Immigration and Employment
I just wanted to call people's attention to an interesting piece in the New York Times about how businesses are now more openly supporting the liberalization of rules governing the employment of undocumented workers. This comes as a reaction to the stricter rules that state legislatures have been pushing -- such as revoking the business licenses of companies found to be employing undocumented workers, making it a felony to work illegally, etc. These strict local rules, much like the federally-created employer sanctions program, often end up pushing the employment of undocumented workers even further underground -- thus increasing opportunities for exploitation. Although these employers do not likely have the interests of their workforce in mind in taking a stance for more liberal rules, perhaps the pressure that they generate will push this country and its states to adopt a more reasonable policy on employing undocumented workers. Here is the link: "Employers Fight Tough Measures on Immigration."
The sanctions on those who employ any illegals ought to be in line with the RICO sanctions imposed on organized crime figures and drug traffickers. Hire illegals, your assets are forfeited pending trial.
How long does anyone think the problem would persist if this were the case?
As to why it will never be, we need only look at who makes larger campaign contributions - workers (documented or otherwise) or business owners.
July 6, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ OldGrouch
Wasn't a Democratic candidate for high office found to be employing an illegal nanny? I can tell you from personal experience that that's a common practice among limousine liberals.
And what about employers who treat the illegals well? The one I just worked with was paid $10 an hour (in a rural area where that's a decent wage for legals) and given bonuses for good work. He was also treated with respect and helped to learn whatever skills he could absorb. Do you want such employers to be treated as criminals?
Also, if you want employers to be treated as serious criminals forced to serve long jail terms then it is only fair that their illegal employees deserve the same fate...since the present system of deportation is entirely ineffective. So where will you put them all and who will pay?
July 6, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
"@ OldGrouch
Wasn't a Democratic candidate for high office found to be employing an illegal nanny? I can tell you from personal experience that that's a common practice among limousine liberals."
OldGrouch addressed the issue and didn't make it political, but you did with the first sentence of your post. You should get some help with your Pavlovian reactions to other's posts.
July 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 6, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Really? Business owners is obvious code for rich Republicans. You're second ad hominem in the last 15 minutes.I've been through this before, many times, on both a personal and blogger level. Ideologues completely blind to their partisanship, unable to tolerate, or even recognize, legitimate questions about their most basic attitudes.
I've tried many approaches. Currently I'm back to reason but I doubt it'll be any more effective than insults.
I found Joanne Mort's piece to be totally without substance;
Palestine is a sad place, of great importance to Americans who are not aware enough or sympathetic enough to its plight, and don't do enough to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. That's it.
So?
I already know the solution recommended by the Left. Rosenberg trumpets it regularly and I see it published in every paper of the Left, particularly the Guardian. Adopt the Arab position. Force the Israeli to withdraw - entirely - behind the 1967, or 1948, lines and everything will be lovey-dovey. Or, only a little more extreme, force the Israelis to give up Zionism and become a bi-national state.
I don't like it. In fact, I think it stinks and is pretty much equivalent to the worst kind of anti-semitism; one which is willing to look the other way when a new Holocaust occurs.
Worse, from your viewpoint, is that you can't get elected. No Western government anywhere, and in particular no United States Administration, will adopt your position. So, in typical leftist fashion, you conclude there must be something wrong with the electoral system.
July 6, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The stuff about Ms. Mort's piece belongs elsewhere. I'm putting it there now. Sorry.
July 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
A 'proper' capitalist, as defined by a true capitalist, would not seek government aid in order to keep his doors open for business, nor would he complain when government policy put him out of business. He would assume full responsibility for the failure of his business in the same way as he would take full credit for its success.
The socialist that I am, refers to the 'complainers' as half-ass capitalists.
July 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
phelicity,
I find it interesting how company owners, corporate executives, Republicans, and some that visit this site blame everyone but those responsible for business failures or losses.
Though management makes all the decisions, they're never at fault for failure, its the unions, the environmentalists, the workers, the government, babble, babble.
If the company is successful, the executives did it, if it isn't successful, the workers did it.
As JFK once said (I 'think' it was JFK) "Success has 1,000 fathers, failure is an orphan."
July 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and when that same type takes a top position in government, he's consistently never responsible for anything criminal or untoward or stupid or irresponsible that happens on his watch. The type would have us believe that a ship without a captain in charge of the helm is an acceptable and traditional law of the sea.
July 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would someone please explain to me why it says 'hi phelicity' at the top of this page; 'hello phelicity' under Post a Comment and when I hit 'send' I have to submit my name and password? Most peculiar
July 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sanctions on those who employ any illegals ought to be in line with the RICO sanctions imposed on organized crime figures and drug traffickers. Hire illegals, your assets are forfeited pending trial.
Yeah, let's give the government more power to seize the people's assets. After all, look how well that has worked in the war on drugs.
Hell, let's just go ahead and create a police state. We should allow the government to seize the assets of anyone accused of any crime. The beautiful part is the accused won't even have the means to defend themselves, but as you said, the government shouldn't have to prove its case anyway.
Just give them the power. They've certainly shown they deserve it.
July 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink