PDA

View Full Version : catch-22



david gibson
06-25-2010, 08:44 AM
so the secretary of labor Hilda Solis declares that illegal immigrant workers deserve fair pay and treatment and they should call in and report employers who dont pay/treat the fairly, yet there is a law against hiring them:

"A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

* assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions."

so you are illegal, are getting shorted $1 an hour on wages, so you call and report the company, now ICE comes and gets you and deports you, and the company gets fined for hiring an illegal immigrant and for not paying you fairly after they hired you.

lose-lose-lose??? or win-win for us? or just complete ineptness?

YardleyLabs
06-25-2010, 08:57 AM
so the secretary of labor Hilda Solis declares that illegal immigrant workers deserve fair pay and treatment and they should call in and report employers who dont pay/treat the fairly, yet there is a law against hiring them:

"A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

* assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions."

so you are illegal, are getting shorted $1 an hour on wages, so you call and report the company, now ICE comes and gets you and deports you, and the company gets fined for hiring an illegal immigrant and for not paying you fairly after they hired you.

lose-lose-lose??? or win-win for us? or just complete ineptness?
The reality is that illegal immigration will continue, no matter what, until there are no more jobs available for illegals. One way to achieve that objective is to reduce the economic incentives for employers to hire illegals by making it more difficult for them to pay lower wages, enforce illegal working conditions, or evade employment taxes.

badbullgator
06-25-2010, 09:23 AM
so the secretary of labor Hilda Solis declares that illegal immigrant workers deserve fair pay and treatment and they should call in and report employers who dont pay/treat the fairly, yet there is a law against hiring them:

"A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

* assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions."

so you are illegal, are getting shorted $1 an hour on wages, so you call and report the company, now ICE comes and gets you and deports you, and the company gets fined for hiring an illegal immigrant and for not paying you fairly after they hired you.

lose-lose-lose??? or win-win for us? or just complete ineptness?

And you really think ICE is going to come and get them? Fine the company yes, deport the illegals...probably not....at least for this. Remember the company is BAD illegals are not!

david gibson
06-25-2010, 09:26 AM
And you really think ICE is going to come and get them? Fine the company yes, deport the illegals...probably not....at least for this. Remember the company is BAD illegals are not!

to the person making the call - yes, they think that. remember, they even think the census workers - ACORN types, will turn them in......

david gibson
06-25-2010, 09:27 AM
The reality is that illegal immigration will continue, no matter what, until there are no more jobs available for illegals. One way to achieve that objective is to reduce the economic incentives for employers to hire illegals by making it more difficult for them to pay lower wages, enforce illegal working conditions, or evade employment taxes.

thanks for that einsteinian perspective

aandw
06-25-2010, 10:10 AM
The reality is that illegal immigration will continue, no matter what, until there are no more jobs available for illegals. One way to achieve that objective is to reduce the economic incentives for employers to hire illegals by making it more difficult for them to pay lower wages, enforce illegal working conditions, or evade employment taxes.

how do you do that? make the business pay $10 an hour instead of $7 an hour? wouldn't that make the product a lot less attractive to the consumer, which in turn would make the business go under?

YardleyLabs
06-25-2010, 10:33 AM
how do you do that? make the business pay $10 an hour instead of $7 an hour? wouldn't that make the product a lot less attractive to the consumer, which in turn would make the business go under?
By aggressively enforcing labor laws on minimum wage, maximum hours, over time, working conditions, etc., you make it more difficult for employers to exploit illegals to reduce costs. That makes them less likely to hire illegals -- thereby combating illegal immigration -- and it will increase their costs of doing business. One effect of reducing illegal immigration will be to increase labor costs in the United States. That will obviously increase prices. In some cases, more Americans will receive jobs that are now held by illegals. In others, the jobs now held by illegals along with the jobs of their supervisors -- which are now possbily held by legal workers -- will move to other countries. Eliminating illegal immigration is inevitably a double edged sword and the consequences may a lot less desirable than anti-immigration forces expect.

depittydawg
06-25-2010, 10:38 AM
[QUOTE=One effect of reducing illegal immigration will be to increase labor costs in the United States. That will obviously increase prices. .[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. It may simply lower the gap between the top tiered wage earners in a firm and the workers. It may even be that the higher wage worker turns out to be more productive and more than compensate for the increase cost of wages.

