Posted by KK on September 9, 2009, 9:48 am
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:16:49 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>>If there is an "illegal" problem, it is the employers of illegals.
>>>Prosecute
>>>those, and the problem will go away. Without jobs, the illegals will
>>>leave.
>>>
>>>
>> I love it when people want to turn the responsibility of law
>> enforcement over to the private sector.
>
> That's not what he's saying at all. By prosecuting the employers of
> illegals, you are removing the primary incentive to be an "illegal
> alien". If all illegal aliens were unemployed, they wouldn't stick
> around long. If I ask you (as an employer) to obey the law, that is far
> from asking you (as an employer) to enforce the law.
Not when "obeying" the law includes examining documents, ascertaining
legitimacy of citizenship, etc.
That's enforcement.
Migrants/illegals are willing to do work that citizens won't, and to do
work for far less pay than citizens will accept, whether or not they have
fake documents. An hour of labor is worth whatever the intersection of
what someoene will pay for it, and what someone will take for it.
>
>> These are probably the same
>> people that are all for private contractors doing work for the US in
>> the middle east.
>>
>> Now that you have decided that it's business owners that are
>> responsible for border patrol, who do you want to enforce robbery laws?
>> People on the street with handguns?
>
> With no jobs, border patrol would be almost redundant. -Dave
Posted by Dave on September 9, 2009, 10:01 am
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:16:49 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>>>If there is an "illegal" problem, it is the employers of illegals.
>>>>Prosecute
>>>>those, and the problem will go away. Without jobs, the illegals will
>>>>leave.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I love it when people want to turn the responsibility of law
>>> enforcement over to the private sector.
>>
>> That's not what he's saying at all. By prosecuting the employers of
>> illegals, you are removing the primary incentive to be an "illegal
>> alien". If all illegal aliens were unemployed, they wouldn't stick
>> around long. If I ask you (as an employer) to obey the law, that is far
>> from asking you (as an employer) to enforce the law.
> Not when "obeying" the law includes examining documents, ascertaining
> legitimacy of citizenship, etc.
Ummmm...employers do that ANYWAY. We are not asking employers to do
anything that they wouldn't do already. We are only saying that (after you
do all the checks you would do anyway before hiring somebody) you should
then choose to obey the law. You seem to be under the mistaken impression
that employers are not aware that many of their workers are illegitimate.
> That's enforcement.
No, it's not. If I tell you not to rob a bank, and you then wisely choose
not to rob a bank, YOU are not enforcing any law.
> Migrants/illegals are willing to do work that citizens won't, and to do
> work for far less pay than citizens will accept,
That argument holds true only until you realize that wages for certain jobs
are artificially too low because of illegal immigrants.
> whether or not they have
> fake documents. An hour of labor is worth whatever the intersection of
> what someoene will pay for it, and what someone will take for it.
Yes. And I guarantee you if all illegal aliens vanished instantly, there
would be no shortage of labor. Prices for certain goods might go up a
little, but that would be more than balanced by lower taxes, as illegal
aliens are a HUGE drain on resources just by being here. Not to mention,
paying a little more for produce might be worth it, if it would stop the
trend of hospitals being forced to close forever because of illegal
liens. -Dave
Posted by 2312 on September 9, 2009, 2:12 pm
Dave wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:16:49 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> If there is an "illegal" problem, it is the employers of illegals.
>>>>> Prosecute
>>>>> those, and the problem will go away. Without jobs, the illegals
>>>>> will leave.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I love it when people want to turn the responsibility of law
>>>> enforcement over to the private sector.
>>>
>>> That's not what he's saying at all. By prosecuting the employers of
>>> illegals, you are removing the primary incentive to be an "illegal
>>> alien". If all illegal aliens were unemployed, they wouldn't stick
>>> around long. If I ask you (as an employer) to obey the law, that
>>> is far from asking you (as an employer) to enforce the law.
>>
>> Not when "obeying" the law includes examining documents, ascertaining
>> legitimacy of citizenship, etc.
