Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 3 Steps to Solving the Illegal Immigration Problem
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Immigration
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 16 2009, 04:33 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 16 2009, 04:05 PM) *
I agree with going after employers as well - but I think your approach will die on the vine as it is presently conceived...first of all you will never get the support of border states for shifting border enforcement to employer enforcement...and you ignore the fact that the E-verify system is inadequate to provide good information...
The E-verify system is not the only possible way of identifying eligibility for employment of citizenship. Again, you are still talking plans. Not approaches

This is where you get your wiggle room bill--- you provide such a general approach --- refusing to commit to anything...ignoring the practical realities that exist and leaving your approach on the drawing board -- conceptually viable -- but no where near viable in the real world...

And thus the real difference between you and I -- I want to solve the problems...I want a plan...I want something that can be implemented -- something that will work to solve the problem -- and you -- well i do not know what you want - you want to do all you can to preserve your concept...failing to realize that its preservation will mean its demise of never reaching fruition...because in my profession you have to deal with the tough questions...and you do not want to deal with those...

What is necessary to make this approach a reality?

What are the polticial prospects?

How am I going sell this to this constituency?

Who is going to be the chief proponent of this approach? Who is going to be the chief opponent?

How much will it cost?

What other projects can it be tied to to gain broader support?

Etc.

I am a person of action and you a person of conceptualizing...


QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 16 2009, 04:05 PM) *
Second, your idea of just leaving the immigrants to make their way home -- has no chance in any state in the US of receiving support --

Finally your failure to include reforms for legal aliens to be able to renew their green papers in a more deliberate manner also ignores one of the major problems with our immigration system which needs to be handled along with the border issue...
That is not my plan. That would be the effect of cracking down harder on law enforcement. But deportation is still an option and would be used, especially for criminals.

Yes, but you do not provide any resources...for the realities...that if law enforcement cracks down there are certain costs - more trials -- more detentions -- more jailed immigrants -- etc. etc. etc. which pokes a major hole in your plan...and you did previously suggest that part of your plan was to NOT deport the illegals -- but rather let them find their way back to their homeland.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 16 2009, 04:05 PM) *
billfmsd the budget copout really surprises me -- you use it over and over and over again...noone said that we had to get to a final number -- we know how much border patrol agents make - we know how much INS agents make -- what additional info do you need?[/b]


Let see. Besides salaries, you have facilities, equipment, supplies, cost of training, cost of outsourcing, cost of legal representation of the agency, cost of internal affairs investigations. Shall I go on? Much of the above is classified because it would reveal the weaknesses of the agency. Not to mention you may have budgets for collaboration between law enforcement agencies, which would also be classified so they wouldn't reveal investigations and tactics.

And I'd be surprised if salaries were accounted for even a 3rd of the cost of most law enforcement agencies.


Come on...this is a ruse -- to try and stop you from developing an actual "plan" instead of your almighty approach which is pristine and sacred in its simplicity -- and likely to go nowhere unless its given some more meat...
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:22 AM) *
We could go through your honored tiebreaker the dictionary/thesaurus maybe to settle the debate?

http://www.answers.com/topic/plan

Thesaurus: plan
Top Home > Library > Literature & Language > Thesaurus
noun

A method for making, doing, or accomplishing something: blueprint, design, game plan, idea, layout, project, schema, scheme, strategy. See planned/unplanned.
A method used in dealing with something: approach, attack, course, line, modus operandi, procedure, tack, technique. See means.
Systematic arrangement and design: method, order, orderliness, organization, pattern, system, systematization, systemization. See order/disorder.
If all you want to do is obfuscate, then you could ignore the meaning in context. This is not a thread about "corrupt language," so your point about the dictionary is irrelevant here. I gave you what should have been a common definition distinguishing "approach" from "plan" for lack of a better word. Either you can accept the distinction for the purposes of this debate or you can insist on keeping the meaning of the word ambiguous for the purpose of obfuscating the debate. The choice is yours. For the purpose of this debate, an approach is between a goal and a plan. An approach is not disproved until all (not just some) optional plans based on that approach have been proven flawed.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:22 AM) *
But somehow I doubt if this will resolve anything...
It would prove who's the obfuscation king.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:22 AM) *
You are right...I do not agree with your approach unless it is part of a comprehensive effort...
"comprehensive effort" code word for amnesty. As long as you advocate amnesty, the argument is circular. We will have to agree to disagree.

My approach will not work with amnesty. I doubt any approach will. Every grant of amnesty only invites more illegal immigration hoping to be part of the next grant of amnesty. It's a spiraling problem.
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:26 AM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 16 2009, 04:43 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 16 2009, 04:08 PM) *
By your metrics and the recent busts all the employers just about are in compliance...but GOP Guy will never go along with an approach like yours that leaves all the illegals in the US to get home to their nation without detention and deportation...another MAJOR flaw in your proposal which my plan addressed...and yours does not...

This is more important than ever now that more people want to get out of Mexico than ever because of the drug wars going on...
I can't speak for GOPGuy. But given the choice between:

1) leaving them here with no jobs and no citizenship or
2) giving them jobs and amnesty,

I'll bet he'd pick the former.


I kind of think he'd pick neither... cool.gif and prefer the status quo...
That's why I said if "given the choice between." "Neither" wasn't a 3rd option "given" in that choice. But only an obfuscator would ignore that fact.
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 09:07 AM) *
you did previously suggest that part of your plan was to NOT deport the illegals
That's a misrepresentation of my position, if not an outright lie. I said that no laws would be changed. That means deportation laws are still in effect. The only difference is that the focus on employers would mean less deportation in the enforcement, not the legislation. You don't have to deport all or even most of the illegal immigrants. But you will inevitably be forced to deport some.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 09:07 AM) *
Come on...this is a ruse -- to try and stop you from developing an actual "plan" instead of your almighty approach which is pristine and sacred in its simplicity -- and likely to go nowhere unless its given some more meat...
Sorry, I don't like to waste my time speculating on details when I lack sufficient access to information required to prove or disprove the speculation. If you like to do that, then have fun speculating with yourself. Speculation rhymes with masturbation. laugh.gif

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 09:07 AM) *
I am a person of action and you a person of conceptualizing...
Why can't we just leave it at that. There is nothing wrong with being either.
perrya
QUOTE(billfmsd @ May 4 2008, 02:16 PM) *
I've defended Lou Dobbs on this forum not because I 100% agree with his position, but because most people who oppose him, do so for the wrong reasons. It's the cheap labor interest using corporate money to reframe the issue in the context of race. Sure there are racists who are also against illegal immigration. That doesn't justify illegal immigration. Those who mention race in the context of illegal immigration aren't much better than the hate groups. It's almost as racist to advocate for a race as it is to advocate against a race. Most hatred towards illegal immigrants comes from hatred towards illegal immigration, regardless of race. This is not a race issue. Anyone who tries to make it one is playing into the hands of the corporations who just want cheap labor. They don't care about the health and well being of illegal immigrants they defend for anything more than the cheap labor they provide. They actually benefit more from them being illegal citizens than they would if those citizens had amnesty. If amnesty laws were passed, they would probably fire those with amnesty and hire more illegal citizens for cheaper wages.

I agree with Lou's basic premise that you can't reform immigration until you can control it and that there's no need for amnesty. I doubt our immigration laws need to be any more lenient. I think that they just need to be enforced. An unenforced law is worse than no law at all. But I'm open-minded enough to know that we may find-out that our immigration policies are too strict once we attempt to fully enforce them. I doubt we will ever know just how strict they actually are until then. Where I may differer with Lou is on how to enforce them. I don't think much needs to be done in the way of controlling the supply of illegal immigrants. I'd put more focus on controlling the demand. We can stop illegal immigrants by giving them less of a reason to enter illegally or stay than we can by attempting to deny them access.

As for amnesty. I don't see how the "pay a fine and back of the line" policy would work without some incentive to pay the fine. If paying a fine gives them the right to stay and work here, then it's not really a fine, but instead a purchase of near citizenship. That's just a lesser form of amnesty than outright forgiveness.

Here's my 3 step solution on the issue of illegal immigration:

Step 1) Stop mixing the issues. We don't have a legal immigration problem. We have more than enough people willing to migrate legally to this country. We have more than enough American citizens willing to fill those job positions that would be filled by immigrants as long as its for a fair wage in the mean time. The only thing we don't have is corporations willing to pay what the American job market will bear for those American jobs. There is simply no excuse to use illegal immigrants for labor; so we can and should address illegal immigration separately.

Step 2) I know many are going to hate this, but we need national I.D. cards, at least for employment. Every citizen can pay for their own if they want to work in this country. Applicants have been paying for everything else involved in the hiring process. An employable citizen I.D. shouldn't cost more than the gas and dry-cleaning required for a few job interviews.

Step 3) Crack down harder on illegal employment. If we just did this, we wouldn't need a border fence or deportation for the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Most of them are just seeking work.

Aside from the cheap labor, there are also National Security issues with illegal immigration. I take the same "focus on demand" approach to solving those as well. We can stop spies and terrorists easier by giving them less of a reason than we can by attempting to deny them access. If we followed step 3, then the terrorist and spies would have a harder time entering illegally because they wouldn't have those illegal immigrants seeking employment to hide amongst.


They wouldn`t be here if there wasnt a demand for them!

America has always been the land of opportunity.

Personally, I`m happy to know that there are now 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in the land of opportunity working on their dreams.

I`d be down there myself if it were not for my principles.

(I don`t like being in my neighbours house too much, makes for bad neighbours and I hate that!)

As for rules and regulations.... sorry, but I hate double standards!

And as far as spies and terrorists are concerned, go try and stop the next hurricane or earthquake!

And why are you so obsessed with disaster....

Don`t you know!

The more you focus on something, the greater the likelyhood it'll happen!

Have a nice day!

- Perry
billfmsd
QUOTE(perrya @ Mar 17 2009, 12:23 PM) *
They wouldn`t be here if there wasnt a demand for them!

America has always been the land of opportunity.

Personally, I`m happy to know that there are now 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in the land of opportunity working on their dreams.

I`d be down there myself if it were not for my principles.

(I don`t like being in my neighbours house too much, makes for bad neighbours and I hate that!)

As for rules and regulations.... sorry, but I hate double standards!

And as far as spies and terrorists are concerned, go try and stop the next hurricane or earthquake!

And why are you so obsessed with disaster....

Don`t you know!

The more you focus on something, the greater the likelyhood it'll happen!

Have a nice day!

- Perry
The Illegal Immigration Problem is not a problem with illegal immigrants. If I lived in a broken country, I would probably be trying to migrate here any way I could too. That includes illegally. Illegal immigrants are only bound by the unwritten laws of the humanitarian and inhumane global society. In other words, the laws of human nature.

The reason why the Illegal Immigration Problem is a real problem (not just a wedge issue) is because it's tide to what you said, "a demand." The demand is for cheap labor. That demand needs to be diminished, not supplied. That's why I offer an approach that focuses on the demand. Sure, employers (the biggest addicts of cheap labor) will oppose anything that threatens the supply. However, it's not up to employers. There are more employees than employers. And if those employees (legal or illegal) want to be paid living wages, they will stop supplying the cheap labor demand. That's the only way to get the addicts off the drug. Stop giving it to them!

There is no way we can stem the flow of supply without diminishing the demand. The employers (the source of the demand) are an easier and more effective target than the illegal employees. We need to make it more expensive to use illegal labor than to use legal labor. It's that simple.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 17 2009, 10:44 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:22 AM) *
We could go through your honored tiebreaker the dictionary/thesaurus maybe to settle the debate?

http://www.answers.com/topic/plan

Thesaurus: plan
Top Home > Library > Literature & Language > Thesaurus
noun

A method for making, doing, or accomplishing something: blueprint, design, game plan, idea, layout, project, schema, scheme, strategy. See planned/unplanned.
A method used in dealing with something: approach, attack, course, line, modus operandi, procedure, tack, technique. See means.
Systematic arrangement and design: method, order, orderliness, organization, pattern, system, systematization, systemization. See order/disorder.
If all you want to do is obfuscate, then you could ignore the meaning in context. This is not a thread about "corrupt language," so your point about the dictionary is irrelevant here. I gave you what should have been a common definition distinguishing "approach" from "plan" for lack of a better word. Either you can accept the distinction for the purposes of this debate or you can insist on keeping the meaning of the word ambiguous for the purpose of obfuscating the debate. The choice is yours. For the purpose of this debate, an approach is between a goal and a plan. An approach is not disproved until all (not just some) optional plans based on that approach have been proven flawed.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:22 AM) *
But somehow I doubt if this will resolve anything...
It would prove who's the obfuscation king.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:22 AM) *
You are right...I do not agree with your approach unless it is part of a comprehensive effort...
"comprehensive effort" code word for amnesty. As long as you advocate amnesty, the argument is circular. We will have to agree to disagree.

My approach will not work with amnesty. I doubt any approach will. Every grant of amnesty only invites more illegal immigration hoping to be part of the next grant of amnesty. It's a spiraling problem.


I disagree -- amnesty with leaving the status quo I would agree...but amnesty with amending the laws to jack up the penalties - jacking up INS for employer enforcement of im laws and Border agents for securing the border -- establishing a National ID with funding... and providing for a change in laws regarding sending these people to jail -- instead just deporting them...would be more than just the status quo -- it would be a radical departure from the status quo -- and it would be calculated to get the most support from employers and politicans..
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jun 23 2008, 03:21 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 23 2008, 08:01 AM) *
We have a proponent of a number of solutions --- who wants the laws enforced --- and does not want the illegal immigrants deported or to have access to any taxpater funded resources and benefits -- so I guess the alternative is that the illegal immigrants who can not find employment are left on the streets to die wince they can not get money to get back to their country --- they cannot find employment and they cannot find refuge on the streets...
They found their way here with little or no money. They can find their way back with little or no money. It's easier to cross the border going back.




QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 23 2008, 08:01 AM) *
But Bill does not want to acknowledge that there are costs associated with these aprpoaches -- their administration (seeting up a national ID system) and implementation (training and hiring additional employer immigration inspectors) in order to make them effective ---costs which the federal government does not have at this moment --- additional costs that would need to be borne by the taxpayers --- but Bill is unwilling to even set a value at how much more he and his family are willing to be taxed to pay for these costs.
More lies and misrepresentation of my position. Do you even know how to debate an issue without attacking your opponent?

You keep saying that I don't want to acknowledge that there are costs. This is your obvious tactic of obfuscation. I know there are costs, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the cost outweigh the benefits. There are also the costs of doing nothing.

