| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Fine for Hiring Illegal Aliens Should Be $10k, Republican Says | |
| 2005-08-17 | |
| (CNSNews.com) - Lawmakers have proposed a number of "solutions" to the problem of illegal immigration, from amnesty programs to mass deportations. But one conservative Republican says the key to discouraging illegal immigration is to hit the employers who hire them right where it counts: in the wallet. "We can no longer attack illegal immigration on the supply side without attacking the demand side," Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) said Monday while promoting legislation she will introduce to provide for detention, mandatory deportation and expedited removal of any illegal alien arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). The "Scott Gardner Act" is in response to the death of one of Myrick's constituents, who was killed by an illegal alien with five previous DUI convictions. While the DUI legislation received widespread coverage from the "mainstream" media, Myrick's plan to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. received almost no attention. The former chairwoman of the House Republican Study Committee noted that, while employing an illegal alien is a violation of federal law, the current fine a business faces for doing so is only $250 per illegal immigrant hired. "I will introduce a bill that raises that civil fine from $250 per alien to $10,000 per alien," Myrick said, according to a copy of her prepared remarks, "and will give the arresting law enforcement agency a cut of the fine."
Myrick plans to call the legislation the "10k Run for the Border Act," a name she said is "self-explanatory." "I am no mathematician, but if North Carolina has 300,000 illegal aliens and just half of them are employed," Myrick said, "this action could raise at least $1.2 billion that could be rolled back into the fight against illegal immigration." Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that supports stricter border control and enforcement of immigration laws, told Cybercast News Service that more will have to change than just the amount of the fine. "You could make the penalty a billion dollars; it wouldn't matter if you're not going to impose it against anybody," said Mehlman, who claimed that no fines were imposed on employers for hiring illegal aliens in 2004. "The first thing they have to do is actually start fining employers." While surveys show that at least a majority of Americans want curbs on illegal immigration, Mehlman charged that the response is frequently only "hot air from Congress. "A few members of Congress are going to have to lose their jobs over this," Mehlman argued, stressing that he is not questioning Myrick's intentions. "I'm sure she is very sincere. It's not her sincerity that I doubt. It is what will happen after this bill is passed," Mehlman explained. "Why would they be any more likely to enforce the law then than they are right now?" FAIR complains that both "ethnic interest groups" and business interests are advocating against effective enforcement of limits on immigration. "They are the ones who are pressuring Congress not to do anything," Mehlman said. "Very often, these are substantial interest groups with substantial resources to donate to political campaign, and that's one of the ways they keep the pressure on." Mehlman agreed with Myrick that the fine levied on employers who hire illegal aliens must be "a substantial amount." "A slap on the wrist isn't going to discourage people," Mehlman added, "especially when there are obvious economic benefits to hiring somebody at a fraction of what it would cost to hire an American worker." Illegal immigrants not only cost American workers jobs, Mehlman argued, they provide "a labor subsidy for the employers." "They (employers) get to pay the low wages, and then everybody else has to pick up the costs of all sorts of social programs," Mehlman said. "Wherever you go in this country, people are angry about this, and it cuts across ideological lines, it cuts across racial and ethnic lines." Myrick's proposal came on the same day that Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano declared a state of emergency in four counties that share the U.S. border with Mexico. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson took an identical action the previous Friday. Both Democrats said that the federal government has failed to stop property destruction, thefts and other crimes associated with illegal immigration and drug running, so their states had no choice but to act. The emergency declarations will free money to pay for law enforcement overtime, equipment and supplies needed to combat the estimated 500,000 illegal aliens who enter the U.S. every year. That annual influx, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is in addition to as many as nine million illegal immigrants already living in the country. President Bush has proposed a "temporary guest worker" program that would allow foreign nationals to enter the country for limited periods of time to work in jobs the president claims "Americans will not do." The White House denies that the program is an "amnesty" as charged by critics. | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #23 I don't think the fine will make much of a difference. I live Southern California and have employed dozens of Mexican immigrants. We have always required all of them to provide proper ID. We ask for their green cards, drivers licenses and social security cards. The problem is much of what we get is fake. We have no idea until years later. Usually the IRS sends us a letter that the employee's social security number does not mach IRS records. By that time the worker moves on to another job. No one I know (and we have an agricultural business) knowingly employs illegals. I doubt Wal Mart does either. Let's just secure the damn border once and for all! |
