Let's say the focus shifts from undocumented workers to those who hire them, and in a BIG way.

Let's say we go after each and every business known to hire undocumented workers, either short term or long term. Let's say we hit them in the pocketbook and take a HUGE percentage of their bottom line. Let's say we send ICE after EVERY employer not randomly, but systematically, looking for any and every undocumented worker they might have in their employ, without regard to race or nationality. Leave no stone unturned.

Let's say we fine them depending on the percentage of undocumented workers they employ. Penalize them according to the percentage of undocumented workers they hire, without a cap. If an employer has a 50% undocumented workforce... the fine is 50% of the bottom line.

Is that an answer to the problem of illegal immigration? If not, why? I'll reiterate... EVERY employer, without regard to race or nationality. Forget SB1070.

For repeated violations throw the employers in jail, seize their companies and sell them or auction off the assets.

Do it now. Hold a lottery so that no one employer is subject to inspection depending on what the nationality of their possible undocumented workers might be. Go after white collar business as often as blue collar businesses as often as no collar businesses.

One way is just more drawn out and painful.

Why don't we just jump to the authenticating everyone phase and get it over with?

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=efe39ec4-...

In an effort to curtail deep declines in deportations, U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Chief John Morton has set new quotas for Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) agents. There has always been a push to outdo the previous year’s accomplishments—it is often how budgets are justified—and for the year ending September 30, 2010, deportations are on pace to reach 310,000, far below both last year’s total of 387,000 and the agency’s stated goal of 400,000. In addition, Morton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have signaled a retreat from earlier pledges to concentrate enforcement efforts on the most dangerous immigrants and those involved in criminal activity outside of their own illegal status, likely due to the increased costs and protracted deportation process associated with such criminals. Given the current administration’s policy against immigrant raids, ICE’s enforcement strategy will ramp up efforts to investigate employers.

The Obama administration has publicly, as well as privately, announced that it is more interested in investigating and fining employers for I-9 violations, I-9 policy errors and worker infractions rather than simply removing illegal aliens. In the last eight months, there have been thousands of audits of U.S. companies—some random, some aimed at certain industries and some for cause—aimed at garnering evidence regarding problems with the work authorization and/or immigration status of employees.

Focusing on large, employer audits and investigations rather than individual, home, street and factory raids condoned by the Bush administration, potential investigative strategies may include using data from E-Verify to locate multiple uses of identifying information or documentation, or auditing companies with significant numbers of Final Non-Confirmations (FNCs) of employees’ work eligibility.

This increase in audits, coupled with the hiring of thousands of “forensic auditors” by ICE to review documents and assess fines, only continues to support the position that every employer must have an I-9 policy in place, proper training and procedures to support that policy, and the ability to produce evidence of compliance within a short time. Companies should be wary of viewing a Notice of Inspection (NOI) as a mere administrative request. As a matter of fact, the recent trend has been to require that vast amounts of documentation be produced within three business days and extensions of that timeframe are regularly being denied. Ultimately, an employer receiving an NOI or facing an audit may want to seek legal counsel prior to producing requested information or materials in order to take steps to identify potential issues and reduce exposure and liability.

and yet they are big repugs....go figure.

... of these companies will not pay the legally required payroll taxes for their illegals, knowing no tax filing will occur next April 15th.

It would be effective.

What gives anyone else the right to close the door, after themselves?

Us winning and them losing.

Like it or not, that is how the game is played.

Closing the door to immigrants won't gain anything, except it might make you feel better. The truth is, the horse has already bolted and barn has burned to the ground when it comes to outsourcing and offshoring.

The time to do something about that was two or three decades ago when the big multinationals put into effect long-term plans to move jobs and operations to lower-wage locations abroad. Nobody got in the way of that, and the U.S. worker and economy is paying the price today because of the resulting hollowing out of the U.S. jobs and income bases. The credit and mortgage bubbles of the last decade worked to mask the effects, and delayed (vastly worsening) the inevitable effects, of declining U.S. full-time employment rates and real wages for all but the top bracket.

