Redstate

Watching thousands of fans in Anaheim cheer wildly for Mexico and against the USA. Maybe they bused them up from Tijuana, but it seems more likely that the "American" residents of the Los Angeles area have more than a nostalgic allegiance to their home countries.

let's just declare everyone on Earth a US citizen and give them $100,000, new car, home, and free college tuition --- everyone except those who were US citizens already. We'll change the common language to Klingon or something. Void the Constitution and replace it with the UN Charter. And then we can all live together happily for 30 or 40 seconds.

is the hurdle I don't see your plan overcoming.

I'm sure there are plenty of illegal immigrants who cross the border in search of the many benefits the government provides, but I don't think that's the primary reason they're coming.

The California Agricultural Industry is propped up by the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants who have no recourse if farms don't pay them minimum wage.  This phenomenon has crept slowly Northward and across the country, filling day laborer sites as far from the border as Herndon, VA.  

This leaves us with two questions:

1. How do we find unreported illegal workers and what do we do with the companies that employ them?
   
2. How much of a blow would it be to those businesses to be forced to employ people at full wages and what sort of economic impact is that going to have?

Until these questions are answered, forced deportation will be a hard sell to a business-friendly Congress.

Is there much likelihood that the House will pass this, given that its bill (mentioned again recently by Rep. Kingston in an open thread) increased enforcement without an amnesty?

How long would these 'guest workers' be allowed to stay?

How would they be screened in such volume?

How could we enforce the time limit on so many, especially if they bear children that are US citizens?

Cut off all matching federal law enforcement funds to localities that don have rules requiring local law enforcement agents to report illegal aliens to the feds.

If pushed, I'd fall back to cutting off funds for those districts that prohibit such reporting.

Don't tell me you know something else about the Democrat election year agenda that you've been holding back on all this time...after all, "Americans who find it hard to make ends meet might like the promises they hear from the Democrats."  And I can't think of any American who finds it harder to make ends meet than an illegal alien.  And hey, they vote!  

So in addition to:

• Ending outsourcing by raising taxes on companies that outsource
• A Whole New Right For "All Americans To Organize"
• An Official Proclamation that CEO pay is Immoral
• Broadband for Everybody in our Five Year Plan!
• Energy Independence within 10 years
• Healthcare for All in our Five Year Plan!
• "Dignified Retirement"
• 100% Screening of the Containers in our Ports!
• Impeaching the President
• Censuring the President
• Destroying the President
• Making Sure Nobody Likes the President

We also have your "Welcome to America!" program.  Wow...these Democrats sure are going to be tough to beat.  I wonder why so many Republicans are "principally moderate, if not liberal!" ???

in November vote early and vote often.

Our fine Miami-Dade County Elections Department just sent out new voter registration cards --- two per person, along with a absentee ballot request form in each envelope. I think they had a computer glitch that accidently sent two to Republicans as well.

to a baseball game, I'd have been cheering for Mexico too.  Not because I particularly like Mexico, I just dislike the overpaid children playing pro ball in the US.

like the Congess is going to pass that legislation. :-)

against the REAL enemy of the American Way.

WalMart.

the pay for CongressCritters.  It'll pass on a voice vote.

A Whole New Right For "All Americans To Organize"

If ever there was a right most Americans will find themselves incapable of exercising, it would be organization.

Any immagration changes that do not secure the border (this means a fense or a wall in at least some places) and contain a real plan to dramaticallly increase enforcement WILL NOT WORK!  Indeed, I agree with any plan that contains an amnesty or a guest woker plan that does not secure the border will be highly counterproductive.  

then we can talk about reform.  Without the wall, any other discussion is fruitless because we cannot enforce our immigration laws.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Illegal immigration stops when we send anyone who hires an illegal to federal prison for a year for each occurance. For small businessmen that means the owner; for big corporations that means the CEO and the members of the Board. No fines, no plea bargains, no deals, no offsets; a year in jail.

The business community is the key to controlling this; if there is no illegal hiring there is no illegal immigration. Nothing will focus the attention of the business community like the prospect of viewing the world from behind bars.

After that anyone crossing the border illegally is probably up to no good.

The same Profiles in Courage who just hobbled George Bush and threw the UAE under the bus because we cannot have A-RABS "owning" our ports have now signed-on to a "compromise" "immigration" "reform" measure that - for all intents and purposes - grants amnesty to 12,000,000 crim-aliens who are here, in the USA, today, illegally.

Do I have this correct?

