Hee hee hee "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

[Cerridwen]

Published on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
by Thom Hartmann

<snip>

Hopefully one day soon a dialogue like this fictitious one may ensue on, for example, Face The Nation:

(Bob Schieffer (baffled)) Illegal employers? But what about the illegal aliens?

(Senator Stabenow) Bob, the aliens wouldn't be here if they didn't think they could get a job. Of course, we need to clean up US agricultural subsidies and trade policies that are causing human suffering in our neighboring countries, but to truly protect the pay standards of workers here in the United States we need to crack down on the Illegal Employers. They're the magnets that are drawing people in from all over the world, many of whom come in as tourists and then overstay because they get illegal jobs. And these Illegal Employers are breaking the law - both immigration laws and IRS laws. I suggest that we need to tighten up these laws against Illegal Employers, adding huge fines for first offenses, jail time for CEOs for second offenses, and the corporate death penalty - dissolve their charters to operate - for repeat offenders.

(Bob Schieffer (stammering)) The, the, er, did you say "corporate death penalty"? You mean against companies?

(Senator Stabenow) Better companies die than human beings. These Illegal Employers, in their quest for ever-cheaper labor, are drawing people to cross our borders in ways that cause many people to die in the deserts of the southwest. These people were executed, for all practical purposes, by the policies of a few greedy and lawbreaking American companies. When companies are repeat offenders, they should be dissolved, their assets sold to reimburse their shareholders, and let other, more ethical companies pick up the slack. We used to do this all the time in America when companies behaved badly. Up until the 1880s, an average of around 2000 companies a year got the corporate death sentence in the US.

(Bob Schieffer (bug-eyed)) But what about the illegal immigration problem?

<snip> (giggles continue at link)

"Corporate death penalty" - that sure has a nice ring to it.

[Selatius]

1. Any bill in my mind must include 3 things

Ensuring security at the border and heavy punishment for employers who knowingly perpetuate this cycle and a withdrawal from NAFTA with political pressure bought to bear on Mexico to address its massive poverty program.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

4. Exactly what is your point of disagreement, if I may politely ask?

[Robson]

3. Here here - good point

Amnesty is so far down at the bottom of the list as to be irrelevant. It's like telling your kids at 6 years old that they must first work hard and get good grades and then graduate....BEFORE they go to college.

[Selatius]

6. At this point, amnesty is at the top of the list. These would simply be rider provisions tacked on.

Because at this point I think the Democratic Party will move towards some kind of amnesty with the White House.

[Cerridwen]

5. Hartmann disagrees with you on the "security" issue...

Easy, simple, cheap, painless. No fence required. No mass deportations necessary. No need for Homeland Security to get involved. When jobs are not available, most undocumented workers will simply leave the country (as they always did before), or begin the normal process to obtain citizenship that millions (including my own sister-in-law - this hits many of us close to home) go through each year.

Not saying he's not for "national security" just that in this instance it's a non-issue.

[Selatius]

8. I'm not for building a wall but merely ensuring that it can be monitored

Like enough patrol agents with technology that aids in that effort. It's not just illegal immigrants that's the issue alone but things such as smuggled weapons and drugs.

[Cerridwen]

9. Too expensive - take out the Illegal Employers - problem...

eventually "solved". End the "War on Drugs" might be another issue - but that's a whole 'nother thread. :D

[Selatius]

12. At this point, it's too expensive, given the war eating up the budget and resources.

Building a wall akin to the one the Israelis built in the West Bank would be insanely expensive, which is why I'm opposed to that. That, and the fact that the wall would remind me of other walls in 20th century history. If we weren't blowing as much as 600 billion/year on the Pentagon/war, things would be a different story as far as monetary resources go.

[Cerridwen]

15. Well, if Hartmann's correct,, there's no need of either a wall or

other measures beyond what we had until reagan (adjusted for increased population, of course) as "most undocumented workers will simply leave the country (as they always did before), or begin the normal process to obtain citizenship that millions (including my own sister-in-law - this hits many of us close to home) go through each year."

