posted
With fake social security cards, they will stay with a company longer and work for lower wages than American citizens, which is good for business owners. In theory, the immigrants are also leaving a worse situation in the country they have emigrated from.
The problem I have is that I think they create a layer of second class citizenship. They are slow to get involved in the political process, because they don't want to draw attention to their illegal status. They are slow to Unionize for similar reasons. They can't get mortgages, or have investment accounts to retire, all because of their illegal status. In general, these illegal laborers create a silent, invisible class of people who work, and work hard, in our country. This makes me deeply uncomfortable as a black American who knows how generations of fear and silent degradation can lead to a justified resentment and estrangement from American institutions. I think we have to look carefully at the virtues of modern democracy, if our way of life only remains viable by creating a second class of laborers enjoying degraded citizenship.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. I think we should open our borders a hundred times wider than they are so those who want to come and work are able to do so legally.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree with you. I'd like to see the legal immigration process simplified and opened so that it's viable for people to enter the country legally, and I'd like to see a way for illegal immigrants already in the country to earn their citizenship without having to loose everything they've worked here for.
What you describe is the other side of the scale from what Card wrote about in his essay on immigration a ways back.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus the whole social security crisis is because we don't have enough workers. That's another reason I prefer McCain, because he is about border security and not illegal immigration. The borders should be open in a way that we know who's coming and going, and not so tight that that it takes a criminal act to cross.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, first off, there's absolutely no way that illegal immigrant labor can exist in any one family for more than a single generation. Immigrants kids are born here and become citizens (and are often the path to citizenship for their parents).
Second, "our only way of life" does not require a "second class of laborers enjoying degraded citizenship." There's no major economic reason for immigrants to remain without citizenship; most professional economists are strongly in favor of increased immigration, both low-skill and high-skill, and are fine with giving these immigrants citizenship.
Third, most research I've seen suggests that the Hispanic community is becoming involved with the general American life - politics and such - at about the same rate as prior waves of migration. It just takes a generation or two, as always. Simplified polls and research doesn't pick up on this trend because Hispanic immigration hasn't been coming in a "wave" like previous ethnicities & nationalities, but has been pretty continuous since the early 20th century. It's easy to overlook those who have "Americanized" in favor of the newest batch of immigrants.
Personally, I'm strongly in favor of immigration. I grew up in Silicon Valley, where you could see both sides of the coin. The "internet revolution" wouldn't have taken place without the computer science people from India & China. At the same time, a quick look around the neighborhood would see Mexican immigrants doing the landscaping and construction work. Both groups worked hard, are a credit to our country, and deserve citizenship if that's what they want. It'll certainly only help America in the long run.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely believe that the illegal workers are being exploited, and their very illegality makes it so that they cannot demand fair treatment and wages that legal US workers enjoy. I put the blame both on the people who hire them and the illegal immigrants themselves.
But those who hire the illegal immigrants for ANY job are the most to blame--whether it is a large corporation or a guy picking up some guys to work on his house. I find them their actions despicable and inexcusable. I find it despicable and inexcusable exactly because they are typically not hiring illegal immigrants because they want to help them feed their families or pay their rent. They're doing it because they want to pay less. There's absolutely nothing noble in their actions.
I feel the same way when I hear a couple of coworkers say they're happy that the illegal immigrants that hang out on a corner on our way to work have found work when they see a pickup truck carting several of them away. I see nothing to be happy about where a group of people are being exploited and our country's borders are not being respected.
But I also blame a system that doesn't prevent this from happening, and I absolutely disagree that the answer is to open our borders wider and to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants who are already here. If people want to enter the US, they should do so legally, based on our current laws. If, however, there is a compelling reason to change those laws to make it easier in some way for some people to immigrate, then I'm okay with that, but not with a blanket plan that basically says "come one, come all." I think that people who are here illegally should be deported.
