Posted on 06/08/2019 7:37:36 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
President Trump has long defined his immigration policies as simply a matter of toughness. Indeed, making the border crossing tougher has been the overriding thrust of his deterrence effort. He has complained to border agents that he would love to see them get “a little rough” but that “when you do all of these things that we have to do, they end up arresting Border Patrol people.” He even threatened a 25 percent tariff on Mexico for failing to prevent people from crossing the border.
Yet, no hardship has deterred millions on this dangerous journey because of what waits on the other side of the border, which is jobs. To remove that attraction, the government would have to get tough not on migrants but on those who hire them. That is a tad too tough, it seems, for most immigration hawks. According to a recent study, the Justice Department prosecuted only 11 employers in the entire nation last year. That is right, with the Pew Research Center estimating that about 11 million undocumented persons are living and working in the United States, the Justice Department is prosecuting at a rate of one employer for every one million undocumented persons.
Immigration, it seems, is an offense committed solely by undocumented persons. While the president has charged that undocumented workers take away jobs from citizens, neither party is eager to deal with those who give away those jobs, despite the undocumented making up an estimated 5 percent of the workforce. In California, Nevada, and Texas, they make up almost 10 percent of the workforce.
Toughness does not extend to those who benefit most from unlawful hiring. There are no federal agents being asked to get “a little rough” with corporate executives. On paper, federal law is both clear and tough. It is illegal to hire, recruit, or refer illegal immigrants for hire. It also is illegal to fail to verify work authorization. Knowledge of unlawful hiring can be inferred from the lack of proof or suspicious applications.
Moreover, the laws are based on the assumption of enforcement actions that ratchet up punishment to deter repeat offenders. The penalty for each worker rises from as much as $2,000 to $10,000 by the third offense. Knowingly hiring illegal workers can result in six months of jail, while “harboring” such workers can result in up to 10 years in prison. Yet, if there is little enforcement, then the hiring of undocumented persons remains not just a cost of doing business but a small cost.
The government continues to publicizes splashy cases, such as the large $5.5 million fine against Waste Management of Texas. Yet, these relatively rare actions pose little threat to most businesses, as shown by the rising numbers of illegal workers in the workforce. Classic economic theory treats the deterrence of crime as a relationship between the rate of detection and the severity of the punishment. If the rate of detection is high, penalties can be low and still achieve deterrence. If the rate of detection is low, deterrence theory would prompt high penalties.
The curious thing is that this is an offense being committed in plain sight. Certain industries are open recidivists in violation of federal immigration law. As much as half of our farmworkers are believed to be undocumented, while 15 percent of employees in construction jobs and almost 10 percent of fast food and domestic help are believed to be working illegally. One would think that, at less than a dozen prosecutions of employers, detection rates are virtually zero.
Detection, however, appears quite high, with one out of every two workers in agriculture being undocumented. For a rational actor, the low level of prosecution is an invitation to violate federal law. Indeed, according to a recent study, only three employers were sentenced to jail out of 11 prosecutions. That puts the rate of prosecution at slightly above cases for harassing golfers in any national park in Washington State or attempting to change the weather without notifying the Commerce Department.
This is not a call for wholesale prosecutions but, rather, for some semblance of continuity and consistency in our policies. The case for tougher immigration laws would be stronger if the Trump administration showed the same vigor with regard to both parties to illegal employment. There does appear to be a growing crisis in immigration, with sharp increases in unlawful crossings and a need to reform immigration law.
However, the sharp dichotomy in enforcement against workers and employers undermines the demand for action by President Trump. Most undocumented persons come to the United States for work. Those offering them the work are the draw, and sending just three of them to jail is unlikely to change the realities of the market. In the end, widespread of arrests of undocumented persons does little, due to the simple realities of enforcement. We cannot jail millions of people or transport them all out of the country.
Yet, the number of major employers is far smaller and would be susceptible to deterrent policies of prosecution. It is possible to change the dynamic, but that would mean getting “a little rougher” on the back end of the illegal immigration system. Of course, there is another possibility. While denouncing undocumented workers, Congress and the White House have little interest in actually removing them from the workforce. We need these workers so, instead, we round up a couple thousand in factories and restaurants while effectively ignoring the employers.
The deal with Mexico, announced late Friday by President Trump, is an undeniable achievement. It includes a reported agreement to have migrants return to Mexico pending the resolution of their asylum claims. While it is difficult to see how Mexico will humanely house hundreds of thousands of people, the agreement could deter some people from crossing, or at least from surrendering when they reach the United States. For the rest, the calculus of risk remains unchanged, so long as willing employers are waiting just on the other side of the border
That was a cornerstone of Reagans' "One-Time-Only" amnesty which was supposed to stop illegal immigration by forcing employers to require potential hires to provide documentation of citizenship and therefore hire only legal citizens.
However enforcement and holding employers accountable never seemed to happen even from the very start.
Agreed, even if that means putting small companies out of business.
JoMa
Throw landlords who rent to illegals in the slammer too.
They will only go out of business if the owners refuse to reduce their greed.
Because:
1. It would stop the flow of votes for the Democrat Party that all of the Federal Agencies supported then (and now).
2. Rich business people from BOTH parties who benefit from the labor AND sale of products to illegals would stop giving money to politicians who enforced the law.
My immigration reform proposal has a Goodlatte verification requirement combined with a customer-enforced verification system with contract discounts.
SEC. ???? Employer Employee Verification.
(a) Each employer not exempt hiring a person more than six months after enactment must enter into the USCIS Employment Verification System the name of the person, the person’s supplied tax identification number and all other requested information on the person and retain the code returned in the employer’s records for the employee before paying the employee or lose the ability to deduct 50% of the best paid deductible employee’s FICA taxable compensation for each tax year in which the information wasn’t entered.
(b) Employers with less than 10,000/500/20 employees during the previous quarter shall be exempt until 12/18/24 months respectively after enactment.
(c) Any natural person hiring another person or people for less than 40 total hours of work on their residential property or farm of less than 12 acres who has not hired others for over 60 days shall be exempt.
SEC. ???? Employer Employee Reverification/Verification.
(a) After any quarter in which the employer’s FICA tax due has increased by more than 10% or is bigger than that of any quarter of the previous year, an employer not exempt must enter into the USCIS employment verification system the tax identification numbers of (and all other requested information) on all employees still employed the end of the following quarter within 15 days of the quarter or lose the ability to deduct 30% of the best paid deductible employee’s FICA taxable compensation for the tax year.
(b) Employers with less than 10,000/500/20 unique employees during the increased quarter shall be exempt until 24/30/36 months respectively after enactment.
(c) Employers whose quarterly FICA tax due was less than $500 shall be exempt.
SEC. ???? Deductibility of Contractor Work.
(a) No payment to a contractor under a contract entered into after 2021 related to landscaping, grounds maintenance, cleaning or building construction/repair work shall be deductible unless it was contracted under a contract effectively and clearly containing the USCIS 2022 Contractor Employee Verification System Contract Language.
SEC. ???? Corporations Doing Certain Types of Work.
(a) Effective with the 2022 tax year, no corporation contracting to do landscaping, grounds maintenance, cleaning or building construction/repair work may:
(1) have S status for a tax year, or
(2) deduct Medicare taxable compensation for any employee that is in excess of $50,000 for a tax year
unless each customer contract entered into during the tax year effectively and clearly contains the USCIS 2022 Contractor Employee Verification System Contract Language.
[This section can go either in 26 USC or 8 USC.]
SEC. ???? USCIS 2022 Contractor Employee Verification System Contract Language.
(a) The USCIS 2022 Contractor Employee Verification System Contract Language shall be:
The Contractor agrees to
(1) utilize on customer premises only a person/persons authorized by the USCIS employment verification system within the last 24 months, and
(2) provide proof of such verification to any governmental person or person who signed this contract upon request per law, and
(3) rebate 8% of payments received & give 5% off future payments due, up to $4,000, to the customer if a furnished person wasn’t so verified.
https://conservativetoo.blogspot.com/
If you insist on tough penalties, employers will insist on universal safe harbors like those that now exist.
Get rid of the H1Bs also.
Liberals will pass laws to make it illegal to NOT hire illegals. They already did in Illinois. Employers who use the Federal EVERIFY system to verify status, are accused of discrimination.
Imprison governement agents who give free education, driver licenses, welfare benefits, etc. to illegal aliens.
We have a homeless problem in this country. One-time flop houses are now condos. Unless everyone living alone shares their bed with an opposite sex(or same)person who is also living alone there will be homeless issues. Imagine what market forces would do with the rents.
tax all remittances.
“Imprison governement agents who give free education, driver licenses, welfare benefits, etc. to illegal aliens.”
Yep that too. Now there is evidence that the Rats are subsidizing the caravans aka the invasion.
One of the biggest problems that arise in enforcing our immigration laws is PRECEDENT.
Once we allow exceptions and special circumstances we establish PRECEDENT which is then used to by-pass existing laws.
The exceptions and special circumstances only increase and it becomes impossible to enforce laws because the Democrats and the left will argue PRECEDENT.
NEVER LET THE LEFT ESTABLISH PRECEDENT.
But what about LAW SUITS for DAMAGES?
Tort actions for amounts in line with the damages (including economic, health, and cultural damages...billions, at least) should be the next step, should they not?
Much better than tariffs, which would hurt innocent Americans as well as the Mexicans. For Buchannanites who keep arguing that tariffs would not hurt Americans, the stock market provides evidence to the contrary.
My immigration/visa reform proposal has provisions for food production workers somewhat based on the Goodlatte bill.
It also replaces the sham of claiming not being able to find a qualified American by requiring ample compensation or payment of a tax.