Again, neither you nor I are in a position to debate this issue over the dollar amounts. This is just your obfuscating tactic of pretending that we are, so you can change the subject. We both know that there will be cost. Stop pretending that you are capable of figuring out what the actual costs will be. You can't win a debate just by raising a question that neither you nor I know the answer to. If your so smart, answer your own questions. Show the math as to why you think my solution wouldn't work.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 23 2008, 08:01 AM) *
And then Blll does not want to acknowledge other costs --- he says he wants the laws enforced --- but he is unwilling to provide money to upgrade or modernize detention faciltiies so that people are not dying in them like they are now --- so that immigrants are treated humanely will they are awaiting deportation...
Is this all you know how to do? Misrepresent your opponents positions? You think just repeating the lies over and over again will make people believe them? How many times do I have to say that I am not for deportation. I don't think it's necessary. So your cost of detention facilities is irrelevant to anyone but you. You are the only one talking about deportation. Deportation was never part of my solution. The law enforcement I talk about is against employers and facilitators.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 23 2008, 08:01 AM) *
It just seems like a lot of questions that still have to be answered --- for Bill's approach to work --- but BIll sees these costs as straw men in the equation...
I guess you don't know what a straw-man argument is. The cost are not the straw-man. The cost are just you're way of changing the subject. The straw-men are the arguments and positions that you keep bringing up and falsely accusing your opponent has having those position. You can't debate directly against your opponents stated positions, so you fabricate positions that try to label them as your opponents position, like saying your opponent is for mass deportation when he is not. And it's getting old. Anyone can read your posts and see you doing this over and over again.

FOR THE LAST TIME. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT SOLVING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOUR AD HOMINEM DEBATE IF LOU HAS HIDDEN AGENDAS OR IS CREDIBLE REPORTER. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT HOW TO MAKE LIFE COMFORTABLE OR HUMANE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF YOU ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE SOLVING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, DON'T POST HERE. QUIT HIJACKING THE THREAD WITH YOUR OBFUSCATION BS!!! TRY STAYING ON F**ING TOPIC FOR ONCE!!!!


bill -- I think you forgot this post where you said you were not for deportation...
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jun 19 2008, 03:37 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 19 2008, 01:59 PM) *
This is particularly troublesome since persons like Lou Dobbs embrace massive deportation
This is the same straw-man lie that Obama told that got him on Lou's bad side. Show a Lou Dobbs quote that proves he embraces mass deportation.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 19 2008, 01:59 PM) *
The problem is how amnesty works. Say you get your national ID system. Thousands of immigrants are caught in the ID requirement and scheduled for deportation. How to we detain them if the conditions for detention now is such that people are dying?
We don't need to detain or deport. We just need to deny employment.


And this one....

See Bill -- I was not misrepresenting your position at all...

The law says we detain, deport or imprison...but that is not what you are advocating above...

I do accept your apology...though.
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 19 2009, 03:15 PM) *
bill -- I think you forgot this post where you said you were not for deportation...
I'm not. But our laws allow for deportation as a way of sending home every illegal immigrant. I don't think we need to deport those who haven't broken any laws besides illegally migrating. They will eventually go home, become citizens, or die off.

So as an overall solution, no, I'm not for deportation. As an option of law enforcement, yes, I'm for enforcing our existing laws, but I think the focus should be shifted towards employers. We don't have the resources or the will to deport every illegal immigrant. That's just a strawman position people like you use to advocate amnesty.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 19 2009, 03:18 PM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jun 19 2008, 03:37 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 19 2008, 01:59 PM) *
This is particularly troublesome since persons like Lou Dobbs embrace massive deportation
This is the same straw-man lie that Obama told that got him on Lou's bad side. Show a Lou Dobbs quote that proves he embraces mass deportation.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Jun 19 2008, 01:59 PM) *
The problem is how amnesty works. Say you get your national ID system. Thousands of immigrants are caught in the ID requirement and scheduled for deportation. How to we detain them if the conditions for detention now is such that people are dying?
We don't need to detain or deport. We just need to deny employment.


And this one....

See Bill -- I was not misrepresenting your position at all...

The law says we detain, deport or imprison...but that is not what you are advocating above...

I do accept your apology...though.
It's not a false dichotomy choice of amnesty or mass deportation. It's amnesty, mass deportation, or deportation of only those who are unbearable criminals for the time being.

So no apology necessary.
tazvil04
I did not misrepresent what you said bill...you can try and finesse it all you like...but that is the truth for all to see...

I did not think you would admit it...

But others can see for themselves...

The law says certain people must be deported and you do not favor deportation unless they commit a criminal act -- well that is not the law now..the law now is not only are they deported for being an illegal immigrant they are deported AFTER they serve a term in jail...

That is the law now...

You said you supported enforcement of the current law and the next minute you say you do not...that you only want to deport in certain circumstances which is not what the law says...

Do I have to post the circumstances warranting mandatory deportation for you AGAIN?
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 20 2009, 02:57 PM) *
I did not misrepresent what you said bill...you can try and finesse it all you like...but that is the truth for all to see...

I did not think you would admit it...

But others can see for themselves...

The law says certain people must be deported and you do not favor deportation unless they commit a criminal act -- well that is not the law now..the law now is not only are they deported for being an illegal immigrant they are deported AFTER they serve a term in jail...

That is the law now...

You said you supported enforcement of the current law and the next minute you say you do not...that you only want to deport in certain circumstances which is not what the law says...

Do I have to post the circumstances warranting mandatory deportation for you AGAIN?
Now you are just arguing in circles again. That's like saying that a detective doesn't want to enforce the law because he would rather spend time going after drug dealers than drug users.

If we had the means to enforce every single law in this country (including jaywalking or pulling off mattress tags), then we would. It doesn't mean we are against having those laws. It just means that we are being realistic about what is possible. It just means that we have priorities.

QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jun 24 2008, 03:34 PM) *
Let me explain how your premise is flawed. You are pretending that this is an all or none situation, that all the laws must be enforced or that it's as bad as none of the laws being enforced. That's just false. The law calls for everyone to drive the speed limit too. Why doesn't everyone who speeds get a ticket? Because not everyone needs to get a ticket in order to bring down the average speed on the freeway. Not every illegal immigrant needs to be deported for enough of them to go home. Take away there primary reason for being here (jobs for income), and the majority will go home.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jun 24 2008, 03:36 PM) *
This is your false dichotomy, either deport or amnesty. I say neither.

According to your dichotomy, whenever a law is not enforced, amnesty must be granted. If that were the case, the police would have to stop every car that was speeding on the freeway and either give them a fine or grant them amnesty.

You keep trying to pin the mass-deportation position on me because you know just how ridiculous it is. Give it up Taz. You must think the only way to win a debate is to misrepresent your opponents position. I'm not taking the bate.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jul 3 2008, 03:55 PM) *
No matter how many times you try to get me to accept your false dichotomy of either amnesty or mass deportation, I'm not taking the bait. Have you figured that out yet? Just as police don't have to stop and give every driver on the free way a ticket or amnesty for speeding, we don't have to deport or give amnesty to every illegal immigrant in the country.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Jul 22 2008, 03:38 PM) *
It's not a question of if you can allow discretion of law enforcement. It's a question of if you can stop discretion of law enforcement. There's no law that says that a cop can enforce speeding laws at his/her discretion either. But you keep ignoring this analogy because you can't dispute it.
It's amazing Taz, you forgot how many times we've went over this, with the speeding ticket analogy. You aren't even trying to win the debate anymore. You are just trying to get me to stick my foot in my mouth, hoping that if you raise the same issue enough times that I will eventually contradict myself. But instead, It just makes you look like an unrealistic fool for suggesting that law enforcement is an "all or none" dichotomy.

Oh, and BTW, don't bother repeating your hypothetical news report example in post #216. That was a weak dispute after the 4th time I brought up the analogy. Even if you deport the illegal employees found while busting an illegal employer, that would only account for a small percentage of illegal immigrants. Not every single one of them is employed at all times. That would be much less of a burden on law enforcement than hunting down illegal immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants would probably welcome the ride home once they knew that they were unemployable. This at least gives them time to pack.
tazvil04
Well, Bill here is some strong evidence for you that your lack of a deportation strategy will not work...

Illegal immigrants denied work are not heading home and will not head home...

This reality coupled with the danger of returning to Mexico...means that the only way to remove illegal immigrants is through deportation...which you continue to believe should not be emphasized, but rather resources should be shifted to going after employers...

March 22, 2009
A Slippery Place in the U.S. Work Force
By JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/22imm...agewanted=print

MORRISTOWN, Tenn. — The faithful stand and hold their hands high, raising a crescendo of prayer for abundance and grace. In the evangelical church where they are gathered, the folding chairs are filled with immigrants from Latin America.

Balbino López Hernández, who came here illegally from Mexico, closes his eyes to join the hallelujahs. But after the service Mr. López, 28, a factory worker who has been unemployed since June, shares his worries about jobs and immigration raids with other worshipers.

Like many places across the United States, this factory town in eastern Tennessee has been transformed in the last decade by the arrival of Hispanic immigrants, many of whom are in this country illegally. Thousands of workers like Mr. López settled in Morristown, taking the lowest-paying elbow-grease jobs, some hazardous, in chicken plants and furniture factories.

Now, with the economy spiraling downward and a crackdown continuing on illegal immigrants, many of them are learning how uncertain their foothold is in the work force in the United States.

The economic troubles are widening the gap between illegal immigrants and Americans as they navigate the job market. Many Americans who lost jobs are turning for help to the government’s unemployment safety net, with job assistance and unemployment insurance. But immigrants without legal status, by law, do not have access to it. Instead, as the recession deepens, illegal immigrants who have settled into American towns are receding from community life. They are clinging to low-wage jobs, often working more hours for less money, and taking whatever work they can find, no matter the conditions.

Despite the mounting pressures, many of the illegal immigrants are resisting leaving the country. After years of working here, they say, they have homes and education for their children, while many no longer have a stake to return to in their home countries.

“Most of the things I got are right here,” Mr. López said in English, which he taught himself to speak. “I got my family, my wife, my kids. Everything is here.”

Americans who are struggling for jobs move in a different world. Here, it revolves around the federally financed, fluorescent-lighted career center on Andrew Johnson Highway, a one-stop market for unemployment insurance and job retraining.

One worker who frequents the center is Joe D. Goodson Jr., 46, who was laid off more than a year ago from his job at a nearby auto parts plant. Born and raised in Morristown, Mr. Goodson said his savings had run low but his spirits were holding up, so far.

Through the career center, Mr. Goodson enrolled in retraining at a technology college. He believes that the government aid system, though inefficient and overwhelmed, will give him just enough support to survive the economic storm.

“I just try to look on the positive side always,” Mr. Goodson said. “Work hard. Things get bad? Work harder.”

What help there is for illegal immigrants in Morristown comes mainly from churches, like Centro Cristiano Betel Internacional, where Mr. López connects with a word-of-mouth network to find odd jobs.

Nationwide, Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, saw greater job loss in 2008 than did Hispanics born in the United States or black workers, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Nearly half of foreign-born Hispanics are illegal immigrants, according to the center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.

Some illegal immigrants who lost jobs here, mostly workers with families back home, have left the country. Most are determined to stay. Employers, wary of immigration agents, now insist workers have valid Social Security numbers. Mr. López, who does not have one, said, “Without the number, you are nothing in this country.”

Gaining a Foothold

In a paradox of globalization, immigrant workers moved from Mexico to Morristown just as many jobs were migrating from here to Mexico.

The influx here came as Hispanic immigrants were spreading across the United States, moving beyond traditional destinations in California and the Southwest to take jobs in the Northern Plains and deep into the South.

As recently as 2006 and 2007, more than 300,000 Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, were joining the United States labor force each year, drawn by jobs in meatpacking, construction and agriculture. They now make up nearly 8 percent of the work force.

In Morristown, a manufacturing city set among Appalachian farmland, the loss of jobs to Mexico and other countries with lower wages depressed local factory pay long before the immigrants appeared. But while the poorest American factory workers watched jobs leave, Americans with skills found new jobs in plants making auto parts, plastics and printing supplies.

The 1960 census did not record a single immigrant in Hamblen County, of which Morristown is the seat. By 2007, Hispanic immigrants and their families made up almost 10 percent of the county population of 61,829, having nearly doubled their numbers since 2000, census data show.

The immigrants started in tomato fields nearby, but by the late 1990s labor contractors were bringing migrant crews into town, to fill jobs in construction and at factories like two poultry plants belonging to Koch Foods, a company based in Illinois.

The result was a two-tier blue-collar work force. Hispanic immigrants — many hired through temporary staffing agencies that offered no vacation pay or health coverage — were on the bottom, in jobs where they faced little competition from Americans.

Prof. Chris Baker, a sociologist at Walters State Community College in Morristown, said many factories in the region had been able to hang on because of the immigrant workers. “The employers hire Latinos, and after that, they leave,” he said. “It goes from white to black to Latino to — gone.”

Some residents did not take kindly to the immigrants, especially the illegal ones. But their ire was not about jobs; it was mainly directed at the school board, for devoting tax money to an international center to help Spanish-speaking students learn English.

In the summer of 2006, one member of the Hamblen County Commission, Thomas E. Lowe, organized a demonstration against illegal immigrants in front of City Hall. It fizzled after the police, fearing disorder, turned out in a show of force.

Then the friction abated. The United Food and Commercial Workers won an organizing drive at Koch Foods by gaining the support of immigrants.

Mr. Lowe did not win re-election. The city chose a mayor, Barbara C. Barile, who describes herself as “an inclusive kind of person.” She created a diversity task force and proposed an annual immigrant fiesta. In December, she sent police officers to accompany a midnight procession through downtown honoring the Virgin of Guadalupe, the Mexican patroness.

But an immigration crackdown by state and federal authorities stirred the waters again.

A few years ago, even illegal immigrants in Tennessee could obtain driver’s licenses, buy cars, open bank accounts and take out mortgages. In 2006, the state canceled a program that authorized immigrants who were not legal residents to drive.

Cooperation increased between state and local police and federal immigration agents. For illegal immigrants, minor traffic stops could escalate and end in deportation. After immigration raids in the region, employers and temporary agencies started to give closer scrutiny to identity documents.

An Immigrant’s Life

One immigrant whose Morristown welcome ended abruptly was Balbino López Hernández.

After sneaking across the Arizona border at 17, he joined a brother who lived in Morristown. In 2004 he landed a job at Berkline, a furniture company known for reclining chairs whose headquarters are in town.

Mr. López earned a minimum of $8.85 an hour assembling heavy metal frames for chairs and sofas. But, like other immigrants here, he measured the job against pushing a plow in Mexico. By that standard, he said, it was a “blessing.”

At Berkline, seasoned American employees tended to avoid the physically demanding position in which Mr. López was placed, at the head of an assembly line. Mr. López loved the job, and before long he was one of the more productive workers on the floor. The high productivity of new immigrant workers was one reason employers like those in Morristown were glad to hire them, economists said.

Mr. López’s task was to swing metal bars into place, then use a noisy drill, over and over, to secure dozens of screws, nuts and washers. The bars had sharp edges, and his arms are covered with scars. Still, he was content because he set his own pace.

“Always,” he said, “I go to work and do my job and come home, to make myself happy and make them happy too.”

Though he is not a legal resident, Mr. López allowed his name and photograph to be published because his status is known to immigration authorities.