I've heard it suggested that the children of illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship if they were born in the US, and with that, I'm afraid I disagree. If illegal immigrants are here and have children, then those children are US citizens. The problem should have been dealt with before they had children. I'm sure there are already laws on the books dealing with parents who aren't citizens having children who are citizens and where they're allowed to live, etc. It may be that the parents would be required to live where they have citizenship, but their children would be free to move to the US when they are no longer under their parent's care.
But my whole point is that it absolutely is possible to be disgusted at how exploited the illegal immigrants are and to feel compassion toward them, and to believe at the same time in deportation, border controls, and enforcement of laws dealing with illegal and legal immigration.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder if people who say all illegals should be sent home are ignorant or heartless. If they are ignorant, then they don't realize the mass amount of work that these people do, without the benefits of citizenship that we have, and they don't realize the hole they would leave if we could magically wave a wand and send them home. Or they Do realize this and don't care, because being heartless, they don't have any intention of actually sending them home, it'd be too expensive all the way around, and they WANT them to stay second class citizens.
I'm okay with amnesty. It's amnesty for something that should never have been a crime to begin with. Let's work hard at bringing those in the shadows into the light, and work hard to make sure that the next wave is welcomed with open arms, and some scrutiny.
But. I'm not in favor of immigration with zero limits. I think we should increase the number of people we let in for low and high skilled workers greatly. There's a huge labor shortage coming in this country, and I have no problem letting many, many more in to fill those gaps and to begin their journey towards whatever American dream they may have. But that doesn't mean throwing the door open and being the relief valve for South and Central America. We need to work on a national scale to help them too, so there won't be as much disparity as there is.
And either way we still need to work on border surveillance. I think surveillance is more important at this stage than security. Once we open the border more, and at least get a guest worker program for those we won't let stay here, then I imagine everyone who wants in can come through the front door, but people we still don't want here, like the occasional terrorist, will still get in through a porous border. So we need lasers and cameras and blimps and whatever else they think is a good idea to be watching the border, but thousands of more guys in modified dune buggies tramping around the border will be a waste of time and money. It should be surveillance tied to a rapid response team that can track and detain the very few who will be coming across illegally after we fix the problem.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we need to come down hard, very hard on the employers who are hiring illegals knowingly.
As for fake SS cards, simple fix - make it mandatory that employers check out social security numbers with the SSA and that the numbers match the other identification required. What happens now is as long as employers have a card, they wink-wink-nudge-nudge and say "I had no idea he/she was illegal! I had a valid social security card!" when they know full well the person is not legal and the card is fake. My mom tells of applicants that came by with cards that had sequential numbers. she sent them packing but how many employers would just take the cards and move on? By the way, my twins who were born mere minutes apart and whose applications for social security numbers were sent in the same envelope don't even have sequential numbers - it's not even that close - only the first five numbers are the same.
We should make the employers face stiff fines and penalties for hiring illegal labor, so they will not be inclined to do it anymore. At the same time, create a guest worker program so the employers can hire people legally, and so the workers can be paid at legal wages with benefits just like a US worker.
Have in place a system that allows those that have been working in the US under the guest worker program for a set amount of time and have not had any problems with the law to move smoothly into citizenship. We match up employers with willing workers, ensure the workers are being paid fairly, and ensure that people become citizens while having a way to screen out criminals.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, may I ask why you're so against employers who hire illegal immigrants knowingly? Is it that they're breaking a law? Creating more of a problem? Taking advantage of the illegal immigrants? Making it harder for Americans to find work? Unfair advantage against other companies?
I ask because, unless it's the first issue (breaking a law), I'm not sure how to create a coherent stance from your two points.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I think we need to come down hard, very hard on the employers who are hiring illegals knowingly.