[Selatius]

17. Yes, but I generally find it prudent to secure it due to gun/drug smuggling.

As I had said, it's not just illegal immigrants; it's also about things like guns.

[Cerridwen]

20. I thought gun-running was a U.S. gov't and corporate past-time...

you really think it's that big coming in to our country? I thought we were one of the major exporters not importers.

[High Plains]

61. The guns are going in the other direction.

Are you familiar with our land borders? Thousands of miles of rugged, remote terrain. If we want to be Fortress America, we'd have to turn ourselves into (even more of) a police state.

[Robson]

19. Actually didn't we Americans build the wall in Gaza?

That's why we can't afford to take care of our own country. We the poor and huddled masses are assessed to give our dollars to Israel and other countries with more wherewithal than America. We gave Israel $200 billion that we can't afford. But that's another story.

[TahitiNut]

21. While I might order the priorities differently, I completely agree.

For more than 100 years, the global corporations have omposed "plantation economics" on Latin American countries. The antipathy the 'gringo'/'Yanqui' has earned in the Western Hemisphere goe back far longer than the support for stringmen like Pinochet and Batista to the days when the Marines were sent in to enforce Chiquita banana supremacy over the people - exerting foreign land ownership over local agricultural enterprise and sustenance.

I fully support the "corporate death penalty" for crimes against humanity - particularly the crimes against working people.

[Gold Metal Flake]

85. Excellent!

Right on. But expect to be tarred with the R word by the Bush Progressives.

[wakeme2008]

7. I have said for some time here... Hit the employers

$5,000 per illegal working on your site. So Mr. Walmart pays for illegals on it's cleanup crew no matter what sub employed them.

Half of the fine to local police that made the Catch

Catch and Release,,, Maybe you can catch them again...

There is a local car wash around me that has I bet 10 illegals working there. And the Police know it. $25,000 for one days work..

[Cerridwen]

13. No need to "catch and release" if the Illegal Employers are

rounded up and held accountable. If police get in the business of rounding up "illegals" for money, I foresee a whole 'lotta innocent but brown-looking people getting harassed. Not a slam on the police, just recognition of the power of the almighty dollar.

[Dr.Phool]

14. Treat the employers like they treat low level drug dealers.

Seize their assets! And a fine and jail time. They'll be demanding documentation from every worker and sub contractor. They are helping drive down the wages of everybody else.

Cheap labor and corporate greed destroying the middle class.

[Cerridwen]

16. The middle class, the working class, the working-poor class,

the poverty-stricken...

"Cheap labor and corporate greed destroying..." everyone not "them".

Time for a re-enforcing the "corporate death penalty".

[High Plains]

63. Oh, what a horrid vision. Predatory policing for profit.

Try again, please.

[Greyhound]

81. Simplest thing in the world to avoid, don't hire illegal immigrants. n/t

[mntleo2]

10. Thom's Been Talking About This For Awhile

...and every time he does I want to stand up in my pajamas and cheer. It is time these corporate thugs go to jail or face the death sentences for their lying, polluting, slave owning, greedy, nation building, immoral, murderous corporations. I would be the first one to offer their corporate offices as housing to homeless American vets who deserve shelter more than these greedheads deserve any mercy!

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[Cerridwen]

11. He said it very well in this article - glad I was able to find the link

and post it.

Time to get the word out to help dilute the propaganda being catapulted.

[High Plains]

64. Which corporate thugs are you talking about?

The assumption in many of these posts is that undocumented workers are all being employed by Walmart or Tyson's or other corporate giants. Are they?

Or are we talking about "corporate thugs" like Manny's Tree Service or Juan's Mexican Restaurant?

Railing against "corporate thugs" may make us feel good, but I suspect it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of who is employing undocumented workers.

Does anyone know where the undocumented are working, in what sectors, etc.?

[Cerridwen]

67. Agri-business, casinos, cleaning services, domestic servants...

mom-and-pop shops, commercial sewing, landscaping, construction are some of the few that first come to mind.

