What should be done about illegal immigration?

This is what? 2006? It's a different time.

George Bush and McGentrix

0 Replies

Yes, and the sanest change proposed here, with regard to Fox's "illegality" obsession was Thomas' suggestion that if the laws were changed, then these people would not longer be illegal.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
This isn't 1900 anymore either. Times change and so do immigration policies.

If I remember correctly, Ullbricht said similar when the GDR built the Berlin wall and the border defences, namely "to hinder imperialist invasions".

What does that have to do with anything?

0 Replies

woiyo writes

Quote:

1. ANY employer quilty of having an illegal immigrant working for them would face severe cash penalties.

At the risk of being accused of 'weaseling', I am not sure what the policy should be on this one. I was in the position of hiring and firing workers during both the Carter and Reagan administrations when employers were required to verify legal status of those they hired. While a lot of my staff had to be qualified professionals, I was nevertheless required, especially during the Carter administration, to require proof of citizenship and bonafide residency - three total proofs required - before I could hire somebody. This became a real problem for us especially when I needed to pull somebody off a volleyball team to serve as referee or needed a spur of the minute model for a life drawing class or needed to recruit a helper in the preschool when somebody called in sick at the last minute.

This was also a problem for the contractor who stopped by the unemployment office to pick up a couple of laborers for the day or who really needed the walkon carpenter who just showed up at the jobsite. The restaurant that needed a dishwasher couldn't just call for one to be sent over and start right to work. And none of us had the ability to determine whether the documents presented were authentic or forgeries. And that meant the illegals were not even slowed down much going right to work.

Most or all of those laws are still on the books and we could demand that they be enforced right now and we should. But it would require some kind of national ID card, I think, that many people fear more than they resent the illegals. At the very least it would require encrypted, forgery-resistant ID of some or amendment of the laws to allow for some kind of good faith provision on behalf of the employers lest they be hamstrung in their ability to do business or criminalized through inadvertently hiring an illegal. And, once you do that, unscrupulous employers would go right ahead using the 'good faith' loophole to hire workers as they are doing now.

If I seem to waffle on matters of policy, it is because I've already been through this stuff once and remember very well what the issues and problems were. Coming up with a workable and reasonable policy is not always as cut and dried as it sometimes appears.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
This isn't 1900 anymore either. Times change and so do immigration policies.

If I remember correctly, Ullbricht said similar when the GDR built the Berlin wall and the border defences, namely "to hinder imperialist invasions".

What does that have to do with anything?

Well, didn't YOU propose the same stuff or was it someone else?

0 Replies

Yeah, we know, Fox, your personal experience trumps all issues of policy, justice and reality--after all, as you're fond of telling us, you are well-informed and well-educated, the implication being that the rest of us are not. I've used the DoJ Form I-9 for years with new employees, and it never caused a hitch. I find it telling that you rant about the illegality of the immigrants, but don't want to do anything about employers who exploit them. You just trot out more convenient anecdotal assertions that nothing can be done about them.

0 Replies

I believe you will have a very difficult time proving any of the characterizations you just made of me Setanta, as my words are right there contradicting you.

0 Replies

You're a piece of work. Your post immediately preceding mine was typical of you. You post your personal experience, as though that were the measure of reality--you provide not a shred of evidence that that system doesn't work. My anecdotal experience is as worthwhile as yours, and i never encountered a single problem using the Form I-9 to comply with the 1986 Act.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
This isn't 1900 anymore either. Times change and so do immigration policies.

If I remember correctly, Ullbricht said similar when the GDR built the Berlin wall and the border defences, namely "to hinder imperialist invasions".

Therefore, anyone who wants to have an immigration policy is indistinguishable from the people who built the Berlin wall. Does your country let in everyone who wishes to come, without even the need to file a request?

0 Replies

Well Setanta apparently skipped over all the information previously posted about how it has been a problem for many if not most. If it was no problem, how come virtually no employers are doing this now?

0 Replies

What basis do you have for contending that "virtually no employers are doing this now?" I've done it for years, and if you are contracting with a government agency, your personnel files have to be available for inspection. In Ohio, you have exactly ten days to report each new employee, and they enforce that regulation. Must be a different world where you live, huh?

0 Replies

I respect McG's point of view in that it is a honest and even implementable policy. It doesn't play the game of not accepting the consequences and lays the costs and benefits directly on the table.

I also like the fact that the group Foxfyre calls "most Americans" will almost certainly reject it.

I think that many on the anti-immigration side are trying to cover over the real human implications of their policies. (Yes, Foxfyre this was my chief complaint of your role in this thread).

For the record, I understand and accept the "consequences" of my position. I understand that this means that people who broke the law to get here will get to stay here. I also understand that this means there will be more uneducated people here and that, if the border security people don't get their act together, that this may even mean more immigration (I am agnostic as to whether this a bad thing.)