The assembly floor operated on an incentive system: the more frames Mr. López made, the more he earned. But his energy put pressure on others on the line, including some Americans who were not interested in doing more work without a raise.

Mr. López, shy and soft-spoken, did well at work but poorly in love. One girlfriend, an American, three weeks after giving birth to his son, Jacob, left Mr. López to raise the boy alone. Another took to drugs and was frequently in trouble with the police.

His luck changed when he met Brittany Martin, 18, a tall blonde with a level head. Last January, he decided to spruce up his cottage in preparation for marriage, so he picked up his speed at Berkline.

“I would get my sandwich and just eat there, eat and work,” Mr. López said. “I never stopped for nothing.” Soon he was producing three times his weekly quota of chair frames, sometimes making more than $1,000 a week, pay stubs show. Some Americans started to taunt him, calling him “money man.”

“Why does that Mexican make so much money?” Mr. López said one worker asked within earshot.

Not long after, on June 11, a senior manager summoned Mr. López, saying Berkline had been alerted that he might be an illegal immigrant. He confessed and was fired.

Mr. López believes that someone, perhaps a co-worker, turned him in. Two days later, the Morristown police, citing the false Social Security number he had presented at Berkline, arrested him on charges of criminal impersonation. Although those charges were soon dismissed for lack of evidence, the police reported Mr. López to federal immigration agents.

Dennis Carper, senior vice president for human resources at Berkline, confirmed that Mr. López had been terminated because of his invalid Social Security number. He said Berkline did not report Mr. López to the police.

Mr. López is now fighting deportation. He and Ms. Martin married in July and are expecting a child in May. He was released from detention to care for his wife and son, but since he was ordered deported before the wedding, it is not certain he will be able to stay.

While his immigration case proceeds, he remains unauthorized to apply for a job. He is scrounging for bits of work, fixing cars and patching roofs, and praying at Centro Betel. It is bad, he said, but Mexico would be worse. “In my country,” he said, “I’m just going to feed my family salt and tortillas.”

The Shadows

In some ways, since Mr. López no longer has to hide, he has advantages over many immigrants in Morristown.

Enrique C., 48, and his wife, Rita, 38, both illegal immigrants from Mexico, learned how vulnerable their livelihood here was when both of them lost their jobs in recent months. The couple, neither of whom speaks English, asked that their full names and photographs not be published because they feared detection by immigration authorities.

During the long nights of winter, after their sons, 12 and 13, finished their homework, they turned off all the lights in the cottage they own except one bulb and gathered around a space heater. On some nights cockroaches emerged, seeking the heat.

Rita had held night-shift jobs in sweltering factories and on the chilly deboning line in a Koch chicken plant. Since she worked mainly through temporary agencies, when the crunch came she was one of the first to go.

Her husband worked from 2001 until last August at Hardwoods of Morristown, a wood-floor maker, earning $8.75 an hour splitting planks with a whirring saw. For years Enrique liked his job, and his bosses praised him, he said, for doing the work of two men.

But over time he had run-ins with supervisors, starting when they disagreed over the treatment of a wrist injury.

He complained that splinters tore his gloves. Bathrooms were filthy, he said, and the plant posted a rule limiting when workers could use them. He took photographs of clogged toilets and collected bagfuls of ragged gloves.

After seven years, Enrique, who admits he can be ornery, lost his temper one day and insulted the plant manager. The official separation notice states that he was fired for insubordination. Tim Elliott, a top executive at Hardwoods, wrote in an e-mail message that a worker who “refuses to do a task assigned to him” would disrupt the teamwork the company requires.

“They fired me because I started to make demands,” Enrique said.

Once defiant, Enrique now lives looking over his shoulder and avoiding confrontation. Although his driver’s license has expired, he drives a carpool with three other workers for an hour twice a day to a job he found through a temporary agency in a furniture factory for $7 an hour.

It is a job he cannot lose. He has a mortgage to pay, and he is determined to see his sons go to college. “We’re going to go along very quietly,” Enrique said. “We don’t want to be deported.”

The Americans

At the Five Rivers Regional Career Center, the cubicles of computers with free Internet are filled every day with anxious job seekers. For several weeks in January, phones the state set up to receive applications for unemployment insurance were inundated, often giving callers only busy signals. Career center staff members did their best to help, but more than one of them said they had taken a “cussing ” from a desperate worker.

For Joe Goodson, however, the recession is old news. He was laid off in December 2007, along with 67 other workers, after 17 years at the Morristown plant of the Lear Corporation, which makes auto seats.

One day at the career center, Mr. Goodson, a welder and United Automobile Workers member, spoke with pride of his skills. He started out as a manual welder, but through retraining he learned how to operate the metal stamping press he was running, for $17.80 an hour, when the layoffs came.

Mr. Goodson said he watched the Lear work force shrink over the years, as the company installed robots and sent manual welding work to a plant in Mexico. These days, he said, managers are only “thinking about self.”

“It’s gone away from the team thing,” he said.

Four months after being laid off, he took an offer for retraining at the Tennessee Technology Center in Morristown, where he is studying coils and coolants to become an air-conditioning technician.

Through the career center, he collects unemployment insurance and a gas allowance, and his tuition is paid by federal Trade Adjustment Assistance funds, which support workers laid off when jobs move overseas. He squeaks by on odd jobs he does for his parents, both retired.

“I’ve never seen a car that didn’t have a seat,” said Mr. Goodson, who still believes that Lear will one day call him back. If not, he is ready to put his new skills to use in another career.

Because of the government support and retraining, Mr. Goodson is not considering the low-paying manufacturing jobs that Morristown’s immigrants hold.

“I’m not too good to do any job that another man would do,” Mr. Goodson said. “But I’ve got many other skills.”

Other Americans in tougher spots who visited the career center said those jobs were their last resort. Donnie Parker, 45, was laid off in September from his $14-an-hour job as a skilled machine mechanic at a Koch poultry plant.

Because of a bureaucratic snag, Mr. Parker has not been able to collect unemployment insurance. After paying a mortgage for 13 years, he missed three payments and lost his house in December. He and his teenage son moved in with his 72-year-old mother. He borrowed from his sister to buy gas to make the trip to the career center. He traded his new truck for an older one, then the old truck’s transmission gave out.

His only defense against the calamity is a wry laugh.

Like Mr. Goodson, Mr. Parker sees a narrow path opening before him through the unemployment system: he recently received a retraining grant. With food stamps and his income tax refund, he might just make it.

While he is waiting for school to begin, Mr. Parker is adopting a new strategy. He decided last week to apply for a few minimum-wage factory jobs that were advertised at the center, after having avoided them until now.

“I didn’t know it would get this bad and last this long,” Mr. Parker said. “Seven dollars is better than no dollars.”

Even in the recession, he said, it would not make financial sense for him to stay for long in that kind of job. “With my kid, I can’t live on a minimum-wage job,” Mr. Parker said. “There is no goal to reach. You’re pretty much stuck.”

Although Koch has hired more Americans this year for its poultry production lines, Mr. Parker is not thinking of going back there in a low-end job. “It’s nasty and cold,” he said.

Hanging On

As the recession worsens here — unemployment in this region was 11.2 percent in January, compared with 8.5 percent nationwide — Americans and immigrants are struggling, separately, to hold on to their gains. To date, tensions over jobs have not surfaced.

Melissa B. Reynolds, the coordinator for the career center, said Americans worried about receiving their benefits and getting help finding new jobs, not about competition from immigrants.

“We don’t have anyone that has any beefs with the Latino population that I’ve seen come and go through here,” Ms. Reynolds said.

If the slump is long, unemployment benefits run out and the safety net wears thin, that could change. Across the country, in an industry like construction with large numbers of Hispanic immigrants where job losses have been especially steep, the fight for jobs could produce conflict.

Demetrios G. Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research center, said that if Americans were forced to take jobs below their expectations for too long, competition — and animus — could increase.

“American people who are hurting economically for a long while may start to identify immigrants as the cause of that pain,” Mr. Papademetriou said.

Mr. Parker, though he is hurting, said he did not look to place blame. “It’s not Hispanics I’m competing with,” he said. “It’s everybody. I’m not angry at no one who’s trying to find a job and work. They’re doing the same thing I’m doing.”


tazvil04
Bill:

Here is how you are wrong on the deportation issue...

Presently, US law requires deportation in a number of circumstances...

You stress that deportation would not be a "priority" for you -- meaning you would not emphasize deportation...

But not only is deportation in these instances the law -- but there is another aspect of US law which you conveniently ignore -- not only are illegal immigrants deported but they are sent to jail for six to 18 months...

You would like to avoid these hard realities regarding how your "approach" would not work by obfuscating...with your suggestion that I am arguing in cricles...

But it is apparent that you are the one arguing in circles...by suggesting that you support enforcing the law -- but then you deny the reality that enforcing the law provides...namely that persons caught when immigration laws are enforced against employers must be deported...AND that such deportation carries with it not only deportatioin of the illegal immigrant by taxpayer money -- BUT also often incarceration for the crime of being here illegally in the US -- because under the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress the immigration laws were made more stringent requiring jail time for illegal immigrants...just by virtue of being in this country illegally...

So, nice try at distracting us from a major defect in your plan...but as you should know by now...we can see right through such obfuscation...on your part...
tazvil04
As for the hypothetical news report Bill...

Its emblematic of your problem...you do not read the entire post...indeed there was a hypothetical news report...

AND then there were TWO real news reports...regarding mandatory deportation...but as usual you chose to disregard the real news reports regarding mandatory deportation and focus on the hypothetical...which is curious because you have always put yourself out there as someone who is searching for the truth...

You want me to publish more...

I can do that...

Maybe you only search for the truth so long as it does not contradict your various "approaches" on issues...

You just want to keep dealing with your conceptual world instead of the real world...

Well, Bill -- here's a newsflash for you...laws are passed in the real world...and they do not become laws without being fleshed out to fit reality...rarely do laws in Congress on major issues get enacted without comprehensively addressing the issue as I have stated...because Congress does not have time to keep amending laws -- and amending laws and amending laws...and doing piecemeal solutions...so they address them in a wholesale manner...

Your approach fails because it fails to address real world problems regarding immigration...like the widespread criminalization of immigration in this country and the subsequent detention, jailing, and deportation that is taking place...like the defects in the E-verify system...like the fact that without deportation illegal immigrants are not leaving and if they are not deported are more likely to turn to crime like other persons in poor areas do participating more and more in the underground economy...

And Bill why don't you address my complete replies instead of just the parts you think you can rebut....am I to take your failure to rebut the other parts as concessions on your part?







billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 08:41 AM) *
Well, Bill here is some strong evidence for you that your lack of a deportation strategy will not work...

Illegal immigrants denied work are not heading home and will not head home...

This reality coupled with the danger of returning to Mexico...means that the only way to remove illegal immigrants is through deportation...which you continue to believe should not be emphasized, but rather resources should be shifted to going after employers...
First, it's not a "lack of a deportation strategy." It's a "crack down harder on employer strategy." The deportation laws will remain as is.

Second, It's not going to work overnight. It's just like Obama's investment in education and infrastructure won't turn the economy around overnight. It's going to take 50 states to crack down harder on employers before all the jobs for illegal immigrants disappear. And then they will have no reason to stay. Until every county in all 50 states crack down on employers, illegal immigrants will just move from county to county or from state to state.
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 09:08 AM) *
As for the hypothetical news report Bill...

Its emblematic of your problem...you do not read the entire post...indeed there was a hypothetical news report...

AND then there were TWO real news reports...regarding mandatory deportation...but as usual you chose to disregard the real news reports regarding mandatory deportation and focus on the hypothetical...which is curious because you have always put yourself out there as someone who is searching for the truth...

...And Bill why don't you address my complete replies instead of just the parts you think you can rebut....am I to take your failure to rebut the other parts as concessions on your part?
Because most of your replies are obfuscating, circular, irrelevant, or amnesia. You keep rebutting with details and refusing to accept that I've only offered a general approach.

You are acting like graham by thinking you've won a debate because someone doesn't have time to reply to all your foolish circular arguments.

I only addressed your hypothetical news report because that was the only attempt you made to address my speeding ticket analogy. All the rest of your news reports are about failures of plans, not failures of my approach. The approach isn't a failure in the real world until the real world tries every possible plan based on that approach. Nobody has even started my approach until there is a harder crackdown on employers. That hasn't happened yet. And you are part of the problem by suggesting that we need to appease employers.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 08:13 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 08:41 AM) *
Well, Bill here is some strong evidence for you that your lack of a deportation strategy will not work...

Illegal immigrants denied work are not heading home and will not head home...

This reality coupled with the danger of returning to Mexico...means that the only way to remove illegal immigrants is through deportation...which you continue to believe should not be emphasized, but rather resources should be shifted to going after employers...
First, it's not a "lack of a deportation strategy." It's a "crack down harder on employer strategy." The deportation laws will remain as is.

Second, It's not going to work overnight. It's just like Obama's investment in education and infrastructure won't turn the economy around overnight. It's going to take 50 states to crack down harder on employers before all the jobs for illegal immigrants disappear. And then they will have no reason to stay. Until every county in all 50 states crack down on employers, illegal immigrants will just move from county to county or from state to state.


First, it is a lack of a deportation strategy because the federal law right now provides for the deportation of illegal immigrants after serving jail time for their illegal immigration...without any underlying criminal act...other than entering the country illegally. I have posted other articles on just this reality.
The federal government has criminalized illegal immigration. Now, if you want the crackdown on employers to increase beyond where it is today, this is going to mean that that many more illegal immigrants are sent to prison and then deported. That costs money.

This is what the law is today. Today Bill...

If the laws remain the same, then more immigrants will be in jail than ever and our jails will be even more overcrowded than ever -- and more taxpayer dollars are going to be need to be spent than ever to finance their prison stays and eventual deportation...if you do not want people deported or put in prison for the sole act of illegal immigration then you need to change the law...

And, as you can see there is little incentive for them to leave now in harsh economic times...so how do you think the incentive is going to be that great in better economic times?

Its not. They will stay here...and do other odd jobs...

Administering justice to criminal aliens costs the taxpayer dearly.



Incarceration of criminal aliens cost an estimated $624 million to state prisons (1999) and $891 million to federal prisons (2002), according to the most recent available figure from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.



The New York State Senate Committee on Cities estimates that the annual criminal justice costs for criminal aliens in New York is $270 million. The Committee has called for a national moratorium on immigration to help alleviate this problem.3 According to the Illinois Governor's Office, Illinois spends over $40 million just on the incarceration of criminal aliens. The cost to Florida's judicial and correction system for criminal aliens was $73 million in 1993. 4 In 1988, there were 5,500 illegal immigrants in California's prisons. By fiscal year 1994- 1995, that is estimated to have increased to more than 18,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons—a three-fold increase. California taxpayers have spent over a billion dollars in the last five years to keep these convicted felons in prison, and the FY 9495 cost of incarcerating these offenders exceeded $375 million.5 The federal government has begun to reimburse heavily alien-impacted states for some of the costs of illegal alien prisoners in their state prisons. For 1996, Congress appropriated $300 million for this program.


http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...ssuecenters0b9c

Even with the requirement though that illegals be deported...there is not enough money to deport them...

