King Outlines Immigration Plans for 2011

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: NYT

The Republican who is expected to lead the main subcommittee on immigration in the House of Representatives in the new congress next year said on Monday that he will push for a bill that would cancel employers’ tax deductions for wages of workers who are illegal immigrants.

In an interview, Representative Steve King of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration in the current congress, said his priority as chairman would be to pass a bill he introduced last year that would also require the Internal Revenue Service to share information with the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration about the immigration status of workers.

Mr. King said his measure would increase pressure on employers to fire unauthorized immigrant workers by increasing their cost. He estimated that if employers were not able to claim tax deductions for those workers’ wages and benefits, an unauthorized immigrant making $10 an hour would cost the employer the equivalent of $16 an hour.

Mr. King said his measure would be a “velvet glove” that would leave it up to employers to fire unauthorized workers. “That opens up lots of jobs for Americans,” he said.



Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/king-outlines-immigration-plans-for-2011/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[truthisfreedom]

1. Not necessarily a bad thing.

[AlphaCentauri]

4. He is going to try a National ID n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

5. I don't have a problem with national ID

It would make it much easier to determine who can work legally and would eliminate redundant bureaucracies in the states.

[AlphaCentauri]

10. A flat tax system would eliminate redundant bureaucracies in the states

that could be another option

[Hello_Kitty]

11. So do you oppose military IDs and passports? Those are national. eom

[AlphaCentauri]

12. Do we need a passport to move around in the city? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

13. No, and you wouldn't need a national ID to do so either.

You'd need it to get a job in the U.S. Are you opposed to establishing legal status to work here?

[AlphaCentauri]

16. No, but who has to show a national ID to get a job?

everybody
minorities
people of color
all of the above

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Everyone

You get a national ID upon working age or legal emigration. You present it to anyone who hires you.

I get the sense that you don't want there to be any immigration laws whatsoever. And I think you're using paranoia over "National IDs!" as a cover for that.

[AlphaCentauri]

36. I'm worry about Arizona style racial profiling n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. We have one of those; it's called a "social security number".

Which is generally required of employees; if employers aren't checking, then requiring another form of ID they won't check either clearly isn't the answer.

[AlphaCentauri]

35. Exactly n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

29. Voting as well.

[Ter]

6. We can get a coalition to oppose that

Not only do liberals hate it, the far-right despises it.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. What is wrong with it? You do realize we already have forms of national ID.

Passports, SS cards, military ID. What's so ominous about a national ID to work?

[Ter]

8. I don't trust the government

And certainly want as little public tracking as possible.

[boppers]

15. What's so ominous about a national ID to work?

If they can give it, they can take it away.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Yet somehow passports, SS cards, and military ID haven't led to Nazism.

[boppers]

21. Which of those three are required to work as an independent contractor?

As a piece-work employee? As a babysitter? As a kid who mows lawns in the summer for spare cash?

Answer: NONE.

You only need a passport if you want to jump between countries, you only need a SS number if you want to pay into (or get money out of) the federal plan, and you only need a military ID if you decided to volunteer.

Yes, we don't have Nazi-ism here....
1. We haven't made a huge military a cornerstone of our economy.
2. We haven't invaded nations under false pretenses.
3. Our police and military don't shoot unarmed people.
4. People aren't racially profiled.
5. Our government doesn't attempt to arrest and imprison people for speech which damages the government.
6. Americans aren't unwittingly experimented upon.
7. We don't have a huge amount of money and resources spent on surveillance of our citizens.
8. We don't glorify military service.
9. We don't torture or kill people to extract information from them.
10. We don't exempt government authorities from being held accountable for crimes.

Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

Yes, we aren't 1945 Nazi's, we're closer to the "kinder, gentler", 1936 Nazis.

Yay, US!

[Hello_Kitty]

23. So you're arguing against ID because you want cheap child care and landscaping.

Got it.

[boppers]

24. Way to gloss over ongoing massive state abuse.

Care to argue any of the ten points I proffered?

Considering your screen name indicates sympathies with a historic US enemy, perhaps you don't know how it feels when a government casts a wide net and abuses all within it.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Way to gloss over exploitation.

Realize that you're using Nazi tropes to defend ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS.

Realize that they are allowing RAPE to happen in their workplaces. http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/international/esperenza-sexual-assault

[boppers]

26. We're in a Nazi state, arguing about levels of Nazi-ism.

Yes, we, as a state, turn a blind eye to the rape/murder of jews/mexicans.

Yes, we, as a state, argue about whether or not the person was here under legal circumstances, rather than whether rape/murder is wrong.

Kind of messed up.

[emilyg]

19. No problem with national ID.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Why not tie it to the passport for U.S. citizens?

When you come of age to work, you apply for your passport. You prove your citizenship for the purposes of getting a job AND you get to travel to other countries! Win-win. Immigrants could get an enhanced green card (with a photo ID) to prove their eligibility to work here.

[bitchkitty]

30. Really?

Tell me, what is the cost of living like in La La Land? I've been thinking about moving.

[pampango]

31. It appears it gives illegal employers the ability to retain illegal employees by paying a tax

penalty. Does it give any legal status to the employees or do they stay "illegal" so that they have no rights? Sounds like a right wing wet dream.

[Zoeisright]

2. Fuck you, King you bigot.

He is the worst of the worst. A racist, hateful repuke with a big mouth. Well, that actually describes all of them.

[truthisfreedom]

3. Be that as it may, since it is illegal to employ illegal immigrants, I don't see how this is bad.

If it opens up jobs for Americans and improves wages, that's a good thing, right?

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Yeah, Steve King is a giant dick but I'm not opposed to what he's proposing here.

This is something Dems should be championing, not Republicans. Immigration reform will not happen until cheater employers feel the pain.

[tomm2thumbs]

14. sounds like a lot of 'rules' for a 'free markety' GOP'er... where's DE-regulation???

oh, that's right... it's a drunken song they sing, but don't know the words to

As in everything the Republicans do, 'Do as I say, not as I hypocritically do.'

[chuck97]

22. Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Let's all agree: King is a virulent, unrepentant racist.
Having gotten that out of the way, we can focus on a possible
significant consequence of his intended actions. King's
approach, as described above, might further split the
democrats. They are already suffering heartburns over Don't
Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, Cap and Trade, lack
of a public option in health care reform, tax extension for
the wealthy, Afghanistan, etc. Adding another issue to the
lot, would further tear apart the democratic base and the
democratic coalition.  

To win the White House in 2012 and to maintain majority in the
Senate, democrats must safeguard their coalition. If I
remember correctly, there are far fewer registered
hyper-liberal voters than there are registered conservative
voters. To win a nationwide election, liberals must retain
their coalition of voters. Based on issues of interest,
today's democratic/liberal coalition seems to consist of gays,
environmentalists, immigration reform proponents, abortion
supporters, some independents, and the long-term unemployed. I
suspect that there are a few others, but you get the picture. 

If one or two coalition members secede, or is driven out, the
democratic party will significantly reduce its chances of
keeping the Senate and the White House. Add to that, the
democrats reputed lack of discipline and party loyalty--at
least, relative to that of conservatives--and you could have
the outlines of a strategy to split the democratic party
before the 2012 elections. I make this point, only to caution
my DU denizens to be wary of supporting any policy that will
have the outcome of vilifying or otherwise adversely affecting
immigrants. They are an important part of the democratic
coalition. If they go, the democratic party will not be far
behind, and republicans will happily welcome them to the
fold--even if they profess that they will not. 

Even if one thinks that there is personal benefit to be had in
the form of a job, it might very well cause the party to lose
competition for control of every other major issue for the
next 20-30 years. The issues will persist, but there will not
be enough democratic votes to move on these issues. In
exchange for moving against comprehensive immigration, you
will receive cold comfort in the form of abstract expectations
that you will win some job that is currently assumed to be
held by one or more immigrants. If that is your hope, you
might be bitterly disappointed. Again, I caution, beware! 

I want to leave you with two thoughts: Willie Brown, former
Mayor of San Francisco, and former Speaker of the California
Legislative Assembly, pointed out that in the California
Attorney General's race, Kamala Harris, the SF City Attorney,
won 200,000 more votes in Southern California, than did Steve
Cooley, the Los Angeles City Attorney. Brown thinks that Steve
Cooley paid a price for angering Southern California's Latino
voters. Meg Whitman, gubernatorial candidate, lost to Democrat
Jerry Brown, by about 10 points, even after spending $140
million of her own money. The Latino vote might also have had
a significant impact on the gubernatorial election,
specifically because of the thorny issue of immigration.
(Brown also swiped at the reputed disloyalty of liberals.
Effectively, he said that liberals support a particular
candidate, but only until the next shiny thing comes along.
But this post is already long enough, so let's chat about
liberal disloyalty some other time.) 

