posted
Rivka, thanks for your information. I'm completely against incurring debt of any kind, so that we have money available to help our kids, which is why any loan is not acceptable to me.
Fortunately, my father and step mom are paying for the rest of my college, with the understanding that I can pay it back, interest free at my own pace once I begin working. They've actually told me paying it back is not necessary, but it is to me.
If my kids don't get any type of merit scholarship, then we'll just have to find a way to pay for it. I don't want them to graduate college with mounds of debt either, so they'll probably have to live at home and attend state schools. Which is not a terrible fate, even if it's not what they really want.
As for the witholding thing, if you withold taxes on an employee there are lots of things that go into that. The administrative costs that go into witholding and reporting to the IRS, for one thing. And it's not just the amounts that you withold, you also have to pay unemployment, and the rates in the construction industry are ridiculously high. Trust me on this - witholding taxes and doing things legally and ethically is much more expensive on the employer. Much. To the point that we eventually had to let everybody go and scale back our business because we couldn't afford it anymore. Our unemployment tripled in the time we paid it, and we never had a claim. Try absorbing any cost that triples without having to pass it along to customers - especially when you're bidding against people who DON'T pay that unemployment on their employees - you can't do it.
But, to me - paying people wages on a 1099 to avoid having to pay all these other taxes and fees is unethical. The IRS has rules about who can be paid on 1099 and who can't, and most construction firms that use it are doing it illegally or at least unethically. And if you're using the 1099 to avoid paying taxes AND because you know the employee is not supposed to be in this country...that's doubly wrong. But again, everybody knows it happens, and nobody does anything about it.
Meanwhile, my husband sees it from another angle, when he as a firefighter/paramedic has to take illegal immigrants who are sick or injured to the hospital. They give fake names and fake social security numbers. So what happens when the city goes to bill them for the ambulance fees? (yes, the city charges you if they take you to the hospital, somebody has to pay for it - if you're insured your insurance does, if not you get a bill at your house about a week later for $250 minimum) They can't find illegal immigrants though, so they can't collect. So, the city raises its rates, to cover all the unpaid bills and now American citizens with valid SSN's - they pay more So do insurance companies. And the companies pass those costs along to everyone with insurance. What they can't collect from citizens using the services they make up in taxes, including employment tax which is paid by people who are working legally and having taxes witheld, again illegal workers being paid under the table are not responsible for these rising taxes.
Do I have individual compassion for people who are in desperate circumstances? yes. But I'm frustrated with the system, because it's not working. Do illegal aliens contribute to the economy? Yes. But they also cause drains on it, in many different ways.
And, I'm sorry, but I get tired of the argument that they only do jobs Americans won't do. Maybe because I know people who've looked for work in the construction industry and been unable to find it, because everybody is employing undocumented workers instead. I know more than one person who is an American citizen and unable to find work in the trades because of this. One kid asked us for a job because his dad used to work for us. We had to turn him down but when hubby contacted another company owner to recommend the kid the owner told him "Why would I hire an American? They expect me to withold taxes and offer benefits."
Bob said not everyong should go to college, and he's right, but what about these kids who grow up and graduate vo-tech schools and then can't find jobs in the trades because employers are hiring illegal workers instead?
So, forgive my exasperation with the whole thing. I see a side of it, and consequences that maybe not everyone does. It doesn't mean that I don't have compassion on the people emigrating here. But I also have compassion for that kid who wants a job, and should be able to get one, but for unscrupulous employers taking advantage of all the loopholes that allow them to exploit illegal labor. I really, really want to see someone crack down on the employer side. It's just not fair - companies that try to do the right thing are punished, because they can be outbid every time - they must charge more to pay the price that comes with being a legitimate, above-board business.
