Illegal Immigration in Kansas
Kansas SpotlightRecently the House approved a law denying benefits to illegal immigrants. Benefits such as welfare, health care, etc. This is a good thing, in my opinion. You and I are paying for these people each and every time they utilize these resources with no contribution whatsoever from the person receiving the benefit....this law also increases the sanctions and penalties the State can apply to businesses who hire illegal immigrants.
Yesterday, reportedly, the State House and Senate also approved a bill requiring businesses who DO hire illegal immigrants to pay them minimum wages? I guess I can see the idea behind this; by paying them minimum wage, it decreases the incentive for businesses to hire illegal immigrants because they would (in theory) have to pay them the same as a regular citizen.
I say "in theory" because what is this law REALLY going to accomplish? The aliens are there working ILLEGALLY. So what if I don't pay them minimum wage...if they want to continue to work, are they really going to say anything to anyone?
It just seems like more fluff or garnish on top of a growing problem. It's going to take more than just unenforceable laws to stem the tide of illegal immigration. If the number are correct, some immigration watch-dogs estimate some 70,000 illegal immigrants in Kansas. That's 2% of the total population!
It's going to take added pressure from non-partisan, independent organizations like "We Hire Aliens" http://www.wehirealiens.com to bring added pressure against these companies who hire illegal immigrants.
~Dubya
Dave Shuck said:
Illegal aliens? But I thought they were "undocumented migrant workers". ;)
2% sounds like a wonderful pipe dream those of us in Texas. I hate to be pessimistic, but this "battle" (not that there ever truly was one) is already over.
I heard the other day that they make around 1.5M apprehensions each year on the borders, and only in rare cases is anyone actually held for any length of time, since it is not feasible to house so many. With that being the case, they just deliver them back so that they can try again.
What that means is there is absolutely NO deterrent. At worst, the spend a day or so away from their homes.
2% sounds like a wonderful pipe dream those of us in Texas. I hate to be pessimistic, but this "battle" (not that there ever truly was one) is already over.
I heard the other day that they make around 1.5M apprehensions each year on the borders, and only in rare cases is anyone actually held for any length of time, since it is not feasible to house so many. With that being the case, they just deliver them back so that they can try again.
What that means is there is absolutely NO deterrent. At worst, the spend a day or so away from their homes.
Julie said:
So what does it accomplish making employers pay at least minimum wage? I think it will still be so easy for employers to pay under the table. If I were an illegal alien I'd want to be way down under radar and wouldn't want a paycheck that was traceable.
What about construction contractors? Several of my family members work construction and it is almost always paid as contract employee (the company states that they are contract employees and pay a rate and it is up to the individual to claim the proper amount on taxes). They say that usually a big part of the construction crew are illegals.
What about construction contractors? Several of my family members work construction and it is almost always paid as contract employee (the company states that they are contract employees and pay a rate and it is up to the individual to claim the proper amount on taxes). They say that usually a big part of the construction crew are illegals.
Gster said:
To control immigration , the front door needs to be closed and controled. With the help of the National Guard , and others along the southern border, the number of illegal entry attempts have dropped dramatically. The costs have also increased dramatically with the additional personnel being utilized.
Something must be done about the employers at the hiring level. Expensive fines are one way , and I'm sure there are other proposals. Something needs to be done, and soon!
Not everyone that crosses our borders are necessarily someone from Latin America seeking employnet. Achmed the terrorist may be there also!
Something must be done about the employers at the hiring level. Expensive fines are one way , and I'm sure there are other proposals. Something needs to be done, and soon!
Not everyone that crosses our borders are necessarily someone from Latin America seeking employnet. Achmed the terrorist may be there also!
Predestined said:
Julie, I'm with you. The majority seem to be paid under the table. I think employers learned to do that with divorced men (and women), who didn't want to pay child support. *wink*
Until we start enforcing the immigration laws now on the books, there will be no change in the illegal immigration problem.
I think that 2% all lives in my neighborhood...
Until we start enforcing the immigration laws now on the books, there will be no change in the illegal immigration problem.