> Ummmm...employers do that ANYWAY. We are not asking employers to do
> anything that they wouldn't do already. We are only saying that
> (after you do all the checks you would do anyway before hiring
> somebody) you should then choose to obey the law. You seem to be
> under the mistaken impression that employers are not aware that many
> of their workers are illegitimate.
>>
>> That's enforcement.
> No, it's not. If I tell you not to rob a bank, and you then wisely
> choose not to rob a bank, YOU are not enforcing any law.
>> Migrants/illegals are willing to do work that citizens won't, and to
>> do work for far less pay than citizens will accept,
> That argument holds true only until you realize that wages for
> certain jobs are artificially too low because of illegal immigrants.
>> whether or not they have
>> fake documents. An hour of labor is worth whatever the intersection
>> of what someoene will pay for it, and what someone will take for it.
> Yes. And I guarantee
You can't guarantee a thing.
> you if all illegal aliens vanished instantly, there would be no shortage of
labor.
Yes there would be, particularly for vegetable harvesting etc.
> Prices for certain goods might go up a little,
Go up a hell of a lot, actually, particularly fresh vegetables manually
harvested.
> but that would be more than balanced by lower taxes,
Not a chance when all govts have seen their tax revenue base crippled by the sub
prime fiasco.
> as illegal aliens are a HUGE drain on resources just by being here.
Yes, but its much more complicated than that right now.
> Not to mention, paying a little more for produce might be worth it,
You wouldn't be too keen on paying a hell of a lot more for it.
> if it would stop the trend of hospitals being forced to close forever because
of illegal liens.
It wouldn't stop that either.
Posted by KK on September 9, 2009, 3:09 pm
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:01:08 -0400, Dave wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:16:49 -0400, Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>If there is an "illegal" problem, it is the employers of illegals.
>>>>>Prosecute
>>>>>those, and the problem will go away. Without jobs, the illegals will
>>>>>leave.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I love it when people want to turn the responsibility of law
>>>> enforcement over to the private sector.
>>>
>>> That's not what he's saying at all. By prosecuting the employers of
>>> illegals, you are removing the primary incentive to be an "illegal
>>> alien". If all illegal aliens were unemployed, they wouldn't stick
>>> around long. If I ask you (as an employer) to obey the law, that is
>>> far from asking you (as an employer) to enforce the law.
>>
>> Not when "obeying" the law includes examining documents, ascertaining
>> legitimacy of citizenship, etc.
>
> Ummmm...employers do that ANYWAY.
Right. They have to do the job of enforcing the law just to hire
someone. Before the "temporary emergency" measure of employer
withholding, there was none of that. Now employers have to be tax
collectors/background investigators/etc. ... and it's wrong.
> We are not asking employers to do
> anything that they wouldn't do already.
Right, because they're *already* required to be law enforcement agents.
> We
(who's "we")?
> are only saying that (after
> you do all the checks you would do anyway before hiring somebody) you
> should then choose to obey the law. You seem to be under the mistaken
> impression that employers are not aware that many of their workers are
> illegitimate.
Don't presume to know what I think or know. I worked in the restaurant
industry for a few years and know that some employers knowingly hire
illegals, and also that many illegals have perfectly legitmate documents.
>
>
>> That's enforcement.
>
> No, it's not. If I tell you not to rob a bank, and you then wisely
> choose not to rob a bank, YOU are not enforcing any law.
Ignoramus: an employer is required to complete tax forms and immigration
checks in order to pay someone for their hours of labor. That is not the
same as *not* robbing a bank. If you believe it is, then we've got
nothing to talk about.
>> Migrants/illegals are willing to do work that citizens won't, and to do
>> work for far less pay than citizens will accept,
>
> That argument holds true only until you realize that wages for certain
> jobs are artificially too low because of illegal immigrants.
Or artificially too high because of restrictions on immigration.
>> whether or not they have
>> fake documents. An hour of labor is worth whatever the intersection of
>> what someoene will pay for it, and what someone will take for it.