Sometimes it can be very hard to prove the knowingly part, at least where I live. Most illegals seeking jobs just chill at a 7-11 until a truck stops by and asks if they need work. Then they just ride to the construction site or wherever and get paid after the job is done. That is what the bulk of illegals do where I live, and there are a lot of them. Even with the stricter laws that they are placing on them (cutting off water and power to people who harbor or are illegal immigrants), it can be tough to stop people from coming over when it is this easy to get a job.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But. I'm not in favor of immigration with zero limits. I think we should increase the number of people we let in for low and high skilled workers greatly. There's a huge labor shortage coming in this country, and I have no problem letting many, many more in to fill those gaps and to begin their journey towards whatever American dream they may have. But that doesn't mean throwing the door open and being the relief valve for South and Central America.
I couldn't agree more. These changes don't come without consequences. As the number of immigrants increases, so does the need for healthcare, education, etc. We are already seeing it now, and if we don't have the proper resources in place to support the influx of population, the situation will only get worse.
As an immigrant (completely legal) myself, and now a US citizen, I am very much for opening the borders and allowing the people to realize the dreams they couldn't make true in their homelands. However, I also have strong feelings regarding people assuming responsibility for themselves, instead of becoming a burden on their family or society at large.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to wonder if people who say all illegals should be sent home are ignorant or heartless.
There are other options.
I don't know, what are the other options then? I don't discount the possibility, but everything I work out leads to those two things.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, may I ask why you're so against employers who hire illegal immigrants knowingly? Is it that they're breaking a law? Creating more of a problem? Taking advantage of the illegal immigrants? Making it harder for Americans to find work? Unfair advantage against other companies?
All of the above. I see the side of hiring illegal labor that hurts everyone, the illegal worker and the consumer. Where we face it is in construction. People who hire illegal labor at day wages can afford to bid jobs really low, because their labor cost is minimal. They undercut honest businesspeople who obey the laws, file proper taxes and do everything correctly. And, the illegal worker has no protection. If he gets hurt - big deal. Go pick up another one at 7-11. Disability? Workman's comp? Don't have 'em. And the worker can't complain, can he?
I see it most in framing, roofing, and painting industries. Not so much the more "skilled" trades like electricial work and plumbing. Yet still, an American company that is family owned and files the proper taxes and has diability and workman's comp for its employees can't compete with the guy willing to get his labor force at the 7-11. I think that is wrong, and needs to stop. Not just so the Americans can have the jobs, but also so the illegal workers have some protection - what happens to the illegal worker who falls off a roof and breaks his leg? He gets dumped in the emergency room, and he never hears from his "employer" again.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the worker is being taken advantage of in that situation. I'm generally on the side of no paternalism & letting people enter into contracts freely. Do you think that an illegal immigrant doesn't realize that, should he get injured, he'll have to deal with it himself? He'd have the same problem with employers in Mexico - except here he gets paid more. He certainly isn't "being hurt" by the practice of hiring illegal labor - that's what he came here to be. Unless you're claiming you know what's better for him then he does?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because one could be perfectly knowledgeable, and even have good intentions, but mistaken as to how something might result based on misapplied prior experience or misapplied principles. If you want to a semantic argument, you could be "ignorant" of properly applying a process to the data, but I think simply using ignorant as a catch-all gives some kind of negative connotations to situations that shouldn't have such connotations. Part of it is how willfully ignorant you are about a subject before you start proposing/supporting an interpretation of the subject, and how willing you are to accept new data that invalidates your interpretation, or admit potential flaws in you preferred interpretation.
posted
How about informed but of a different opinion? Frankly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either heartless or ignorant is rather arrogant.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, you realize that the whole thing is so sad its comical, and so comical its sad.
A politician can get a lot of support bashing Illegal Aliens as dangerous, job stealing, greedy, ignorant crimminals, a drain on our society and lifestyle.
Yet if they dare speak up against the people who hire them, funding for their political goals disappear.
Those who hire illegal immigrants paint them as hard working, loyal, dedicated family people who are bravely risking their lives for a few pennies to buy bread for their families back home.
Unions oppose illegal immigrants, but are some of the Democrat's biggest supporters.