Completely unrelated question - anyone know where I can get a set of reasonably-priced golf clubs?

A serious guest worker proposal would include features like:

 - limit guest worker visas to one year, with $50K

   bond put up by employer, to be forfeited if the

   worker does not return to country of origin

 - no family members with workers

 - criminal background checks

 - mandotory, effective validation of workers

   status

 - significant fines, and real enforcement, for

   employers who violate the law

Additional features that would increase support:

 - no federal dollars for bilingual education

 - all government and public services in English

   only

So, some employee at a WalMart store in Burbank can send the CEO to prison by hiring an illegal?

So, employers are supposed to be document EXPERTS?  THEY have to enforce immigration laws rather than those that are REALLY RESPONSIBLE?

If they can NOT GET HERE illegally, the problem goes away.

<limit guest worker visas to one year, with $50K<br>
   bond put up by employer, to be forfeited if the

   worker does not return to country of origin>

So Joe Blow's dry cleaner business down YOUR street is supposed to post a huge bond for each immigrant employee and then ENSURE THEY RETURN HOME.  Exactly how is that done? Joe Blow is not a bounty hunter, for gawds sake.

isn't really that big of a deal.  I'm in the mortgage business, we have to validate SSN's and bounce names off the Terrorist Watch List.

Costs $15.00.  Takes 24-48 hours.  Done by a third party.

Next problem?

Hiring illegals needs to trigger HUGE fines and jail time for repeat offenders.  

That's pretty much it.

Buy the cheapest clubs you can find if you don't play A LOT.  That way you can blame your clubs.

I'm OK with most, but not the bonding requirement.  I favor very strict penalties for hiring illegals, as long as SSN's can be validated.

As for additional rules, no bank account without a SSN and proof of legal status.  No money transfers out of the country without proof of legal status.

So, they come in with a valid SSN.  How do you know it belongs to THAT person.  It's easy to obtain valid SSNs.

Why is it so hard to understand it is best for them NOT TO GET HERE ILLEGALLY?  That's how it stops.  PERIOD.

Read the post, he wants employers to ENSURE THE ILLEGALS RETURN HOME.  For gawds sake, we don't even allow our LOCAL POLICE to do THAT!!!

I'm sure the House GOP will insist the guest-worker program will go away.

But if that is stripped out, this plan will get vetoed.  It's a simple as that - not just because the President wants a guest-worker program, but also because many of those who have opposed the President also opposed him on the DPW deal, and slapped the UAE in the face.

That veto will probably be a means by which he can rebuke those who insulted the UAE - and thus, he will preserve that vital strategic relationship.

1. Let illegal immigration by the hundreds of thousands every year and then have employers pick them up (or not employ them, drive them home, pay fines, whatever)
   
2. Keep the illegals OUT and allow for reasonable, legal immigration.

Gee, what a tough choice.

To be very honest, any immigration bill without a guest-worker program will get vetoed by the President.

There's a very simple reason for him to do so: Payback.  Malkin, Savage, and many of his critics on immigration were also against the port deal.  The same goes for the House GOP - particularly people like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

President Bush has to retaliate against them somehow - and on immigration, he has enough votes in the Senate (at the very least) to make a veto stick - in order to minimize other retaliation against the US by the UAE, which is justifiably ticked off at the smear campaign it took in the DPW deal.

there is no illegal immigration.

They don't come here out of a 'yearning to be free' or some deep seated belief in American democracy, they come here looking for jobs. Take away the jobs and there is significantly less reason for them to come.

We can spend billions on a wall and technology; we can even plant mine fields and militarize the border. But that will not be anywhere near as effective, or inexpensive, as eliminating the inducement. Toss a few businessmen in the can and the hiring will stop. When the hiring stops the illegals stop.

And, it has the aqdvantage that it is already illegal to hire undocumented aliens.

that what the Dems mean is federal override of state right-to-work laws for a starter.

When the Dems say "the right to organize" they don't mean the workers right to organize or not, they mean the unions right to force organization. They are in the back pocket of organized labor and they cannot wean themselves off the money long enough to care about the actual workers.

So, some employee at a WalMart store in Burbank can send the CEO to prison by hiring an illegal?

might happen once and just watch how long it takes WalMart to modify their hiring practices!

I'd say you nailed it.

But GWB has been Stuck on Stupid with regard to this subject since Day One and I've long since given-up hope he could get ever get unstuck.

So if the "logic" goes like "Let's pass a bill with amnesty for crim-aliens so that the Stoopid won't veto it" just to "do something" about immigration then I say - first, do no harm.

