To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[Loren Pechtel]

Businesses love this pool of cheap unregulated labor, and that's what they tell the Congresspersons they donate to, which is likely why immigration reform doesn't change much year after year. Were Congress serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would enact E-verify. That would make it easier for businesses to employ workers, but also more costly if the workers are undocumented, due to fines, etc. But the businesses don't want that, so Congress doesn't press for it.

As a worker I do not want to see e-Verify until such time as we have dealt with identity theft. I would prefer an undocumented worker to an undocumented worker stealing the identity of an American and causing them trouble with the IRS over unreported income.

I can sympathiz3, but I can't agree. "We shouldn't use solution X to solve Big Problem A because it might be used to create Small Problem B."

Except we disagree on the size of A and B.

If Identity Theft is all it takes to get E-verify off the table, then we should also get rid of credit cards, online banking, and e-mail, because bad actors can steal your identity. People should only pay each other with fiat currency.

We have systems in place to minimize the impact. Try getting on the wrong side of the IRS over identity theft wages... At least when it happened to my mother there were not systems to handle it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can sympathiz3, but I can't agree. "We shouldn't use solution X to solve Big Problem A because it might be used to create Small Problem B."

If Identity Theft is all it takes to get E-verify off the table, then we should also get rid of credit cards, online banking, and e-mail, because bad actors can steal your identity. People should only pay each other with fiat currency.

Seriously, it was a good thing that we invented the automobile. But should we have first fixed the problem of auto theft before releasing it into the market?

Utterly this!
Maybe E-verify needs it's security beefed up or something.

But the fundamental problem here is simple. The gigantic disconnect between the willingness of the USA to give jobs to immigrants, but not documents. If we gave papers to as many people as we're willing to give jobs, the vast majority of this problem would be resolved in a couple of months, humanely. And it would come with some huge benefits like vetting, prioritizing, and monitoring immigrants.
So, give papers to a realistic number of immigrants, then crack down hard on illegal employers.
Tom

I'd like to see the system inverted: Work visas are readily available for occupations and locations with sufficiently low unemployment of citizens. They do not get renewed if either the occupation or location unemployment goes too high. (Some distance between the two fences so it doesn't cause jitter.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can sympathiz3, but I can't agree. "We shouldn't use solution X to solve Big Problem A because it might be used to create Small Problem B."

If Identity Theft is all it takes to get E-verify off the table, then we should also get rid of credit cards, online banking, and e-mail, because bad actors can steal your identity. People should only pay each other with fiat currency.

Seriously, it was a good thing that we invented the automobile. But should we have first fixed the problem of auto theft before releasing it into the market?

Utterly this!
Maybe E-verify needs it's security beefed up or something.

But the fundamental problem here is simple. The gigantic disconnect between the willingness of the USA to give jobs to immigrants, but not documents. If we gave papers to as many people as we're willing to give jobs, the vast majority of this problem would be resolved in a couple of months, humanely. And it would come with some huge benefits like vetting, prioritizing, and monitoring immigrants.
So, give papers to a realistic number of immigrants, then crack down hard on illegal employers.
Tom

Here in AZ, we had the infamous "papers please" SB 1070 that made national news, but what got lost in the shuffle was the fact that the law (and a previous one past a few years earlier) had employer sanctions baked into the cake as well.

Yet when it came time to enforce the "get tough on illegal immigration" stuff, you know who you never saw sitting on the curb in zip-ties after a high profile raid on a business?

The hiring manager or owners. In fact if I remember correctly, there was exactly one business that ever suffered any sort of sanctions under either law, and I believe that was just a fine.

Weird, huh?

It basically comes down to it being hard to figure out if someone is working under fraudulent credentials or not. If you enforce quality control on credentials that lack it (what's the anti-fraud in your social security card???) the result will be racist (employers not wanting to hire those who look like illegals.) If you don't enforce it the business has the proper papers on file, you can't establish whether they knew it was illegal or not. Only the guys truly hiring under the table is proof possible.

