A quick, easy way to make the illegal immigration/cheap labor problem disappear

Create a law that says if a company hires an illegal worker and is discovered, the CEO will spend 10 years in jail.

Problem solved.

:thumbsup:

If they can't 'protect stock-holder interests' without breaking laws, they should NOT BE CEOs.

If their money making law breaking makes others desperate enough to engage in crimes, they are guilty there too.

People who make money by breaking the laws ARE CRIMINALS.

Why are there so few law breaking business owners and CEOs in jail. Plenty of criminals of lesser means in jail... but bigger fish seem to go unpunished.

Break laws to rob a convenience store of a few bucks - go to jail

Break laws to circumvent a lot of payroll expenses and rob a society of jobs - get a golden parachute.

Something wrong with that

Everyone....Citizen. legal, or not, with brown skin, an accent, a name like Garcia or Lopez, or a pension for mariachi music, will be abruptly out of work, and unemployable.

given the amount of labor that needs to be done.

Firing people, or not hiring them, because of their ethnicity is a violation of the law.

No body was offended. No illegal workers hired. No legal workers fired.

It just wasn't that much trouble to do it by the law.

allow legal immigration and a road to citizenship.

Which brave and independent congresscritter and/or senator who takes megabucks from the same CEO's who will potentially be imprisoned is going to sponsor and/or vote for this proposed law?

any more than impeachment will. But they both should, or could if people were serious about holding the people who benefit responsible.

there are no quick, easy solutions to complex problems.

As pointed above, it would certainly ensure that being Latino meant you couldn't be employed.

Very true.

Maybe a good place to begin is to restore union membership and worker's rights.

Foreign workers must join a union in return for union sponsorship and a path towards obtaining citizenship.

Why not have the employer sponsor the entry of the employee into the coountry?

Educate them about their right to fair wages and benefits. Enforce a level playing field for all workers.

It would remove employer's ability to exploit workers because of their immigration status.

I would not put a fox (employer) in charge of keeping a henhouse (workers). IMO, employers answer to their bottom line, not to fair and equitable treatment of employees. JMO.

The first job in high school I had was a part time job at a grocery store. I was told that I had to join the union or else I couldn't work there. When I joined I asked what benefits I was eligible for, I was told by the union representative that since I was part time, I was not eligible for health benefits, but I still had to pay the union dues.

I am also against the union dues of a member being used to support a candidate that they do not support.

But who will speak for workers? The middle class?

The employers are well organized already and they buy their representatives in government.

The problem shifts to the worker's hungry family in Mexico. But out of sight out of mind, right?

and desperate people don't get exploited and legal workers don't get the shaft in Canada.

That problem: desperate people don't get exploited and legal workers don't get the shaft, is what this would solve. I think the most immediate effect would be companies actually trying to employ citizens, rather than the opposite, as is the case now.

without causing extreme hardship for millions who have been let into this country and allowed to work up until now.

Both you and I have reaped the benefits of that labor. At the least we owe those people a timeline -- not starvation.

I phrased it incorrectly - I don't care if companies hire illegal aliens at all - but they must pay them the minimum wage and treat them exactly as they would a legal employee, thus not creating an incentive to hire them. Keep the playing field level. That would still leave us with an incentive for people to come work here, but would redue the demand. I don't mind paying 10 cents more per pound for tomatoes to pay people a better wage.

:shrug:

but would not receive benefits unless they were legal? (just asking -- I'm not well-versed on immigration law but this might be a good incentive to encourage immigrants to apply for citizenship)

and help float SS for us documented workers. To a certain extent we have a vested interest in keeping the status quo: the undocumented pay in but get nothing back. It is not ethical however.

end the exploitation and enforce existing wage and job safety regulations.

exploited to the max by garment manufacturers and meatpackers. Know what you're talking about before you bloviate about how superior Canada is. Frankly, Canada's illegal Asian workers are more exploited than Mexican workers, because at least Mexican workers have the option of walking back to Mexico if they hate their jobs. Chinese workers families are held hostage in China while the adults work in Canada, in order to pay off debts owed to smugglers, and the Canadian government doesn't do a damn thing about it, because illegal Asian workers will work for below-minimum wage.

I guess the CEO thing would work, too, though.

and other high management. A pipe dream essentially. but it beats the GOPs vision of cracking down on all of the "sub-humans" (/freeper) they like to hate on.

It's easier to make this into a right/left issue, but the fact is this is an upper class vs. working class issue, with both Democrats and Republicans lining up on both sides of this issue. It's easy to see why: the upper classes benefit from exploiting the cheap labor of illegal immigrants while the working classes pay the price in the form of lowered wages and diminished access to public services.

He is the one that insisted on the "amnesty" and path to citizenship, which Bush agreed to in order to get his temporary worker provision and more money for a border wall and enforcement. Liberal democratic senators were much more likely to support "amnesty" (they call it something else, of course), while the repub base got fired up about "amnesty" and got the repub senators to turn against the immigration compromise.

So I would say that Kennedy and the liberals in the Senate were the ones supporting "amnesty" while the repubs and conservatives were opposing it.