Fore!

with a guest worker program. I think that's fine because we do need some of this labor.

But guest worker is a far cry from throw open the door, let anyone in and then legalize them after they get here.

A guest worker program should provide:

• worker only, no family members;
  
• no eligibility for publicly funded education, public assistance, etc.;
  
• marriage to a citizen/permanent resident terminates eligibility;
  
• unlimited border crossings;
  
• valid for two years, maximum of one two year renewal;
  
• no entitlement to permanent residence or citizenship;
  
• must report address and employment every six months;
  
• unemployment for more than three months ends the eligibility;
  
• no option to convert to any other form of visa (student, resident, foreign worker, etc.)
  
• employers must either provide medical coverage or pay into a fund to reimburse any medical or similar public expenses occured;
  

to build the wall and do nothing else (i.e. enforce what's out there) and have to wait for Romney to do something about it.

with Congress and actual Republican voters?  The man seems Hell-bent on not having any supporters left.

I would build a 20 foot high concrete wall the entire length of the Mexican-US border.  Twenty feet inside of the concrete wall would be a fifteen foot chain link fence, twenty feet inside of that, another fifteen foot high chain link fence.  I would fill the twenty foot spaces with razor wire.  I would also more heavily arm the US Border Patrol and give them "shoot-on-site" orders for anyone attempting to illegally cross the border with a firearm in view.

All that said, if the incentive isn't available (job & the ability to easily move money back to Mexico), they won't come.

With respect to the SSN validation system I noted, it does work.  In addition to validating the number, they validate the address with data outside of the SS system.  And, by the way, if I submit a mortgage application for someone who is using a fraudulent SSN and I either know about it or don't do the proper due diligence, it's a federal crime & I can be jailed.  I will certainly NEVER work in the mortgage industry again.

I've also managed large enterprises in the Southwest.  I understand that I can, under existing law, be charged for hiring illegals.  And, it's not that difficult to check ID.

I want the bill passed without guest worker provisions.  I'd just like to W veto ANYTHING.

Drug smugglers aren't coming across to get jobs. There are still going to be plenty of illegal jobs in prostitution and drug dealing for people willing to work them.

The cost of the wall is nothing compared to what we waste every day on garbage that does nothing to make us safer. How is it impossible to find $5 bln to build a nice wall along the entire border when we are spending about $2.5 trillion this year alone? And at least $3 trillion by 2010?

That is just foolish. It is like living in a $10 million dollar mansion but not getting an alarm system or even bothering to put locks on the doors because of the expense.

You can "borrow" someone else's SSN without too much of a problem. There is a black market for this kind of identity information. You can make up a convincing social security card on a $30 inkjet printer.

If we had a national ID card with detailed personal attributes, this might work. But you need to provide a way for employers to be sure they are OK with the law.

What is to stop people from using the name and address that goes with the SSN? If someone is going to steal someone's identity, they will have that information as well.

As far as mortgages go, there are banks in WI for instance that are writing mortgages for illegal aliens, with the help and encourgement of the state. The state buys the loans from the bank so they don't get stuck with them. They might have a taxpayer ID number from the IRS... not sure about that.

...one to two days just to validate a Social?! Wow. Someone is missing a huge business opportunity here.

That is a marvelous point.  It's always important to remember that the left believes in collective rights, not individual rights.  I'll have to add this one to the list:

Free speech - right of journalists to speak for the people

Right to bear arms - right of state militias to act for the people

Right to organize - right of unions to act on behalf of individuals

the rest of the border enforcement will be significantly reduced, to the point where we might well be able to get away without the wall. I don't know the numbers but I'd bet that drugs, prostitutes, etc., are not coming across the border in the places or numbers where the illegals are.

True the cost of the wall is trivial compared to the problem, but I submit that the wall will most certainly not stop the illegal immigration problem; that is, in my opinion, best stopped with hiring control.

designed and funded by the State.  The servicing rights for those loans are not salable to Fannie or Freddie and the volumes are tiny.  Last I looked they funded about $5 million in loans last year.  I'm with a regional mortgage bank in the southwest and fund about about $2 billion per month.  Bottom line, the numbers are so small you could not even draw conclusions about default rates from that program.  The State will not be able to fund a major program effort and the banks certainly won't fund those loans without a secondary market.