And everybody should be for it - those that support illegal immigrant rights should want companies to have to pay them the same wages and give them the same benefits everyone else does. But the dark truth is if you do start requiring that, the jobs will be seriously cut back. And prices will go up on everything. So people think it's best just to keep quiet and turn a blind eye to those who exploit the system, and keep everything at status quo.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, here's the thing though, if they contribute at a rate that matches their drain, then the public services side of the argument shouldn't be brought up either. And the data is mixed on that point, so we can't conclude either way, and thus I guess it probably shouldn't be used as a talking point either.
As for the rest of it, it just means we need to make it cost prohibitive to NOT properly withhold taxes. It's a screwy the system we have. By and large, those breaking the law aren't breaking any major moral/ethical tenet, but those that are not being punished, and may not even be breaking the law, technically, are the ones with more moral/ethical culpability in this issue.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Belle, here's the thing though, if they contribute at a rate that matches their drain, then the public services side of the argument shouldn't be brought up either. And the data is mixed on that point, so we can't conclude either way, and thus I guess it probably shouldn't be used as a talking point either.
As for the rest of it, it just means we need to make it cost prohibitive to NOT properly withhold taxes. It's a screwy the system we have. By and large, those breaking the law aren't breaking any major moral/ethical tenet, but those that are not being punished, and may not even be breaking the law, technically, are the ones with more moral/ethical culpability in this issue.
-Bok
Ok well lets dumb it all down and say costs on the economy from immigrants total $1. Now lets ay immigrants also produce $1 from taxes, purchasing good, etc. It's negated. Well by FIXING the loopholes that allow for drain we GAIN another dollar.
Nobody can seriously argue that immigrants do not create a drain on the economy, you CAN justify what they DO do so that deporting them is not warranted. So lets fix the problems that create the drain, as well as regulating who is coming in and how often. What draw backs are there from such a course?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, in your scenario, you DO have access to resources to help you. You do have family members willing to pay for your school. I'm not sure why you're upset that you have to turn to family instead of the government - I think we should turn to family before we turn to the government.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Did you and/or your husband report these other firms?
I ask because, I agree with you whole-heartedly that we should not let employers get away with this stuff. I also agree with you that there is an attitude in this country of looking the other way when employers are suspected of illegal employment practices. With a few notable exceptions, the employers are almost never hit with fines serious enough to make the practice unprofitable for them.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless of course, by fixing the problem, that new dollar is never created, since they never get hired, and the employers decide it isn't worth hiring native workers in their place.
I think many people have and due argue that illegal immigration isn't a drain on the economy... That's why people decide to hire them knowingly. The market is already giving it's answer, BB, and it's that things are working, even if unethically (which is not a problem inherently, since the market is an amoral structure). That said, changes could be made to IMPROVE market returns, while being more ethical. IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: BlackBlade,
Your math is a bit off there. Supposing illegal immigrants cost a dollar and contribute a dollar, it's even NOW. Depending on what we do to inhibit the flow of illegal immigrants, their contribution may dry up, but the "costs" of the interdiction (which is already counted against them in your $1 estimate, I assume) may sky rocket.
Sorry, but without specific proposals, I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to tell you what the drawbacks are to your course of action.
I don't even know if I would "inhibit" their ability to immigrate. Heck build a freeway from LA to Mexico City and put up a toll booth.
The reasons they drain the economy is because they send remitances home, or seek to take advantages of services here that they cannot pay for. Trauma centers in LA being a good example of this. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html
In Hong Kong there is a VERY vigorous prosecution of businesses that hire illegal aliens. They are hired for the same reason we hire them here, its cheaper. Start prosecuting and looking carefully at businesses that turn a blind eye and illegal immigrants will find work is not so easy to come by. They will then take steps to enter the country legally.
Obviously its EASIER for the govt of Hong Kong to address this problem, and China's booming economy is certainly helping curb illegal immigration, but I still think its the correct form of action.