[DemGa]

18. Corporations lure illegals here

Crack down on the corporations who hire illegals and no need for fences, towers, etc.

Sounds good to me.

[Jack Sprat]

22. second the emotion.

[Donnachaidh]

23. WHEN do we see bills in Congress to go after the Corporations

and others who have continually provided work for illegals?

It's nice to discuss this, and I'm thankful that Tom and others bring this up. But is this Senator going to introduce legislation to start fining and JAILING these people?

Or are we going to see back-room dealing while the rest of Washington slams a bill into effect that does NOTHING to address the REAL problem?

[Cerridwen]

25. Nevada tried on Monday - interesting results...

Measure to punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants draws fire

<snip>

Department of Taxation Director Dino DiCianno said that provision is similar to powers the commission already has to strip licenses of businesses that violate certain laws. But the new rules drew fire from two advocacy groups, whose representatives said that enforcing immigration law should be left to federal authorities.

"It is a bill that is going to violate the rights of businessmen and women, and, needless to say, human beings, employees within the state of Nevada," said Fernando Romero, president of Hispanics in Politics.

Gary Peck, director of the ACLU of Nevada, said the provisions allowing fines were vague and would just discourage businesses from hiring any people with Hispanic surnames.

"I believe the law will be enforced in an uneven way," said Peck. "I think it's going to be used to go after businesses that are the least powerful, least politically connected."

<snip to more at link

[Donnachaidh]

50. Oh -- so businesses have the RIGHT to hire illegals?

Yet they are usually the ones screaming for tax cuts. So who exactly is going to pay the added costs to the community with health care problems, police problems, etc?

Can't have your cake and eat it too. But these folks seem to think they can. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

[Cerridwen]

53. Amazing, isn't it?

As long as we continue with the "conventional wisdom" that businesses have the "right" to do whatever is needed in order to "do business" (read, make a profit) this kind of argument will be used and many people will just nod and say "yep, businesses gotta do business" and "we don't have the 'right' to interfere with business".

[Donnachaidh]

57. I love the way people are framing this argument

It's OKAY if you hire someone for a day or two. It's OKAY if you're a small business owner to hire illegals.

I know of one guy who is a contractor building homes. He has NO problem hiring people with paperwork that is nothing more than a piece of paper with crayon marks that say "I'm a citizen" - but he stands on a soapbox screaming bloody murder about the corporations that hire people to pack meat, or pick vegetables -- THEY are the crooks! THEY need to be jailed. THEY are the bad guys!

Just don't look at MY business practices! Pay no attention to me -- Look OVER THERE!

And then, if you DO look at his practices, those *iffy* paperholders get the boot, and he wraps himself in a flag and starts whistling the Star Spangled Banner. With a "What ME -- I'm not doing anything wrong" look on his face. :grr:

[Cerridwen]

59. Very good point!

The other frame for this is "but, what's a small business to do?!" with all the hand-wringing and whining they can muster.

Do you, or does anyone reading this post, remember a time during which small businesses succeeded or failed based on their business acumen rather than on how well they gamed the system and/or exploited their workforce? Did that happen or am I just "remembering" an ideal which was never achieved?

[Donnachaidh]

68. I remember it too

One construction company here used to be "the" place to work. They gave out BIG bonuses all the time, the health benefits were outstanding. There literally was almost a waiting list for jobs. But several years ago they brought in a manager that brought in his *own* people (IE, those people with questionable paperwork) and things started going down in a hurry. Bonuses - GONE. Health benefits - GUTTED to the most minimal possible. Internal upward mobility - GONE.

And the only thing that was regular was the *turnover* of those people this manager brought in. He always had new people - and always brought them in at a cheaper hourly rate. And all the people who really wanted to work for this company slowly left, to be replaced with *his* people. :shrug:

[Cerridwen]

71. Thanks for confirming that.

I was starting to think it was only a dream I had.

[L. Coyote]

24. How about an amnesty program for illegal employment informants?

An "If you tell us everything and provide evidence and testimony, we will let you return to your own country without pressing charges, and we will pay the bus ticket." Just saying this as a sort of conversation stimulant, w/o much thought.

There needs to be a change in dialogue and paradigm, and tossing about this sort of idea puts some perspective on the foggy discussions today.

[Cerridwen]

26. Hmm, I wonder if INS really needs informants.

If something like this were to be put in place, I'm sure word would get out quickly without added incentive of "ratting out" one's country(wo)man.

But, hey, I'm just spit-ballin' here and as you said, we need a "change in dialogue".

[High Plains]

66. Just what America needs: More snitches, more snitch culture

[frogcycle]

27. right on

and thay can scream and holler all they want that we "need" the cheap labor, but that is bullshit.

We could develop programs to put citizens to work who are not working. Oh, sure they say "Americans won't do these jobs..." Well, then fucking fix the working conditions and pay a decent wage!

If it is economically viable for people to brave crossing hte desert to work in fields in California, and they then manage to make a living as decent, tax-paying members of the community (that's the party line of the amnesty folks) and even send money back home to Nicaragua, or Mexico, or wherever, as many do, then it is fucking economically viable for people in East LA to go work in those fields. We have plenty of issues with poverty, gangs, drugs, etc. in our country. Establish whatever social programs we need to break the cycle. Put people to work - hell that's what the WPA and CCC were. We do NOT "need" cheap immigrant labor. Countries WANT it to turn a higher profit. They can go straight to hell. The death penalty is too good for them.

[Cerridwen]

28. I think you said it perfectly...

"Well, then fucking fix the working conditions and pay a decent wage!"

And you make me :rofl:

Thank you. Treat your personnel like persons rather than resources, pay them a "living wage", provide a safe and healthy workplace and watch production and quality go through the roof. Guess what happens to the so-called "slackers"? Yep, good employees tend to run them out the door. Seems simple enough, huh?

[TahitiNut]

31. You can bet your sweet ass that the working conditions would be fine ...

... if the owners were working their own fields or plucking their own chickens. What really fries my bacon is that the first people to claim these are "jobs Americans won't do" are effete, elitist owners who think themselves "too good" to do the jobs in their own businesses. The fucking "plantation aristocrats"! That includes stockholders, too. Fuck 'em! I patronize owner-operated businesses whenever and wherever I can. There's not a single one of those jobs that I or people in my family haven't done.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

29. K&R!

I love Thom, and I am so proud to say he is local (since he moved here last year) :)

[TankLV]

30. Corporate Death Penalty - Count me in! That PERFECT!

I hate the worship at the alter of coroporations...

[hansberrym]

32. Why that's racist to the core. Just what sort of bigot would attack

corporations -they are persons too!


You ought to be ashamed! How can you characterize any employer as "illegal".

Racist scum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In fact, corporations ought to be able to cross our borders at will. How can anyone with a conscience say that a corporation who is just trying to improve its bottom line
ought to be turned back?

We are all immigrants!!!!

If a corporation wants to employ illegals, then we just have to chamge our laws so that there are no illegals; that way everyone corporations employ will be legal!!


Don't you get it? Citizenship is an outdated concept -we are all just serfs, and global corporations our beneficient masters. We must not slight them by suggesting any of them are in any way illegal.

[Cerridwen]

37. Your post is "funny" - in a painful sort of a way.

If you replace the word racist with anti-capitalist or anti-corporatist, it sounds exactly like what we've got.

I'm amazed at the cynicism that allowed corporations to be deemed "persons" which then combined with laws that required corporations to make a profit and helped created the idea that the "profit motive" is sacrosanct.

[Greyhound]

102. LOL!

:rofl:
:kick:

[snot]

33. HOLD IT, kids. The problem with corps isn't that they're not subject to

a death penalty. It's that they reward short-term profits at the expense of long-term consequences and also insulate their managers and investors from liability for any harm caused.

You dissolve the corp. charter, and Cheney or whoever just forms a new one and resumes the same bidness under the new name.

[TahitiNut]

34. Not if the officers of the corporation face individual criminal penalties.

Under the same theory as Racketeering In Corrupt Organizations, operating under cover of a public license to do business with "limited liability" and engaging in practices that selfishly attack the interests of the very community licensing them is felonious, imho.

Obviously, a range of penalties is appropriate. The 'corporate death penalty' should be reserved for the most egregious ... but I'm guessing that's probably somewhere in the range of 100-200 corporations today.

[Cerridwen]

35. And after enough times - it's not worth the time and effort to

keep re-forming.

This isn't an over-night solution. It's a start. You're looking for the "win" without ever having come up to bat.

Maybe there are other laws to work in concert with this idea. Denying business licenses and charters, for a defined time-frame, to those corp officers who have already been given the "corporate death penalty". Denying licenses and charters, in perpetuity to those guilty of two or more offenses.

Think creatively. Create a national ID system for corporate offenders. Set in place the mechanisms they would use to control people to, instead, control them. Make it difficult for them to find honest people to do business with.

Don't call the game just 'cuz the other team's been playing longer. Play harder.

edit: forgot a couple of words

[MindPilot]

42. Like convicted pedophiles are prohibited from being around children

Convicted corporate criminals should be prohibited from any financial activity. No stock market, no real estate, no term life insurance, no credit.

You commit a white-collar crime, after you get out of prison, you will be monitored and will not be allowed within 500 feet of any financial institution.

[Cerridwen]

45. Yep, and no more going on the "talk curcuit" and making big

bugs teaching future MBAs how to game the system.

I'm thinking michael milliken - no profit can be made from criminal activity.

[Gold Metal Flake]

94. Reforming takes time.

It takes resources, which takes away from profit. Also, portions of a copr would be subject ti liquidation post-execution, and the reformed corp might not get them back. A corporate death penalty would roil the entity and all of it's parts. Chunks would go to new owners, their operations will be more localized and perhaps the focus of the parts widened. Money would spill out like blood. Man, break up a few dozen of the largest corps and watch the economy bloom. Offshore corps would find their various onshore operations now domestically owned and paying taxes. Jobs would increase as each new, smaller company (parts could be bought by private investors) would need their own management, staffing, payroll, purchasing and engineering staffs (depending on what the chunk does).

Fuckin' pick these overripe fruits of fascism and squeze the sweet nectar into the mouths of the American workers.

[Cerridwen]

36. Morning kick....n/t

[dave_p]

38. Capital punishment's perhaps harsh

I'd save that for the war peofiteers. For these lesser "illegal" corporations, how about fining them the equivalent (or a multiple) of the top individual income earned from the business (including salary, bonuses, dividends, options & sweeteners) for each offence? I'm sure bosses wouldn't complain since they've already clearly decided that payouts of that size won't harm the enterprise.

[Cerridwen]

39. It's supposed to be harsh...that's the "incentive" to keep them

honest - break this law - never own or run your own business again - and you're now anathema to other business owners and owner-wanna-bes. In other words - pull this crap one too many times - join the work for wages crowd.

:evilgrin:

[dave_p]

84. But ...

My alternative's an incentive to keep executive handouts down while keeping the bottom wages up.

Actually, it should be related to company size too - I forgot the little guy with his Saturday help.

But you can make it any multiple you like, and then it's corporate capital punishment with a human face! :)

[Cerridwen]

93. Same coin, different sides?

:D

[dave_p]

96. Oh yes

... and two birds with one stone!

[Jed Dilligan]

40. They'll get the wrong employers

I really like what Stabenow is saying, especially about the corporate death penalty. I've wanted one for years, as well as an actual death penalty for the worst corporate criminals. It would be the only form of execution capable of deterring future criminals. Also, I would like to see certain individuals dancing at the end of a rope.

However, a war on "illegal employers" by our utterly corrupt government will only target small-time operations, like the Tongan guy with three Mexican employees who walk around my neighborhood with saws grooming palm trees. Or the Pakistani guy who owns the liquor store and has a couple of nephews who came on tourist visas helping him out. Con Agra, McDonalds, the biggest offenders will walk. We would like to believe our government will prosecute abusive large businesses, but it won't. A War on Illegal Employers would just be a slightly smaller roundup than a War on Illegal Immigrants.