Take California's electoral experience and extrapolate it to
other states with a sufficiently sizable Latino population,
and where the election might be won or lost by, let's say, 1-3
points. States like California, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida
comes up for possible consideration. So folks, if you want gay
marriage, DADT, Cap and Trade, etc., you better get used to
the idea of comprehensive immigration. When it comes to the
matter of immigration, I am not talking about tolerance or
acceptance; I am talking about embracing a political reality
and an economic necessity. Remember that not long ago, George
Bush, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain, all wanted comprehensive
immigration. Conservatives like Cokie Roberts and Condoleeza
Rice still give their full-throated endorsements. Ted Kennedy
is no longer with us. George Bush blames Harry Reid for the
failure of Bush's efforts at comprehensive immigration. BTW,
Jeb Bush blames the democrats for failing to enact
comprehensive immigration. John McCain now conditionally
supports comprehensive immigration. Implication: Given the
opportunity, Republicans will pass comprehensive immigration.
If they do, they will own a substantial portion of Latino
votes for the indefinite future, and Democrats will find
themselves in the political wilderness. I say woe to you, the
plural you, if you allow it to happen, in any way, shape, or
form. 

As to keeping the coalition together, it must be one for all
and all for one. Noticed how the Republicans coalesced and
moved in lock-step to win big this past election cycle? Some
days you will be battered and bruised. Some days your interest
will not be at the top of the list. If you give up, or become
petulant, and you take your marbles and run home, your name
might be placed in the loss column for the next 30 years.
That's such a long time; it could feel like a lifetime. To put
a little salt in the wound, you might have a President Steve
King, or Sarah Palin, and the permanent Republican majority
that Karl Rove tried so hard to engineer.  How 'bout it? I
encourage you to compartmentalize the emotionalism, and
rationally assess what you can and should do. 

[AlphaCentauri]

37. That is a long post but worth reading

[pampango]

38. Great post. Indeed King hopes to split the "Democratic coalition" by pretending to be "tough on

illegal employers" (though his proposal actually gives these employers the ability to retain illegal employees even after they are discovered).

If he (and other conservatives) can split the "pro-enforcement" (attrition-through-enforcement) Democrats off from the "pro-legalization" (path-to-citizenship) Democrats, he will have done his job. Perhaps some of the former will vote repub (or just stay home) or some of the latter will go "third party" (or just stay home).

King hopes this will be an effective wedge in the Democratic coalition, while simultaneously giving illegal employers the ability to keep known illegal employees. These employers, under King's plan, would have the choice of firing newly discovered illegal employees or keeping them and suffering a tax consequence. A nice new choice for employers and something that can hold over the heads of labor.

[pampango]

28. So King would let illegal employees keep working, just eliminate illegal employers' tax deductions.

Under King's proposal, once an employee was proven to be here illegally "it up to employers to fire unauthorized workers" which sounds like the employer could decide to retain the employee if desired. Employers have no such discretion now.

Undoubtedly King's real goal is to derail the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform and break off enough support from the left by using the wedge issue of "going after employers". In reality the right (of which King is a genuine member) would love to give illegal employers the option of keeping their illegal employees. It sounds like King would be willing to give illegal employers a pass, but I didn't read how he would propose doing for the "illegal" employees who could continue to work if their employer so chose. Could they apply to become "legal" or would they keep working "illegally" indefinitely? Sounds like a guest worker program without any legal status for the workers.

Under Obama's I-9 audit program, more illegal employees have been fired than ever occurred under Bush's showcase workplace raids. Deportations are running way ahead of the pace under Bush.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Why is "going after employers" a wedge issue?

I happen to be against exploitive employers who take advantage of the undocumented status of their workers to abuse them.

Why are so many "immigrant rights activists" so tolerant of abusive employers?

[Wednesdays]

33. Because the repugs aren't really going after employers

But they draft legislation making it sound as though they do.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Oh I know that. I live in AZ.

Where we not only passed the odious SB1070 but 3 years ago they passed the supposedly "toughest employer sanctions law in the country". There has been one employer prosecuted under the law since its inception. The law has been used to go against workers.