Very few illegals have the ability to do identity theft.  That is done more on an organized basis by people who steal SSN's for the purpose of obtaining credit.  Those are relatively easy to pick up with third party address verification.  For instance, if you're stealing ID's, you want to be in middle to high end neighborhoods.  Those addresses are not liable to match on employment applications of illegals who are in minimum wage type jobs.

Bottom line, if you're looking for it, ID theft isn't all that hard to pick up.

It makes it easier to monitor the border. This is why we put up fences anywhere: on a ranch, at an industrial site, at a military base. They are not impregnable but if you didn't have them you would need a lot more personnel to provide the same level of security.

We would need an unbelievable amount of people at a very high and ongoing cost to do the same job a wall can do in conjunction with our current personnel levels. It is like locking up your house and installing an alarm system rather than hiring armed guards to watch every entry door and window. It is common sense.

In some places the border isn't even marked... another bonus of the wall is it will help stop the "accidental" incursions onto US soil by the Mexican army.

There are a number of third party contractors who do this.  We use a company called "Rapid Reporting".  There are several who do the same thing.  Most of these guys are slanted to verifying information on mortgage applications which are much more detailed than an employment application.  We can do third party verifs on employment, assets, SSN, addresses, payment history on any number of different kinds of accounts, court records, arrest records, etc.  Bottom line, if you've ever filled out a piece of paper I can track it.

By the way, what IS your Social Security Number?

Would you give me $25 each if I could turn 'em around in 30 seconds instead of two days?

There is a black market for ID information, so the illegals do not need to obtain it themselves. You do not need to steal this information from a middle or high income neighborhood if your purpose is only to seek employment, not credit. All the information you need can be stolen out of a mailbox at any trailer park or apartment complex. A minimum wage employer is not going to do a credit check to see if you are paying your credit cards on time. All they need is SSN, name, and address.

Cause you probably wouldn't actually do the work ;>).

my contention is that no matter what we do for a wall it will not be effective in stopping the bulk of illegal immigration. To do that we have to remove the incentive.

After that the rest of the problem may be small enough that a wall is not the right way to stop what's left. A "virtual wall" of sensors backed up by rapid response enforcement units may be a more effective for what's left. I say may because I do not have a good feel for the problem after the job seekers are removed.

My objection to the wall is simply that it may not be necessary once the major part of the problem is dealt with. You want a wall? Be my guest, go crazy :-)

do credit checks on all employees.  Costs $5.00 for a single bureau infile report.  Takes less than one minute, gives a history of addresses and will flag the report if a fraud alert is active.

In an employment situation, you are sitting across the table from the applicant.  It is NOT that difficult or expensive to verify information and it's fairly difficult and expensive to create fraudulent ID's on a massive basis.

Require two forms of ID, one with a picture, a SSN and a permanent address that matches the photo ID.  If push comes to shove, require a utility bill.  Spend very few dollars and you can verify the information.  It's a matter of requiring it done, not the difficulty of doing it, it's actually easier to verify an identity than to create a fraudulent one.

The virtual wall is a great concept... I have this great idea for a virtual bank vault. It consists of a card table and a couple camcorders, but it does cost slightly less than a regular bank vault. I bet I could sell it to Congress.

The crack down on employment is certainly necessary but there is no way that stems the flow more than maybe 50%. And 50% of a massive problem is still a massive problem. The group that still crosses illegally also contains the worst of the worst. The people who are coming here to be criminals or those that have no intention of working. And those that don't plan well or think things through.

I'm afraid he does not actually know hoe to spell V-E-T-O.

Either that or Barbara told him if he vetoed he'd go blind or something.

the least you could do is use the correct format and have the right number digits.

123-4567-890 is not

555-55-5555.

Keep your day job.

If we just create a difficult to forge national photo ID card and require verification of the details, we solve this problem. I just don't think we have the infrastructure in place now to start throwing employers in prison if they hire an illegal. The government has not lived up to its responsibility.. why should the employers?

I also think the buck needs to stop with the people doing the hiring. If I hire a lawn service to cut my lawn and they hire illegals, am I liable? If I hire a roofer do I need to verify the status of all the roofers that come onto the job site? This seems pretty comparable to the enforcement action against Wal-Mart.

with a national ID, depending on the red tape to get it issued and the information tracked with it.

Liability for employing illegals rests with the direct employer, not you or WalMart in the case of subcontractors.

I'm not suggesting jail time for employers except in the most egregious cases, fines will work just dandy.

hire a lawn service knowing that they hire illegals?