 

[TomC]

I'd like to see the system inverted: Work visas are readily available for occupations and locations with sufficiently low unemployment of citizens. They do not get renewed if either the occupation or location unemployment goes too high. (Some distance between the two fences so it doesn't cause jitter.)

I don't see that as inverting the system. I see it as prioritizing immigrants and the circumstances under which they get work papers. I totally support that.

By giving documents to people based on the circumstances we USonians can deal with the issues. As long as we refuse to do that, but continue to hand out jobs willy-nilly, we cannot do what you're suggesting.
That choice is being made by the USA, not the immigrants.
Tom

 

[Ford]

That choice is being made by the USA, not the immigrants.
Tom

I would say it's more that the businesses have power that the immigrants don't.

At the moment, an agribusiness like a farm or a meat-packing plant can skirt the regulations by pleading ignorance. "How could we have possibly known that this busload of workers that just showed up that are all speaking a Guatemalan dialect of Spanish are illegal immigrants?" and there's effectively no consequences for them. If ICE stops the bus before they get to the plant, the immigrants are rounded up and shipped off, they lose the money they paid to the coyotes, and it all starts over again.

Nothing changes because the business has agency, and the immigrants don't. If we gave the immigrants agency (a work permit and basic rights) and held the businesses to account for skirting the minimum amount of regulations, it should work, but we can't even get to that point because the folks who do the exploiting have captured the political system. That busload of Guatemalans doesn't make campaign donations. The guy who runs the plant does. Who is law enforcement going to go after for a cheap and public bust of "illegal immigration?"

 

[bilby]

The hiring manager or owners. In fact if I remember correctly, there was exactly one business that ever suffered any sort of sanctions under either law, and I believe that was just a fine.

Prolly the illegal employers argued, successfully, that they'd been severely punished by having to hire a whole new batch of undocumented workers. Can you imagine how much trouble that is when you have just been raided by the INS?
Tom

More like "well, we and our friends at the Chamber of Commerce have been going over our budget for political contributions to the sheriff's race next year, and some of the members are...less than enthusiastic about your candidacy since you put them in jail for doing what we all agreed was a solid business practice. Enjoy your retirement, sheriff."

The whole idea of elected police or judicial positions is insane.

Seriously, if you wanted to guarantee corrupt, biased, and inequitable law enforcement, that would be amongst the best ways to ensure it.

 

[Toni]

I can sympathiz3, but I can't agree. "We shouldn't use solution X to solve Big Problem A because it might be used to create Small Problem B."

If Identity Theft is all it takes to get E-verify off the table, then we should also get rid of credit cards, online banking, and e-mail, because bad actors can steal your identity. People should only pay each other with fiat currency.

Seriously, it was a good thing that we invented the automobile. But should we have first fixed the problem of auto theft before releasing it into the market?

Utterly this!
Maybe E-verify needs it's security beefed up or something.

But the fundamental problem here is simple. The gigantic disconnect between the willingness of the USA to give jobs to immigrants, but not documents. If we gave papers to as many people as we're willing to give jobs, the vast majority of this problem would be resolved in a couple of months, humanely. And it would come with some huge benefits like vetting, prioritizing, and monitoring immigrants.
So, give papers to a realistic number of immigrants, then crack down hard on illegal employers.
Tom

Here in AZ, we had the infamous "papers please" SB 1070 that made national news, but what got lost in the shuffle was the fact that the law (and a previous one past a few years earlier) had employer sanctions baked into the cake as well.

Yet when it came time to enforce the "get tough on illegal immigration" stuff, you know who you never saw sitting on the curb in zip-ties after a high profile raid on a business?

The hiring manager or owners. In fact if I remember correctly, there was exactly one business that ever suffered any sort of sanctions under either law, and I believe that was just a fine.

Weird, huh?

It basically comes down to it being hard to figure out if someone is working under fraudulent credentials or not. If you enforce quality control on credentials that lack it (what's the anti-fraud in your social security card???) the result will be racist (employers not wanting to hire those who look like illegals.) If you don't enforce it the business has the proper papers on file, you can't establish whether they knew it was illegal or not. Only the guys truly hiring under the table is proof possible.