>
> Yes. And I guarantee you if all illegal aliens vanished instantly,
> there would be no shortage of labor. Prices for certain goods might go
> up a little, but that would be more than balanced by lower taxes, as
> illegal aliens are a HUGE drain on resources just by being here.
No, they're not. What jobs are disproportionately held by illegals?
> Not to
> mention, paying a little more for produce might be worth it, if it would
> stop the trend of hospitals being forced to close forever because of
> illegal liens. -Dave
You're quite the hyperbole fan, aren't you? In NJ hospitals aren't the
ones left holding the bag; all emergency room treatment is taxed 100% to
pay for those who don't pay. I don't know how it's handled elsewhere
(and I don't claim that's right or fair).
Posted by Dave on September 9, 2009, 3:59 pm
>>>
>>> Not when "obeying" the law includes examining documents, ascertaining
>>> legitimacy of citizenship, etc.
>>
>> Ummmm...employers do that ANYWAY.
> Right. They have to do the job of enforcing the law just to hire
> someone.
No, they aren't enforcing laws. All the bullshit you have to go through (as
an employer and an employee) just to hire or get hired has been the de-facto
standard hiring process for as long as I've been alive. I'm ashamed to say,
that's over a half of a century now. There is nothing related to "enforcing
the law". It's just coincidental that the process involves procedures that
will reveal law-breakers.
Yes, there are some small businesses that don't make as many checks on their
employees before bringing them on. But these businesses tend to greatly
suffer from poor hiring decisions, and THAT has nothing to do with illegal
aliens, necessarily.
> Before the "temporary emergency" measure of employer
> withholding, there was none of that. Now employers have to be tax
> collectors/background investigators/etc. ... and it's wrong.
Employers have always been tax collectors and background investigators.
They are tax collectors because it is the law. They are background
investigators because they (duh) want to stay in business. But during the
backround investigation, it is often revealed that a prospective employee is
illegal. And many are hired anyway.
>> We are not asking employers to do
>> anything that they wouldn't do already.
> Right, because they're *already* required to be law enforcement agents.
Again, if I ask you NOT to break a law, that doesn't make you a law
enforcement officer.
> Don't presume to know what I think or know. I worked in the restaurant
> industry for a few years and know that some employers knowingly hire
> illegals, and also that many illegals have perfectly legitmate documents.
So what's the problem? If the documents are legit and you keep copies of
them, your ass is covered. If it's later found that you hired an illegal,
you can claim ignorance and get away with it.
>>> That's enforcement.
>>
>> No, it's not. If I tell you not to rob a bank, and you then wisely
>> choose not to rob a bank, YOU are not enforcing any law.
> Ignoramus: an employer is required to complete tax forms and immigration
> checks in order to pay someone for their hours of labor.
But most employers have been doing that for (AFAIK) half a century or
longer, before it was required. It is simply good business. Employers do
it whether they are required to or not. Because they want to stay in
business.
> That is not the
> same as *not* robbing a bank. If you believe it is, then we've got
> nothing to talk about.
It's a simple concept really. 'Don't break the law' is NOT the same as
'enforce the law'. If you find a prospective employee is an illegal alien,
nobody is forcing you (as an employer) to arrest an illegal alien or deport
them or report them to the proper authorities. I would HOPE you'd do that
anyway (report their asses so that they get deported). But all you are
required to do is not hire them. All you are required to do is, don't break
the law. Enforcing the law is not required of employers.
> Or artificially too high because of restrictions on immigration.
Anybody who wants to immigrate can do so. The process can take years, but
you can live (legally) and work (legally) in the United States while you are
seeking citizenship. There is no excuse to be here illegally. -Dave
XML site map
>>>Prosecute
>>>those, and the problem will go away. Without jobs, the illegals will
>>>leave.
>>>
>>>
>> I love it when people want to turn the responsibility of law
>> enforcement over to the private sector.
>
> That's not what he's saying at all. By prosecuting the employers of
> illegals, you are removing the primary incentive to be an "illegal
> alien". If all illegal aliens were unemployed, they wouldn't stick
> around long. If I ask you (as an employer) to obey the law, that is far
> from asking you (as an employer) to enforce the law.