That's a better analogy to the Wal-Mart case...

everything will get worse. Learn spainish. Sorry to be so cynical but there it is. I have no real reason for feeling positive.

 is how the electorate "heard" the american citizens calling for the UAE deal,to manage some terminals, to be put down. But for how long have those same citizens been calling for "SERIOUS" immigration reform which is ALSO a matter of US security but they turn a tone deaf ear to it with watered down legislation which doesn't at all achieve what we have been asking for.  The financial strain alone that the illegals place on

a variety of our infrastructure, hospitals, jails,schools,SSA etc. is unbelievable.  But heaven forbid we don't send the illegals back home and ask them to enter legally.  Why such a request would be considered racist and hateful and xenophobic......kinda like thos politicians screaming about the UAE deal.  Heaven forbid....oops how politically incorrect of me to mention heaven..ah well typical conservative, so thoughtless am I.

I have been patiently waiting to hear from our beloved wanabee 2008 Republican Presidential nominees and ........ nothing but silence.  

Except this from Senator Frist.

America needs secure borders. Right now, we don't have them. Every day thousands of people violate our frontiers. We don't know their identities and, quite often, we can't stop them. As a nation of immigrants who honor the rule of law, we must secure our borders before we can reform our immigration policies.

And this

my bill will also begin the process of building a 1,951-mile long virtual barrier across every inch of our border with Mexico. The new barrier will combine walls and fences in high-traffic areas with sensors to let CBP see and hear those who make a run for it in low traffic areas. Together, these measures should make the border safer and more secure.

What's also interesting about Frist's proposal is what is does not include: A guest worker program.  

Now, how many Republican US Senators (including those who are "moderate, if not liberal") have endorsed Senator Frist's bill on immigration?

Here's a link to Senator Frist's bill on immigration

America needs secure borders. Right now, we don't have them. Every day thousands of people violate our frontiers. We don't know their identities and, quite often, we can't stop them. As a nation of immigrants who honor the rule of law, we must secure our borders before we can reform our immigration policies.

Why haven't we been hearing more discussion about this proposal?  Why are so many Republicans competing with each other to see who can reward the most illegal immigrants?

The problem with fines is that they are essentially just an other cost of doing business. Jail on the other hand is deeply personal matter :-)

As a former boss of mine used to say "when you've got them by the .... their hearts and minds will follow"

But as a rule the problem would actually rest on the lawn service, they are the hiring entity not you.

I messed up the number just after I hit the go button :-) Can't get much by you, eh?

I never placed much faith in Social Security anyway ...

I would say it is because the Dems aren't trying to score any points on immigration so they don't have to fall back on the Me too! Me too! Me too! defensive stance.

To go along with the virtual spending cuts and virtual ANWR drilling I suppose.

I don't recall the 22nd Amendment being repealed.

might happen once and just watch how long it takes WalMart to modify their hiring practices!

Fat chance!  They will have a very tough time nailing Ken Lay.  You really think there is any court that will throw a CEO in jail for someone else hiring an illegal?  IT JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN.

If you were in the pest control business you would just advise your customers to let the critters in your house; just don't let them have access to any food.  Then there will be no incentive to stay; and, they will go away.

LOL.

He has to retaliate... and he will have enough backing to make it stick.

The other problem is that the business community and some of the other folks who got the short end of a few sticks (like the Miers nomination - don't forget that at the time the name was withdrawn, a plurality of the conservatives were disappointed at the withdrawl (44%) to the third who were pleased (34%).  That's a sign that a fair chunk of ther conservative base did not like what happened to Miers.

Then on the DPW deal, the business community just saw one of their best customers get smeared.  Some of the same players who forced the Miers nomination to be withdrawn were involved in the smear job on the UAE.

Now, we come to immigration.  With the same cast of characters largely being involved as in the Miers and DPW dust-ups.  They're in a bad mood over these two instances - and just as there have been threats from a chunk of social conservatives to stay home/sit on their hands, a decent chunk of this other wing could decide to sit on their hands or stay home.

And, as I said earlier, the President needs to repair the relationship with the UAE because of the DPW dust-up.  If it means angering those who he already has a personal score to settle with (to wit, the way they went after Miers), even better.

He's not showing it, but he is probably spoiling for a fight.  At this point, he probably considers repairing the relationship with the UAE (a vital ally in the war on terror) to be more important than even the 2006 midterms.  He's got far more reasons to fight the social conservatives and twist their arms over this than he had six months ago.

And this time, it's a fight he knows is coming - it is not going to be a case of being sucker-punched from the right.  If it's Bush/Rove vs. Tancredo, my money will be on Bush/Rove.