Corporations approve of illegal immigrants, but are some of Republican's biggest supporters.
My it gets confusin.
Meanwhile, how many illegal aliens died in the CA wildfires, because the refused to leave thier jobs, afraid someone else would take those jobs if they left, or that their employers would be upset, or that the aid shelters would be manned by INS agents?
I'm waiting for someone to propose a "Final Solution" to the immigrant problem--you know, a quiet dessert to bury those aliens with no inalienable rights.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Okay, so the third category is just a generic "wrong" but without any specific reason as to why? I can see where you'd see ignorant with a negative connotation, and I don't want an inherent insult attached to that option, so I'd be open to other options.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: How about informed but of a different opinion? Frankly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either heartless or ignorant is rather arrogant.
Breaking down the options, in this specific case, I don't think it is. If you don't understand the issue at hand, you're ignorant of it. To use a better phrase: not in possession of all the facts for whatever reasons that I won't try and attach meaning to. Or you do understand the issues at hand, and with full understanding you still choose what you choose, then I think I'd probably label such a generic person who holds that belief as heartless. Someone who knows the situation and still chooses to spend useless billion to send millions to other countries, when it'd likely be totally ineffective anyway, and to tear families apart, etc etc all the bad things that would happen, would leave me to believe that even above all the negatives, with seemingly few positives, they would STILL choose to inflict that suffering, they'd have to either not know what they are choosing fully, or know it perfectly and in so choosing I think make a heartless decision.
If you still hold to that, then I guess I'm arrogant on this one. Given the topic, I can live with it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to you (and me), there's seemingly few positives. For someone who ranks law and order above the costs, financial and emotional, of deporting all the current illegal aliens, the positive of having those who are here illegally out of the country might be a very large one.
That said, if someone is so interested in maintaining law and order, the cost of sending all the illegal immigrants home could probably be spent better in the police force, court system, and the like. Plus, immigrants on a whole, legal & illegal, are 5 times less likely to be imprisoned (or caught and deported) than American citizens. Except for the whole "being here illegally thing," they're a pretty law-abiding folk.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the worker is being taken advantage of in that situation. I'm generally on the side of no paternalism & letting people enter into contracts freely. Do you think that an illegal immigrant doesn't realize that, should he get injured, he'll have to deal with it himself? He'd have the same problem with employers in Mexico - except here he gets paid more. He certainly isn't "being hurt" by the practice of hiring illegal labor - that's what he came here to be. Unless you're claiming you know what's better for him then he does?
Do you seriously think it's okay to treat illegal workers in a fashion you would not treat American workers? It's okay to let them work with no protection, no insurance, no safety measures at all? What do you think does happen to that illegal who falls off a roof and breaks his leg? Do you think he goes back to Mexico for medical care and time to recuperate? No - he gets treated in an American hospital and instead of it being paid for by the employers' workman's comp it's paid for by the taxpayers.
You can't hire American citizens without cutting payroll taxes, paying unemployment insurance, and carrying workman's comp on them. Why should you be able to hire illegals without those things either? Those measures are there to protect the employee and also to ensure if something does happen, it doesn't fall on the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
The problem is, if we institute a guest worker program where we can legally hire people who aren't citizens yet, and we force the employers to pay the appropriate payroll taxes and provide the same insurance and benefits they do American workers prices will go up. In some industries and for some products it will be a drastic increase. Who's ready to pay?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prices will also go up, and probably more, if we increase enforcement of hiring restrictions and don't expand the programs. I suspect that if we expand the programs, overall consumption by people already in the US will increase (there's evidence that the presence of immigrants increases wages, overall).
I'm all in favor of increasing hiring enforcement and greatly expanding guest worker and citizenship and other immigration-related programs.
It is better for previous immigrants and their descendants, and it is better for new immigrants.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:a quiet dessert to bury those aliens with no inalienable rights.
Perhaps a large strawberry field forever?