Apparently it ain't that hard if there are massive raids resulting in the arrests of many undocumented workers. Someone hired them, right? Only an absolute idiot does not know that the undocumented workers were hired specifically because they are undocumented and therefore unprotected by the inadequate worker protection laws currently in place.

It's also not difficult to understand why management never gets arrested or sanctioned or faces any difficulty other than the trouble it is to contact whoever traffics undocumented workers for that line of work. Just as it's not shocking that pimps and human traffickers of prostitutes, including child prostitutes are rarely arrested or prosecuted.

 

[Patooka]

Oh that's right, I forgot. You think all brown people who come here are rapists, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I don't think that at all.

Doesn't matter. The people you get your "facts" from most definitely do. By repeatedly and consistently quoting them you are legitimizing their bigotry.

 

[Patooka]

I can well imagine that the recent relaxing of U.S. laws concerning domestic production of stuff like marijuana would put a crimp in the profits of those Mexican/American cartels. That would be capitalist motivation to replace pot with human cargo, if you already know the best ways to smuggle into the USA.

You don't have to imagine that hard. It was a literal plot point for a TV show 15 years ago.



As usual, MAGAtards are several steps behind.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The biggest difference between the immigrant ancestors of many Americans and the immigrants of today is that the former came here on a boat looking for work, while the latter came here across a river looking for work.

The biggest difference is the former came legally and the latter are coming illegally and in stealth.

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

The next biggest difference is that the former came mostly at their own expense and the latter are coming at huge profits to the cartels.

That'd still be at their own expense.

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

 

[James Brown]

We have systems in place to minimize the impact. Try getting on the wrong side of the IRS over identity theft wages... At least when it happened to my mother there were not systems to handle it.

Again, I can sympathize. Identity theft sucks for those individuals who experience it. But that's no reason to get rid of digital identities.

Likewise, a prison sentence really sucks for those who are innocent. But that doesn't mean we should never implement prisons or a court system.

The problem as I see it is, unscrupulous politicians shriek that "undocumented aliens are flooding our borders! Vote for me and I'll fix it!" This message causes some members of this board to shriek the same things.

But what do those politicians actually do when in office? Nothing, because their corporate donors don't want to see their source of cheap labor cut off. Instead, they keep shrieking, or they propose heavy-handed "solutions" that are inhumane (Shoot to Kill!), impossible (Build a Giant Wall and Make Mexico Pay For It!) or won't survive judicial scrutiny (Invade Their Home Countries!)

That they don't work to implement solutions that are not Inhumane or Impossible or Illegal shows that for them, undocumented immigration is not a problem to be solved but an issue on which to fundraise. It's too bad the voters who support those politicians can't see that as well.

 

[TomC]

But what do those politicians actually do when in office? Nothing, because their corporate donors don't want to see their source of cheap labor cut off.

Totally this!

The current status quo is very profitable for the investing class. The kind of people who can buy presidents and Capitol Hill. They keep wages down and consumption up. It's not like the low wage workers get a discount at the grocery or gas pump.

As a result, the elite don't want a comprehensive and humane immigration policy overhaul. So, it isn't "feasible". But squealing about it keeps their employees in Federal Government in power so they do.
Tom

 

[RVonse]

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

You can not count who you did not catch but there are indirect ways knowing the obvious. Such as housing no one can afford and people living on the streets. Same number of housing stock but more people needing housing = people living in tents.

The solution is to close the border. Not that hard. Just pass an amendment no congressmen is eligible for election unless the borders are controlled and the borders will get closed without delay. We did it in the 1920's and can be done again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

You can not count who you did not catch but there are indirect ways knowing the obvious. Such as housing no one can afford and people living on the streets. Same number of housing stock but more people = people living in tents.

Err... I suppose that is an indirect way of "knowing the obvious".