I think that 2% all lives in my neighborhood...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Gster, thus the requirement to pay at least minimum wage; another "hammer" to use in prosecution of those hiring "illegals".
Interesting comments on the "contractors", Julie; all I know is that those employing this subtrefuge are courting trouble with IRS if an appropriate 1099-MISC is not issued to the "contract labor", provided, of couse, that there was more than $600 paid during the year to such individual(s). Of course, if the construction company is willing to violate immigration laws, what's a little tax law violation here and there? /sarcasm off.
Interesting comments on the "contractors", Julie; all I know is that those employing this subtrefuge are courting trouble with IRS if an appropriate 1099-MISC is not issued to the "contract labor", provided, of couse, that there was more than $600 paid during the year to such individual(s). Of course, if the construction company is willing to violate immigration laws, what's a little tax law violation here and there? /sarcasm off.
lindainks55 said:
I've been out of the work force for almost seven years but my years of working were in Human Resources (actually most in personnel but at some point our responsibilities were given a new name?). I'm guessing in the last seven years forgeries have become even more difficult to recognize, and they were tough back when I was doing the looking. I don't have the answer but know that many employers are trying to be absolutely above the law while facing great challenges. There are obviously some companies who should be fined and held accountable but where do you draw the line? How do you prove this company is guilty and this one is not?
Vaughn Tolle said:
Speaking from an academic perspective, Linda, and only from that perspective: the issue of culpability is one of knowledge and intent; to overly simplify, if the company knows the individual in question is an "illegal", and proceeds to hire (in any capacity), then there is culpability. One might argue that knowledge may be imputed if the company does not avail itself of the database provided by the government where a purported SSAN may be checked.
For any employer who: obtained the form I-9 with the required documents for examination; "ran" the provided SSAN against the data base; and, having done these things, finding no reason to not employ the individual, hires him/her, only to later learn it has been the victim of document forgeries, etc., and immediately terminates the relationship, there should be no culpability. If, however, the "illegal" is retained after obtaining this knowledge, there would be culpability.
Hope this "academic" approach makes sense.
For any employer who: obtained the form I-9 with the required documents for examination; "ran" the provided SSAN against the data base; and, having done these things, finding no reason to not employ the individual, hires him/her, only to later learn it has been the victim of document forgeries, etc., and immediately terminates the relationship, there should be no culpability. If, however, the "illegal" is retained after obtaining this knowledge, there would be culpability.
Hope this "academic" approach makes sense.
Gster said:
This is slightly off subject, but 4 or 5 years ago when I was still in the Nat Guard, I was attached to a Transportation COmpany for 2 week summer training and sent to San DIego to work on the supper fence being buit. We were about 200 yards north of the Tijuana (SP?)control tower.
The fence being buit was not your Mother's fence around the garden variety- it was a FENCE! That fence is a major project to get installed from San Diego to Texas. What struck me was how many INS agents , sitting in Ford Broncos , were situated 24/7. They were everywhere!
We also got to go into the trick INS buiding there, and I still have my official INS "Row v Wade" t-shirt.
The fence being buit was not your Mother's fence around the garden variety- it was a FENCE! That fence is a major project to get installed from San Diego to Texas. What struck me was how many INS agents , sitting in Ford Broncos , were situated 24/7. They were everywhere!
We also got to go into the trick INS buiding there, and I still have my official INS "Row v Wade" t-shirt.
WSClark said:
"......this law also increases the sanctions and penalties the State can apply to businesses who hire illegal immigrants."
Until the law provides for seizure of businesses and prison sentences for those that hire illegal aliens, there is no point in the Legislature doing anything. The companies that hire illegals do so knowing full well what is going on.
As I have noted before, the solution to the problem is to address the root of the problem, not the symptom. If there are no jobs, there will be no reason for the majority of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
Until the law provides for seizure of businesses and prison sentences for those that hire illegal aliens, there is no point in the Legislature doing anything. The companies that hire illegals do so knowing full well what is going on.
As I have noted before, the solution to the problem is to address the root of the problem, not the symptom. If there are no jobs, there will be no reason for the majority of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
Gster said:
WSC- If the government goes after the emloyers in the fashion you mention, do you think the illegals will leave, commit crimes to survive, or what?
Given the suspected numbers, there could be a bunch of people affected by this action.
Given the suspected numbers, there could be a bunch of people affected by this action.
lindainks55 said:
I do understand "knowledge and intent," VT. I appreciate your response and know it covers most of problems, but not all. Companies are still in the position of spending resources to prove or disprove. It is tricky! The very records required provide "evidence." I dealt with hiring both manufacturing employees where detection of illegals was most times easier to professionals who posed greater challenges. Those hiring under the table don't worry about documentation and both the employer and the employee have the same knowledge and intent. Those are the ones we need to shut down. But we need to be sure we aren't making laws that punish employers who are truly above the law.
darwinsdisciple said:
The problem with draconian penalties against those who hire illegals is that such penalties would have a chilling effect on the hiring of anyone who looked like they might be an illegal alien. It seems like to me, that this correction to the problem, could create another problem - which might be worse than the original.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, I wasn't trying to "talk down" to you; and, as stated, overly-simplified. You have identified the crux of the issue, thus my attempt to create a defensible position for such employers. And, Linda, I'm sure you really didn't mean employers who "are truly above the law"; I suspect the disconnect from which I suffer on a recurring basis resulted in your "typing" that when you meant "complying with the law" or words to that effect. :-)
dd, you've identified a major issue there; I don't have much to add to your thoughts there.
WSC, the draconian penalties you suggest should be, IMHO, reserved for those who truly violate the existing laws, with "knowledge and intent". This gets really tricky from a legal perspective; there are many issues involving entities with innocent owners, etc.
dd, you've identified a major issue there; I don't have much to add to your thoughts there.
WSC, the draconian penalties you suggest should be, IMHO, reserved for those who truly violate the existing laws, with "knowledge and intent". This gets really tricky from a legal perspective; there are many issues involving entities with innocent owners, etc.
Dubya said:
"So what does it accomplish making employers pay at least minimum wage?"
Julie - It doesn't, that's what I was trying to get across. What illegal in his/her right mind is going to complain about not getting "minimum wages"? Talk about putting a bulls-eye on your chest for the INS!!
I agree with WSC. People have ignored the problem for entirely too long which has led to the complacency we have now. Everyone complains about Illegals, but people still continue to hire "those lawn guys" or "that house lady" who can't speak a word of English and wouldn't know what SSN meant if you held the card to their face.
I actually like the idea of seizure of assets and the freezing of funds of businesses who hire illegal immigrants.
In my opinion, there should be "no quarter" given to the people here illegally or those that would employ them. Millions and millions of people have immigrated here legally over the years and continue to do so; why should people crossing the border illegally be given any privilege?
...likewise I agree with Gster as well in that we shouldn't just be concerned with illegals coming here looking for work.
~Dubya
Julie - It doesn't, that's what I was trying to get across. What illegal in his/her right mind is going to complain about not getting "minimum wages"? Talk about putting a bulls-eye on your chest for the INS!!
I agree with WSC. People have ignored the problem for entirely too long which has led to the complacency we have now. Everyone complains about Illegals, but people still continue to hire "those lawn guys" or "that house lady" who can't speak a word of English and wouldn't know what SSN meant if you held the card to their face.
I actually like the idea of seizure of assets and the freezing of funds of businesses who hire illegal immigrants.
In my opinion, there should be "no quarter" given to the people here illegally or those that would employ them. Millions and millions of people have immigrated here legally over the years and continue to do so; why should people crossing the border illegally be given any privilege?
...likewise I agree with Gster as well in that we shouldn't just be concerned with illegals coming here looking for work.
~Dubya
WSClark said:
Every "cure" for the illegal immigration issue has a downside. Given the estimated 12 million illegals, deportation is not practical, no matter how much people scream about it. Just the physical task of rounding up 12 million people is implausible.
Granting amnesty or a road to citizenship is also an unacceptable alternative. Illegal behavior should not be rewarded, nor is there a practical method to determine who would be elgible or not.
There are no easy answers, but those that benefit most by the presence of illegal immigrants are those that hire them.