SEC. ???? Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas.
[This class of visas would totally replace the H-1B [bachelors+ degree/fashion model], H-1C [nurse], H-2A [agricultural], H-2B [non-agricultural], L-1 [intracompany] visas.]
[Employers of these workers would generally have to pay a special tax or pay special minimum wages to minimize domestic worker unemployment.]
(a) These shall be offered up as soon as the USCIS is ready to issue them.
(b) The number of new
(1) Agricultural Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas offered up every week shall be 3,000, and
(2) Meat/Poultry Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas offered up every week shall be 300, and
?(3) General Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas shall be 8,000 decreased by two times the latest available Michigan household unemployment rate percentage.
[The total number in each category would be increased by the number of unpaid for visas whose bids have expired.]
(c) The Sponsor for
(1) an Agricultural Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visa must be a
(A) a person
(i) whose Schedule F income for the penultimate tax year or any tax year no more than three years prior exceeded $4,000, and
(ii) who has sponsored no more than their total tax for the penultimate tax year/$4,000 Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas, or
(iii) who is farm labor contractor with a certificate of registration from the U.S. Department of Labor, and
(iv) whose FICA employer tax payments for the penultimate tax year exceeded $1,000, and
(v) who has sponsored no more than their FICA employer tax for the penultimate tax year/$2,000 Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas, or
(B) a corporation
(i) whose FICA employer tax payments for the penultimate tax year exceeded $4,000, and
(ii) that has sponsored no more than their FICA employer tax for the penultimate tax year/$2,000 Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas, or
(2) a Meat/Poultry Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visa must be a
(A) a corporation
(i) whose FICA employer tax payments for the penultimate tax year exceeded $4,000, and
?(ii) that has sponsored no more than their FICA employer tax for the penultimate tax year/$4,000 Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas, or
?(ii) that has sponsored no more than what they paid the Department of Agriculture in the penultimate year for inspection services/$2000 Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas,
(3) a General Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visa must be a
(A) a corporation
(i) whose FICA employer tax payments for the penultimate tax year exceeded $4,000, and
(ii) that has sponsored no more than their FICA employer tax for the penultimate tax year/$30,000 Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas.
(d) The bidding shall start at a minimum of $6,000.
(e) There shall be no discounts available for Full-Price Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visas.
SEC. ???? Minimum Wage Requirements for Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visa Workers.
(a) Deposit-Based Visa workers doing work of an agricultural nature shall have an hourly minimum wage of the highest of:
(1) 120% of the applicable (federal/state/local) general hourly minimum wage, for (mainly) indoor work
(2) 130% of the applicable (federal/state/local) general minimum wage, for (mainly) outdoor work
(3) 150% of the general federal minimum wage as of January 1 of the penultimate calendar year, for (mainly) outdoor work.
[These minimum hourly wages are meant to keep food production workers from running off to do $12/hour+ construction/maid work.]
[The premiums to the general minimum wages are to compensate for the transient nature of the work & transportation costs in time and money.]
(b) Deposit-Based Visa workers doing work in or on the premises of a meat/poultry abattoir shall have an hourly minimum wage of the highest of:
(1) 140% of the applicable (federal/state/local) general hourly minimum wage
(2) 180% of the general federal minimum wage as of January 1 of the penultimate calendar year.
SEC. ???? Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visa Worker Hourly Taxation
[This taxation is meant to replace the generally bogus system of pretending to be unable to find a qualified US worker.]
(a) A tax at a rate of 8 cents a minute of work, other than that of an agricultural nature or under the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture in a meat/poultry abattoir
of an Employer-Sponsored Deposit-Based Visa worker paid less than either $1,200/week or $30/hour, by pay period, is imposed upon the worker’s employer.
https://conservativetoo.blogspot.com/
Treat them like Drug Operations. Seize EVERY piece of equipment on site and sell it at auction. Won’t take too many D9s seized before they will comply with the law.
“Imprison governement agents who give free education, driver licenses, welfare benefits, etc. to illegal aliens.”
I would add: and employers who hire knowingly hire them or did nothing to determine their legal status. That would be on the first offense. Second offense, execute them.
As others have said, now that Africans from Africa are going to Mexico and then across the border illegaly, how did they get the money to travel there? At home in Africa they often live on dirt floors in shacks from used doors and drywall sections put together. Where in their family budget did tourist money to get here come from? Maybe they saved bonus mile coupons?
Soon to be our tab for full housing,welfare money full medical care, food cards and so on. That part we know. But how did they finance their plane and ship fares plus food and drink in the "caravan" invasion forces.
Lol.. i will believe that, the moment our administration stops H1Bs. This funds tax dodging corporations by saving trillions in taxes for hiring our sons and daughters.
The automakers were quick to say how costly the tariffs would be if you but their shiny suv. They did not say how much each of us is paying while illegals dodge taxes, drain social security abd every other welfare program
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.