YardleyLabs
06-25-2010, 10:48 AM
Not necessarily. It may simply lower the gap between the top tiered wage earners in a firm and the workers. It may even be that the higher wage worker turns out to be more productive and more than compensate for the increase cost of wages.
For many years, Americans enjoyed much higher incomes and standards of living than their counterparts in other countries because their productivity was higher. The productivity gap has declined (and in some cases disappeared altogether). Lower transportation costs, reduced trade tariffs resulting from free trade agreements, and easy mobility of capital have reduced other barriers to moving jobs to countries with lower productivity-adjusted labor costs. Th consequence has been a loss of jobs in America and stagnating incomes for those in the lower half of wage earners. I see nothing that is likely to slow down that trend in the next several years.

david gibson
06-25-2010, 10:49 AM
Not necessarily. It may simply lower the gap between the top tiered wage earners in a firm and the workers. It may even be that the higher wage worker turns out to be more productive and more than compensate for the increase cost of wages.

thats what i love about progressives - always in a utopian nether-cloud.

lower the higher wage earners pay or a higher wage earner being more productive?? only if he is non-union....

you outdid yourself here, pup!

depittydawg
06-25-2010, 11:25 AM
thats what i love about progressives - always in a utopian nether-cloud.

lower the higher wage earners pay or a higher wage earner being more productive?? only if he is non-union....

you outdid yourself here, pup!

Another mindless response from the king of bull. I still can't make any sense out of your second line here.
There is nothing Utopian about the statement. Have you ever actually managed or run a business that included more employees than yourself? I have. I've done it for 30 years or so. I'm doing it right now. Companies that compete for the lowest wage worker are usually very poorly managed organizations and usually very short lived organizations. Drawbacks include extremely high rates of turnover, low skill level of workers and many other factors that result in poor quality of product and service. Every major corporation I've ever worked for is keen on attracting and keeping the most productive people they can find. If I ever walked into a meeting and the HR director started talking about hiring the cheapest labor they can find I'd leave that organization in a heartbeat.

Eric Johnson
06-25-2010, 12:37 PM
I'm for a double-pronged approach. When the calls come in.....

1. Fine the employer for paying less than minimum wage which will serve to drive the wages up.

2. Deport those that are illegal that report the employers.

Truth is, there are two violations here and they both deserve punishment.

However, short of branding them with a big "I" on the forehead, I don't know anyway to close the revolving door.

Eric

aandw
06-25-2010, 12:55 PM
By aggressively enforcing labor laws on minimum wage, maximum hours, over time, working conditions, etc., you make it more difficult for employers to exploit illegals to reduce costs. That makes them less likely to hire illegals -- thereby combating illegal immigration -- and it will increase their costs of doing business. One effect of reducing illegal immigration will be to increase labor costs in the United States. That will obviously increase prices. In some cases, more Americans will receive jobs that are now held by illegals. In others, the jobs now held by illegals along with the jobs of their supervisors -- which are now possbily held by legal workers -- will move to other countries. Eliminating illegal immigration is inevitably a double edged sword and the consequences may a lot less desirable than anti-immigration forces expect.

good luck getting the laws enforced. unfortnately the lower income workers don't donate money and therefore don't get help. it starts with the local LE all the way DC.
why not lower taxes on business' here and raise import taxes to make our product more competitive? increase the overall number of business' and the tax revenue should even out or increase.

troy schwab
06-25-2010, 04:15 PM
why not lower taxes on business' here and raise import taxes to make our product more competitive? increase the overall number of business' and the tax revenue should even out or increase.

DING DING DING! We have a winner...... good luck with that approach as long ad the dems are in control. In PA we have one of the highest tax rates for business, its like 10%..... waay out of control. Businesses are fleeing the state like illegals in Arizona........ Go change!!!! YAY...... (dumbasses)

david gibson
06-25-2010, 04:24 PM
Another mindless response from the king of bull. I still can't make any sense out of your second line here.

so then you think a union worker will take less money, or heaven forbid work harder than he does today for the same wage? not from what i have seen

YardleyLabs
06-25-2010, 05:13 PM
All that the Fed needs to do if enforce laws already in place. I don't have them anymore, but up till a few years ago, I still had my I-9's and copies of Alien reg. cards for all the Spanish kids that worked for me almost 10 years ago. Not obeying those laws can carry some pretty heavy fines. Nobody ever checked to make sure I was obeying the law, and nobody else I knew was ever checked either.
A policeman friend of mine told me a rep. from INS paid a visit to the station and told everybody that unless an illegal had a warrant on him, they didn't want to hear about it. That was 21 years ago!!
You can't blame these immigrants for wanting a better life, this is our leaders fault, all the way.
Walt
However, this whole thread began with David's complaint about Federal efforts to require businesses to enforce labor laws with respect to illegal immigrants. That happens to be an area where enforcement has been relatively successful. I agree that there has been almost no enforcement of employment visa requirements at any time in the last 20+ years. Until that changes, border enforcement is meaningless. People enter the country legally, get jobs, and stay long past the expiration of their visas. That will continue to happen even if our borders are mined with tanks waiting to shoot anyone trying to cross.