[Cerridwen]

41. So, write the laws accordingly - put a number or a percentage

on it.

See my post upthread - why call the game a win or loss before even taking the field?

[Jed Dilligan]

44. Before that, though

you would need a complete purge of the criminal justice system as it now exists, from patrol officers on the street all the way up to SCOTUS. That means ending the War on Drugs and firing everyone who made a career out of it (or any other aspect of the 60s-present Culture War). Replace them with people who actually want to balance the books, both justice and accounting-wise, and we may be in business.

[Cerridwen]

47. As much as I distrust those systems you list, I wonder if the

corruption is as rife as you list, or even as much as I think.

We would have to maintain "eternal vigilance"; but hey, had we been doing that as Jefferson had advised, we wouldn't have the situation we now have.

[Donnachaidh]

48. If the small-time guy is hiring illegals, why should he be treated any different

than the corporations? They are BOTH guilty.

there shouldn't be a two-tiered course of action against businesses employing illegals. The person hiring an illegal for a day to clean out their gutters is just as guilty as the corporations. They knowingly hire these people.

They ALL add to the problem. Is it going to effect the smaller business more -- most likely. but THEY should have thought things out before they hired these people. They are JUST as responsible for the problems as the big guys.

[TahitiNut]

51. Existing laws are sufficient to determine culpability.

It all depends on whether the employer is required to pay FICA, imho. I'm not required to withhold income taxes or pay an employer's share of Social Security for a day laborer ... but I am for permanent full-time or part-time domestic help (e.g. maid, cook, housekeeper). Thus, little or no liability would exist in the former case but would exist in the latter case.

We're not talking about cleaning gutters - we're talking mostly about a farm or factory in which a large percentage of workers are illegal aliens. We're talking about corporations that knowingly exploit undocumented workers.

[Cerridwen]

52. Ah, and...remember the casinos - another group of corporate

employers who exploit the easily exploitable. I'm thinking Nevada, primarily, but this may play out in other states with legal (illegal?) casinos as well.

[Donnachaidh]

56. NO -- we're talking about EMPLOYERS that hire ILLEGAL workers

Period.

The person hiring someone to clean their gutters for a day is JUST as guilty as the corporation. If the JOBS are not available -- the illegals wouldn't be here.

[Jed Dilligan]

58. Well, I doubt the big guys will ever go down.

It's not a matter of equal treatment. The system has never treated rich and poor individuals or large and small businesses equally. Why would I expect it to start on this issue?

I am absolutely cynical about law enforcement in this country, so your "they BROKE THE LAW!" argument seems ludicrous to me.

[Donnachaidh]

60. Fine -- it's ludicrous -- Got a BETTER solution?

One that stems the tide of illegal immigrants while repaying local governments for the money they've had to pay out for added services to those illegally hired individuals?

[Jed Dilligan]

65. I'm from California, and I tend to think

we ought to close our eastern border, through which the money our local governments need seeps out into the pit of sleaze known as Washington, D.C.

[Cerridwen]

69. LOL

:rofl:

[Donnachaidh]

70. oh that's a real solution

:rofl:

[Jed Dilligan]

74. Well, it is a real problem.

And I'm not sure the "immigrant problem" is real. All the illegals I've known made well over minimum wage and paid more in taxes than they received in services. I'm more prepared to support the status quo than I am to support some new federal law enforcement initiative to fuck up my state. Part of the cognitive dissonance here may be that I acually like the immigrants I grew up with and work with and do business with now. On the whole, I like them better than I like Easterners or Southerners and about the same as Midwesterners. I don't want them gone and replaced by a more Anglo population. Culturally, I couldn't adjust to that. If it's having some small effect on my income, so be it. I'm sure leaving here would have a lot of financial advantages for me, but I don't want to live in another state, with a culture that (in its non-Mexicanness, non-Asianness, etc.) would be, frankly, "alien" to me.