My argument is that I consider people (even people who aren't legally here) as more important than the law. I know people who will be severely hurt by McGentrixes (or even Foxfyre's) proposals. I also know that when you know someones personal story, it is much harder to judge them so harshly (and 12 million people have 12 million personal stories). As Foxfyre knows-- all of us have "sinned".

This whole debate to me is summed up as a choice between strict enforcement of the law-- or compassion and decency and even forgiveness (amnesty).

Maybe this question is unanswerable here.

0 Replies

Apparently so since most of us don't work for government agencies. Also, can you/do you or do you need to hire somebody at the spur of the moment? How do you handle that if they do not have the proper documetnation?

0 Replies

If they don't have two pieces of identification, or a work permit (which is all the Form I-9 requires), they get no job. Once again, you offer anecdotal evidence, and seem to think we should all just take your word for it.

Once again, what is your evidence that "virtually no employers are doing this now?"

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I respect McG's point of view in that it is a honest and even implementable policy. It doesn't play the game of not accepting the consequences and lays the costs and benefits directly on the table.

I also like the fact that the group Foxfyre calls "most Americans" will almost certainly reject it.

I think that many on the anti-immigration side are trying to cover over the real human implications of their policies. (Yes, Foxfyre this was my chief complaint of your role in this thread).

For the record, I understand and accept the "consequences" of my position. I understand that this means that people who broke the law to get here will get to stay here. I also understand that this means there will be more uneducated people here and that, if the border security people don't get their act together, that this may even mean more immigration (I am agnostic as to whether this a bad thing.)

My argument is that I consider people (even people who aren't legally here) as more important than the law. I know people who will be severely hurt by McGentrixes (or even Foxfyre's) proposals. I also know that when you know someones personal story, it is much harder to judge them so harshly (and 12 million people have 12 million personal stories). As Foxfyre knows-- all of us have "sinned".

This whole debate to me is summed up as a choice between strict enforcement of the law-- or compassion and decency and even forgiveness (amnesty).

Maybe this question is unanswerable here.

I think your primary problem is that you cannot articulate a reasoned response to my position(s) on this and therefore it is much easier to excoriate me. I have elected not to do that to you no matter how wrong headed I think your position is.

I do not accept that enforcement of the law needs to be exclusion of compassion and decency, but I apply concern for compassion and decency for those who obey the law, not just those who break it. And that is what you can't seem to recognize or accept.

McG and others are correct that there needs to be a policy and action to get control of our borders and who will be in this country immediately. I agree with that. Then we can focus on how to best implement that with the least necessary disruption of people's lives. But despite Setanta's characterizations, I have seen how bad law in the past has been ineffective and how well-intentioned policies have even been counterproductive or destructive. I would like for us to get it right this time.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Therefore, anyone who wants to have an immigration policy is indistinguishable from the people who built the Berlin wall. Does your country let in everyone who wishes to come, without even the need to file a request?

I've never said that I liked how immigration policy is run here - quite the opposite.
But we don't built fences, "protect" our borders with barbed wires etc.
(Mines along the coast line, you forgot to mention that, McG.)

We've got quite an amount of illegals here as well.
Either they show legal papers for their stay or not.
If not, they are deportated.

But I admit (and agree) that some of the US-measurements (bur definately not the fortifications of the borders) attracks conservative politicans here as well.

0 Replies

Besides that, Brandon, most people can come here without showing any papaer at all (when from the Schengen countries), can work and take residence here (when from an EU-county), and yes, some others need visas.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If they don't have two pieces of identification, or a work permit (which is all the Form I-9 requires), they get no job. Once again, you offer anecdotal evidence, and seem to think we should all just take your word for it.

Once again, what is your evidence that "virtually no employers are doing this now?"

Where is your evidence that they are? My evidence is 11 or 12 million or more illegals living and working in the United states.

In the Carter administration you had to have proof of citizenship and proof of residency - three pieces required. Just ID was not sufficient. Are you requiring that now? You obviously are not having to hire somebody and put them to work right away either. Many employers do need to do that. You are comparing one set of circumstances that are unrelated to what I have been describing.

0 Replies

What I forgot to mention: border controlls are only at airports and some ports, but not along land borders. (Which is due to the Schengen treaty.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Therefore, anyone who wants to have an immigration policy is indistinguishable from the people who built the Berlin wall. Does your country let in everyone who wishes to come, without even the need to file a request?

I've never said that I liked how immigration policy is run here - quite the opposite.
But we don't built fences, "protect" our borders with barbed wires etc.
(Mines along the coast line, you forgot to mention that, McG.)

We've got quite an amount of illegals here as well.
Either they show legal papers for their stay or not.
If not, they are deportated.

But I admit (and agree) that some of the US-measurements (bur definately not the fortifications of the borders) attracks conservative politicans here as well.

And with your immigration policy that is apparently much more liberal than what most Americans want here, your unemployment rate is what? And are you providing free education for the children of the illegals, free health care, workers compensation, other social services?

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know