I don't know maybe it would be effectively impossible to monitor every company that might hire an illegal immigrant but I think striking a decisive blow at it would help curtail illegal immigration to a significant degree.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hiring people "off the books" issue is not solely an immigration issue. When we interviewed nannies we had several people who asked whether or not we were reporting the position. And when we said yes, we had one person ask if we'd consider doing it the other way so that she didn't have to pay taxes. (Note to applicant: if prospective employers have just told you that doing things legally is important to them, asking them to make an exception for you is not likely to get you the job. Especially if that job would put you in a position to be a role model to their child.) We also had applicants who were relieved when we said yes, because many families that they had interviewed did not want to pay SS and Medicare and so wanted to pay cash and not report.
The illegal immigration issue makes it safer for companies who want to pay "off the books", since undocumented workers are not likely to report the company, but citizenship status isn't the sole determiner if someone is being paid under the table. There are plenty of born-in-the-USA day laborers in the same situation. And plenty of immigrants with improper or expired documents who are paying taxes.
So basically, I agree with Belle [edit: and BlackBlade] that we need to hold companies accountable to the laws regarding employee wages, taxes, and benefits, regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of the employee.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know lots of Americans who have at one time in their life been paid under the table. I even know a citizen with a masters degree who got paid under the table. I know some American citizens who work construction who get paid under the table too, so even in the construction field, it isn't the illegal alien part. My citizen friends who question have basically been told by the boss, I am paying $X for this job. You can have X or you can have x minus the costs to do it all aboveboard. Which is why I have trouble believing that immigration reform will change that problem.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a friend whose ex-husband almost exclusively takes jobs under the table to stay under the radar and avoid having his wages garnished (he owes an astronomical amount of back child support).
quote:Belle, in your scenario, you DO have access to resources to help you. You do have family members willing to pay for your school. I'm not sure why you're upset that you have to turn to family instead of the government - I think we should turn to family before we turn to the government.
You're not following what I'm saying in total, then. I do have the option of turning to the government but do not wish to. I DID turn to my family instead. I'm not upset at some benefits that I perceive I am not getting, I'm upset at the idea of giving such benefits to illegal aliens over US citizens. It's not about me, I just used myself as an example because I know my situation better than anyone elses'.
If you like, we can talk about some kids I met in a writing workshop offered at my college. I had to participate in the workshop for my Teaching Creative Writing class. They were fabulous kids - writing some amazing stuff, I was impressed. Several of them were from inner city Birmigham schools and did not have the money for tuition to the workshop (it's over $600, I don't have that lying around either, and I'm in better financial shape than most who live in the inner city). They got scholarships to come, and these kids, I think, got a lot of benefit out of this workshop and most of them talked excitedly about plans to attend college and continue writing and several expressed a wish to teach one day, they were asking me about the teaching program at my university.
I want THOSE kids to go to college. I think they will get a great benefit out of it and we as a society will get a great benefit out of them getting degrees and possibly teaching and inspiring another generation too. So, it's not necessarily about me, it's about those kids. And the kid who we had to turn down and no one would hire because he's American. Those are the people that I'm concerned with when I say I want consideration given to Americans or legal immigrants first. People who did things correctly, and didn't try to subvert the law, and deserve a chance.
The kid in Dag's article sounds like a great kid, and I hope he works toward obtaining legal citizenship and I wish him the best, but until then I would rather see government programs aimed toward the kids in that workshop first.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Official languages are stupid. If everybody speaks a language, then legislating it is redundant. If everybody does not, then legislating it is only a way for bigots to communicate their hatred.
Okay, but surely when the number of languages spoken in country reaches a certain number it becomes impractical for the country's government to provide for all of those languages?
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to have Spanish signs etc. in heavily Spanish areas, Chinese signs in heavily Chinese ones, etc. (since presumably people in those areas could help translate the signs); but I don't know how many languages we can mandate that everything be written in everywhere in the country.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the doctor was Bob. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
---
As far as I can see, Belle never did answer whether or not she reported them. She just said that no one cares. Although, maybe I missed it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: India has rather a large number of official languages. They have a thriving democracy.