Blame nobody but the conservatives who piled on a loyal aide of the President's and who jumped in on the DPW port deal.  He's got reasons to fight and win that aren't just "business" - they're also personal.  I have a feeling that payback is coming.

This has become pointless.

but as a phase in to border security and non-hiring of illegals I would give a "grace period" where employers are subject to fines.  In the case of someone hiring mass quantities of illegals, jail 'em.  One or two per TV market should do it.

caught it.

..to this than you think? ;-)

but at some point it has to have teeth, jail or a bazillion dollar fine, people will just continue to ignore it.

Bottom line is I think we're on the same wavelength; eliminate the job magnet that's responsible for the vast majority of illegals.

I see now that the Bertie Ahern the Irish PM is pressing for legalization of an estimated 50,000 illegal Irish. Being of Irish extraction I have only one word for Bertie: "fuggedaboutit." Irish or not they need to use the same process as everyone else.

Re: If we had a national ID card with detailed personal attributes, this might work.

Uh-uh! That just makes it easier for ID thieves. They get one card they get it all. A national ID (which I do favor, with the conditions below) should have nothing but a picture and a name. OK, maybe an expiration date and a tracking # (the number of the card, not an ID number of the person). And some security features (holograms etc.)  No birth dates, addresses or anything else, period.

Re: As for additional rules, no bank account without a SSN and proof of legal status.

Foreign individuals, and foreign corporations can and should be able to bank in the US without residing here. Let's not trash our banking industry over this, or use this problem as an excuse for backdoor socialism of the Hugo Chavez sort.

I agree completely.  The more unique and indelible and tied to the individual you make the information the identification system uses, the more difficult it will be to restore someone's identity once it has been stolen.  You can require counterfeiters to jump through hoops and go over hurdles, and you should make them as high as you can, but the problem with individualized information isn't just the "number of the beast" bugaboo -- it's that once that information is stolen and widely distributed, you'll never be able to completely retrieve it.  Very, very, very, very bad.  

It's already against the law for me to hire an illegal. But it's also against a different set of laws (Civil Rights, ADA, etc) for me to ask a broad class of personal questions to an applicant. Most larger employers will validate a person's credit history, but that's possible without challenging the applicant because tax-compliance requires that you get his SSN or other tax-id number. It also doesn't necessarily tell you if the person is illegal.

Employers have been finessing this situation as best we can for years now. You can't fully comply with the spirit of conflicting sets of laws. If you add in mandatory jail time for violating one set of these laws, you'll have a mass rebellion.

are probably full of potentially confliciting law. Clearly in order for a true hiring control law to be effective we'd have to rationalize a number of exisiting laws.

The big problem is that you'd get the ACLU and La Raza and all the other immigrant "rights" groups screaming discrimination. So as I see it the only way forward is to make it flat, harsh and apply to everyone, wihtout regard to "race, religion, national origin," whatever. And tht suits me just fine, I don't want to let Irish skate while Mexicans get the short end.

to the particular employee and any new compliance enforcment crackdown must give employers at least a one year notice?

Dan Quayle wanted me to tell you to add an "E" at the end to V-E-T-O.

I did mean physical attributes... like a driver's license has. Race, height, weight, eye color, etc. So you can't just cut out the picture and replace it with your own. I don't see a reason to leave address off of it either.

whiskey.  That would get them a pass based on the "Kennedy Rule".

And yeah, we're on the same wave length on immigration.  The decision isn't whether to shoot, but when and with what caliber...

:>)

with the physical info: you have a good point (though with a tamper-proof card it shouldn't be possible to just cut the picture out). Address would be rather pointless though since people do move a lot and why create the expense and hassle of having to update the card everytime someone does?

Re: Most larger employers will validate a person's credit history, but that's possible without challenging the applicant because tax-compliance requires that you get his SSN or other tax-id number.

You do have to ask them to sign a permission form for this though. Why not do something smiliar for validating legal status? I would say that that is more important than a credit history, which I actually see as a bit odd and not very legitimate for employers to be concerned with outside of limited situations (e.g., the financial industry)

said anything about whiskey. That's a horse of a different color, we definitely need to consider some less draconian punishment :-)

You would rather put American businessmen/women in jail than keep illegals out.

It is pointless.