Personally, I feel that if the State and Federal governments were to seize a few businesses and jail the owners, you would see a very sudden change in the climate for illegals. If the owner of ABC Lawn Service was filmed doing the perp walk, I would imagine that the owner of XYZ Company would sit up and take notice.
Granting amnesty or a road to citizenship is also an unacceptable alternative. Illegal behavior should not be rewarded, nor is there a practical method to determine who would be elgible or not.
There are no easy answers, but those that benefit most by the presence of illegal immigrants are those that hire them.
Personally, I feel that if the State and Federal governments were to seize a few businesses and jail the owners, you would see a very sudden change in the climate for illegals. If the owner of ABC Lawn Service was filmed doing the perp walk, I would imagine that the owner of XYZ Company would sit up and take notice.
Dubya said:
From my perspective "knowledge and intent" was assumed. However, it is far too easy for an employer to ignore fake documentation; I can't remember the source, but I've read something recently regarding some employers having several people on the payroll with the SAME NAME AND SSN!!
"Knowledge and intent" at that point can be ambiguous, as the employer could simply say they documented them as a legal citizen and it was poor book-keeping that kept them from finding those indiscrepancies.
~Dubya
"Knowledge and intent" at that point can be ambiguous, as the employer could simply say they documented them as a legal citizen and it was poor book-keeping that kept them from finding those indiscrepancies.
~Dubya
darwinsdisciple said:
In the 11:43 post, WSC, all your points are valid. Observational learning is, indeed, powerful.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dubya, thus my reference to "imputed knowledge"; used, in various degrees, in certain white-collar crimes. Your example would be one where "imputed knowledge" may well fit.
Your example also points out some of the legal impediments which prosecutors face in prosecution of employers of illegals; not those, as Linda correctly states, that do "due diligence" in the hiring process, but those who might well outright violate the law, and then use a variety of excuses for their conduct. Some of these create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the fact finder.
Your example also points out some of the legal impediments which prosecutors face in prosecution of employers of illegals; not those, as Linda correctly states, that do "due diligence" in the hiring process, but those who might well outright violate the law, and then use a variety of excuses for their conduct. Some of these create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the fact finder.
Danny said:
I like the idea of going after businesses that hire illegals. However, I think that we'd need to be careful and make sure there was knowledge that a business did infact hire an illegal, and continued to hire that illegal anyway.
I don't think it is fair to assume that HR personnel are going to be experts in forgery, and so therefore, if they have what appeared to be proper paperwork(this would have to have been attempted to be verified in some form or another), that business shouldn't be punished, but perhaps further education on the matter, to help prevent that from happening again.
Of course, requiring proper documentation of all businesses to collect from all workers is going to open up the doors to potentially more identity theft. That could make catching some of the illegals more difficult. So would likely need information stored somewhere that can verify everything on a drivers license(picture, DOB, eye color), or passport, or other identification.
While all of this can be done, the expense to implement may be too great for some to want to try to do.
I don't think it is fair to assume that HR personnel are going to be experts in forgery, and so therefore, if they have what appeared to be proper paperwork(this would have to have been attempted to be verified in some form or another), that business shouldn't be punished, but perhaps further education on the matter, to help prevent that from happening again.
Of course, requiring proper documentation of all businesses to collect from all workers is going to open up the doors to potentially more identity theft. That could make catching some of the illegals more difficult. So would likely need information stored somewhere that can verify everything on a drivers license(picture, DOB, eye color), or passport, or other identification.
While all of this can be done, the expense to implement may be too great for some to want to try to do.
TRACY said:
This is a really, really tough issue that MUST be addressed.
On one side, I want to be a person who cares about others, especially those who may be unfortunate enough to have less than I do.
On the other side, common sense tells us that the law is the law. Enforce it or change it.
Lou Dobbs has my ditto on this.
If we start down this road of amnesty we may as well just open the borders completely.
On one side, I want to be a person who cares about others, especially those who may be unfortunate enough to have less than I do.
On the other side, common sense tells us that the law is the law. Enforce it or change it.
Lou Dobbs has my ditto on this.
If we start down this road of amnesty we may as well just open the borders completely.
Loading....