U.S. Unable to Deport Most Illegal Immigrants Who Commit Crimes

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...6g&refer=us
By Jeff Bliss

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Ezeiquiel Lopez already had a rap sheet that stretched all the way to Texas when, police said, he shot Kenosha County, Wisconsin, Deputy Sheriff Frank Fabiano in the head, killing him.

Lopez, 45, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was free at the time of the May shooting, after having been jailed for two prior violent crimes. By law, he should have been deported, but federal immigration authorities didn't know he had been in custody, and state and local police didn't tell them.

The case isn't an exception. Fewer than half the foreigners convicted of crimes in the U.S. -- most of whom are in the country illegally -- are deported after serving their sentences, according to the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.

Cases like Lopez's point up holes in the nation's overwhelmed immigration system, said Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat who heads a panel overseeing Homeland Security Department funding. ``There's no convincing case for putting anything higher on the priority list in terms of deportation than persons who've committed crimes,'' Price said.

With the failure in the Senate of the immigration bill, which would have expanded a program to deport criminal aliens, Price is sponsoring a plan to increase spending to identify and expel such immigrants by 31 percent, to $180 million.

Monthly Checks

Price's legislation, which passed the House June 15, would require the immigration agency to check monthly with the nation's prisons and jails to get an up-to-date number of incarcerated illegal immigrants. Another provision in the legislation would expand a program to deputize local and state police to help identify potential deportees among people they arrest.

The push comes after the U.S. launched highly publicized raids rounding up farm hands, meatpackers and textile workers -- few of whom have criminal backgrounds -- for deportation.

None of the 1,300 workers arrested at meatpacker Swift & Co.'s Greeley, Colorado, plant in December and the 360 arrested in March at New Bedford, Massachusetts-based textile maker Michael Bianco Inc. had been charged with a violent crime, said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Raimondi said the Bush administration isn't ignoring criminal immigrants, and that such raids often uncover illegal activity, such as money-laundering and identity theft. The administration is requesting a $29 million boost for the criminal-deportation program in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, a 21 percent increase from its current $137 million budget.

`Adding Resources'

``We've been adding resources,'' said John Torres, director of U.S. detention and removal operations.

The Homeland Security inspector general's report estimates there are currently 302,500 deportable immigrants in American jails and prisons. Identifying candidates for deportation isn't easy, though: They're scattered among 5,033 prisons and jails, some run by the federal government, some by states and some, as in Kenosha County, by localities.

``This problem has become so large that the federal government can't handle it alone,'' said Sheriff Jim Pendergraph of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, which since last year has identified 2,100 people for deportation by working with the federal government.

Torres says the inspector general's figures on deportations are out of date, and says he's in the middle of a review to figure how to better foster communications between federal officials and the prisons and jails. Even so, he says, he has only enough staff to cover half of those facilities.

Federal Focus

Torres is focusing on federal prisons, where 27 percent of those incarcerated were born in other countries, according to the Government Accountability Office. In 2006, the U.S. sent 88,830 criminal immigrants back to their native countries with the help of agents and judges who work within prison walls to speed up the deportation process. About 107,000 non-criminal aliens were also deported.

Price said Torres's strategy overlooks illegal immigrants in state and local prisons and jails, which make up 93 percent of the country's facilities.

In Kenosha County, officers stopped alerting immigration officials about aliens in custody during the 1980s because federal budget cuts left no money for the deportations, said Captain Gary Preston, head of the local jail. ``Law enforcement just got into the habit of not bothering,'' he said.

Resuming Contact

In 2005, Lopez twice pleaded guilty to battery in Kenosha County circuit court, and spent nearly nine months in the county jail. Kenosha County Jail officials didn't resume informing immigration officials about foreign-born inmates until November 2006 at the urging of federal officials, Preston said. That was 2 1/2 months after Lopez was released, according to jail records.

On May 16, Lopez, fueled by tequila and $200 worth of cocaine, allegedly shot Fabiano three times after the officer ordered him out of the van he was driving, according to court records. Fred Cohn, Lopez's attorney, said his client isn't guilty.

Lopez is now set to be processed for deportation regardless of the outcome of his trial, said Michael Keegan, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

To contact the reporters on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: July 6, 2007 00:06 EDT
billfmsd
Taz, you've just made the case for why the cost of law enforcement will go up no matter who we crack down on. You did not make the case for why shifting the focus from illegal immigrants to illegal employers would be less cost-effective than what you are advocating.

Try again.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 08:28 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 09:08 AM) *
As for the hypothetical news report Bill...

Its emblematic of your problem...you do not read the entire post...indeed there was a hypothetical news report...

AND then there were TWO real news reports...regarding mandatory deportation...but as usual you chose to disregard the real news reports regarding mandatory deportation and focus on the hypothetical...which is curious because you have always put yourself out there as someone who is searching for the truth...

...And Bill why don't you address my complete replies instead of just the parts you think you can rebut....am I to take your failure to rebut the other parts as concessions on your part?
Because most of your replies are obfuscating, circular, irrelevant, or amnesia. You keep rebutting with details and refusing to accept that I've only offered a general approach.

You are acting like graham by thinking you've won a debate because someone doesn't have time to reply to all your foolish circular arguments.

I only addressed your hypothetical news report because that was the only attempt you made to address my speeding ticket analogy. All the rest of your news reports are about failures of plans, not failures of my approach. The approach isn't a failure in the real world until the real world tries every possible plan based on that approach. Nobody has even started my approach until there is a harder crackdown on employers. That hasn't happened yet. And you are part of the problem by suggesting that we need to appease employers.


bill I am not acting like I have won anything...the only way to "win" anything is if you concede - which I find highly unlikely...given your past performance...

So, you can try and disparage me all you like -- but the purpose of my posts are to keep you honest...

You suggested that I was misrepresenting your point on deportation...I was not...

You have the circular argument that you are for enforcing the rule of law, but are not for deportation, even though deportation is required by law in many instances...you think that the law allows you some flexibility regarding deportation which it does not...the flexibility comes in financially as I have demonstrated above as states do not have the revenue to deport illegal aliens after incarceration and as a result they just release them...

And bill -- I assume you have been in this real world about as long as I have...and your idea about your approach not being a failure until every possible alternative regarding it is tried is a fantasy...where do you come up with this stuff...you sound like the Bush Administration...well you didn't try it just like I said to do it so the fact that it failed is no reflection on me...this is just zany...

Well, Bill like it or not they are cracking down on employers a lot more my friend...where have you been? I have been posting stuff about the crackdown on employers and the E-verify system for months now...and you are unaware of the crackdown on employers?

Volume 16, Number 6 July/August 2007The Immigration Crackdown on Employers The government steps up work site enforcement By Roger Tsai After years of neglect, the federal government is once again serious about cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers. For businesses like Kawasaki's, one of Baltimore's best-known sushi restaurants, the increased enforcement has forced their business into bankruptcy. The two owners allegedly hired 24 undocumented workers and provided them with housing in order to maximize profits and exploit illegal labor. In April 2006, the two owners were arrested and charged with money laundering and alien harboring, crimes that carry penalties of 10 years' imprisonment. Ultimately, the owners were forced to forfeit $380,000 in cash, two restaurant properties, and six vehicles.

Businesses like Kawasaki's represent a growing trend. In 2006, immigration officials conducted raids on large corporations such as Swift & Company, the third largest meat packing company in the United States; IFCO Systems, one of the largest pallet manufacturers in the United States; and Fischer Homes, the leading homebuilder in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. In the past year, criminal work site arrests of employers and employees increased fourfold, and the numbers are likely to continue increasing in 2007. The White House plans on doubling the number of investigative agents and dedicating an additional $41.7 million toward work site enforcement.

The message is clear: regardless of the size of your company or the industry your business is in, it is increasingly likely that your business could be the target of a civil or criminal immigration investigation. More importantly, federal agents are shifting from civil fines toward tougher criminal charges such as harboring, money laundering, and alien smuggling to hold small business owners, human resource specialists, and even corporate executives accountable.

Swift & Company

Immediately after September 11, work site enforcement concentrated around high-security areas such as airports, nuclear power plants, and military bases. Now, federal agents are casting an ever-widening net over employers in low-wage sectors such as the construction, hospitality, and restaurant industries. Most recently, in December 2006, production at Swift & Company was brought to a grinding halt when federal agents raided six Midwest plants and arrested over 1,200 employees.

Swift & Company is a prime example of the problems facing employers. As John Shandley, vice president of Swift, stated to Congress, "employers like Swift who are trying to abide by the law are not the problem in the immigration reform debate—the current immigration system is the problem." Swift had gone well beyond the obligations required of employers by carefully scrutinizing documents and being one of the first voluntary participants in a new online program to verify workers called the "Basic Pilot" program. This diligence to ensure a legal workforce was used to such an extent that, in 2002, the Department of Justice brought a $2 million discrimination lawsuit against Swift for excessively scrutinizing documents of individuals who looked or sounded "foreign." Since federal immigration laws prohibit employers from considering foreign appearance, accents, or national origin in their hiring practices, Swift was accused of discriminating on the basis of nationality.

In February 2006, two employees of Swift were picked up on deportation charges and admitted to illegally working at Swift. This ultimately led to a string of investigations that resulted in the multistate immigration raid. In December 2006, armed federal agents surrounded and raided the Swift plants, and, within a day, Swift lost 40 percent of its labor force and over $30 million in production capacity.

I-9 Forms and Basic Pilot

The issue of enforcing who may lawfully work has been delegated to employers. Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all employers must verify the employment eligibility of their workers through the use of I-9 forms. Employers are required to complete each form, review original documents such as a Social Security card or driver's license, and retain the form. The problem with this strategy is that no employer can be a document expert on the over 20 documents that are acceptable to show work authorization. Ultimately, the federal government turned toward technology to provide a solution.

Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has offered a free online verification program to employers called "Basic Pilot," and, currently, 13,000 employers participate in the program. Once employers are registered, they enter the Social Security number and name of the employee into the Web-based program, and within seconds will get confirmation on work eligibility.

After the Swift raids, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "If you enter into Basic Pilot and you do it in good faith, that will protect you against criminal and civil liability." Using Basic Pilot does not create bulletproof liability protection, but an employer using Basic Pilot establishes a rebuttable presumption that the employer has not violated the immigration laws for that worker. One major flaw in the program is that it cannot detect when prospective workers are using fraudulent documents, as shown in the Swift raids.

The Basic Pilot program is not currently mandatory but may be in the future. Both of the 2005 immigration bills considered in the U.S. House and Senate required the use of Basic Pilot for all employers, but neither bill was enacted as law.

Social Security No-Match Letters

Every year, hundreds of thousands of employers receive notification that their employees have incorrect Social Security numbers. Last April, seven managers of IFCO Systems, the largest pallet services company in the country, were arrested on criminal charges for failing to terminate workers after being repeatedly notified that more than half of IFCO's workers had invalid or mismatched the Social Security numbers. Because the Social Security Administration (SSA) is often the first government agency to give an employer notice of unauthorized employment, immigration agents often consider an employer's response to such notice in determining good faith compliance with immigration laws.

The SSA issues no-match letters when the employee name and Social Security number provided on the W-2 form conflict with the SSA's records. In 2003, the SSA sent 126,250 no-match letters to employers that corresponded to about 7.5 million incorrect W-2s. Many employers find the no-match letters confusing because they instruct employers not to fire a worker solely on the basis of the letter, but failure to follow up with the SSA may be deemed as constructive knowledge of unauthorized employment.

On June 8, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed regulation describing the steps an employer should take after receiving a Social Security no-match letter. Employers who receive no-match letters should not terminate an employee solely on the basis of the letter. Rather, employers must (1) attempt to resolve the discrepancy within 14 days, and (2) reverify employment authorization through the I-9 form within 63 days. If the employer completes a new I-9 form for the employee, it should use the same procedures as if the employee were newly hired, except documents presented for both identity and employment (1) must not contain the Social Security number or alien number and (2) must contain a photograph. While this is a proposed regulation, it represents the Department of Homeland Security's view of an employer's current obligations. It is critical that employers respond correctly, as failure to respond may indicate an employer's noncompliance.

Conclusion

With an estimated 12 million undocumented workers and only 300 agents tasked with finding them, it is unlikely that federal agents will raid your client's workplace tomorrow. What employers will see are stiff penalties against egregious employers in an effort to encourage self-policing by employers. The congressional debates on immigration reform will only cause worksite enforcement to intensify in 2007. As with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which legalized millions of workers while imposing new obligations on employers, any new immigration reform bill will likely impose a higher standard of due diligence required of employers. The government's renewed enforcement efforts now make simple precautionary measures such as internal audits and strict compliance with I-9 related regulations more important than ever. One hundred ninety-nine bills relating to work site enforcement have been introduced in 41 states. Below are the states that have passed legislation:
  • Arkansas: Act 157—March 1, 2007. Requires contractors and subcontractors to certify workers.
  • Colorado: HB 1343—Aug. 7, 2006. Makes Basic Pilot mandatory for public contractors.
  • Colorado: HB 1001—Oct. 1, 2006. Requires contractors to verify work status before applying for economic development incentive awards.
  • Colorado: HB 1017—Jan. 1, 2007. All employers in Colorado must complete an additional Affirmation of Legal Work Status within 20 days of hire.
  • Georgia: SB 529—July 1, 2007. Requires public employers, contractors, and subcontractors to use Basic Pilot on a phased basis.
  • Idaho: Exec. Order 2006-40—Dec. 13, 2006. Makes Basic Pilot mandatory for public contractors and state agencies. </B>
  • Louisiana: SB 753—June 24, 2006. Allows state agencies to investigate hiring policies of contractors.
  • Pennsylvania: HB 2319—July 1, 2006. Requires violating contractors to repay loans or grants to the state and prohibits bidding for two years after violation.
  • Tennessee: HB 111—Jan. 1, 2007. Prohibits contractors from contracting with state agencies for one year after the discovery that the contractor employs illegal immigrants.
  • West Virginia: SB 70—June 18, 2007. Revokes contractor's license for immigration violations.
Tsai is an immigration attorney specializing in work site enforcement with the Salt Lake City-based firm of Parsons Behle & Latimer. His e-mail is rtsai@parsonsbehle.com. http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2007-07-08/tsai.shtml

July 6, 2008
Employers Fight Tough Measures on Immigration
By JULIA PRESTONUnder pressure from the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in two decades, employers across the country are fighting back in state legislatures, the federal courts and city halls.

Business groups have resisted measures that would revoke the licenses of employers of illegal immigrants. They are proposing alternatives that would revise federal rules for verifying the identity documents of new hires and would expand programs to bring legal immigrant laborers.

Though the pushback is coming from both Democrats and Republicans, in many places it is reopening the rift over immigration that troubled the Republican Party last year. Businesses, generally Republican stalwarts, are standing up to others within the party who accuse them of undercutting border enforcement and jeopardizing American jobs by hiring illegal immigrants as cheap labor.

