Immigration is more of a federal issue, so the Madville Times hasn't had much to say on the topic. However, the mutation of the comment section on an earlier health care post into a discussion of illegal immigrants, as well as current press coverage of illegal immigration cases in Sioux Falls and Oacoma, warrants brief comment.
Some commenters have complained that illegal immigrants are a bunch of no-good freeloaders taking advantage of our country. The Madville Times suggests that the real freeloaders are the selfish, unpatriotic American employers who hire those illegal immigrants. Such employers cheat legal immigrants and citizens of jobs and wages. They take advantage of illegal immigrants who lack community connections or legal standings to bring complaints about exploitative employment practices -- i.e., the employers can use and abuse their illegal workers, since the illegal workers know that the employers can turn them over to the authorities if they make any trouble. The employers also skip out on paying their fair share of withholding, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, unfairly boosting their profits and shifting that burden to honest, patriotic businesspeople who play by the rules.
We can talk about fighting illegal immigration by putting up walls, posting guards, and all sorts of police-state measures to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get in. But consider: they are already willing to hike across deserts, swim rivers, and risk arrest and death just to get here for jobs that pay more in a month than they can make back home in a year. The root of the problem lies with demand, not supply. If we wouldn't hire them -- if every American employer would do his duty to verify the legal status of every applicant for work -- the illegal immigrants would have no reason to come. If law enforcement would go after the employers harder, the illegal immigration problem would dry up in an instant.
I love the rule of law and hate freeloaders as much as my commenters. Respecting the rule of law and paying one's fair share starts with us, with our own businesses and hiring practices.
So in other words, these employers are practicing a form of slavery... do what we tell you and don't complain or we'll turn you in!
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much what the owners of the Oacoma Comfort Inn are accused of: they face federal charges of peonage -- forced labor -- for bringing workers over from the Philippines, paying them less than promised, charging them for all sorts of expenses, and even threatening them with physical harm.
ReplyDeleteEmployers who hire illegal immigrants have too much room to take advantage of the immigrants' vulnerability. Granted, the illegal immigrants bear responsiilty for putting themselves in that vulnerable position, but that doesn't excuse employers for exploiting those workers and cheating the legal rules of the free market. Other businesses (well, other than Wal-Mart) don't get to boost their profits by cheating their workers, not paying for overtime, etc. For the free market to work, everyone has to play by the same rules. Employers hiring illegal immigrants violate those rules and should be kicked out of the game.
Or even locked up!
ReplyDeleteYou're right in going after the folks who are violating the law by hiring illegal workers... but let's put some teeth into it, even with such companies like Swift, and get some jail time thrown in there.
And how about getting that double fence built? The companies doing now have only one mile done? Get Buskerud Construction, and some of our local contractors down there! They'll have it done in no time!
I'm not a big fan of the big fence idea. Symbolically, it doesn't look good; a fence sends messages of fear and exclusion, neither of which fits the American ethos I embrace. Philosohically, it misdirects our attention, reinforcing xenophobia and ignoring the cheats among our citizens who perpetuate the problem by hiring illegal immigrants. Practically, the fence likely won't do the job. Go after the employers -- fine 'em, jail 'em, shut 'em down and sell off their assets to competitors. End the demand, and you won't have to build a fence to keep out the supply.
ReplyDeleteWell, unfortunately, the current things we've been doing haven't done much to curb illegal immigration either.
ReplyDeleteAnd while it sounds exculsionary, I think it's no different than a rock concert (I know, it sounds crazy, but humor me and hear me out on this!)
You go to a huge outdoor rock concert, with fences set up to control who comes in... people who have "played by the rules", (i.e. bought a ticket) and who are waiting patiently. Yet there are those who don't want to follow the rules and will do what they can to sneak in. They may just want to enjoy everything the concert offers, they just don't want to follow the rules.
Now, is it fair for those that are following the rules that these folks be allowed to stay and enjoy the concert, even though they didn't "buy a ticket?"
That's what I see when I look at the illegal immigration fiasco. And if a fence will force some more folks to "play by the rules," then I'm all for it!
Crazy, I know. But it's like I said... you just have to follow me on it!
Apparently the rules are already in place for a lot of this. It's just that the gov't doesn't enforce the rules it has. Enforce the rules it has, strengthen them if necessary, go after the employers, but also build a fence and hire more border agents and SUPPORT them, i.e. if a border agent shoots a fleeing drug dealer, don't put the border agents in jail and do nothing to the druggie guy. And repeal the anchor baby law. All these would help a great deal.
ReplyDeleteNonnie's right: enforcement is key. We likely don't need new laws; we just need the cops breathing down the necks of the employers. I still think we can do more good attacking the demand side than the supply side. If people know they can get good paying jobs here, they'll find ways to sneak around however many guards we station on the border. Build a wall, they'll take the bus or a boat... or a ladder. Employers are much more risk-averse than the immigrant workers; employers are simply maximizing profit, while immigrants are seeking survival wages. Eliminate the jobs -- i.e., raise the costs of illegal hiring practices to outweigh the benefits -- and you won't need a wall or armed guards every ten paces.
ReplyDeleteOr think of it this way: You could pay 1000 people to stand in the desert and chase down or shoot at anything on two legs. Or you could pay 1000 people to review records, make calls, and visit employers to say, "Hi, I'm from the government. Show me legitimate documentation on your workers, or you're out of business." Which would produce results more quickly?
Secure the borders to prevent terrorists from entering has become secure the borders to keep illegal Mexican immigrants out. I agree that enforcing the laws on employers would greatly stop Mexicans illegally entering, what are we to do about terrorists who will, and I would say certainly have already, come across the porous border also? Granted, many probably have already entered legally and are biding their time, but it's easy to get in from both north and south if they aim to.
ReplyDeleteThe big wall will be less effective at stopping terrorists than at stopping illegal immigrants. Terrorists are even more motivated, by ideology and crazed visions of glorious mayhem, not just money. And think back: as I understand it, none of the 19 September 11 hijackers came across the Mexican border. None snuck into the country at some unguarded point. Every one of them entered at a legal portal. Every one of them at some point looked an American customs agent or border patrol officer right in the eye. (I could be wrong about that and welcome correction.)
ReplyDeleteConsider that the Department of Homeland Security has charged 814,073 people in immigration courts in the last three years and only 12 of them have been charged with terrorism [Scott Bronstein, "Group: Terrorism Not Focus of Homeland Security," CNN.com, 2007.05.27]. According to the researchers, only 4 of the 14 charges against those 12 individuals have thus far been sustained ["Immigration Enforcement: The Rhetoric, The Reality," Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse, 2007.05.28].
Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the smartest men alive, offers a philosophical argument for why this all matters. In his March 25, 2007 Washington Post essay "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'," the former national security advisor says that the overuse of the phrase "war on terror" to justify all sorts of policy actions promotes a culture of paranoia and intolerance, demoralizing the country and making it harder to solve or even talk about real problems.
I'm not saying send the guards home and throw open the borders. But Brzezinski helps make the point that we can't let fear rule our political decisions. We can recognize threats but still choose the most effective wasy to deal with those threats. The issue here, immigration, is better solved not by demonizing foreigners but by going after the easily-catchable criminals in our midst, the unscrupulous employers who make illegal immigration a worthwhile gamble for 12 million people.
If nothing else, consider the numbers: there are fewer employers than illegal employees. Compare the resources it would take to catch 12 million people, throw them all in paddywagons, and drive them back across the border to the resources it would take to visit a few thousand offices, factories, and farms, check some papers, and write tickets for employment law violations and court costs. Heck, busting the employers could be a money-maker!