I would make sure to hire only white or black people that I meet face to face, and I would make a judgement based on their accent whether they were born and raised in the US. (Remember, I'm prohibited by law and discrimination-jurisprudence from simply asking the person to prove he is not illegal.) This approach exposes me to lawsuits from missing my hiring quotas, but I can manage that by not operating in places where many Hispanics live. Asians don't sue for discrimination (to a first approximation) so I don't need to worry about them. I'll still make mistakes this way, but I'll make far fewer of them. And if the penalty for making a mistake is a mandatory year in jail, I'll do something else to reduce my risk: I'll cut my hiring of domestic employees down to the absolute minimum, and replace them with a combination of offshore employees and technology. And I'll accept that my business will be a smaller, less valuable one. Remember, I'm a rich, white guy, not in particularly good shape, and not physically large. I'll do anything to stay out of jail, including become poor. And including destroying the livelihood of my employees by laying them off.

How is this working for you?

Harold,

I know we're on different sides vis-a-vis HM and (I think) on the same side with regards DPW, but I'm more than a tad confused regarding how that all fits in with this immigration proposal.

If I understand it correctly, the Senate is essentially caving-in to Bush on the issue ("temporary" guest workers) and throwing-in amnesty to boot (which I've not heard GWB speak against with any conviction).  I understand Bush's desire to get back at Congress for tossing both Harriet and the UAE under the bus, but don't you think so doing by issuing his first veto on, essentially, his program is, dare I say - S T U P I D?

Or have I missed your point completely?

Frankly, I hope he shoots this down - but because I think this entire "guest worker"/amnesty deal is bad-bad-bad and not because I want to see GWB smack Congress back down a few pegs.

Please enlighten me.

Cheers.

Here's the deal.  Opponents of the President's immgiration plan from the conservative side were also against both Miers and the DPW deal (Malkin, Savage, NRO, Ingraham, etc.).  The latter controversy has endangered the war on terror via the potential alienation of a reliable ally (arguably the most reliable ally) in the Persian Gulf region.

Now comes immigration.  I think that the Senate's got a good plan, one that is in line with the Presidents's, and which has been mislabeled amnesty by its opponents.  There is a punishment for those who entered the country illegally.  It is just not the punishment that Michelle Malkin, Tom Tancredo, Michael Savage, NRO, and others want.  The more accurate term is "plea-bargain", which reflects the reduced punishment, not amnesty, which implies they get off scot-free.

If the House plan (which is what Malkin, Savage, et al want) is what survives, then the President is going to issue a veto.  If they accpet the guest-worker provisions in the Senate plan.  He will not care if he angers conservatives by fighting for the guest-worker program.  The war on terror is more important to President Bush than the 2006 mid-terms.

Have to do with the GWOT? I suspect if a bill came across with all enforcement and no guest worker, he would sign it, just like every other bill that has crossed his desk. Sure, he doesn't have to run again, but 2006 is still important to the administration.

I don't expect it to come to that anyway. The Senate will kill anything without some kind of guest worker/amnesty program in it when it comes back from conference.

I am defintely with Kchad!  We should build a wall or barrier and step up enforcement before we consider other possible reforms.  Any other course of action is going to fail, and will likely encourage more illegal immigration.  In this regard, we should remember the "bipartisan" Simpson-Mazzoli bill of 1986 which combined weak, employer-based enforement with a substantial amnesty.  Today, 20 years later, we have given a lot of people amnesty, but have more illegals in the country than ever before.  Hence, the Simpson-Mazzoli apprach has been a total failure and should not be repeated.

Looking at this history, the Frist bill shows some real promise.  I would suggest that barrier idea be expanded to key portions the Northern border as well, given Canada's weak record with respect to terrorists.  In addition, I would like to see a real program to tract down people who have overstayed visas (another significant source of illegal immigration) and the development of a database or persons who may legally be hired.  As far as the McCain-Kennedy bill is concerned, it seems to be little more than attempt to repeat the throughly ineffective Simposon-Mazzoli bill of 20 years ago.      

You rise a very good question.  I am afaid that McCain is one Senator who will likely oppose First's very sensible proposal. What is your excuse this time, McCainiacs?  

OK HH.  I've got it now.  Thanks.

I'm too weary (long, long week) to tackle this presently but I'm sure we'll have time in the not too distant future to tussle over this.

Cheers.

When one looks at opponents of the guest-worker plan, one can note that many of them are also opponents of the DPW deal.

If the President can simply deny the bulk of the DPW world opponents the immigration bill they want - or better yet, force his guest-worker program through over their objections - he will be able to avenge the insults they inflicted upon the UAE in the DPW controversy.