[Donnachaidh]

75. Supporting the status quo means doing NOTHING

The laws on the books have been used so well, haven't they? :sarcasm:

[Jed Dilligan]

80. I'm not saying either "solution" is great

But the only choice I see here is bringing in a bunch of federal ASSHOLES or not. I say thumbs down to the assholes, their salaries, and anything they might do.

[Greyhound]

76. I think most of America would agree with that. The "Californication" of states all over the

country is something we would be happy to live without.

[Jed Dilligan]

77. And we would be very happy here

if we could keep our tax money here.

[Greyhound]

79. As was pointed out to you on the other thread, to simply concede is to make

attempting any improvement futile, and is exactly what the powers that be want you to do.

[Jed Dilligan]

83. Great, yeah

Let's get led by our idealistic noses into a situation where thousands of new federal law enforcement officers are being hired and sent out onto our streets to investigate and arrest ordinary people who have become part of the fabric or our society.

The powers that be would be so unhappy if we gave them this opportunity.

[Greyhound]

86. Don't know if you're being purposely obtuse or if you just can't keep the

point in mind.

The subject is punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants, not in "rounding up" suspected illegal immigrants.

[Jed Dilligan]

87. See above

I won't buy that the War on Illegal Employers will be any less of a roundup than the War on Illegal Immigrants. The corporations will get off scot-free and the little guys will have to be "rounded up." There are an awful lot of them, you know.

[Greyhound]

89. By little guys you mean small businesses? n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

92. Yes. nt

On edit: You're talking about shutting down the only grocery stores in inner-city black neighborhoods. To name a concrete example of what would happen.

[Greyhound]

98. No, we're talking about shutting down one or possibly two local grocery stores. Once

this happens, every grocery store in the city will suddenly "discover" that they had unwittingly employed illegal immigrants and set about hiring American citizens.

You also forget that large corporations are, occasionally, penalized. We can't judge all governmental actions by the maladministration of the last 6+ years. Remember the tobacco industry? Not too many larger corporations exist and they were punished (of course this maladministration has let them off, but again, they are an aberration). Uneven enforcement is certainly a problem, but is not in itself a reason to do nothing.

I've cited other examples in other threads so I won't repeat them here, but you have to keep in mind that there are only two motivations for corporations to do anything, greed and fear. Right now they have nothing to fear.

[Cerridwen]

88. This thread is about going after Illegal Employers rather than

going after people in this country without the "proper" documentation.

It's about enforcing laws that are already on the books and putting some "teeth" into those same laws.

It's about making sure that businesses are held accountable, painfully accountable, for exploiting their workers.

[Jed Dilligan]

91. Well, I'm not a big fan of a lot of the laws on the books

And I don't see all businesses as being equal and I don't see all employment of illegals as exploitation.

[Cerridwen]

99. So, how much exploitation of workers is enough to justify doing

something rather than accepting the status quo?

How many people need to be exploited for it to be "all" enough?

All businesses are not equal, yet you seem to have no problem with making businesses owners' "rights" more important than their workers' rights. How about a little equalization there? On the one hand you're not a big fan of a lot of the laws on the books, yet you seem to have no problem turning a blind eye to the unequal application of laws as they apply to people rather than the ones which apply to business.

[Jed Dilligan]

100. I just hate cops more than anything, which outpaces any economic argument

I'd like to see the corporations who make massive profits off illegal labor punished. But I don't want the same to happen to neighborhood merchants who are just getting by.

An illegal immigrant making a living wage is less exploited than a citizen making minimum wage. I would be down with busting places that pay less than minimum wage to illegals, but that would exclude 99.999% of the business sector I'm talking about. They are mostly urban and they have to pay enough to keep their workers alive and housed.

[Cerridwen]

101. Since I've already typed it above, see my thoughts on this

which are reflected in posts #59 and #68.