China has many dialects (some of which are more accurately called languages) that thrive in its provinces, but Mandarin is still taught in schools as the official language. Were it not for Emperor Qin Shi unifying the written language back in 240ish BC, China probably would not have become the empire it eventually became.
I think China is right in how it has handled this. Let cultures and dialects/languages thrive, but make sure plenty of emphasis is placed on amalgamation. A unifying sub culture or specifically a language is indispensible in this regard.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want THOSE kids to go to college. I think they will get a great benefit out of it and we as a society will get a great benefit out of them getting degrees and possibly teaching and inspiring another generation too. So, it's not necessarily about me, it's about those kids. And the kid who we had to turn down and no one would hire because he's American. Those are the people that I'm concerned with when I say I want consideration given to Americans or legal immigrants first. People who did things correctly, and didn't try to subvert the law, and deserve a chance.
They can get loans, just like you could (and did, by the way), and just like your kids can if they don't get scholarships. Just because you'd prefer not to take a government loan isn't reason enough to pretend the option isn't there.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
China has not, in its history, been known for letting "cultures and dialects/languages thrive". I would say it is not known for that now, though it is certainly better than even a few decades ago.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do people feel about a conditional general amnesty? We get the illegal immigrants to come forward and get them on the books, but with a conditional status. Their (for lack of a better word) "legal" status would be tied to the numbers/percentages of new, post-amnesty illegal immigrants.
I'm not following what the condition would be here. What would cause them to lose their status as legal? What would cause them to become non-conditionally legal?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the doctor, Belle answered that question up-thread already, when someone else asked her.
oops! Sorry I missed it. I had my hearing tested yesterday and they figure I just have an attention deficit. This sort of fits with that...
Thanks Belle.
It sort of does answer my question though.
It bothers me, a bit, that you would take one person's word for it. If you have positive information that a crime is being committed, I think you should report it. It was in your best interest to do so, and in the best interest of the country, obviously.
If the official response was less than you'd hoped for, you could then escalate it.
Instead, it appears that you did the very thing you are complaining about in general -- nobody DOES anything.
I know this sounds harsh, so I should probably add that I used to do exactly the same thing. I don't any longer because I realized that the #1 factor in whether some basic laws are enforced is public concern and pressure.
That's not true for violent crime, but this "other stuff" like people hiring others under the table, or people letting others drive drunk, or without a license, etc. etc. It either comes down to average citizens making a stink, or we do just have to forget about it.
And if we forget about it, at the very least, I think we've forfeited our right to complain about the results.
[ July 03, 2007, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: the doctor ]
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not following what the condition would be here. What would cause them to lose their status as legal? What would cause them to become non-conditionally legal?
Some sort of cap would be put on post-amnesty illegal immigrants. If this cap is surpassed (maybe in an area, I really don't know), their provisional "legally here" status is revoked.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think tying any individual's legal status to the behavior or actions of other people is a terrible idea.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'd be like deciding whether or not to punish bank robbers based on the total number robberies in the state/area.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: China has not, in its history, been known for letting "cultures and dialects/languages thrive". I would say it is not known for that now, though it is certainly better than even a few decades ago.
Could you elucidate why you believe that is the case?
Also I said cultures in TODAY's context, not historically speaking. It certainly is not close to being as allowing as say the US but its trends indicate a move towards tolerance rather then supression.
How do you think historically speaking, China has surpressed the formation of dialects/languages?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's totally what I meant. I just don't see how that's not about their behavior.
*confused*
Are you seeing all immigrants, or all immigrants of a particular group, as one entity? It sounds like you're saying that if I'm illegal and I get this conditional amnesty, and then fifty million other people cross the border, I lose this conditional amnesty. But I have no control over the actions of those fifty million other people.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Okay, but surely when the number of languages spoken in country reaches a certain number it becomes impractical for the country's government to provide for all of those languages?
