Texsox

So what jobs do you think they are working? Yep, some are working in the restaurant industry, etc. But overall they are taking the lowest paying jobs. They are also the largest group of migrant workers. That isn't racist, that is stating facts of their employment. And last time I drove through Indiana I saw plenty of farm crops. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) I don't know when racism became OK here, but clearly not all illegals are fruit pickers. This doesn't happen just in the crop belt, or there wouldn't be illegals here in Michigan City.

And who would be working those jobs? I already saw the local shrimp industry destroyed when the DoL sharply reduced the number of temporary VISAs they would allow. For some reason there just wasn't enough epople willing to spend 10 months on a shrimp boat in the Gulf of Mexico. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:22 PM) No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have the extra 15 million or so people here.

How many unemployed people do you know who are willing to work seasonal jobs for low wages? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) And if they aren't here, we don't at all. Not to mention in a time when there is 10% unemployment in this country, it might actually free up some jobs, and increase some wages for people.

If there were enough willing citizens to take those jobs, we would still have the same problem. The lowest income tax brackets have negative rates. From a financial stand point illegals who do not have a social security number are the best deal. They consume less of those services than a citizen. ALso, a citizen is not likely to move to Mexico but a Mexican national is. THat is why we have turned our heads since Reagan. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 03:02 PM) Which do you think will cost more, a one time fine to an employer, or a lifetime of social services?

There are already incentives by the Mexico government for companies from all over the world to relocate or add plants in Mexico. NAFTA has further incentified companies to locate operations in North America. One of the largest concentartions of Japanese companies outside Japan is in Reynosa, Tamps, Mexico. Most of those managers live on the US side of the river and commute daily.

Than I am saying conservatives have a problem with a million other things that cost money, why don't they care now? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) No I am saying liberals don't have a problem with a million other things that cost companies money, why do they care now?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2010 -> 04:55 PM) I actually said this years ago. If you want to really solve the problem, take away the incentive to come here illegally. If it were my ball of wax, I would institute massive fines to employers who were caught with illegals on their payroll. Call it like $50,000 per instance. Then make sure that there is a level of enforcement, unlike most governmental regulators in this country. There will be no more talk about rounding everyone up and sending them back. The problem will solve itself to a large degree. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 4, 2010 -> 06:47 PM) Then up the fine to $50,000,000 for companies of certain size. Fixed. Whatever the case may be, cut off the reason they come here illegally at the source, then open the gate for those who do it legally to prosper, rather than suffer as they do now. Doing nothing isn't the answer. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 5, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) Tex, I am not sure what you are reading, but I believe that everyone here agrees with that statement, and has expressed that as well. You keep bringing it up as if people are against that.

Great point. We already require multiple proof of the right to work. I believe we both would agree that there is a range of acceptable. Less and it isn't enough, more and it is too much. It is even more of an issue when the additional requirements do not address the core problem, but are a simple bandaid, or worse, capitulating to a block of voters without doing any real good. Much like ties go to the runner, I would like to see a great deal of proof that an employer willingly and knowingly hired illegals or anyone working for cash before jeopradizing the jobs of innocent people at the company. But I've always been a huge pro business guy. I want to see small business thrive and placing a death penalty on being fooled by an illegal seems to hurt us more than help. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) So why is this "giant pain in the ass" so much worse than any of the others that we require as a government, or want to see passed?

Do you really think deep background checks for temporary, minimum wage jobs is a solution or a bandaid? Here is an example. A watermelon packing shed near me operates for about 4 months. They need around 600 employees when they are at full capacity. These employees are paid around minimum wage. When they finish there some are hired at the local citrus sheds. Then they are heading north for other crops. They will probably work for half a dozen different employers before the year is over. You want each of those employers to spend hundreds of dollars conducting deep background checks on every employee? You will destroy our Ag industry in America and make us even more dependent on foreign grown food. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 5, 2010 -> 10:51 AM) Then I guess the solution actually is to start killing them on sight since you don't think any other solution is viable. Guess we should just give up! It can be done, despite the excuses I'm hearing here.

In the interest of collecting taxes, the IRS looks the other way when someone seems to be working four jobs in three states at the same time. Same with Social Security. The person whose identity is being used learns of it when the IRS contacts them about unreported income. Another problem is people will actually allow it to happen. They will allow a friend or family member to use their ID. They receive credit towards Social Security and a refund of the taxes paid so they "win". The illegal works the job and the citizen collects the benefits. Do a background check or whatever and it all looks legit.

