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
Illegals fill our meat packing industry. Used to be good paying work 35 years ago.
Unionized meat packers will go bonkers.
“tariffs, which would hurt innocent Americans”
Tariffs could be offset by raising the basic income tax threshold (and lowering the second lowest income tax rate threshold).
Try finding any leading Democrat that says income taxation hurts significant numbers of Americans.
Tariffs hurt less than income taxation. Income tax must be paid regardless of your financial predicament.
If you can afford a brand new car ($20,000+) with Mexican parts, you can afford to pay Uncle Sam some money indirectly. And if you can’t, explain to your dealer why you need a dealer discount. No car dealer wants you to take the bus.
The Mexican government will probably act to prevent Central Americans from stealing the US-based jobs Mexicans stole if given any sort of inducement to do so. Let Trump get a deal.
No. Putting an end to their access to welfare entitlements and anchor baby citizenship will stop them from coming here.
and
The on-campus hotel at Bryce Canyon National Park utilized the house cleaning services of Filipinos working under an “H”-program.
Come-on how much cultural enrichment happens for the house cleaning crew.
I am of the opinion that you TAX companies that employee illegal immigrants. Thus those that try to hide employing illegals are committing tax evasion.
GREAT NEWS UT LOOKS LIKE TRUMP IS MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION
What Yahoo and CNN and the alphabetical swill mills won’t report on is this; Mexican Senator says Mexico should take back states;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-mews/3754791/posts
In the hundreds of postings here in Free Republic rarely is this brought up. It’s Known As Reciprocity. We should be treating anybody illegally crossing the Mexican border into the US the way the Mexican’s do Any American illegally .crossing into Mexico. No” free” lawyer paid by Mexican taxpayers. Entry denied heavy fine and possible imprisonment. before getting kicked out.
When allowing the hordes illegally entering the US through the Mexican border avoids recognizing and dealing with the 2nd class treatment that American citizens get which is in their constitition while legally residing in Mexico.That not just includes denial of voting privileges but employment, and land ownership in their name.
Worse yet All when given to illegals and property ownership by them is used in states which Mexico has previously claimed espcially Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and of course California .that could be used to support any reclaiming effort should regime changes in Mexico arise , Our border with Mexico has always been contentious not only with smugglers but on ocassion with Mexican bandits and military.,Allowing potential hostiles to the US property ownership to happen in those states could lead to serious problems in the future.
.It’s time we consider illegal entry by any person who is a non Mexican citizen illegally entering the United States through the US Mexican border a defacto Mexican citizen with limited Mexican constitutional rights subject to their laws while transiting. As well as any Mexican citizen entering illegally exempting those who do so legally and meet US citizenship requirements.
What never gets mentioned is that 2nd class treatment Americans get in Mexico in all of this. If we applied that reciprocal policy . Would that continue ? By.prohibiting and strictly enforcing existing laws prohibiting any illegal entrant employment, voting, and land ownership privileges fully enforced these problems would drop loke a rock. .In other words Once we remove the incentives to Sneak into this country before expulsion no job no voting no landowning this stuff would stop.
The United States of America is a nation of law.
Poorly written and randomly enforced.
“Africans from Africa are going to Mexico and then across the border illegally, how did they get the money to travel there?”
Air fares are cheap, maybe $700 total.
These people are often not “poor” by the standards of their country.
They might have a relative in Europe or the US.
They might have a parent with a good government job or business.
They might have a missionary friend or be under contract for “tax free” “low cost” domestic service.
You do not know of what you are speaking. I refused some documentation that was an obvious forgery and the government came down on me. The claimed, rightfully, that I am not a legal documents expert and cannot discern a forgery from an authentic document. Never mind the SSN car was in multiple colors (Have you ever seen an SSN with orange and red? I have.), and an obvious forgery, I was not a documents expert and had to accept any documentation any potential employee presents. Never mind that a returning employee had all new documentation and that his name was different than the previous year, I was told by the authorities, that I am not an expert on such matters and I must accept it. To refuse the document or to dismiss the employee for those reasons would be legally and financially crippling to the business.
“from used doors and drywall sections put together”
Many English cottages have windows of varying sizes.
They come from “developing” countries.
Germany in 1945 was a bombed out wasteland. In the early 1960’s it was selling VWs by the millions.
I was told I could be investigated by the EEOC for questioning the documentation presented as required by I9’s.
Jonathan Turley should have to run an HR office,
Employer prosecution would be a great start. Then either prohibit, or tariff at 50%, money being sent back to Mexico.
He’s right and so are you.
Illegals will self-deport at no taxpayer expense.
Wages will rise to meet the demand.
This author is getting paid by the word.
He is partially right, the motivation is partially jobs but also free chit. The illegals are being sold a bill of goods and taking jobs when they can.
It is easy enough to find if the hires are legal. I have done it. The penalties are motivation enough to me to do it right. The enforcement needs to be hotly pursued.
What has happened to E-verify? Nothing but talk.
Why wait for Fedzilla?
Why don’t Americans who are turned down for a job by an an employer preferring illegals sue the employer?
Employers losing their shirts in court will change the behavior.
What is the legal term for an entity that induces injurious behavior? An attractive nuisance? Doesn’t apply here? Maybe it should.
I agree. I also know it will be disruptive to cost and supply
Much ag and animal/animal products processing now heavily uses immigrant labor — lowwww wages, low benefits, many illegals — for the work Americans won’t do.
Young Americans (Millenials) can’t hang in those jobs. On your feet and busy all day long, short lunch & breaks, no phones, no chatting — old-fashioned low skill work. One week and they’re gone.
Wages will have to rise to entice workers American workers, and there’ll be many infilled jobs for a period.
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.