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to have Spanish signs etc. in heavily Spanish areas, Chinese signs in heavily Chinese ones, etc. (since presumably people in those areas could help translate the signs); but I don't know how many languages we can mandate that everything be written in everywhere in the country.
First of all, I want to tell you that I was impressed with your prior post. As to your concern here, my feeling is that we've been getting along okay for the last couple hundred years without any special measures. I grew up in Miami. Street signs were not in multiple languages--with very few exceptions comprised of streets with a great deal of significance and renown in another language, such as Calle Ocho (Eighth Street). The only extra printing is generally pamphlets and such put out by the government are printed in any language that has a large number of speakers. But it costs virtually nothing more to print 800,000 pamphlets in English and 200,000 in Spanish than it does to print a million in English. Sure, there's a one-time cost for translating and another for typesetting, but that's about it. In any case, though, I'm not arguing for the government to provide for every language spoken--that was not always done, until court decisions gradually outlined that right. I'm simply arguing against unnecessary legislation whose primary purpose is--at least, in every English Only movement I've ever had experience with--to send a negative message.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'd be like deciding whether or not to punish bank robbers based on the total number robberies in the state/area.
The number of instances of a particular crime is certainly factored into the severity of punishment and even whether someone is punished at all in some cases. Judges, prosecutors, police, and legislators all crack down on crimes that become too frequent.
If bank robberies went up tenfold, I bet average sentence would increase, whether from prosecutors declining to plea bargain, judges raising sentences given, or legislatures passing new penalties.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's more like sentencing a bank robber and then, when more occur, increasing the first bank robber's sentence.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you explain how? That seems to me to have very little correlation to what I am suggesting.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I have no control over the actions of those fifty million other people.
That's one of the parts I don't grant.
I second what Javert said. It sounds like our disagreement is so fundamental, I don't know how to even address it. You don't grant something that seems self-evident to the point of being axiomatic to me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a generally accepted difference between inability and unwillingness. It is possible that you are, in fact, incapable, but I think you might want to at least make an attempt beforing declaring this.
I would suggest that throwing out an unsupported analogy and refrain from explaining it when asked to is not a responsible way to have a conversation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I would suggest that throwing out an unsupported analogy and refrain from explaining it when asked to is not a responsible way to have a conversation.
Out of curiosity, to what are you referring?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: There is a generally accepted difference between inability and unwillingness. It is possible that you are, in fact, incapable, but I think you might want to at least make an attempt beforing declaring this.
I don't know how I would even go about trying to affect the migration patterns of people with whom I share no connection except a place of birth.
If I did, Broward County, Florida would shrivel up and blow away. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It's more like sentencing a bank robber and then, when more occur, increasing the first bank robber's sentence.
This is closer to what I was trying to say.
quote:posted by Dagonee: If bank robberies went up tenfold, I bet average sentence would increase, whether from prosecutors declining to plea bargain, judges raising sentences given, or legislatures passing new penalties.
Through no fault of your own, you've responded to something I never meant to say, and I apologize. I also agree entirely with the content of your post, so far as it goes.
Let me retry my hand at this whole metaphor business:
Say I rob a bank. I'm caught at the scene, convicted, and put on parole. (To Mr. Squicky)Do you think it would be fair if one of the conditions of my parole conditions is that no further bank robberies occur within a 30-mile radius of me, by anyone?
If not, can you explain why you think it's different?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say I rob a bank. I'm caught at the scene, convicted, and put on parole. (To Mr. Squicky)Do you think it would be fair if one of the conditions of my parole conditions is that no further bank robberies occur within a 30-mile radius of me, by anyone?
I'm pretty sure Squick isn't equating loss of legal status with punishment, so I think the analogy is a non-starter. We already base immigration decisions about one person on the actions of others because we have quotas.
I think his plan is unlikely to work simply because I doubt people would register for such uncertain status, though. Safer to stay below the radar entirely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