Seriously, I follow newspapers in Reno, NV, Ogden and Salt Lake UT and I am sickened by the letters to the editor on this subject. They are almost universally racist and ignorant. Any attempt at sound economic reasoning is absent. I fear that we have few politicians willing to face this wall of ignorance and address the situation.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you seriously think it's okay to treat illegal workers in a fashion you would not treat American workers? It's okay to let them work with no protection, no insurance, no safety measures at all? What do you think does happen to that illegal who falls off a roof and breaks his leg? Do you think he goes back to Mexico for medical care and time to recuperate? No - he gets treated in an American hospital and instead of it being paid for by the employers' workman's comp it's paid for by the taxpayers.
You can't hire American citizens without cutting payroll taxes, paying unemployment insurance, and carrying workman's comp on them. Why should you be able to hire illegals without those things either? Those measures are there to protect the employee and also to ensure if something does happen, it doesn't fall on the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
The problem is, if we institute a guest worker program where we can legally hire people who aren't citizens yet, and we force the employers to pay the appropriate payroll taxes and provide the same insurance and benefits they do American workers prices will go up. In some industries and for some products it will be a drastic increase. Who's ready to pay?
I think it's morally acceptable for adults to enter into contracts, and that the contracts may be different for different people. The illegal workers know the terms of contract, and, frankly, they think the terms are so good that they're willing to sneak into the country to get those terms. Such a situation suggests to me that they aren't being taken advantage of.
The employers may be taking advantage of the situation to their own benefit (with detriment to society), but not of the workers themselves. The hospital example that you listed above represents a negative externality - which means the government needs to step in to regulate the externality away. One possible "regulation" - one that I'd be highly in favor of - would be to make all the illegal workers legal (either through citizenship paths or guest worker programs).
I haven't run across any studies, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reduction in negative externalities would be high enough to cancel out a significant portion - if not all - of the cost of hiring the workers legally. As fugu points out, immigrants are generally a net benefit to this country. If the workers are here legally, they'll be able to put their money in banks, invest in capital (first or second generation immigrants are a major source of new businesses and innovation), and otherwise help the long-run economic prospects of the US.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The illegal workers know the terms of contract, and, frankly, they think the terms are so good that they're willing to sneak into the country to get those terms. Such a situation suggests to me that they aren't being taken advantage of.
And yet, we outlawed indentured servitude more than a century ago. And that's basically what it is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How in the world is it indentured servitude? The dictionary defines an indentured servant as "a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance." There's no contract requiring any illegal alien to stay with a employer for any amount of time - if they really want to stop working for someone, all they need to do is walk up to the closest policeman or INS person and announce they're illegal aliens. Belle's main point was that there was no long-term contract or relationship between employers and illegal workers - many of them are day workers, in fact.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright maybe it was strong, I didn't mean it quite as literally 18th century style the way you're laying it out, but I guess my basic point was that just because THEY think it's a good contract doesn't mean it's fair or right.
You're talking about contracts that DO have benefits for the illegal immigrant, after all they've gotten to America, and they are making money to send home to their families. And yet there's a lot of danger involved in what they do, and unfairness. It's not actual indentured servitude like there used to be, but I think you could make a similar leap. People want to come to America and back then they agreed to basically be slaves, though generally not field hands, for a fixed amount of time in order to have their passage paid to come here. For some farms hands in the south it's not much different. They actually pay people to sneak them across the border and set them up with work, where they're paid reduced wages. If you consider the money they have to make to pay for the guy who got them across the border, well, it's really not different. No they don't HAVE to stay with a fixed employer, but I don't think that part is the most important rung of the definition.
quote:if they really want to stop working for someone, all they need to do is walk up to the closest policeman or INS person and announce they're illegal aliens
And I'd say really again, that just because people accept the status quo and struggle through, doesn't mean it's right or what we SHOULD be doing. If I REALLY wanted to quit my job I could to, but then I'd lose my car and my home and I couldn't afford to eat.