And John McCain (along with the Chamber of Commerce, ConAgra Foods, Swift Meats, et al.) were also vocal advocates.

Your history is revisionist, and an attempt to "reframe".

the involvement of Kennedy and other Democratic senators?

not that they couldn't be hired, but they couldn't be treated differently than legal workers.

I don't see why we make a difference between legal and "illegal" (I'm not entirely comfortable with that term), male and female, and older and younger. People should make the same wage for the same work unless they're doing it that much better.

and needs to be stopped.

The money can be used to help compensate their victims or support their families if necessary. The remainder would go to give them a start on the outside.

The fines and prison time would also be applicable to small mom and pop operations and those individuals that hire day laborers (the ones that congregate in Home Depot parking lots as an example).

With one caveat however... that the employer either knowingly or could have a reasonable suspicion that the person(s), they're hiring are in the country illegally.

to verify documents, etc.

Allow the dollar to drop until it achieves parity with the Mexican Peso.

At that point our standard of living will be equal to or worse than Mexico, and the flow of immigration will stop.

</sarcasm>

That way, they are run by good, caring people who have been poor and wouldn't go on a firing binge.

Man..I always have the best fucking ideas.

Needless to say, the CEOs of any large company that relies on cheap labor won't, so it won't pass.

(not being sarcastic, I really don't know)

And make the min cola adjusted.

All five of them.

Clean your house?

Care for your kids/parents?

How many years for that?

And when the crops rot in the fields, then what?

In addition, economics dictates that if a farmer can't get workers to do the job at the wage offered, he must increase the wage.

And I mow my own lawn, thankyouverymuch. :eyes:

I asked what the penalties were if it turns out the person who mowed your lawn, cleaned your house, cared for your kid, cared for your parents, painted your house, fixed your leaking pipes, etc. happened to not have proper documentation. I take it your answer is 'off to jail with you too'.

Perhaps you mow your own lawn, so do I. But I know lots of people who have two wage earners who are out of the house 9-5 every day, who need those two wages to make ends meet, and who rely on all sorts of domestic help of one form or another to make their lives possible. I want to know if the OP is suggesting turning all of us burned at both ends middle class families into potential felons as well, or just 'corporate ceos'. I think it is a legitimate question. The way these sorts of laws work, the corporate ceos will end up with assorted loopholes a mile wide that will keep them keeping on while us fully documented peasants violating the new law will be made an example of.

Our current farm economy depends, as it has for generations, on migrant labor. You can stick your head in the sand on that facet of the economy as well, but that does not alter reality.

Lock up the person pulled out of the car! 10 YEARS, no parole!

I run all my employees' numbers at the US gov site to check their SS #'s and they are all "legal". I have numerous Mexican employees but let me just give you one example of my dilemma: this summer, the woman who has cleaned my stalls for more than 12 years applied for my sponsorship. It turns out, she's been in the states for more than 20 years on a stolen number (working for me) - her parents brought her up from Mexico as a minor. She's got an attorney, a husband willing to work through the system (and HIS resources to ensure she will succeed), and a willing employer that will sponsor her. Should I fire her? Report her to INS? Wait it out until this Admin and/or future Admins decide what to do? Or perhaps I should go to jail for 10 years?

Problem is: she cleans stalls. Do you think she will qualify as some kind of "necessary, specialist" worker - a type of job that no American would be able to fill? Even though she's been with me for more than 20 years? Even though she has 2 children born here in the US? Even though I can't tempt ANY American to do this job, even at the $15/hour wage she makes (trust me, I've tried to get cheaper labor - she knows this and understands it when I am strapped and try to advertise for a replacement - she absolutely knows that Americans won't shovel shit for $15/hour, no bennies.) Please know that I have scads of American middle class people willing to go to bat for her to stay in the States in this position - my boarders would go over the moon for her to stay in the US, and I feel hog-tied.

She wants to go to college. In fact, she qualifed for a full ride to Loyola University in Chicago but didn't dare take it without legal documents. She despairs of ending her life as a stall cleaner when she really wants to be a social worker. It's asinine that she is stymied this way. The United States needs intelligent hard working Hispanic women willing to be social workers in the ghettos of our cities but this woman is blocked. Anyway, I digress.....

So. No way. In your view, she is illegal and needs to go back even though she came in to the States as a 12 year old. And I need to go to jail for 10 years for illegally hiring this woman 20 years ago when there was no way to check that she was illegal (and when there was a way to check that she was illegal, she checked out as legal but now I know she's illegal etc. etc.)

It's a grey area. Especially for those of us in agriculture who have long-standing ties to the Mexican communities that sustain us. I perceive of these people as family. It breaks my heart we can't work it out.

This isn't entirely an employer driven problem. This girl/woman checks out legally. But she's not. Now I know. And now you know her story. Do we boot her out? I say no way. And I am trying to prevent that. But odds are against me. Odds are she/I will lose and she will be deported once she tries to go legal. And I will be heavily penalized (10 years in the slammer for me if we did it your way!)

Do you think I will do this again? Or just try to keep it all under the table?