That repairs relations with our strongest ally in the Persian Gulf.  And I suspect the war on terror is more important to President Bush than the 2006 midterms.

When one looks at opponents of the guest-worker plan, one can note that many of them are also opponents of the DPW deal.

I think there's a more substantive reply to the question of what does the guest worker program have to do with the GWOT, and that is that reducing the flow of illegals can only be a good thing for national security. I cannot think of better camouflage for an al-Qaeda operative who wants to enter the US than to learn a few words of Spanish, don some peasant garb, and then join the huddled masses trying to sneak in through the Arizona desert. Indeed, the stricter screening at legitimate ports of entry (i.e., airports) into the US pretty well guarantees our country's enemies are seeking alternate means of of entrance.

It's high time we undertook a comprehensive reform of US immigration law that employs a decriminalization approach. We have NOT tried this method yet. Contrary to the opponents of the president on this issue, the 1980s reform under Reagan did little or nothing to address the ongoing flow of illegals. It only tackled the problem of those who were already lving here illegally. Predictably, the problem wasn't solved.

Although I favor amnesty for illegals, I'd be the first to admit that the issue of what to do with the illegals who are already here is somewhat tangential to the issue of how to stop yet more from arriving. Presumably, a Yemeni AQ operative bent on destruction who snuck in across the Rio Grande a year ago is already in a good position to wreak havoc. Abdul is now more a job for the FBI than the border guard. The question that arises in the context of the immigration debate is: how do we stop his brother from sneaking in next week?

I for one would want to see Abdul's brother's "camouflage" severely reduced and undermined by reducing the flow of Latin Americans aspiring to enter the US illegally. I realize most of the folks on this site don't see things my way, but I believe the only way to accomplish this aim is a large degree of decriminalization via an increase in immigration admissions. Sunlight, after all, is the best disinfectant. A guest worker program could possibly be a component of that.

Re:Remember, I'm prohibited by law and discrimination-jurisprudence from simply asking the person to prove he is not illegal.)

???

What law prohibits employers from asking proof of legal status? Every time I've been hired for a job I had to do so.

...then Federal civil-rights guidelines apply to you and you are severely constrained in the kinds of questions you may ask an applicant. Pretty much the only thing that is "safe" is to ask the person's immigration status, to which you'll get an answer like citizen, green card, H1B, etc. You have to get an SSN or equivalent tax-id number so you can submit W2's for the person. That's all. None of this constitutes proof that the person is here legally. I'm not qualified to speak of the specific legalities, which you're free to question all day long if you like. In my companies, the HR departments report to me, not the other way around, and I don't tell them how to do their job. My bottom line is to reduce my companies' exposure to any kind of legal liability, including discrimination lawsuits (which are very, very bad news since the jurisprudence is strongly biased against employers).

People on this thread have proposed mandatory jail time for managers of companies that hire illegals, thus putting a completely unreasonable burden on employers. If this becomes law, I'm cutting down my domestic hiring to reduce my personal risk, and that's a plain and simple bottom line. It's just not possible to assure perfect compliance.

Re: People on this thread have proposed mandatory jail time for managers of companies that hire illegals

I assume such proposals would only be for companies that hire illegals without obtaining the required documentation since as long as a company is in compliance with what is expected under the law no case against it could hold up in court.

...and not a little naive. It's a simple matter of business logic: you go to exceptional lengths to avoid going to court, especially if a jury is involved, because justice is a 50-50 proposition at best. Remember, it's not the truth that matters, it's whatever you can convince 12 artfully-selected people to believe.

As far as government laws and regulations are concerned, you try even harder to avoid violating them, because people in government tend to think that business people are the destroyers of the earth, the morals of children, and common decency. They can and will damage you in myriad ways. Even if you prevail against them, you've still lost because you're spending your own time and money to defend yourself, while they're using the people's money to do what they see as God's work.

Aleks, you are a person who places great faith in the power of reason to discover the truth. I can imagine your reaction to what I've said here, but everything I've said comes from bitter, first-hand experience.

To your specific point: the current law and regulatory guidance leaves it very unclear what constitutes acceptable and adequate proof that care was taken to establish the legal status of a new hire. And when the regs have been challenged, no uniform standard has emerged. Just asking for an SSN is no proof that someone is illegal. And if I ask to see a photo ID, someone somewhere along the line will sue me for discrimination.

in agreement with you: the burden of enforcing America's immigration laws should not be offloaded on private businesses, nor on the states and municipalities.