At work a couple days ago, the sister of one of the Mexicans that work there came in to interview for a cooking position. Now she was a legal immigrant, and she was asking for 20 pesos an hour for her pay. That's about a $1.80. Now had she been an illegal, my boss probably could have given her less than that and she would have taken it, but I don't think that makes it right, just because she accepts it. I make more than five times that doing much the same work that she'll be doing, though a better number would be what I made when I started, which is between four and five times that, but either way, it's not FAIR, even if you CAN do it, it's not fair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about fairness, though. It's also not fair that they were born in a poverty-stricken country through no fault of their own, and therefore don't get the benefits that Americans, including myself, take for granted every day. One thing I love about economics is that the field, on the whole, doesn't think that nationality, race, or anything else makes one person's wellbeing more important than another's. This moral stance means that I favor things like much more immigration, even if it means that Americans won't be quite as well off (not that I think that that is a given). But it also means that I generally don't think I'm a better arbitrator of what is best for person than the person himself is. Unless there's no coercion or lying, I'm willing to let adults make contracts as they want.
Also, while I agree that there are certain schemes where "border coyotes" smuggle across illegal immigrants who will then work at a certain job to pay for the cost of crossing, I believe that we were speaking in general terms.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I'm ready to pay too. And have. We paid more for all the sub-contract labor on our house than we needed to because we insisted upon subs who hired legally. We used mostly family firms, where Dad owns the brick laying business and his sons are his employees, for example. In some cases it cost us thousands of dollars. But it was worth it to us, to hire people that were doing things the right way.
It wasn't so much a "I only want to hire Americans" thing either, as it was "I don't want to do business with unscrupulous people who will circumvent the law for their own gain." Maybe because we fight so hard to be a legal, above-board business ourselves, paying all taxes, licenses, and fees only to see people undercut our bids because they get their workforce at 7-11. To me, if the guy is going to cut corners with his labor force, he's going to cut them in the construction of my house as well.
Unfortunately, too few people will take such a stand, and I've seen far too many good businessmen lose their livelihoods because of it. As I said earlier, we're fortunate in that in the skilled trades like plumbing, you must have a master plumber's license to pull permits and a licensed plumber on every job, and the consequences for working on a job without a license is very high (if you get caught, but getting caught can be easier than you think becaue the industry polices itself and turns unlicensed jobs in). So it's not as prevalent in our business as others, though it does exist to an extent. But I've known framers, roofers, bricklayers, and painters that have all shut down and just lost their businesses because they could no longer compete unless they themselves picked up workers and paid them less than minimum wage. If they didn't want to do that, they just went bankrupt.
And many people who say they want immigrants paid fairly will look the other way when they need a new roof and one contractor is $1000 below the other.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Plus, immigrants on a whole, legal & illegal, are 5 times less likely to be imprisoned (or caught and deported) than American citizens. Except for the whole "being here illegally thing," they're a pretty law-abiding folk.
Should we deport the ones who are not pretty law-abiding folk?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And many people who say they want immigrants paid fairly will look the other way when they need a new roof and one contractor is $1000 below the other.