But, that bubble has burst, and there doesn't appear to be another one to blow up. Unlike the tech boom of the '90s, there is no "Next Big Ap" on the horizon which might give the U.S. any real competitive advantage. Even in green energy production, the Chinese produce 85% of the world's wind generators, and not enough money is going into domestic R&D to produce U.S.-made products that are technologically or commercially superior to the stuff supplied more cheaply from abroad.

We don't have any cards on the table. Closing the door to immigrants and enforcement against employers isn't going to change that overhanging fact, one bit. In fact, since the US is now reliant upon Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for most of its investment capital, making this a more difficult and risky regulatory environment for immigration and other compliance issues will only deter foreign companies from setting up here, and force those who remain to move more jobs offshore. There are no barriers to domestic capital following where the greatest returns are, so expect U.S.-based institutions and capital to increasingly move offshore, as well.

Sorry. I wish that there was an easy answer. But, shutting the door will only make things worse.

the fact that those who win make the rules. So, unless we made a law saying we were in our own country illegally, calling ourselves illegals is ridiculous.

Can't say I really disagree with what you said here though. Other than that I don't want to close the door to immigrants at all so I would not feel better if that happened. It is the ones who unlawfully enter our country, the illegal immigrants, that I wish to control the door on.

I used "right" in the moral, not the legal sense of the word. Of course the descendants of those who massacred the Native population, and later immigrant groups, don't define themselves as "illegal."

As for "winning", the Vietnam War and Iraq has showed a more powerful military power can be forced to withdraw even after it wins every major battle (in terms of casualties, ground taken, etc.) if it loses the political dimension of the war.

Finally, there are "rules" and then there are The Rules. Knowing how complex a major set of laws like the Immigration & Nationality Act is, I can say with assurance that it is what it is interpreted and enforced at any particular moment to be. And, then, there are The Rules for everyone else.

We fought battles for this land, we won and we put up our form of government. That is how it always has been, is and will always be. It is the nature of the beast and I feel no guilt for being on the winning side.

Unless we are forced to withdraw, Vietnam and Iraq are no comparison.

The INA may be very complex, but it is clear enough on what is lawful and unlawful entry into our country. If it is too tiresome or cumbersome, then work to fix it, make it more friendly. Ignoring it or choosing not to enforce it has led to what we have now.

Straight land bridge? Didn't we all emigrate from Olduvai Gorge? Just depends on how far back you want to go.

My neighbor just had a bunch of landscaping work done.

Should I have went over and asked all the workers for their papers to see if I should turn the owner and my neighbor in for hiring undocumented workers?

Would someone do that?

Don

The employers should be put in the position of proving that their employees are here legally. Do you have an issue with employers asking prospective employees about their citizenship, or is it just law enforcement asking the question that you have a problem with?

The onus needs to shift to the employers.

As I said in my OP; if you subject ALL employers to such a requirement, it can't be said that there is a race or nationality issue.

How do you plan on enforcing this idea?

You didn't say in your OP.

Don

I'm with you 100% on this...and have long said that if we fined empolyers $10,000 a day per "illegal" found in their employ, the problem would fix itself in a hurry. I'd go further and levy a penalty tax on said company with money earmarked for the state and municipalities that had to provide services.

Over the years I've met many immigrants...especially Mexicans, who sure aren't here for the food or the "hospitality". They're economic refugees from a country that's long been corrupted and now is under the domination of large multi-national corporations who see Mexico as a cheap labor pool. Most Mexicans I know are very hard working, proud people...proud of their country and would rather be there than here if they could enjoy a better standard of living. Until we address the economic conditions, we can't begin to really solve this matter.

Lastly, all the laws in the world don't do any good if they're not enforced. During the boooosh regime there were precious little prosecutions of employers who hired "illegals". I think it would be far more cost effective to stake out INS agents at factory gates than along the borders...then if someone has to be cuffed and frog marched, let it be the guy who did the hiring.