Employers in Arizona were stung by a law passed last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature that revokes the licenses of businesses caught twice with illegal immigrants. They won approval in this year’s session of a narrowing of that law making clear that it did not apply to workers hired before this year.

Last week, an Arizona employers’ group submitted more than 284,000 signatures — far more than needed — for a November ballot initiative that would make the 2007 law even friendlier to employers.

Also in recent months, immigration bills were defeated in Indiana and Kentucky — states where control of the legislatures is split between Democrats and Republicans — due in part to warnings from business groups that the measures could hurt the economy.

In Oklahoma, chambers of commerce went to federal court and last month won an order suspending sections of a 2007 state law that would require employers to use a federal database to check the immigration status of new hires. In California, businesses have turned to elected officials, including the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, to lobby federal immigration authorities against raiding long-established companies.

While much of the employer activity has been at the grass-roots level, a national federation has been created to bring together the local and state business groups that have sprung up over the last year.

“These employers are now starting to realize that nobody is in a better position than they are to make the case that they do need the workers and they do want to be on the right side of the law,” said Tamar Jacoby, president of the new federation, ImmigrationWorks USA.

After years of laissez-faire enforcement, federal immigration agents have been conducting raids at a brisk pace, with 4,940 arrests in workplaces last year. Although immigration has long been a federal issue, more than 175 bills were introduced in states this year concerning the employment of immigrants, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

State lawmakers said they had acted against businesses, often in response to fervent demands from voters, to curb job incentives that were attracting shadow populations of illegal immigrants.

“Illegal immigration is a threat to the safety of Missouri families and the security of their jobs,” Gov. Matt Blunt, a Republican, said after the Missouri Legislature passed a crackdown law in May. “I am pleased that lawmakers heeded my call to continue the fight where Washington has failed to act.”

But because of the mobilization of businesses, the state proposals this year have increasingly reflected their concerns. State lawmakers “are starting to be more responsive to the employer community because of its engagement in the issue,” said Ann Morse, who monitors immigration for the national legislature conference.

The offensive by businesses has been spurred by the federal enforcement crackdown, by inaction in Congress on immigration legislation and by a rush of punitive state measures last year that created a checkerboard of conflicting requirements. Many employers found themselves on the political defensive as they grappled, even in an economic downturn, with shortages of low-wage labor.

Mike Gilsdorf, the owner of a 37-year-old landscaping nursery in Littleton, Colo., saw the need for action by businesses last winter when he advertised with the Labor Department, as he does every year, for 40 seasonal workers at market-rate wages to plant, prune and carry his shrubs in the summer heat. Only one local worker responded to the notice, he said, and then did not show up for the job.

Mr. Gilsdorf was able to fill his labor force with legal immigrants from Mexico through a federal guest worker program. But that program has a tight annual cap, and Mr. Gilsdorf realized that he might not be so lucky next year. His business could fail, he said, and then even his American workers would lose their jobs.

“We’re not hiring illegals, we’re not paying under the table,” Mr. Gilsdorf said. “But if we don’t get in under the cap and nobody is answering our ads, we don’t have employees.” His group, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, is pressing Congress for a much larger and more flexible guest worker program.

Unhappy California businesses won the support of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, who wrote a letter in March to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff criticizing immigration agents for aiming raids at “established, responsible employers” in the city and urging him to focus on those with a record of labor violations.

In Virginia, an employers’ coalition headed off bills that would have closed businesses that hire illegal immigrants and would have required all employers to participate in the federal system to check the working papers of new hires, which is known as E-Verify. Business groups nationwide oppose mandatory use of the system, which is now voluntary, because they say the Social Security Administration database it draws upon is full of errors that could lead to job denials for American citizens and legal immigrants and bureaucratic overload for the agency.

Virginia employers said they learned a lesson last year after the broad immigration bill they supported failed in Congress.

“The silent masses of businesses out there should have been on the phone with their Congressional representatives calling for rational reform,” said Hobey Bauhan, president of the Virginia Poultry Federation, whose members include some of the biggest low-wage employers in the state. Virginia lawmakers ultimately adopted verification rules aimed at employers who systematically hire illegal immigrants.

In this legislative session, Arizona businesses rallied behind a bill to create what would have been the first state guest worker program in the country. Their advertising campaign used the slogan “What part of legal don’t you understand?” — a tweak of the battle cry of their opponents, who use the same phrase with the word “illegal.”

Arizona employers said they knew that passage would be difficult for the bill, because only the federal government can issue visas to immigrant workers.

Although the bill never came to a vote, employers said the debate helped make their views known in Washington.

“It’s a message to the federal government,” said Joe Sigg, director of government relations for the Arizona Farm Bureau, “that we need a legal and reliable means to recruit workers.”

Employers’ groups have not succeeded everywhere. Under a bill passed this year, Mississippi is the first state to make it a felony for an illegal immigrant to work. The measure also allows terminated employees to sue their employer if they were replaced by an illegal immigrant.

President Bush on June 9 ordered all federal contractors to check new workers with E-Verify. The administration is pressing forward with a rule that would pressure employers to fire within 90 days any worker whose identity information does not match the records of the Social Security Administration, as frequently happens with illegal immigrants. The first version of the rule was held up last year by a federal court injunction.

While many businesses have come forward, they say they speak for many others with immigrant workers that are lying low after finding that the crackdown has left them in a perilous legal bind. While raids and sanctions are increasing, employers with low-wage immigrant workers are barred by antidiscrimination rules from examining identity documents of new hires too closely or checking the immigration status of employees after they have been hired.

“The problem for business is that despite their complete compliance with the law, it is inevitable for employers with large numbers of immigrant workers that a certain percentage will be unauthorized workers using false documents,” said Peter Schey, a lawyer who represents two California companies facing scrutiny by federal immigration agents. “The system is just as broken for employers as it is for immigrants.”

One employer facing this problem is the chief executive of a $20 million company on the outskirts of Los Angeles that assembles electronic parts. She said she had come to fear that her company — including its legal workers — is at risk of being crippled by an immigration raid.

The executive spoke on the condition that neither she nor her company be identified by name, for fear of attracting immigration authorities.

A human resources manager who worked for the company a decade ago hired a number of workers without conducting an extra check of their documents with the Social Security Administration, the executive said. Now she has received notices from the agency of mismatches in the identity documents of 20 workers who were hired 10 years ago, out of 90 workers on the assembly floor today.

Because of the antidiscrimination rules, the executive cannot check to be certain that the 20 workers, mainly Hispanic women, are illegal. Moreover, they have advanced through training, she said, and excel at their jobs, which require the repetitive assembly of tiny parts by hand, often under microscopes.

“I can’t replace those people,” the executive said. She said that despite offering competitive wages from $9 to $17 an hour, the company had failed over the years in repeated efforts to attract nonimmigrant workers because of the state’s tight technology labor market and because of the nature of the work, exacting and tedious. If the workers were fired or arrested, she said, she could fail to meet her contracts.

“If we have to terminate 20 people, that’s going to jeopardize 100 other jobs of people who are legal, Americans, people who are making a good living,” she said.

Angelo Paparelli, an immigration lawyer who represents the company, said: “This is not an employer who wants to turn a blind eye to lawbreaking. She is facing a tightening of the enforcement vise that does not take into account Congress’s failure to create a workable system.”

California employers were shocked by the raid earlier this year at Micro Solutions Enterprises, an established manufacturer of printer cartridges that is based in Los Angeles and has more than 800 workers. Officials said 138 workers were arrested. In a message to his customers, Avi Wazana, the Micro Solutions owner, said the company had been verifying the legal status of all new hires through federal programs for nearly a year.

Bush administration officials said the crackdown was the price employers must pay to persuade voters to agree to open the gates to immigrant workers. In an interview, Mr. Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, said, “We are not going to be able to satisfy the American people on a legal temporary worker program until they are convinced that we will have a stick as well as a carrot.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/us/06emp...agewanted=print
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 03:29 PM) *
but are not for deportation, even though deportation is required by law in many instances...
You just misrepresented my position again. Your whole argument is based on strawman misrepresentations.

I'm not for deportation as the focus of law enforcement. I'm for deportation laws being left as they are. I don't think deportation solves the problem. It's just a necessary bi-product of the solution.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:19 PM) *
Taz, you've just made the case for why the cost of law enforcement will go up no matter who we crack down on. You did not make the case for why shifting the focus from illegal immigrants to illegal employers would be less cost-effective than what you are advocating.

Try again.


Bill, as usual, not seeing the forest through the trees...yes costs will go up no matter who we crack down on...BUT the bottom line is that costs will go up...and I have never advocated that my plan would be more cost-effective -- what have you been reading for the last 8 or so months?

I have suggested that the only approach that is going to secure government funding to pay for itself -- is a practical and comprehensive approach...and your approach leaves to many incidental issues unsolved...

One of my chief criticisms of your approach has been that it will cost money -- substantial amounts of money -- which you suggests can come from reallocating resources which I believe is little more than wishful thinking given the enormity of the problem and the fact that your approach is a piecemeal solution to the problem which is what you are advocating...

My position has always been that your approach has valuable elements which have a good chance for success as part of a more comprehensive plan, but alone they have NO chance of passage in the Congress, and even if they were passed little chance of success without adequate resources...

You counter with your fantasy-like response that --- your approach willl not have failed unless every possible option to make it work has been exhausted which is a totally divorced from reality point of view...on these issues government usually gets at best a couple chances to address an issue --- the initial law and then slight revisions as necessary --- but you would not concede defeat unless every possible option is exhausted which is just so unrealistic particularly since you will not put forward any options for accomplishing/implementing your approach...

Its as if you want to sit on the fence --- and not get dirty divining a way to solve the problem...you have your concept -- you believe it can work...and if people are smart enough to implement it in a way that makes it work --- without any assistance from you -- the originator of the approach -- than fine -- if not...so be it...

To me its a tragic attitude...for several reasons...

1. It denies the opportunity to develop from your approach a meaningful and workable plan to implement that approach...
2. It eliminates the possibility of actually determining if your plan might have a realistic chance of working...
3. It brings you out of the conceptual world and into the real world...
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 03:29 PM) *
but are not for deportation, even though deportation is required by law in many instances...
You just misrepresented my position again. Your whole argument is based on strawman misrepresentations.

I'm not for deportation as the focus of law enforcement. I'm for deportation laws being left as they are. I don't think deportation solves the problem. It's just a necessary bi-product of the solution.


I did not misrepresent your position bill -- your position on deportation involves circular reasoning...you can try and argue otherwise, but

Deportation presently is a major priority of US immigration policy -- you would prefer that it would not be by your comments...but it is...

Rather than just suggesting that you think immigration policy should be changed in this regard, you hold to your position that you want the present laws upheld with regard to deportation...which means it remains a priority and a focus even though above you suggest that you are against that...

You have already said that you think border security agents should be shifted to the enforcement of immigration laws against employers...

And you have suggested that more rigorous enforcement of laws against employers has yet to happen -- when it is obvious that it has...

Arguing in circles...I tried to get away from that by asking you which of my 15 points you agree with - but you preferred the status quo...so I am only left to address points we have already addressed...
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 25 2009, 08:43 AM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 03:29 PM) *
but are not for deportation, even though deportation is required by law in many instances...
You just misrepresented my position again. Your whole argument is based on strawman misrepresentations.

I'm not for deportation as the focus of law enforcement. I'm for deportation laws being left as they are. I don't think deportation solves the problem. It's just a necessary bi-product of the solution.


I did not misrepresent your position bill -- your position on deportation involves circular reasoning...you can try and argue otherwise, but

Deportation presently is a major priority of US immigration policy -- you would prefer that it would not be by your comments...but it is...

Rather than just suggesting that you think immigration policy should be changed in this regard, you hold to your position that you want the present laws upheld with regard to deportation...which means it remains a priority and a focus even though above you suggest that you are against that...

You have already said that you think border security agents should be shifted to the enforcement of immigration laws against employers...

And you have suggested that more rigorous enforcement of laws against employers has yet to happen -- when it is obvious that it has...

Arguing in circles...I tried to get away from that by asking you which of my 15 points you agree with - but you preferred the status quo...so I am only left to address points we have already addressed...
First, we are not talking about immigration, we are talking about employment.

Second, learn the difference between legislation and law enforcement. The only thing I said was to shift of emphasis on law enforcement would be towards employers. It doesn't mean that deportation is "not a priority." It's that deportation isn't the highest priority.

Taz, you are incapable of disputing a position without first distorting it. Are you trying to get your degree in gotcha politics?
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 25 2009, 08:24 AM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:19 PM) *
Taz, you've just made the case for why the cost of law enforcement will go up no matter who we crack down on. You did not make the case for why shifting the focus from illegal immigrants to illegal employers would be less cost-effective than what you are advocating.

Try again.


Bill, as usual, not seeing the forest through the trees...yes costs will go up no matter who we crack down on...BUT the bottom line is that costs will go up...and I have never advocated that my plan would be more cost-effective -- what have you been reading for the last 8 or so months?

I have suggested that the only approach that is going to secure government funding to pay for itself -- is a practical and comprehensive approach...and your approach leaves to many incidental issues unsolved...

One of my chief criticisms of your approach has been that it will cost money -- substantial amounts of money -- which you suggests can come from reallocating resources which I believe is little more than wishful thinking given the enormity of the problem and the fact that your approach is a piecemeal solution to the problem which is what you are advocating...

My position has always been that your approach has valuable elements which have a good chance for success as part of a more comprehensive plan, but alone they have NO chance of passage in the Congress, and even if they were passed little chance of success without adequate resources...

You counter with your fantasy-like response that --- your approach willl not have failed unless every possible option to make it work has been exhausted which is a totally divorced from reality point of view...on these issues government usually gets at best a couple chances to address an issue --- the initial law and then slight revisions as necessary --- but you would not concede defeat unless every possible option is exhausted which is just so unrealistic particularly since you will not put forward any options for accomplishing/implementing your approach...

Its as if you want to sit on the fence --- and not get dirty divining a way to solve the problem...you have your concept -- you believe it can work...and if people are smart enough to implement it in a way that makes it work --- without any assistance from you -- the originator of the approach -- than fine -- if not...so be it...

To me its a tragic attitude...for several reasons...

1. It denies the opportunity to develop from your approach a meaningful and workable plan to implement that approach...
2. It eliminates the possibility of actually determining if your plan might have a realistic chance of working...
3. It brings you out of the conceptual world and into the real world...
You are making way too much of this. It's just an idea. It's you who are detached from reality. We are not federal legislators. We are bloggers. It's you living in the fantasy world where bloggers can plan and pass federal legislation single-handedly without access to classified budget information. The world doesn't work that way. When the climate is ripe, hundreds of people usually come up with the same idea around the same time, and thousands of people improve on that idea. My approach is just a piece of a bigger puzzle that neither you or I can imagine the size of. The world is much more bottom-up than you give it credit. You must be watching too many of the same 1950 superhero movies that graham watches.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 25 2009, 08:53 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 25 2009, 08:43 AM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 03:29 PM) *
but are not for deportation, even though deportation is required by law in many instances...
You just misrepresented my position again. Your whole argument is based on strawman misrepresentations.