How much am I obligated as someone who needs a new roof to investigate a contractor? If I ask them if they use illegal immigrants is that enough? Do I need to have background checks on all of thier employees? Prices vary for many reasons and not simply because one contractor uses illegal immigrants and another one does not.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* You're always going to get a few bad apples in the batch. Personally, I don't think we should be deporting anyone. As I've said previously in this thread, I'd be happy to see much more immigration, and a way for illegal immigrants to become legal (through either simple, reasonable pathways to citizenship or guest worker programs).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guest worker programs make me nervous; they seem like a euphemism for second class citizenship. I don't like the idea that people can live on this soil, and work on this land, but still have their citizenship in peril. I don't know if that's democratic freedom. I'm sure that someone could come up with a guest worker proposal that I could countenance, but on the surface, I'm wary of the idea.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most contractors, as far as they are aware, have no illegal immigrants working for them. They have all the documents for every worker required to show that the worker is a citizen. Most fulfill every legal requirement for employment (so the workers get exactly minimum wage, all required taxes and fees for every employee are paid). So, if you hire a contractor, almost all will be doing this minimum level and would be able to show you paperwork documenting it. There are numerous loopholes of course and they are used to exploit the system, but you will find these in any field. I worked for a company that could only use educated people (like phd level) and they refused to give maternity leave. They hired their workers on limited contracts which kept their number of employees below the limit where you have to pay disability benefits, so the family medical leave act didn't actually apply to them. Atleast one of the phds had no health care (a lot were married and were on their spouse's insurance) and they hired on salary and forced high amounts of overtime unpaid. They also kept track of hours so if you somehow managed to get under 40 hours, it would be noted and they would treat you differently. In theory, since these were all well educated American citizens, they shouldn't have put up with this treatment. But, the job market sucked in that area, so this job was better then none. But they did technically follow all employment laws and I would be surprised if the majority of people who hire illegal immigrants don't technically follow the law.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hitting someone when and where they're desperate to get better terms in anything is by definition taking advantage.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it also means that I generally don't think I'm a better arbitrator of what is best for person than the person himself is. Unless there's no coercion or lying, I'm willing to let adults make contracts as they want.
One of the important moral factors for respecting contracts is that they are ideally reached between two free and equal parties, which means that the parties are emacipated from the demands of both biology and someone else's gun, and they admit their equality before each other. That's not what's happening at the 7/11. There, you have a boss readily taking advantage of immigrants who are choosing between varying forms of degradation.
quote:Most contractors, as far as they are aware, have no illegal immigrants working for them.
Ummm...at the risk of sounding too snarky I have to ask how many you know and why and how you think this is the case. Because I AM a contractor, we've been in the business for more than a decade now and many of our friends and acquaintances are contractors and we're well versed in the contracting business. MOST contractors know full well they have illegal labor working for them and DO NOT CARE.
Most sub-contractors are small businesses with under 10 employees. They are not big enough to be subject to FMLA or anything else like that. They hire day labor and get rid of it when they don't have enough work. If it's raining, and you're a roofer, you just tell your illegal labor not to show up that day. No skin off your teeth, you don't have to pay him. They pay in cash, because the illegals they hire don't have bank accounts. They will often ask the customer to pay in cash as well, so it's easier to keep money "off the books" and not have to report the income to IRS.
As for how you know, and what your responsibility is to ensure the contractor you hire is above board it's simple. You tell them they must have written contracts for the work and that you will not pay up front and you will not pay in cash. If they offer to lower the cost if you do pay in cash, send them packing. Tell them up front you expect that everyone on your job is a legal worker, and that understands enough English so that if you need to ask them questions about your job, they will understand you. Don't settle for the answer "if you have questions, call me" You need to be able to communicate with the workers that are on your job that day, not a contractor that swears he will be available by phone. Ask to see copies of business licenses, bonds, and the permit for your job (which should be kept on the jobsite anyway). If he offers to lower the price to keep the job unpermitted and uninspected, run - do not walk - for another contractor. There is nothing beneficial for you in having your job unpermitted and uninspected. He can do shoddy work and knows he won't get caught, and you have curtailed your ability to withold final payment. You should never pay a contractor until after the job has been inspected and passed.
Edited to add: The language thing may sound harsh, and believe me, I am aware that many legal workers - both citizens and non-citizens - may not speak English. I'm fine with workers on the job that don't speak English provided there is also a worker there who can translate. What I'm advising people is not to have a crew of people who speak a foreign tongue that you don't, so that if you need to tell them "No, you can't replace those shingles until the plumber sets his vents" they'll understand you and stop the work. Or, if there is a safety issue or God forbid, some kind of accident that requires medical intervention, you can communicate with the people working at your house.