Cheers...

has been a long standing practice of corporate farms in California. Stopping this practice is difficult because of the political influence of the corporate farms. Good luck.

I hear the term work visa. A type of visa specifically designed for seasonal farm workers. Is there still such a thing or was that never available?

Without cheap labor, illegal immigration just doesn't work!

Documented or undocumented. It doesn't matter to me.

If someone moves anywhere on this planet and works hard every day contributing to society without being a security risk they should have a path to citizenship.

but the rest of the answer is in the fines. The fines must be levied per-illegal-alien, not percentage-based, and the fines must be sufficient to 1) completely fun deportation of the illegal alien, and 2) collect sufficient extra money per alien to establish a fund to cover deportation of non-working illegal aliens.

That's what I've been saying.

ho
sage

We only have two employees- both women from Ecuador. They gave us numbers but who knows if they are legitimate and since we are small, that means 100% of our workforce could potentially be undocumented.

Who do you think the Govt would go after- us (small business w/o deep pockets for legal fees) or a large multinational corporation with very deep pockets that can keep legal fights going or pay fines as a cost of doing business?

I agree with you to a point and am not going to argue any further than what I just posted. Just cautioning, is all.

Put 10 numbers in a hat. 0-9. Once a month pull one out. If your Federal Tax ID matches that number, you get a visit.

There should be no legal fee involved. And the fine wouldn't be a "cost of doing business", it would be the cost of hiring undocumented workers.

...but I've been advocating a form of this method for years. If the employers are bothered, they'll stop hiring illegal aliens. As the workforce decreases, we might actually see businessmen asking the federal government to bring in legal temps in higher numbers. The legal workers may be here on a temporary Visa basis, but, as long as they can come in and do the work, knowing that they have paid passage to go back home, we might have more of them willing to actually GO back home. They will have money in their pockets when they do, and will be able to spend it in a country where it will last longer.

I just don't see how people don't see a win-win here. Even the country they would be returning to should love this option because they have people coming into their countries with money in their pockets. The only reason a leader of a country would not like this is because these people coming back can also vote in elections and those votes might stir up the status quo. I think that is part of the reason why you don't hear other countries complaining too much about these immigration issues we deal with.

Says this is the only way we're going to make any kind of serious inroads toward solving this issue, and I think he's correct.

participating in the overthrow democratically elected reformers as they just did in Honduras last summer -- to benefit corporate interests. They know damn well that is where these economic refugee come from. It's not a mystery to them.

Let them unionize so they can be paid a fair wage.

better false documents. How would your idea contend with that issue? How would it contend with IA working independently?

I am not against this idea, but I still think a good fence is needed.

i agree they should go after companies that hire people who are here illegally but as you can see the will to do this is low. I remember a CA US attorney who went after companies who hired illegal immigrants, including one who was building a section of the border fence, who the bush admin. fired for not going after individuals instead. if I recall correctly she also was the one who prosecuted randy 'duke' cunningham.

Arizona has rarely invoked its last tough immigration law
Most counties haven't prosecuted anyone under a 2007 act that bans knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Some say that's because businesses are complying.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/19/nation/la-na-employer-sanctions19-2010apr19


So it's no surprise to Silva that the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act -- at the time the first state law in the nation to prohibit businesses from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants -- hasn't been a top priority for the county. Silva said he had received only a couple of inquiries about the law and his office had not prosecuted an employer.

As it turns out, Santa Cruz County is not alone.

Officials from 12 of the state's 15 counties said last week that they had not taken legal action against any businesses for failure to comply with the law. Officials in two counties -- Apache and Coconino -- could not be reached for comment.

Proponents of Arizona's tough laws against illegal immigrants say the lack of prosecutions is a sign of the law's success in deterring border crossers. Critics of the measure, which went into effect in 2008, say the law has only pushed illegal immigrants deeper underground in the workforce.

snip

County attorneys in other border areas, including Cochise County in southeastern Arizona, also say they haven't had a single complaint.