david gibson
06-25-2010, 05:23 PM
However, this whole thread began with David's complaint about Federal efforts to require businesses to enforce labor laws with respect to illegal immigrants. That happens to be an area where enforcement has been relatively successful. I agree that there has been almost no enforcement of employment visa requirements at any time in the last 20+ years. Until that changes, border enforcement is meaningless. People enter the country legally, get jobs, and stay long past the expiration of their visas. That will continue to happen even if our borders are mined with tanks waiting to shoot anyone trying to cross.

wrong again. i am way past that, its hopeless. this thread started with my wondering why they are saying two different things - like the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing.

YardleyLabs
06-25-2010, 06:36 PM
wrong again. i am way past that, its hopeless. this thread started with my wondering why they are saying two different things - like the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing.
The enforcement of employment laws to prevent illegals being hired more cheaply than legals has been based on allowing employers to be sued without repercussions for the person filing the complaint. Thus an illegal who is not paid (a frequent problem) or underpaid, may sue the employer for income loss with a potential for punitive damages. Without that opportunity there is no possibility of enforcement. While your comment may make for a good sound bite, it reflects a substitution of ideology for intellect.

EDIT: BTW, while you enjoy describing this as a "Democrat" problem, the same policy existed under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. I suspect that it also existed under Ford and Nixon but I was not directly involved in such issues then.

road kill
06-25-2010, 06:42 PM
The enforcement of employment laws to prevent illegals being hired more cheaply than legals has been based on allowing employers to be sued without repercussions for the person filing the complaint. Thus an illegal who is not paid (a frequent problem) or underpaid, may sue the employer for income loss with a potential for punitive damages. Without that opportunity there is no possibility of enforcement. While your comment may make for a good sound bite, it reflects a substitution of ideology for intellect.

EDIT: BTW, while you enjoy describing this as a "Democrat" problem, the same policy existed under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. I suspect that it also existed under Ford and Nixon but I was not directly involved in such issues then.

Ah yes, the GOLD standard!!

Well then, I guess it's OK!!:D



rk

YardleyLabs
06-25-2010, 07:07 PM
Ah yes, the GOLD standard!!

Well then, I guess it's OK!!:D



rk
Actually, the only point I was making is that the policy is actually rational and has been supported consistently over time because it works.

Ken Bora
06-26-2010, 08:19 AM
I just think it is cool that David G. has read Heller! :cool:
I would have never thunk it ;-)


.

david gibson
06-26-2010, 08:52 AM
The enforcement of employment laws to prevent illegals being hired more cheaply than legals has been based on allowing employers to be sued without repercussions for the person filing the complaint. Thus an illegal who is not paid (a frequent problem) or underpaid, may sue the employer for income loss with a potential for punitive damages. Without that opportunity there is no possibility of enforcement. While your comment may make for a good sound bite, it reflects a substitution of ideology for intellect.

EDIT: BTW, while you enjoy describing this as a "Democrat" problem, the same policy existed under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. I suspect that it also existed under Ford and Nixon but I was not directly involved in such issues then.

maybe the policies existed, but they didnt expose the counter-intuitiveness of them like they have here. somehow the connection of title of this thread and subject matter is escaping you. my bad. this is not a rant, just pointing out the counter-intuitiveness.

Gerry Clinchy
06-26-2010, 10:55 AM
Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/139391/Roughly-Million-Mexicans-Express-Desire-Move.aspx

Those 6.2 million Mexicans aren't alone ... as you can see from the figures from other countries.

These #s might be a good reason to get on the stick WRT to intelligent immigration reform:


Keeping in mind that Gallup's numbers reflect desire rather than actual migration rates, Mexico's roughly 6.2 million would-be migrants to the U.S. are significantly less than the estimated 22.9 million adults who would come from China, 17.1 million from India, and 16.6 million from Nigeria. Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and Brazil would also send more migrants than Mexico.



If all of the adults worldwide who tell Gallup they would like to move to another country actually did so, the United States could see a net population gain of 60% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124193/Potential-Net-Migration-Change-Developed-Nations.aspx). Several other developed countries, such as Singapore, however, could be even more overwhelmed with migrants because of their smaller relative current population. Mexico, on the other hand, could potentially see net population losses as high as 15%.

With all the mess our govt is already in, can you imagine if the U.S. population increased by 60% ... 180,000,000!