Actually from what I've heard down here they will use the name if it matches well. Which is another reason why having "illegal looking" citizens carrying identification papers seems like a terrible idea. Basicaly if a male hispanic around the same dob walks in and says his name is Juan Guerra and the birth certiifcate and social security card say Juan Guerra, and they are looking for someone to work for six weeks at a produce shed, I have some empathy. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 5, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Tex, at least as of a few years back when I still had my store open, I was required to fax info about all new employees to the state so they could check for child support orders. The info included name, dob and ss number. How hard is it to tap into that info and at least see if the name and ssn actually match? That is a quick and easy way to start, since most people stealing ssn's don't keep the original name.

I have abirth certificate issued by the Chicago. My kids from Lake Forest. My girlfriend from a small town in Texas that no longer exists as a town. They all look different. Are you really suggesting deep background checks for seasonal workers? It's not being lazy it's spending hundreds of dollars for a position that will pay a few thousand. What would a deep background check show for a 16 year old applying for their first job? Drug tests are cheap, but do not establish citizenship. Most modern employers do not do background checks on their minimum wage employees that would establish citizenship. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 5, 2010 -> 09:34 AM) Actually, my last 5 employers did deep background checks on me, drug tests, etc. And we aren't just talking huge corporations here, but a few very small companies that did these same things (1 of which had less than 20 employees). So um...I don't know what you're talking about. The means to check people exist, but because some companies are lazy we should just ignore it?! I think not. MOST modern employers do background checks...they don't just photocopy ID's and stick them in folders. If they don't have VALID US I.D./papers FROM the US on their entry, then they shouldn't be hired. Who cares about foreign papers or birth certificates, that's not for US employers to examine or accept. They can go to the US Government with those and start the process as they're supposed too. If these government papers are forged/fake, a background check will reveal them to not really exist and to be fakes. If they're cases of ID theft, again, the company in question cannot be held liable, however, the crime of ID theft needs to be of major consequence.

The problem as I see it is effort and intent. If we made it a crime to accept a forged $20 imagine how much effort people may go through to verify if their change is authentic. How much effort did you last employer do to check if you were legal? They took and item from column A and an item from column B, photocopied them and placed them in your file. I think they can do more, but how much more? There are no standards for birth certificates. Maybe a national right to work card is a good idea, but how much would that cost versus implementing a guest worker program that actually benefits American business? QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) Of course...we could overhaul the ID theft laws, but that would annoy the banks, so that can't be done.

Actually it is not as easy at it would seem. There are literally tens of thousands of different birth certificates in this country. Cities, counties, etc all have different versions. People pass along social security cards. Down here there are public service messages about NOT carrying your social security card around. And this sort of identity theft is often ignored by the "victim" who sees additioal contributions to their social security account. What judges and juries will have to decide is how much effort is reasonable for an employer to make in checking out these identifications. Finding out your employer is out of business and you are out of a job, because four guys in the factory used fake identification will leave some Americans in a pretty bad spot. I'm not certain we want to go down that path. We will find very few larger employers with employees without any documentation working for cash. That will be on the smaller farms, restaurants, and construction crews. We will also find citizens working for cash to avoid IRS leins, ex-spouses, social security and pension troubles, etc. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 5, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) Exactly. While papers may be "forged", it's EASY to check if they're legit. Aside from a pure identity theft case, in which the persons name and SSN are actually valid, forged/falsified documents will not check out, if they're checked out as they should be, simply because the information a) won't match, or B) won't exist in government computers. In the case it was via an identity theft, the company wouldn't be liable as they can show they were duped with legit information, albeit stolen, they did their due diligence. However, the identity thief should be tossed in prison for life. Identity theft is a crime that cannot be overlooked anymore, as it is and will become even BIGGER than it is now in the future. Send the damn message that it's not tolerated one way or another, not here and not anywhere else, either. Ignoring the issue doesn't help. And it does nothing but harm those who actually go through the legit process of coming here.

If a company accepts a counterfeit $50 bill they are out $50. If they accept a counterfeit birth certificate and social security card they are out $50,000,000?? Doesn't seem correct.

IIRC most posters here felt Paulie offered the team a "home town discount".

