« More On The Immigration Bill | Main | Larry, Curly, Moe... Newt? »
May 19, 2007
If It Makes Everyone Mad, It's Not Really A Compromise
It's just a bad bill.
by Stephen of the Thinkery
The more I think about the latest compromise immigration bill, the more I don't like it. The bill is that type of horrible "compromise" that consists of everything each side wanted in the first place, with no consideration for which provisions have the exact opposite intent of each other. A general amnesty would be declared - though it wouldn't be called that - but those seeking to be legally recognized under this "amnesty" would be required to pay a $1,000 fine and a "processing fee" of $1,500, which means they will be paying $2,500 in fines for a misdemeanor.
For context, driving your car at one mph over the speed limit is a misdemeanor. The plain fact about illegal immigration is that it is an entirely separate area of law, and probably should be so. But before anyone gets worked up about THESE PEOPLE who are FLOUTING the LAWS of the UNITED STATES, think about just what type of offense they are being charged with. Further, crossing the border illegally is a criminal misdemeanor, while overstaying a visa is a civil misdemeanor. I'm quite sure that the difference has nothing to do with the race and class of the people who cross our southern border vis a vis that of the people who overstay visas.
The idea that people should pay fines when taking advantage of an amnesty shows that this bill is really about one party that desperately wants to hold onto and expand its slim Congressional majority and another party that desperately wants to prevent that from happening. The members of each party are now free to campaign about the victories they achieved in the immigration bill, Democrats trumpeting the amnesty which will add millions of workers ripe for unionization and an expanded tax base for popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans will simultaneously show off the thousands of new border patrol agents that will be added, the fences, vehicle obstacles, new technology, and the fines that these miscreants will all pay as penalty for breaking the law of the land.
Of course, the fines will stand as a strong disincentive for people to participate, which will deprive politicians of both parties their victory speeches. A $2,500 initial fee for participating is pretty steep for a group of people who came to the US in order to make enough money so their families back in their countries of origin can eat.
The best part of the bill, though calling it such is damning with faint praise, is the provision for 6,000 new border patrol agents. Our southern border in particular is hopelessly porous, though my concern isn't so much of people crossing it seeking jobs, but criminals who use our vast unpopulated deserts to smuggle drugs and stolen goods across the border. Also, while I tend to not see terrorists under every rock or in the guise of each dark-skinned person I encounter, it would be far easier for terrorists to cross the USA's southern border than even coming through our woefully underinspected ports. Fences are a waste of money and time, but more people, more equipment and better technology are sorely needed.
Of course, this is not the first time that legislation has called for an increase in the number of border patrol agents. Much like calls for an increase in the number of police officers on our streets, it will take a Democratic presidential administration to actually make good on such promises, proving once again that there is a political party that is interested in power and the rhetoric required to gain and wield it, and another political party that is interested in governing.
From a pragmatic perspective, the real problem with the bill is that it addresses the immigration problem the same way our government addresses the so-called War on Drugs. Rather than fully go after the demand, the focus is upon the supply. As libertarians are fond of saying, Econ 101 will teach you that so long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. That employers, under this bill, would be required to electronically verify the legal status of applicants is a good thing, and it's heartening to see that it includes some sort of penalties for employers that fail to do that or otherwise knowingly hire illegal aliens. My question, though, is just what are those penalties, and what provisions does the bill have for supplying the needed technology and enforcement for such penalties? The increase in border patrol agents, the new technology, the mechanics of the "amnesty" and every other part of the bill will be just so much wasted money and time unless we start to really go after unscrupulous employers just as hard, if not harder, than we go after the illegal immigrants themselves.
Finally, the guest worker idea is ridiculous on its face. We already have a guest worker program, as I mentioned in comments to one of Ezra's posts on this issue. It's called the H Visa, and it provides for skilled workers, agricultural workers, and several other categories. We simply don't need to create an entirely new program, especially when the program we have now is understaffed, underfunded and ineffective.
Ezra is on record saying that this year is the year for action, with another chance for comprehensive immigration reform not occurring for a long time to come if we miss this one. He also has made it clear that his support for this bill comes from the benefits he sees from adding 12 million workers - who are already working, by the way, only without things like the minimum wage, unemployment insurance and often without contributing to Social Security and Medicare - to our tax base and to our economy in full. I believe that illegal immigrants depress wages most because they are illegal, not because they are immigrants. So I would agree with Ezra about the benefits of this bill slightly edging out the costs, if I also had his confidence that passage of this bill would result in our nation's illegal immigrants actually participating in the expensive "amnesty" program. The incentives for illegal immigrants to enter the system - higher wages, benefits, retirement - are intangible, while $2,500 is real money that they usually don't have. And those employers who already value saving money over following our immigration and employment laws, if history is to be a guide, have very little reason to change their practices with or without the passage of this bill.
