABSOLUTELY NO AMERICAN TAXPAYER SUPPORTED WELFARE, SSI, FOOD STAMPS OR HEALTH BENEFITS; HEAVY FINES FOR EMPLOYERS OF ALIENS NOT ON TEMPORARY WORKER VISAS.
THESE THINGS ARE NOT TO BE QUESTIONED. THERE MAY BE OTHERS.
Arguably the best political ad of the century! The "Where's DA Fence" Granny is priceless.
Jail illegal employers. Fine them, and give rewards to people who turn in illegal employers. Stop all social aid to illegals but emergency services. The problem would go away, but not before our Nixonian Republicans and corporate Socialists manage to convince a lot of brainwashed people that the sky is going to fall if illegals don’t hold it up.
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.