The solution is to close the border. Not that hard. Just pass an amendment no congressmen is eligible for election unless the borders are controlled and the borders will be closed. We did it in the 1920's and can be done again.

Oh... just close the border. So, no trucks with stuff like food on 'em coming from Mexico now? Good thing we don't trade with Mexico, that'll make this such an easy thing to do. And because we did in the 1920s, it'll be easy to redo.

Of course, we didn't limit immigration from Mexico in the 1920s, just people coming to the US by boat from Asia and Europe.

 

[pood]

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

You can not count who you did not catch but there are indirect ways knowing the obvious. Such as housing no one can afford and people living on the streets. Same number of housing stock but more people needing housing = people living in tents.

The solution is to close the border. Not that hard. Just pass an amendment no congressmen is eligible for election unless the borders are controlled and the borders will get closed without delay. We did it in the 1920's and can be done again.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

All your ridiculous, uninformed nonsense, your propagandistic Trumpanzee bilge, is refuted here, in handy-dandy, bite-size form.

And, as I noted upthread, the U.S. stole what is today the entire American southwest, including Texas and California, from Mexico, and Mexico has every right to do what it can to retake it.

 

[Patooka]

The solution is to close the border. Not that hard. Just pass an amendment no congressmen is eligible for election unless the borders are controlled and the borders will get closed without delay. We did it in the 1920's and can be done again.

If it's so fucking easy why didn't your tangerine saviour do that? It's almost embarrassing watching you fall for the exact same grift time and time again and expecting a different result.

 

[Ford]

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

You can not count who you did not catch but there are indirect ways knowing the obvious. Such as housing no one can afford and people living on the streets. Same number of housing stock but more people needing housing = people living in tents.

The solution is to close the border.

So you think that the only way people come to America is via the southern border. Wow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

You can not count who you did not catch but there are indirect ways knowing the obvious. Such as housing no one can afford and people living on the streets. Same number of housing stock but more people needing housing = people living in tents.

The solution is to close the border.

So you think that the only way people come to America is via the southern border. Wow.

We'd do it just like did in the 20s*.


* - we didn't

 

[Ford]

So we know the numbers are high because they are coming into the US without our knowing?

What is the solution again? Close the border and pretend this migration doesn't exist?

You can not count who you did not catch but there are indirect ways knowing the obvious. Such as housing no one can afford and people living on the streets. Same number of housing stock but more people needing housing = people living in tents.

The solution is to close the border.

So you think that the only way people come to America is via the southern border. Wow.

We'd do it just like did in the 20s*.


* - we didn't

Let me tell you about my adopted grandfather...

He was a Welshman, and a flight instructor for the RAF during WWII. He trained fighter pilots in Canada and shipped them back to the front, but when the war was over he decided to stay on this side of the pond. His "immigration journey" was pretty simple. He went across the river, settled into a suburb of Detroit, and brought his wife and daughter over. His daughter and my mom became best friends, and when my maternal grandfather (who was also a veteran of WWII) died unexpectedly not long after coming home, the dashing pilot volunteered to take over the role of "dad" for my mom. He stepped seamlessly into the role, and was the only grandpa I ever knew.

He was also - by today's standards - an illegal immigrant. There was no documentation. No immigration papers. He applied for citizenship and they were like "oh...you're already here? Cool. Welcome to America!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That choice is being made by the USA, not the immigrants.
Tom

I would say it's more that the businesses have power that the immigrants don't.

At the moment, an agribusiness like a farm or a meat-packing plant can skirt the regulations by pleading ignorance. "How could we have possibly known that this busload of workers that just showed up that are all speaking a Guatemalan dialect of Spanish are illegal immigrants?" and there's effectively no consequences for them. If ICE stops the bus before they get to the plant, the immigrants are rounded up and shipped off, they lose the money they paid to the coyotes, and it all starts over again.

The fact that they are clearly immigrants doesn't prove they are illegal immigrants.

There was a period where my wife spoke pretty poor English--but was here legally. Her only proof of that was a letter with no security features. Give the employers an adequate way to know! And avoid identity theft.