Has it yet occurred to you that if the large corporations were held accountable they'd have less ability to drive down wages, people might be able to afford more which might benefit neighborhood merchants who might be able to compete for more of the "almighty dollars" and who then, might be able to run their businesses in a more profitable fashion? That's a lot of "mights" and "maybes" but it at least has the "virtue" of a positive outcome.

Holding one group to a different standard than another; i.e., small business versus big business, is exactly how we got in this situation.

As to the fact you "hate cops more than anything" - it seems as if you're equating "beat cops" with federal regulations and corporate oversight. I'm pretty "tin-foily" but I can't quite get to that conclusion.

[Jed Dilligan]

103. You say business is business,

and I say cops are cops, from Gonzales down to the local dickheads.

[Cerridwen]

104. Well, I don't, actually say that - but I get your point.

I don't agree with it, but I get it. There are good cops and bad cops, good regulations and bad regulations, good laws and bad laws, sometimes there are even instances of even-handed laws and enforcement, sometimes not. And sometimes both/neither and all are true at one and the same time.

[catmandu57]

43. We need to go up and down the scales

Not only the corps, but the people hiring illegals off of street corners to work their yards or whatever. No hiring means no fucking hiring, there's always a teenager around who needs money for something, hire them to mow the yard.

[Cerridwen]

46. Yep, but I do like the idea of starting with the largest offenders...

that might put a chill on those with less to gain and more to lose; like those you listed.

[Coexist]

49. I like this train of thought.

[upi402]

54. Yes Mr Schieffer -illegal employers and the emloyees who slave for them

Cu-cu-cu..corporate death penalty!!!!
:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[Greyhound]

55. K & R

Just another distraction from the real issues.

Why is it that no one on either side of the isle has made a proposal that would actually solve the problem? Because there are billions in profits at stake. To effectively end illegal immigration would cause a restructuring of entire economy and drive billions of dollars to the people that would spend it and cause a significant increase in the real economy.

Good for people, very bad for Wall Street.
:kick: & R

[Cerridwen]

62. Did you see my post #25 - they actually tried something like this

in Nevada?! "Interesting" results. They couldn't quite get there because punishing businesses for hiring undocumented workers might negatively impact businesses. Oy.....

[High Plains]

72. And what about the concerns expressed by the ACLU?

That such measures would result in discrimination against people with Hispanic surnames, that employers would shy away from them all?

In all the railing against corporations, I see very little interest expressed in the 12 million people currently working in America without papers? Are they non-entities?

Whatever happened to solidarity? Does it end at the US border? That was the fatal error of the socialist/union movement a century ago. When World War I was looming, the movement had a choice: nationalism or internationalism. We are living with the result.

[Cerridwen]

78. I read the text of the proposed bill...

That's a bad argument - any business that's going to discriminate against someone based on the perceived origin of their last name, probably isn't hiring undocumented workers in the first place. The bill called for an easily accessible website for businesses to run social security numbers and to use a print-off of the results as proof that they'd made an effort to screen those they hired and avoid penalties. A couple of words could have been changed, but on the whole, it was a good idea.

All the railing against corporations is the topic of this thread. Addressing the concerns of the immigrants themselves and their "non-entity" status is happening in other threads - with the usual mixed results. :D I've even seen some calls for the solidarity and unity about which you posted. Oh, wait! One of those calls for solidarity and unity was one of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x923543#923667">my posts. :evilgrin:

[Greyhound]

73. Saw it, but at least they tried and the possibility remains to try again

from a different tack(?)

At some point, things will get "worse enough" that "business interests" no longer trump people's interests, at least that's the theory.

[Cerridwen]

82. I hope you're right.

There were only a couple of words in the bill that looked "dangerous." It could have easily been modified. I also think Gary's (ACLU) argument was a bit strawman-ish.



edit: spelling and specific wording

[A wise Man]

90. Maybe we should start rebuilding

"THE ALAMO".

[Gold Metal Flake]

95. Nice post.

I'm finding friends today! :toast:

[Cerridwen]

97. Thank you.

To new friends.

:toast:

[eppur_se_muova]

105. CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY !!! An idea LONG OVERDUE !!! nt