I'm not for deportation as the focus of law enforcement. I'm for deportation laws being left as they are. I don't think deportation solves the problem. It's just a necessary bi-product of the solution.


I did not misrepresent your position bill -- your position on deportation involves circular reasoning...you can try and argue otherwise, but

Deportation presently is a major priority of US immigration policy -- you would prefer that it would not be by your comments...but it is...

Rather than just suggesting that you think immigration policy should be changed in this regard, you hold to your position that you want the present laws upheld with regard to deportation...which means it remains a priority and a focus even though above you suggest that you are against that...

You have already said that you think border security agents should be shifted to the enforcement of immigration laws against employers...

And you have suggested that more rigorous enforcement of laws against employers has yet to happen -- when it is obvious that it has...

Arguing in circles...I tried to get away from that by asking you which of my 15 points you agree with - but you preferred the status quo...so I am only left to address points we have already addressed...

First, we are not talking about immigration, we are talking about employment.

Second, learn the difference between legislation and law enforcement. The only thing I said was to shift of emphasis on law enforcement would be towards employers. It doesn't mean that deportation is "not a priority." It's that deportation isn't the highest priority.

Taz, you are incapable of disputing a position without first distorting it. Are you trying to get your degree in gotcha politics?


As for disputing your position...you are the one who has the mixed up position on deportation...not me...

You are against emphasizing deportation but for following the laws...in many cases the laws require deportation...and not only that...based upon Bush changes to the immigration laws now not only are people deported, but before they are deported they serve time in jail merely for illegal immigration...so now US policy is not just deportation -- its deportation plus...

I know the distinction quite well with all the criminal law issues I work on --- you said earlier in this thread that you would shift resources away from the border and toward law enforcement against employers to accomplish your goal of promoting employer compliance with the law...now that's fine...its your approach...but the impact of that is that mass deportations will take place...no one said deportation was the top priority of the INS -- as you suggested it is a byproduct -- BUT the more you enforce immigration laws against employers the more that you are going to have to deport people...and that costs money...BUT you also have to remember what I mentioned above...

This is a complex issue and there is a lot more to it than your simple appraoch...there are incidental and consequential impact from the approach that would need to be addressed...

This is what I have been trying to get you to grasp...

May 24, 2008
270 Illegal Immigrants Sent to Prison in Federal Push
By JULIA PRESTONCorrection Appended


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/24imm...m0vu+iNAm0WIxXw
WATERLOO, Iowa — In temporary courtrooms at a fairgrounds here, 260 illegal immigrants were sentenced this week to five months in prison for working at a meatpacking plant with false documents.

The prosecutions, which ended Friday, signal a sharp escalation in the Bush administration’s crackdown on illegal workers, with prosecutors bringing tough federal criminal charges against most of the immigrants arrested in a May 12 raid. Until now, unauthorized workers have generally been detained by immigration officials for civil violations and rapidly deported.

The convicted immigrants were among 389 workers detained at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in nearby Postville in a raid that federal officials called the largest criminal enforcement operation ever carried out by immigration authorities at a workplace.

Matt M. Dummermuth, the United States attorney for northern Iowa, who oversaw the prosecutions, called the operation an “astonishing success.”

Claude Arnold, a special agent in charge of investigations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said it showed that federal officials were “committed to enforcing the nation’s immigration laws in the workplace to maintain the integrity of the immigration system.”

The unusually swift proceedings, in which 297 immigrants pleaded guilty and were sentenced in four days, were criticized by criminal defense lawyers, who warned of violations of due process. In addition to 260 immigrants sentenced to five months for using false documents, two immigrants were sentenced to one year for that crime and another eight were sentenced to prison for a separate crime, while twenty-seven immigrants received probation. The American Immigration Lawyers Association protested that the workers had been denied meetings with immigration lawyers and that their claims under immigration law had been swept aside in unusual and speedy plea agreements.

The illegal immigrants, most from Guatemala, filed into the courtrooms in groups of 10, their hands and feet shackled. One by one, they entered guilty pleas through a Spanish interpreter, admitting they had taken jobs using fraudulent Social Security cards or immigration documents. Moments later, they moved to another courtroom for sentencing.

The pleas were part of a deal worked out with prosecutors to avoid even more serious charges. Most immigrants agreed to immediate deportation after they serve five months in prison.

The hearings took place on the grounds of the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo, in mobile trailers and in a dance hall modified with black curtains, beginning at 8 a.m. and continuing several nights until 10. On Wednesday alone, 94 immigrants pleaded guilty and were sentenced, the most sentences in a single day in this northern Iowa district, according to Robert L. Phelps, the clerk of court.

Mr. Arnold, the immigration agent, said the criticism of the proceedings was “the usual spate of false allegations and baseless rumors.”

The large number of criminal cases was remarkable because immigration violations generally fall under civil statutes. Until now, relatively few immigrants caught in raids have been charged with federal crimes like identity theft or document fraud.

“To my knowledge, the magnitude of these indictments is completely unprecedented,” said Juliet Stumpf, an immigration law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., who was formerly a senior civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department. “It’s the reliance on criminal process here as part of an immigration enforcement action that takes this out of the ordinary, a startling intensification of the criminalization of immigration law.”

Defense lawyers, who were appointed by the court, said most of the immigrants were ready to accept the plea deals because of the hard bargain driven by the prosecutors.

If the immigrants did not plead guilty, Mr. Dummermuth said he would try them on felony identity theft charges that carry a mandatory two-year minimum jail sentence. In many cases, court documents show, the immigrants were working under real Social Security numbers or immigration visas, known as green cards, that belonged to other people.

All but a handful of the workers here had no criminal record, court documents showed.

“My family is worried in Guatemala,” one defendant, Erick Tajtaj, entreated the federal district judge who sentenced him, Mark W. Bennett. “I ask that you deport us as soon as possible, that you do us that kindness so we can be together again with our families.”

No charges have been brought against managers or owners at Agriprocessors, but there were indications that prosecutors were also preparing a case against the company. In pleading guilty, immigrants had to agree to cooperate with any investigation.

Chaim Abrahams, a representative of Agriprocessors, said in a statement that he could not comment about specific accusations but that the company was cooperating with the government.

Aaron Rubashkin, the owner of Agriprocessors, announced Friday that he had begun a search to replace his son Sholom as the chief executive of the company. Agriprocessors is the country’s largest producer of kosher meat, sold under brands like Aaron’s Best. The plant is in Postville, a farmland town about 70 miles northeast of Waterloo. Normally it employs about 800 workers, and in recent years the majority of them have come from rural Guatemala.

Since 2004, the plant has faced repeated sanctions for environmental and worker safety violations. It was the focus of a 2006 exposé in The Jewish Daily Forward and a commission of inquiry that year by Conservative Jewish leaders.

In Postville, workers from the plant, still feeling aftershocks from the raid, said conditions there were often harsh. In interviews, they said they were often required to work overtime and night shifts, sometimes up to 14 hours a day, but were not consistently paid for the overtime.

“We knew what time we would start work but we did not know what time we would finish,” said Élida, 29, a Guatemalan who was arrested in the raid and then released to care for her two children. She asked that her last name not be published because she is in this country illegally.

A 16-year-old Guatemalan girl, who asked to be identified only as G.O. because she is illegal and a minor and was not involved in the raid, said she had been working the night shift plucking chickens. “When you start, you can’t stay awake,” she said. “But after a while you get used to it.”

The workers said that supervisors and managers were well aware that the immigrants were working under false documents.

Defense lawyers, who each agreed to represent as many as 30 immigrants, said they were satisfied that they had sufficient time to question them and prepare their cases. But some lawyers said they were troubled by the severity of the charges.

At one sentencing hearing, David Nadler, a defense lawyer, said he was “honored to represent such good and brave people,” saying the immigrants’ only purpose had been to provide for their families in Guatemala.

“I want the court to know that these people are the kings of family values,” Mr. Nadler said.

Judge Bennett appeared moved by Mr. Nadler’s remarks. “I don’t doubt for a moment that you are good, hard-working people who have done what you did to help your families,” Judge Bennett told the immigrants. “Unfortunately for you, you committed a violation of federal law.”

After the hearing, Mr. Nadler said the plea agreements were the best deal available for his clients. But he was dismayed that prosecutors had denied them probation and insisted the immigrants serve prison time and agree to a rarely used judicial order for immediate deportation upon their release, signing away their rights to go to immigration court.

“That’s not the defense of justice,” Mr. Nadler said. “That’s just politics.”

Christopher Clausen, a lawyer who represented 21 Guatemalans, said he was certain they all understood their options and rights. Mainly they wanted to get home to Guatemala as quickly as possible, he said.

“The government is not bashful about the fact that they are trying to send a message,” Mr. Clausen said, “that if you get caught working illegally here you will pay a criminal penalty.”

Robert Rigg, a Drake University law professor who is president of the Iowa Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said his group was not consulted when prosecutors and court officials began to make plans, starting in December, for the mass proceedings.

“You really are force feeding the system just to churn these people out,” Mr. Rigg said.

Kathleen Campbell Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said that intricate issues could arise in some cases, for example where immigrants had children and spouses who were legal residents or United States citizens. Those issues “could not be even cursorily addressed in the time frame being forced upon these individuals and their overburdened counsel.”

Linda R. Reade, the chief judge who approved the emergency court setup, said she was confident there had been no rush to justice. In an interview, Judge Reade said prosecutors had organized the immigrants’ detention to make it easy for their lawyers to meet with them. The prosecutors, she said, “have tried to be fair in their charging.”

The immigration lawyers, Judge Reade said, “do not understand the federal criminal process as it relates to immigration charges.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 28, 2008
An article on Saturday about the convictions of illegal immigrants who worked in an Iowa meat-packing plant misstated the sentence or crime for some of them. Of the 270 immigrants who were sent to prison, 260 were sentenced to five months for using false work documents; 2 were sentenced to 12 months and 1 day for that crime; and 8 received five-month sentences for re-entering the United States illegally after deportation. All 270 immigrants were not sentenced to five months for using false documents.

tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 25 2009, 09:00 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 25 2009, 08:24 AM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:19 PM) *
Taz, you've just made the case for why the cost of law enforcement will go up no matter who we crack down on. You did not make the case for why shifting the focus from illegal immigrants to illegal employers would be less cost-effective than what you are advocating.

Try again.


Bill, as usual, not seeing the forest through the trees...yes costs will go up no matter who we crack down on...BUT the bottom line is that costs will go up...and I have never advocated that my plan would be more cost-effective -- what have you been reading for the last 8 or so months?

I have suggested that the only approach that is going to secure government funding to pay for itself -- is a practical and comprehensive approach...and your approach leaves to many incidental issues unsolved...

One of my chief criticisms of your approach has been that it will cost money -- substantial amounts of money -- which you suggests can come from reallocating resources which I believe is little more than wishful thinking given the enormity of the problem and the fact that your approach is a piecemeal solution to the problem which is what you are advocating...

My position has always been that your approach has valuable elements which have a good chance for success as part of a more comprehensive plan, but alone they have NO chance of passage in the Congress, and even if they were passed little chance of success without adequate resources...

You counter with your fantasy-like response that --- your approach willl not have failed unless every possible option to make it work has been exhausted which is a totally divorced from reality point of view...on these issues government usually gets at best a couple chances to address an issue --- the initial law and then slight revisions as necessary --- but you would not concede defeat unless every possible option is exhausted which is just so unrealistic particularly since you will not put forward any options for accomplishing/implementing your approach...

Its as if you want to sit on the fence --- and not get dirty divining a way to solve the problem...you have your concept -- you believe it can work...and if people are smart enough to implement it in a way that makes it work --- without any assistance from you -- the originator of the approach -- than fine -- if not...so be it...

To me its a tragic attitude...for several reasons...

1. It denies the opportunity to develop from your approach a meaningful and workable plan to implement that approach...
2. It eliminates the possibility of actually determining if your plan might have a realistic chance of working...
3. It brings you out of the conceptual world and into the real world...
You are making way too much of this. It's just an idea. It's you who are detached from reality. We are not federal legislators. We are bloggers. It's you living in the fantasy world where bloggers can plan and pass federal legislation single-handedly without access to classified budget information. The world doesn't work that way. When the climate is ripe, hundreds of people usually come up with the same idea around the same time, and thousands of people improve on that idea. My approach is just a piece of a bigger puzzle that neither you or I can imagine the size of. The world is much more bottom-up than you give it credit. You must be watching too many of the same 1950 superhero movies that graham watches.



I am detached from reality...you are the one who still insists that we are not cracking down on employers...they are going to prison my friend...


Agriprocessors supervisor sentenced to prison time, HR clerk enters guilty plea
<H4></H4>addthis_pub = 'iowaindependent';By Lynda Waddington 3/19/09 6:00 PM http://iowaindependent.com/12923/agriproce...ers-guilty-plea

A former Agriprocessors beef supervisor was sentenced today in federal court to three years in prison. The news comes on the same day that a former plant human resources employee pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraudulent immigration statement charges.

Juan Carlos Guerrero-Espinoza, 36 of Postville, received a three-year federal prison term today for conspiring to hire and aiding and abetting illegal immigrants at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant.

Court documents indicate that while Guerrero-Espinoza oversaw roughly 60 employees on the beef line at Agriprocessors, he encouraged several under his supervision to obtain new fraudulent identification documents in May 2008. He received $4,500 in cash from the Rubashkin family, owners of the plant, to loan to the employees who needed money to purchase the new fraudulent documents.

Penny Ann Hanson, 41 of Clermont, admitted that she conspired to make false statements on immigration documents while working in the human resources office at Agriprocessors. Although currently free on bond until sentencing, she faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison, a $500,000 fine, a $200 special assessment and six years of supervised release.

According to information filed earlier this month, Hanson conspired with others to make falsified statements on immigration I-9 forms and knowingly accepted fraudulent resident alien cards. These offenses, according to her testimony took place between September 2003 and December 2006.

In addition, on September 3, 2004 Hanson falsely certified on a form I-9 that she had examined an identification document presented by an applicant at the plant, and that the document appeared genuine. Court documents state that she did not examine the identification document in question.

Guerrero-Espinoza is being held in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Office until he can be transported to a federal prison.

The federal investigation into possible illegal activities at the Postville Agriprocessors plant began in October 2007. It has continued since May 2008, when federal immigration authorities stormed the meatpacking plant and detained nearly 400.

Several additional supervisors and human resource employees who worked at the plant await trail and/or sentencing on immigration related charges. The plant itself, which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, is also the subject of a criminal case. Day-to-day chief executive Sholom M. Rubashkin, son of company founder A. Aaron Rubashkin, also faces a myriad of criminal charges ranging from multi-million dollar bank fraud to immigration-related offenses.

At least two former plant supervisors are believed to have fled the country and are being sought by federal authorities. Earlier this month another plant supervisor, Martin De La Rosa-Loera, was sentenced to two years in federal prison on immigration-related charges.