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/05/filo.html

Killed (and approximate distance from the National Guard): Jeffrey Glenn Miller; 20, 265 ft (81 m) shot through the mouth - killed instantly Allison B. Krause; 19, 343 ft (105 m) fatal left chest wound - died later that day William Knox Schroeder; 19, 382 ft (116 m) fatal chest wound - died almost an hour later in hospital while waiting for surgery Sandra Lee Scheuer; 20, 390 ft (120 m) fatal neck wound - died a few minutes later from loss of blood

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2010 -> 04:46 PM) Sounds like the 3/5's law to me. They are a citizen, but only kinda one. There isn't a chance in hell that something like that stands up as legal. We have people working here on Visas, how is that different? I am saying they are not full citizens, they just have a legal right to be here. Call it by whatever name you like. Or change the Social Security and voting laws to eliminate anyone gaining citizenship through this program.

Easily solved. Allow legal status to be in ths country, but with limited benefits. I'm trying to offer a compromise that the GOP has a chance in hell of supporting. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2010 -> 02:57 PM) Ok Tex, here's my simple counterpoint to the no citizenship argument. Let's say, for example, that I'm an employer, let's call me WalPetroleumMassey, and I want to make as much money as possible doing whatever it is I do, running harvesting equipment or construction or whatever. So, I decide I want to pay a lot of migrant workers below minimum wage and I want to eliminate safety precautions to save money. Now, if you're an American worker, you have several options. You can quit, and try to find another job. Or, you can report them to the government for violating a ton of rules, and likely be considered a whistleblower. You could organize a union. With American workers, of course, sometimes this won't happen, but usually that's because you've got a very well paid worker who doesn't want to risk losing his or her job by being a malcontent. On the other hand...if you're here on a guest worker program and you have zero path to citizenship, if you lose your position, you're suddenly an illegal immigrant. You're deported. So, basically, as long as the conditions you're working here are better than the conditions you'd face in Mexico, you have a huge incentive to shut up and work in whatever conditions you're told to work in, because you have no negotiating power until you become a citizen. Oh yeah, you can imagine that the feds might inspect the place and issue a few fines once every decade or so, but really, come on, there aren't even enough Federal inspectors any more to find the current illegal immigrants, or to enforce mining/drilling regulations, whatever. A guest worker program without a path to citizenship is an indentured servitude plan. The people come here with no possibility of ever moving up beyond the position they start off in, and it's designed for corporate abuse.

And that doesn't change based on who is working the job. So if you add 15,000,000 people with social security numbers to those jobs then the benefits start getting used. Hire illegals who are too afraid to ask for benefits and you circumvent the negative tax bracket. Hence why the government has been looking the other way. We put those jobs on the books,no matter who works them, and we have a problem. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2010 -> 01:59 PM) That's just it. In the income brackets we are talking about, people actually pay a negative tax rate. The bottom two quintiles are both like this. The bottom bracket is also the one where people primarily use the most social services, which are already overburdened and cost-overran. Immigration is going to force people to pay for a near freeride for another however many people are out there. Pick the number you believe.

First off there does need to be a guest worker program aligned with the needs of US business. There is a simple reason why Mexico and South America should be treated differently. We are talking about minimum wage jobs. Business can not afford to relocate someone from Africa, Europe, etc for a minimum wage position. These people can literally walk here. And often do. My proposal will be an attempt to bridge both parties and give them both something to like. As far as the millions that are already here, I do not go as far as Balta. There needs to be a mechanism for them to be here legally with the rights, but not all the benefits, of citizenship. If they have broken laws outside of immigration, no path to citizenship. They must be self sufficient, so if they are on public aid, no citizenship. Benefits that I would not extend to these guest workers would include social security and voting. One path I would add is citizenship would automatically happen after four years of military service. Currently you have to die while serving to have that happen. Let's reward the successful soldiers as well. I would also add in a change to our citizenship to exclude children of foreign nationals who are born here. Too many "tourists" seem to go into labor and have kids. I wish I could fix the education system for the migrant workers. I've had several student withdraw the last couple days, heading north with their parents to work the fields. They will be back in November. Most years it means three different schools in two or three states. I just don't have a solution.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 3, 2010 -> 07:48 AM) I'm pretty sure he was joking. We won most of that land in wars, and then bought the final piece (Gadsden Purchase) some time in the 1880's I believe. Gadsden was done in order to put a railroad through - needed to get south of the mountainous areas of the Gila to make a line to SoCal, so we bought a sliver of land from the Gila River south to the current NM/AZ border. if we hadn't done that, we'd just be having the same problem further north. That earns you an A for the day. Interestingly we paid the same for that sliver of land that we paid for all of the Louisiana purchase. If you want to be technical, The Republic of Texas gained their independance, then years later was annexed into the United States.

Thanks everyone.