| Posted by: intrinsicpilot 2005-08-17 18:44 |
| #22 CJ: It will take 10 times that amout to enforce and collect that ten thousand. It will cost ten times that to prosecute and lock somebody up for it too. It will end up with a happy richer lawyer, a happy ACLU, a happy illegal and poorer tax payers when then illegal walks. It all depends. How much does it cost to enforce speed limits? Can the administrative processes be streamlined? I think $10K a pop is plenty. The issue is beating the ACLU in precedent-setting case, after which every other ACLU challenge for this kind of thing will automatically be summarily dismissed. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-17 18:33 |
| #21 I see a problem. I will get this fine for not knowing my 100 dollar a month Gardener is actually an illegal that acts and speaks like he has been here since birth. The Corporations will never be busted. That is how this stuff works. So screw this BS. The INS could raid and go after illegals right now. The political will isn't there, the institutional mindset of the INS is to do everything is can to avoid dealing with the issue or even do it's job. It's not a lack of money or of manpower. It is a lack of the will of the management to do the job properly and the unionized workers to perform their jobs even if their bosses and union leadership don't like it. The answer to every problem isn't new laws or throwing money at it. We already have the laws. The money has already been spent. Someone just needs a good kick in the butt so they do their job. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-08-17 18:10 |
| #20 Crumble Jush - typical - It won't work, don't try it. Idiot |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-17 18:06 |
| #19 Level the fine aginst the Corporation... and the CEO Personally. How many illegals does Walmart employ? 2,000? (for example) that would end up costing the CEO something like... 20Million.... I think he would sit up and take notice. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-08-17 17:56 |
| #18 It will take 10 times that amout to enforce and collect that ten thousand. It will cost ten times that to prosecute and lock somebody up for it too. It will end up with a happy richer lawyer, a happy ACLU, a happy illegal and poorer tax payers when then illegal walks. |
| Posted by: Crumble Jush7440 2005-08-17 17:49 |
| #17 But Phil! We don't want to pay that much. God has granted us dollar lettuce, it's a birthright, along with expensive healthcare. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-17 16:41 |
| #16 An economics lesson: In a market, the price rises or falls to the point where supply and demand are in equilibrium. This applies to labor, just as much as it does to any tradeable commodity. The argument that the USA or any other country needs immigrants illegal or otherwise to perform work that legal residents won't do is complete BS. Absent, the immigrants, the price for labor to do these jobs will rise and the demand will fall until equilibrium is reached. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-17 16:00 |
| #15 I would favor giving them 30 days to get the fuck out,,, then its a LIFETIME BAN. No Exceptions! No appeal! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-08-17 15:46 |
| #14 Agreed RC. Why the hell reward them when alot of people made the effort to come here through the existing system fairly and legally. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-08-17 15:03 |
| #13 Put them in line where they should be (where they should have gone in the first place), and make them sweat it out like everybody else. I dunno. Since they've already shown a tendency to ignore the law, they should be put on a second list that will only be used if we've already accepted all the people willing to immigrate legally. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-17 14:20 |
| #12 He then describes some bills which would allow established illegals to stay provided they pay back taxes and some other penalties. No. No illegal worker, illegal immigrant, whatever, that has been here for any amount of time should have any sort of advantage over any other immigrant or potential immigrant. Put them in line where they should be (where they should have gone in the first place), and make them sweat it out like everybody else. And furthermore, if people are only needed for "work", then they DON'T get to bring their families over here. PERIOD. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-17 14:04 |
| #11 Hey mom! I agree with you 100%. If we need more workers then change the farking law to allow more legal immigrants from all countries not just Mexico / Canada. A friend of mine in Vancover BC has a business in Taiwan where he provides 'factory workers' to the factories there - mostly from the Philippines. He provides food, shelter, solves problems, disputes, etc... for his workers and provides decent workers for the factories. The workers get a good deal (they don't get ripped off and can save or send money home), he gets a cut (he's a decent guy and doesn't take advantage of them) and the factory get a stable supply of good workers. These are not 'immigrants' but temporary workers. There is no reason such a business could not work here to supply the 'migrant workers' is there? (outside of the unions who would demand their 'cut'). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-08-17 11:49 |