Three additional property companies that owned and managed residential and other real estate interests in Postville and the surrounding area have also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Sholom Rubashkin and his brother Heshy were listed as the companies’ officers.

In addition to the federal charges, members of Rubashkin family and several other company employees face more than 9,000 violations of Iowa’s child labor laws.

Although other members of the Agriprocessors human resources department are believed to have come before the federal court this month, to date no additional employees face charges. The investigation, according to prosecutors, is ongoing.



July 23, 2007

<H1 align=center>Centerville business owner sentenced to prison for harboring illegal aliens</H1><H1 align=center>
</H1>

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/ar...70723dayton.htm
DAYTON, Ohio - The owner of a Centerville business was sentenced in U.S. District Court today for crimes involving the employment of illegal aliens, announced Gregory G. Lockhart, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, and Brian M. Moskowitz, special agent in charge of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations in Detroit.

Joseph Edward Fulmer, 47, a Centerville resident, was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge Walter H. Rice to six months in prison. Fulmer was also required to forfeit his residence, valued at $770,000, plus $2,693 in currency seized by investigating agents, and to complete 100 hours of community service. Fulmer owns the Stitching Post, a store that sells and repairs sewing machines and related items.

In April, Fulmer pleaded guilty to a four-count information charging him with one count each of encouraging and inducing illegal aliens to come to the United States, harboring illegal aliens, fraud and misuse of government documents, and engaging in a pattern of employing illegal aliens.

According to a statement of facts filed with Fulmer's plea, Fulmer began making regular trips from the U.S. to Mexico in March 2002, where he approached Mexican nationals about coming to work for him. He agreed to pay for at least four illegal aliens to travel from Texas to Dayton, where he picked them up at the bus station and took them to his home. In March 2007, Fulmer took three illegal aliens on a Caribbean cruise, knowing that at least one of them possessed and used false identification documents to get back in the United States.

"The price is high for those who fail to respect the immigration laws of this nation," said Brian M. Moskowitz, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Detroit. "Businesses large or small need to understand that it will not be business as usual if they choose to use illegal aliens as part of their workforce."

"The message to all business owners who may be involved in the employment of illegal aliens is that there is a price to pay for immigration crimes," Lockhart said. "Judge Rice noted that he has ordered jail time for aliens who have illegally entered the U.S., and he believes that those who enable illegal aliens to enter this country should be punished in a similar manner."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Clemmens prosecuted this case.



Worksite Supervisor and Another Employee Sentenced to Federal Prison for Hiring Illegal Immigrant Workers

The following is a press release issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on November 19, 2007:

QSI supervisor, employee sentenced for knowingly hiring illegal aliens“SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - A former worksite supervisor and a former employee for Quality Service Integrity Inc. (QSI) at the Cargill Pork Processing Plant in Beardstown, Ill., were sentenced to prison Monday for their roles in hiring illegal aliens to work for the cleaning service. The sentences are the result of a worksite enforcement operation conducted April 4 at the Beardstown plant by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“Gerardo Dominguez-Chacon, 35, a former QSI worksite supervisor, was ordered to serve 38 months in federal prison. Maria Del Pilar Marroquin, 41, a former QSI employee, was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison. There is no parole in the federal prison system.

“Sixteen other QSI employees were also arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty to fraud and misusing employment documents. The 16 were sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to seven months. After they complete their sentences, all those arrested will be turned over to ICE and placed in deportation proceedings.

“During the April 4 operation ICE agents arrested 13 individuals on criminal charges and 49 on administrative immigration violations. Five of the 49 arrested administratively were subsequently charged criminally, for a total of 18 employees arrested on criminal charges. The remaining 44 QSI employees arrested on administrative immigration violations were placed in deportation proceedings.

“ ‘ICE will pursue criminal charges against those who knowingly employ illegal aliens, as well as those who use fraudulent documents to get jobs,’ said Elissa A. Brown, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Chicago. ‘Working in partnership with the U.S. Attorney's office, ICE has made it a priority to pursue criminal charges to deter an underground economy.’

“ ‘Today's sentences mark the culmination of a successful worksite enforcement operation in which 18 defendants were charged, convicted, and sentenced,’ said Rodger A. Heaton, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. ‘It is appropriate that Dominguez-Chacon receive the greatest sentence, more than three years in prison, for his leadership role in hiring illegal aliens to work for the cleaning service.’

“Dominguez-Chacon pleaded guilty in July to one count of harboring illegal aliens and three counts of aiding aggravated identity theft. Dominguez-Chacon admitted that from December 2006 through April 3, 2007, he knowingly hired aliens without proper work authorization. Dominguez-Chacon instructed QSI employees he knew were illegal aliens to obtain new identities and then re-hired them under the assumed identity.”

“Marroquin pleaded guilty in July to one count of harboring illegal aliens. Marroquin was aware that illegal aliens she helped hire at QSI had been instructed to obtain new identities after QSI headquarters noted that the employees' Social Security numbers did not correspond with their names. She also completed employment documents that she knew contained false information, including statements that illegal alien QSI employees were lawful residents or U.S. citizens.

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory M. Gilmore of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of Illinois prosecuted these cases.”

The original press release is available at: http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/ar...springfield.htm

billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 26 2009, 03:18 PM) *
I am detached from reality...you are the one who still insists that we are not cracking down on employers...they are going to prison my friend...
More strawman distorting positions. Where have I said that we are not cracking down on employers? I said we should crack down harder on illegal employers.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 25 2009, 09:00 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 25 2009, 08:24 AM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 02:19 PM) *
Taz, you've just made the case for why the cost of law enforcement will go up no matter who we crack down on. You did not make the case for why shifting the focus from illegal immigrants to illegal employers would be less cost-effective than what you are advocating.

Try again.


Bill, as usual, not seeing the forest through the trees...yes costs will go up no matter who we crack down on...BUT the bottom line is that costs will go up...and I have never advocated that my plan would be more cost-effective -- what have you been reading for the last 8 or so months?

I have suggested that the only approach that is going to secure government funding to pay for itself -- is a practical and comprehensive approach...and your approach leaves to many incidental issues unsolved...

One of my chief criticisms of your approach has been that it will cost money -- substantial amounts of money -- which you suggests can come from reallocating resources which I believe is little more than wishful thinking given the enormity of the problem and the fact that your approach is a piecemeal solution to the problem which is what you are advocating...

My position has always been that your approach has valuable elements which have a good chance for success as part of a more comprehensive plan, but alone they have NO chance of passage in the Congress, and even if they were passed little chance of success without adequate resources...

You counter with your fantasy-like response that --- your approach willl not have failed unless every possible option to make it work has been exhausted which is a totally divorced from reality point of view...on these issues government usually gets at best a couple chances to address an issue --- the initial law and then slight revisions as necessary --- but you would not concede defeat unless every possible option is exhausted which is just so unrealistic particularly since you will not put forward any options for accomplishing/implementing your approach...

Its as if you want to sit on the fence --- and not get dirty divining a way to solve the problem...you have your concept -- you believe it can work...and if people are smart enough to implement it in a way that makes it work --- without any assistance from you -- the originator of the approach -- than fine -- if not...so be it...

To me its a tragic attitude...for several reasons...

1. It denies the opportunity to develop from your approach a meaningful and workable plan to implement that approach...
2. It eliminates the possibility of actually determining if your plan might have a realistic chance of working...
3. It brings you out of the conceptual world and into the real world...
You are making way too much of this. It's just an idea. It's you who are detached from reality. We are not federal legislators. We are bloggers. It's you living in the fantasy world where bloggers can plan and pass federal legislation single-handedly without access to classified budget information. The world doesn't work that way. When the climate is ripe, hundreds of people usually come up with the same idea around the same time, and thousands of people improve on that idea. My approach is just a piece of a bigger puzzle that neither you or I can imagine the size of. The world is much more bottom-up than you give it credit. You must be watching too many of the same 1950 superhero movies that graham watches.


I am making too much out of this...its taken you 17 pages and months of exposition to come to the conclusion that this is really no big deal...
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 08:13 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 08:41 AM) *
Well, Bill here is some strong evidence for you that your lack of a deportation strategy will not work...

Illegal immigrants denied work are not heading home and will not head home...

This reality coupled with the danger of returning to Mexico...means that the only way to remove illegal immigrants is through deportation...which you continue to believe should not be emphasized, but rather resources should be shifted to going after employers...
First, it's not a "lack of a deportation strategy." It's a "crack down harder on employer strategy." The deportation laws will remain as is.

Second, It's not going to work overnight. It's just like Obama's investment in education and infrastructure won't turn the economy around overnight. It's going to take 50 states to crack down harder on employers before all the jobs for illegal immigrants disappear. And then they will have no reason to stay. Until every county in all 50 states crack down on employers, illegal immigrants will just move from county to county or from state to state.


Well, bill your approach is doomed to failure then because every county of every state is not going to crack down on employers adequately enough to totally eradicate the problem...because the resources are not there...
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 23 2009, 08:28 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 23 2009, 09:08 AM) *
As for the hypothetical news report Bill...

Its emblematic of your problem...you do not read the entire post...indeed there was a hypothetical news report...

AND then there were TWO real news reports...regarding mandatory deportation...but as usual you chose to disregard the real news reports regarding mandatory deportation and focus on the hypothetical...which is curious because you have always put yourself out there as someone who is searching for the truth...

...And Bill why don't you address my complete replies instead of just the parts you think you can rebut....am I to take your failure to rebut the other parts as concessions on your part?
Because most of your replies are obfuscating, circular, irrelevant, or amnesia. You keep rebutting with details and refusing to accept that I've only offered a general approach.

You are acting like graham by thinking you've won a debate because someone doesn't have time to reply to all your foolish circular arguments.

I only addressed your hypothetical news report because that was the only attempt you made to address my speeding ticket analogy. All the rest of your news reports are about failures of plans, not failures of my approach. The approach isn't a failure in the real world until the real world tries every possible plan based on that approach. Nobody has even started my approach until there is a harder crackdown on employers. That hasn't happened yet. And you are part of the problem by suggesting that we need to appease employers.


Bill -- what you fail to realize is that a "harder crackdown on employers" has been occurring for years now...

So, this element of your approach has been a work in progress...for some time...

Certainly more work needs to be done, but you act like nothing is being done...


billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 27 2009, 08:07 AM) *
I am making too much out of this...its taken you 17 pages and months of exposition to come to the conclusion that this is really no big deal...
I didn't say that it was "no big deal." There you go distorting again.

Look who's been disputing my approach the whole time. Taz, you have more posts than all other posters combined on this thread. You've doubled my number of posts on this thread. 17 pages and 9 months later, you have yet to figure out that it's an approach, not a detailed plan. I never intended to make it a detailed plan. I'm not in a position to make it a detailed plan. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it become a detailed plan. I'm just realistic enough to know that you and I are not even close to being in a position to make it happen. It's you who seems to want a congressional hearing on the simple idea from a blogger. It's you who's been trying to shock this thread back to life after I've ignored it for months.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 26 2009, 02:26 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 26 2009, 03:18 PM) *
I am detached from reality...you are the one who still insists that we are not cracking down on employers...they are going to prison my friend...
More strawman distorting positions. Where have I said that we are not cracking down on employers? I said we should crack down harder on illegal employers.



We are cracking down harder on employers...that is the point...no strawman arguments -- just illustrations that during the past 3-4 years there has been a significant increase in the effort to crack down on employers...which you have not acknowledged...
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 27 2009, 12:14 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 27 2009, 08:07 AM) *
I am making too much out of this...its taken you 17 pages and months of exposition to come to the conclusion that this is really no big deal...
I didn't say that it was "no big deal." There you go distorting again.

Look who's been disputing my approach the whole time. Taz, you have more posts than all other posters combined on this thread. You've doubled my number of posts on this thread. 17 pages and 9 months later, you have yet to figure out that it's an approach, not a detailed plan. I never intended to make it a detailed plan. I'm not in a position to make it a detailed plan. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it become a detailed plan. I'm just realistic enough to know that you and I are not even close to being in a position to make it happen. It's you who seems to want a congressional hearing on the simple idea from a blogger. It's you who's been trying to shock this thread back to life after I've ignored it for months.


I was not shocking the thread back to anything...

I was merely providing posts that were relevant to the thread...you were the one who decided to engage again on the thread...

rla suggested a perfectly reasonable way to try and reach common ground on this issue...but for you this was never about reaching common ground...

I know its an approach bill -- I have said it numerous times...but it is deficient when you move from concept to reality...and you have been unwilling to grapple with those realities...

Why do I have so many posts?

Some if it is Lou Dobbs and your refusal to acknowledge that he regularly makes mistakes in his broadcasting...and the rest is to provide illustrations to you and other posters...that your approach is inadequate...that it offers real promise but that it cannot achieve that promise without acknowledging other realities...and incorporating those realities into your approach...

Your problem is that you think to move an approach to a plan you have to have all the issues answered -- you can put more detail to an approach without all the supposedly confidential info you think you need -- but the thing is - if you did that your approach would have to absorb more rigorous scrutiny and the more you did it the more the chance that it could fail so you keep it on the concept board...where you and it are safe -- where you can deflect any criticism or suggestions to improve it...where you in effect believe you can be right about your formula...and its apparent how important that is to you because you noted how the only way to prove the approach a failure would be the fantasy that every possible option would have to be exhausted impplementing it...

"You are the one making too much out of this. Its just an idea."

Sounds like you are trying to make it look like you don't think its too much of a big deal to me bill...but you keep sweating the small stuff... clap.gif
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 27 2009, 02:53 PM) *
Sounds like you are trying to make it look like you don't think its too much of a big deal to me bill...but you keep sweating the small stuff... clap.gif
It's you sweating the small stuff with all your detailed examples of why you think my broad an general approach won't work. It's you who seem to have something to prove here with your endless posting.

I just come here every now and then to expose your obfuscating tactics on this thread. It isn't hard to do either. No sweat. dancing.gif
tazvil04
Sure, bill...so we're back to your obfusctation through finger pointing instead of responding to my arguments...

If you want to play that game -- we can...but its not as much fun for me anyway as actually disucssing the substance of the issue...

On deporation you refuse to concede reality that the law requires mandatory deportation, that the law under Bush has been amended to provide for incarceration prior to deportation, and that the result of increased enforcement of immigration laws against employers (which has increased substantially during the past three years) will require significantly more deportations and incarcerations...of illegal immigrants...

You act like deportation is "an option" which it is anything but...and while I agree its a "byproduct" of the enforcement of our immigration laws...it is a necessary byproduct with substantial costs...

The other point you fail to grasp is that the present E-verify system does not work...which means as a result that under the present system employers are held to a standard that is flawed...and that is unfair...

And an additional point is that employers are often prejudiced under the present system because of the bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency legal immigrants are caught up in the system -- which keeps the employers from being able to utilized their services and this often results in them having to turn to illegal immigrants because they cannot get the legal immigrants they need to fill their jobs...
tazvil04
bill -the funniest thing about your approach is that it is already the law of the land and has already been placed into practive throughout the country -- and you have meantioned nary a word on this topic...preferring to treat the matter as if it is still a conceptual approach... Rofl2.gif

Employer enforcement has increased significantly since 2005...and Real ID has been the law for some time...

Neither are working because of defects I have outlined in the system...and you rather than offering suggestions in how to conform these ideas to your approach or improve them - you have remained silent...suggesting that there are too many "confidential" details to be worked out..which as I have repeatedly stressed seems to be a copout because there are many stages between taking an approach to a workable plan...and providing an outline with more details...is doable...if you truly wanted to...
billfmsd
As long as you are talking plan instead of approach, you are not talking to me. You are talking to yourself.

If you think any form of amnesty will work, you haven't gotten past square one with me.

And the deportation question is just a red herring.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 30 2009, 10:40 AM) *
As long as you are talking plan instead of approach, you are not talking to me. You are talking to yourself.

If you think any form of amnesty will work, you haven't gotten past square one with me.

And the deportation question is just a red herring.


Then it seems we have reached an impasse...

You are not intereted in a realistic solution to the problem -- you are interested in a conceptual solution which has no chance of actually being adopted...

AND You are not interested in rla's suggestion regarding how to reach common ground...or at least see what the baseline is for our finding common grund by stepping back and examining the underying assumptions regarding what the problem actually is...

You do not support amnesty...accompanied by much stricter enforcement...so as a result you have created a situation where illegal aliens will become the future criminals engaging in more and more of the Mexican drug cartel exploits - than in lawful pursuits...

I am fine with dropping amnesty from my comprehensive outline -- so long as you can address how we address the illegal alien problem where they are unemployed and have no funds to get them back to Mexico...and are actually fearful of returning because of the drug cartels -- etc. I have offered you specific empirical evidence rejecting your claim that illegal immigrants will return on their own...and you have not even considered it...when it puts a big hole in your idea that there need not be an emphasis on deportation (which is the law) since they will go home on their own.

You do not support incorporating into your plan the reasonable suggestion that bureacratic red tape be removed to streamline the employment of legal immigrants...with green cards or similar treatments...

You refuse to admit that enforcement efforts against employers are presently inadequate because there is not an adequate working E-verify system...

And you do not approach any amendment to the practices that presently exist in the US regarding Real ID and enhanced enforcement of immigration laws against employers which is already occurring...

Basically bill -- you have left nothing to discuss...you have backed yourself into a corner...with a take it or leave it mentality...which is an APPROACH likely to generate little, if any, discussion...but that is likely how you want it...with your obfuscating and stonewalling on any effort to advance your approach...
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 31 2009, 11:06 AM) *
You are not intereted in a realistic solution to the problem -- you are interested in a conceptual solution which has no chance of actually being adopted...
Every adopted solution was once conceptual.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 31 2009, 11:44 AM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 31 2009, 11:06 AM) *
You are not intereted in a realistic solution to the problem -- you are interested in a conceptual solution which has no chance of actually being adopted...
Every adopted solution was once conceptual.


Yes, but until it was fleshed out and actually employed...it was nothing but an idea...

You don't like amnesty -- tell me why it will not work and I'll change my mind about it...but frankly with all the competing interests I do not reform without it...
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 31 2009, 03:52 PM) *
You don't like amnesty -- tell me why it will not work and I'll change my mind about it...but frankly with all the competing interests I do not reform without it..
All amnesty does is invite more illegal immigrants to wait for the next granting of amnesty. Then the workers who have amnesty won't be as desperate, making them more expensive to employ than the newer batch of post-amnesty illegal immigrants. And the cycle continues.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 31 2009, 02:57 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Mar 31 2009, 03:52 PM) *
You don't like amnesty -- tell me why it will not work and I'll change my mind about it...but frankly with all the competing interests I do not reform without it..
All amnesty does is invite more illegal immigrants to wait for the next granting of amnesty. Then the workers who have amnesty won't be as desperate, making them more expensive to employ than the newer batch of post-amnesty illegal immigrants. And the cycle continues.


I would agree with you if amnesty was granted with the status quo...

BUT...that is not what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting that amnesty be granted with employer compliance with state/federal labor standards....with the adoption of much greater penalties for illegal immigration law violation by employers...and with a continued increase in monitoring border traffic...

Also, the amnesty could be tied to the illegal immigrant having an employer-sponsor...

The amnesty would also be accompanied by the other elements of your plan...which would include enhanced monitoring and enforcement of illegal immigration laws with more agents and the additions noted above...AND a Real ID requirement for all employees --- employed in the US...

It would also develop uniform green card requirements...that all legal immigrants would have the same card -- and not the present system where any number of documents suffice...

I believe amnesty with the elements noted above and with additional elements I have noted in the past would clamp down on border traffic, make it difficult if not impossible for employers to employ illegal immigrants beyond the amnesty period without facing jail time, and other penalties which would basically put them out of business...

But, of course, my approach requires what you have never been willing to do...compromise on your approach...and actually flesh out more of an outline...for achieving your approach...more details...

You can rest on your laurels comfortably right now...secure in knowing that even when initiatives that resemble your approach fail...every possible iteration of your approach has not been tried...and therefore your approach is still viable...that is the upside...

The downside is that noone really knows any more about your approach and the details to make it happen...and your approach and any discussion of it is basically worthless because really its take or leave it...

If I had known that you would display such obstinance all along, I likely would not have offered my four cents in an effort to find common ground (I think you will agree I have offered much more than two... cool.gif )...

billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 1 2009, 09:57 AM) *
I am suggesting that amnesty be granted with employer compliance with state/federal labor standards....with the adoption of much greater penalties for illegal immigration law violation by employers...and with a continued increase in monitoring border traffic...
That would increase the overall cost of enforcement. Any form of amnesty would increase the supply of illegal cheap labor, which would increase the cost of enforcement. If you are assuming that border enforcement would be less expensive than law enforcement from putting illegal immigrants out of work, then you don't understand the problem. Unless you can bring down the demand for cheap illegal immigration, all the enforcement in the world can't bring down the supply.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 1 2009, 09:57 AM) *
Also, the amnesty could be tied to the illegal immigrant having an employer-sponsor...
That only gives employers unfair power over employees. How submissive would you be to your employer if your citizenship hinged on you keeping your job. This would drive down the cost of labor, making illegal immigrants more employable and unions less powerful.
heart
We could try the Japanese Way!

Japan gives cash to jobless foreigners to go home
By YURI KAGEYAMA (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
April 01, 2009 12:26 AM EDT

TOKYO - Japan began offering money Wednesday for unemployed foreigners of Japanese ancestry to go home, mostly to Brazil and Peru, to stave off what officials said posed a serious unemployment problem.

Thousands of foreigners of Japanese ancestry, who had been hired on temporary or referral contracts, have lost their jobs recently, mostly at manufacturers such as Toyota Motor Corp. and its affiliates, which are struggling to cope with a global downturn.

The number of foreigners seeking government help to find jobs has climbed in recent months to 11 times the previous year at more than 9,000 people, according to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

"The program is to respond to a growing social problem," said ministry official Hiroshi Yamashita.

Japan has tight immigration laws, and generally allows only skilled foreign workers to enter the country. The new program applies only to Brazilians and Peruvians of Japanese ancestry who have gotten special visas to do assembly line and other manufacturing labor. It does not apply to other foreigners in Japan, Yamashita said.

The government will give 300,000 yen ($3,000) to an unemployed foreigner of Japanese ancestry who wishes to leave the country, and 200,000 ($2,000) each to family members, the ministry said. But they must forgo returning to Japan. The budget for the aid is still undecided, it said.

The visa program for South Americans of Japanese ancestry was introduced partly in response to a labor shortage in Japan, where the population is shrinking and aging. But the need for such workers has dwindled in recent months after the global financial crisis hit last year. The jobless rate has risen to 4.4 percent, a three-year high.

Tokyo has already allocated 1.08 billion yen ($10.9 million) for training, including Japanese language lessons, for 5,000 foreign workers of Japanese ancestry.

Major companies traditionally offer lifetime employment to their rank and file, and so workers hired on temporary contracts have been the first to lose their jobs in this recession.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Apr 1 2009, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 1 2009, 09:57 AM) *
I am suggesting that amnesty be granted with employer compliance with state/federal labor standards....with the adoption of much greater penalties for illegal immigration law violation by employers...and with a continued increase in monitoring border traffic...


That would increase the overall cost of enforcement. Any form of amnesty would increase the supply of illegal cheap labor, which would increase the cost of enforcement. If you are assuming that border enforcement would be less expensive than law enforcement from putting illegal immigrants out of work, then you don't understand the problem. Unless you can bring down the demand for cheap illegal immigration, all the enforcement in the world can't bring down the supply.

A comprehensive plan does come with a need for funding. But the need is paid for in my system by its breadth at helping employers and its national security component in better securing our borders. I have acknowledged repeatedly that in order to secure additional revenue from Congress you need a broad-based approach. I never suggested that one type of enforcement would be cheaper than the other. You know its funny, you will not advance a plan because you need confidential info, but you have no problem asserting what the costs are regarding border vs. workplace enforcement... cool.gif

If you undertake the reforms that I suggested amnesty will not increase the supply of illegal cheap labor, it will have the opposite effect of increasing the supply of legal cheap labor -- but the labor would not be as cheap -- and in order to be immune from federal penalties the employer would have to comply with state and federal laws. BUt your plan itself has an increased enforcement dimension with regard to employers, its just that my plan comes with Congressional funding, and yours relies on a rellocation of scarce resources which we both know in today's environment with Mexican drug cartels is not going to reallocate border prioritites to go after employers any time soon. Enforcement will bring down the supply of illegal labor...by ratcheting up both border and employer immigration law enforcement....with increased fines and penalties...


QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 1 2009, 09:57 AM) *
Also, the amnesty could be tied to the illegal immigrant having an employer-sponsor...
That only gives employers unfair power over employees. How submissive would you be to your employer if your citizenship hinged on you keeping your job. This would drive down the cost of labor, making illegal immigrants more employable and unions less powerful.


Not true...not if you make employer sponsored persons eligible for a renewable universal green card...with biometric identifiers...and employer sponsorship is only necessary for the first card...
tazvil04
QUOTE(heart @ Apr 1 2009, 04:24 PM) *
We could try the Japanese Way!

Japan gives cash to jobless foreigners to go home
By YURI KAGEYAMA (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
April 01, 2009 12:26 AM EDT

TOKYO - Japan began offering money Wednesday for unemployed foreigners of Japanese ancestry to go home, mostly to Brazil and Peru, to stave off what officials said posed a serious unemployment problem.

Thousands of foreigners of Japanese ancestry, who had been hired on temporary or referral contracts, have lost their jobs recently, mostly at manufacturers such as Toyota Motor Corp. and its affiliates, which are struggling to cope with a global downturn.

The number of foreigners seeking government help to find jobs has climbed in recent months to 11 times the previous year at more than 9,000 people, according to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

"The program is to respond to a growing social problem," said ministry official Hiroshi Yamashita.

Japan has tight immigration laws, and generally allows only skilled foreign workers to enter the country. The new program applies only to Brazilians and Peruvians of Japanese ancestry who have gotten special visas to do assembly line and other manufacturing labor. It does not apply to other foreigners in Japan, Yamashita said.

The government will give 300,000 yen ($3,000) to an unemployed foreigner of Japanese ancestry who wishes to leave the country, and 200,000 ($2,000) each to family members, the ministry said. But they must forgo returning to Japan. The budget for the aid is still undecided, it said.

The visa program for South Americans of Japanese ancestry was introduced partly in response to a labor shortage in Japan, where the population is shrinking and aging. But the need for such workers has dwindled in recent months after the global financial crisis hit last year. The jobless rate has risen to 4.4 percent, a three-year high.

Tokyo has already allocated 1.08 billion yen ($10.9 million) for training, including Japanese language lessons, for 5,000 foreign workers of Japanese ancestry.

Major companies traditionally offer lifetime employment to their rank and file, and so workers hired on temporary contracts have been the first to lose their jobs in this recession.


I have long said that it costs money to get people to go home..bill has been the proponent of illegals finding their own way home...
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 6 2009, 02:49 PM) *
If you undertake the reforms that I suggested amnesty will not increase the supply of illegal cheap labor, it will have the opposite effect of increasing the supply of legal cheap labor -- but the labor would not be as cheap -- and in order to be immune from federal penalties the employer would have to comply with state and federal laws. BUt your plan itself has an increased enforcement dimension with regard to employers, its just that my plan comes with Congressional funding, and yours relies on a rellocation of scarce resources which we both know in today's environment with Mexican drug cartels is not going to reallocate border prioritites to go after employers any time soon. Enforcement will bring down the supply of illegal labor...by ratcheting up both border and employer immigration law enforcement....with increased fines and penalties...
The only difference between what you approach and my approach is that you are admitting to increased cost across the board. It has yet to be proven if increases on demand-side enforcement would offset the cost of supply side enforcement.

And the same goes for the problem with the drug cartels. We just have yet to increase effort in alternate ways of bringing down the demand for drugs in this country like more education instead of the costly practice of throwing people in jail for using. Jail doesn't get people off of drugs. It just gets them hooked on other more costly crimes along with their drug addiction.

QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 6 2009, 02:49 PM) *
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Apr 1 2009, 02:50 PM) *
QUOTE
Also, the amnesty could be tied to the illegal immigrant having an employer-sponsor...
That only gives employers unfair power over employees. How submissive would you be to your employer if your citizenship hinged on you keeping your job. This would drive down the cost of labor, making illegal immigrants more employable and unions less powerful.
Not true...not if you make employer sponsored persons eligible for a renewable universal green card...with biometric identifiers...and employer sponsorship is only necessary for the first card...
As long as citizenship is dependent on employment, it is true that employers will have more leverage over employees than deserved. Even if they are granted temporary citizenship status between jobs, there would have to be an expiration on their unemployed citizenship status; which means losing any one job will have greater consequences than it should.
billfmsd
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 6 2009, 02:51 PM) *
I have long said that it costs money to get people to go home..bill has been the proponent of illegals finding their own way home...
If you can get Mexico to fix their own corruption problems, they will be paying people to come back. You may even see American citizens going there for work.
tazvil04
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Apr 6 2009, 03:18 PM) *
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Apr 6 2009, 02:51 PM) *
I have long said that it costs money to get people to go home..bill has been the proponent of illegals finding their own way home...
If you can get Mexico to fix their own corruption problems, they will be paying people to come back. You may even see American citizens going there for work.


Yes, well if we could fuel our cars with air that would be nice too...but Mexico has had corruption problems since it became a nation...and thinking that they will fade away anytime soon I think is "pie in the sky" thinking...but we can wish for that...in the mean time..we have the illegals in this country -- and they are not looking to go home as the NY Times article referencing the Tennessee situation noted...they would rather stay in the US unemployed than return to Mexico and face what is going on there...

Indeed, a sad reality.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.