[ November 17, 2007, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wish I knew how to put tone into post better. "As far as I know, I have no illegal employees, but how would this change in law regarding illegal aliens affect me if say all of them were hypothetically, not legal- keeping in mind that as far as I know, they are all legal?" was more what I was thinking when I said they don't know they have illegals. From your posts, more of your issue is with hiring day labor. While the majority of day laborers are illegal, I personally know two US citizens (white guys) who did day labor (well, one is dead now- very, very sad story actually). The white clearly legal guys were treated just as badly as the illegals. A bunch of my family is in construction and one family member is immigration law. So I hear a lot of the statistics and law and also the personal stories. A lot of other stuff you mention just seems like overal crooked contractor behavior (like the don't inspect it and not reporting to IRS).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what's worse, letting an immigrant come here so easily via the open borders, without the hope of citizenship, or letting them come here, then not allowing them to be hired, so they're essentially starved back out of the country.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FoolishTook, that's where the guest worker program provides for it. Allowing people a way to work legally in the country, and then having in place a path for citizenship for those who want to pursue it.
I don't advocate completely open borders and citizenship for all who come. We need more workers, and we need people to be hired and paid legally and taxes cut and all that good stuff. But we do not want to open ourselves up for criminal elements. A guest worker program allows you to be hired legally at lawful wages, then after a set amount of time, move toward citizenship. If you're convicted of a felony, then you're not going to be approved for citizenship and your guest worker visa can be revoked. If you're caught hiring illegally and not using approved guest workers or citizens, then you as a business owner should be fined and punished so that there is no incentive for you to hire illegally.
That's what I would like to see happen, but I don't think it will, if I'm being pessimistically honest. I do want hard-working law abiding immigrants in our society. It's what built the America of today after all. What I don't want is a system that encourages businesses to hire illegals because they're cheaper and borders that leak like a sieve so that any crimnal can cross over and set up shop in America.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do we need a guest worker program? Why not just expand the current system to include unskilled labor? Even with gues worker having a theoretical path to citizenship, I don't like the philosophy. You are good enough to do jobs we don't want to do, but not good enough to be one of us.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take away quotas, make it easy for them to come in legally. I have no problem with legal immigrants. I wouldn't care if every person in, say, Cuba or Mexico were to immigrate here legally.
I do have a problem with illegals. They don't pay income tax. They often get wellfare benefits that people that live here legally are not allowed. They are not citizens, and as such have no rights under the Constitution.
Y'all are talking about them as "Second Class Citizens." They aren't simply because they are not citizens.
As soon as they raise their hands and say "I pledge allegiance," I'd give my life for 'em. Until then, screw 'em.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do have a problem with illegals. They don't pay income tax. They often get wellfare benefits that people that live here legally are not allowed. They are not citizens, and as such have no rights under the Constitution.
Well, it's easy to win an argument if you examine only the portions of it which support your stance. Yes, many illegal immigrants don't pay income tax. Which almost all of them wouldn't be paying anyway since they're so damn poor, so your complaint on this score is irrelevant.
Your second point is...well, what, exactly? With the mentality of, "If they're not citizens, screw `em," I find it difficult to believe you're really very interested in welfare benefits anyway. But let's suppose you are interested in making sure people who need it get the welfare benefits they're entitled to (beyond, that is, simply saying you support it): your stance on the children of illegal immigrants is, "They weren't born here, so they can starve or suffer medical problems as far as I'm concerned."
Classy.
You're not saying they're second-class citizens, you're essentially saying they're second-class people. But I don't know why I'm bothering to talk about this with you. That you'd raise the point that 'they don't pay income tax' illustrates just how poorly informed you are about all this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
she sent them packing but how many employers would just take the cards and move on? By the way, my twins who were born mere minutes apart and whose applications for social security numbers were sent in the same envelope don't even have sequential numbers - it's not even that close - only the first five numbers are the same.