| #10 But if the arresting officer is part of a 'Sanctuary city/county/etc....' (like the Peoples Republic of Seattle) then *they* (the officers) get the split and not the sanctuary government. This should also be extended to elected officals who enact 'sanctuary laws'..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-08-17 11:38 |
| #9 David Brooks has an interesting column on this issue, printed today in my morning paper. I regret that the family tech mavens, James and Korora, aren't home to show me how to post a link, so you'll have to look it up. Brooks's thesis is that "we make it nearly impossible for the immigrants to come here legally. We issue about 5000 visas for unskilled year round labor annually, but the economy requires hundreds of thousands of workers." He goes on to say, "We're not going to get this situation under control until we understand this paradox: The more we simply crack down, the more disorder we get. The only way to re-establish order is to open up legal, controllable channels through which labor can flow in an above-ground, orderly way. We can't build a wall to stop this flood; we need sluice gates to regulate the flow." He then describes some bills which would allow established illegals to stay provided they pay back taxes and some other penalties. I question the choice of the verb "need." Does the economy "need" hundreds of thousands of low paid guest workers in the hospitality industries?" But I do agree with him that we need to be more realistic about the numbers of people who want to come here and really contribute to society. 5000 people is a most miserly limit. Our friend Carlo was lucky enough to have a relative here. When his business went under in Argentina, he and his family were able to immigrate. I have never seen people work harder than Carlo and his wife, and now their 11 year old daughter is in line to recieve a community scholarship if she keeps up the good work through high school. INS, meanwhile, has taken more than 15 years to process paperwork for Carlo's sister in law, whose husband is American. She fills out her paperwork, is told to wait 6 months for the next round. The six months comes and goes, they haven't finished her paperwork; but meanwhile her paperwork expires so she has to fill out a new form. And wait another 6 months. Looking forward to some realistic proposals for dealing with the immigration issues. We need a major overhaul of INS bureaucracy, sensible numbers of visas, penalties for breaking the law that actually deter hiring illegals, and consistent enforcement. Pardon the long commentary. I actually have half an hour of peace and quiet to write today. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-08-17 11:35 |
| #8 Article: Democrats said that the federal government has failed to stop property destruction, thefts and other crimes associated with illegal immigration and drug running This is a pretty amazing charge, when you consider that local governments won't detain and help deport illegal immigrants and many have passed laws specifically preventing local government employees from reporting them as illegal. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-17 11:22 |
| #7 "Democrats said that the federal government has failed to stop property destruction, thefts and other crimes associated with illegal immigration and drug running" Everything is so politically correct now days. Why do the Dem'cts use the words "federal government" in this sentence? Let's plug in the words Sen. Boxer, Sen. Waters, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Durbin, and Sen. Reid. There! That's sounds much better. Of course, the truth is that the Dem'cts can't be seen in public committing cannibalism. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-17 11:12 |
| #6 ed: 10% for citizens who turn in illegal alien employers/jobsites will stop illegal immigration in its tracks. Crimestoppers for Immigration. 10% for public-spirited citizens and 10% for police departments. They'd also need to beef up payments for the detention of illegals in local facilities. Why build expensive new federal jails when locals can handle the load in existing facilities, when provided with federal funding? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-17 10:59 |
| #5 10% for citizens who turn in illegal alien employers/jobsites will stop illegal immigration in its tracks. What about dwellings? My apartment complex would probably lose 30% of its tenants if the INS conducted a raid there. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-17 10:58 |
| #4 "A few members of Congress are going to have to lose their jobs over this" Indeed! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-08-17 10:46 |
| #3 10% for citizens who turn in illegal alien employers/jobsites will stop illegal immigration in its tracks. Crimestoppers for Immigration. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-08-17 10:46 |
| #2 At $5000 per and with something more than a feeble effort at enforcement the problem would diminish greatly. Public notification of violators and the extent of their violations would also be useful to the rest of us in making choices about who we give our business. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-08-17 10:37 |
| #1 Ten pathetic K? If a corporation has more than 10 on the take then authorize RICO. Nothing will get the owner or board's attention like the feds showing up taking possession of his/their bank account, car, home.... It does leave the corporation intact, but does a number on the operators :) |
| Posted by: Angart Whereling4308 2005-08-17 10:11 |