It's junk and should be killed. Better no bill at all and another 10 years of the status quo than a campaign-consultant-written piece of garbage that solves no problems and adds a host more.
May 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
But before anyone gets worked up about THESE PEOPLE who are FLOUTING the LAWS of the UNITED STATES, think about just what type of offense they are being charged with. Further, crossing the border illegally is a criminal misdemeanor, while overstaying a visa is a civil misdemeanor.
Easy fix. Change the law to a 3rd degree felony. It will give law enforcement more lattitude and increase their enforcement abilities.
I'm quite sure that the difference has nothing to do with the race and class of the people who cross our southern border vis a vis that of the people who overstay visas.
I call bullshit. Unless you have something besides your flapping gums, then it is all, indeed, bullshit. Maybe you, too, can make a living as a race hustler. You just need a better niche than small liberal blogs.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 19, 2007 1:13:47 PM
Fred Jones: good one.
I note also that many or most illegal aliens are also involved in other crimes, such as using fraudulent documents. That seems to have escaped Stephen's fervent gaze.
Posted by: John Edwards: get ready to help us oppose amnesty | May 19, 2007 1:19:29 PM
Speeding isn't a misdemeanor.
Posted by: space | May 19, 2007 1:33:56 PM
Speeding isn't a misdemeanor.
Speeding has different penalties in different states. In many states, it is indeed a misdemeanor. Here in Kansas the ticket is actually a record of your arrest, and a court date is set at the time of the arrest for you to appear before a judge. You can choose to plead guilty or no contest, thereby waiving your right to a trial and send your fine in the mail. Or you can have a lawyer friend plead you down to an equipment malfunction, pay the fine for you right there and you pay him back.
Not that I've done that, of course. Friggin' Mission Hills cops with nothing to do.
Posted by: Stephen | May 19, 2007 1:38:46 PM
Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe has some interesting facts on the money budgeted for border enforcement versus enforcement for wage and hour laws:
In the Bush 2007 budget, a grand total of $177 million was appropriated to enforce our wage and hour laws. Compare that to the $13 billion in the 2008 Bush budget for border enforcement -- nearly ONE HUNDRED TIME AS MUCH spent for border enforcement as for wage enforcement. Nathan explains why this is significant to this discussion.
I'm with Stephen, the more I learn about the compromise the more I think we can do so much better (sometime in the future) than we can by getting this law this year. By the time the proposed law is ready for a signature or veto, it will look like a Christmas tree with changes on every branch. It will be awful, while now it is merely nearly awful.
Let's not forget that none of the so-called positive provisions relating to legalizing existing "illegal aliens" will take effect until after all the wasteful increases in border protection are in place. Yes, the border needs to be more secure (for anti-terrorism reasons), but the real undiscussed need is to put an end to employers hiring non-documented workers. Now they get a slam on the wrist or no action at all.
The employers should be subject to criminal sanctions (1st degree felonies) and it should be enforced rigorously. Then, lets see if we have a border crossing problem with job-seeking non-citizens.
End the H-1B program, no temporary workers, enforce the wage and hours laws, put employers who break the rules by hiring non-citizens who don't have a green cards in jail. Let's have Law and Order!
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 19, 2007 1:41:01 PM
The more I think about this, the angrier I get. This is a supply-demand situation.
Employers want cheap labor with no rights - they like undocumented workers than they can underpay, work without overtime pay, provide no vacations, not pay Social Security contributions, etc. They provide the demand that makes illegal immigration for job-seeking possible. Yet they do so with impunity. Hang their employer-asses from the public square trees!
I guess the right-wing's fascination with supply side economics has spilled over into employment. They want unlimited supply so they can lower the standard of living in the US to whatever illegal workers will be willing to take.
I'd make it law that the hiring supervisor and manager gets 10 years in jail for each illegal hire, and that all managers above them up to the CEO get the same punishment for engaging in a criminal conspiracy to evade our immigration laws. And no white collar jails either. Put them with the other criminal felons in standard lockup.
If the conservatives/wingers want only legal immigration, lets really solve the problem. I suggest 50% of money spent be on employer enforcement, 50% on the border. I'd put in place special prosecutors in each US Attorney's office who were measured by the number of aliens found working in their district compared to the number of employers prosecuted. Special, expedited prosecution laws and special courts for employers charged with this crime is needed.
Let's resolve this problem at its heart: employers who break the law, lower the job prospects for citizens and legally immigrated persons, and undercut our standard of living.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 19, 2007 1:55:07 PM
I would agree with Ezra about the benefits of this bill slightly edging out the costs, if I also had his confidence that passage of this bill would result in our nation's illegal immigrants actually participating in the expensive "amnesty" program. The incentives for illegal immigrants to enter the system - higher wages, benefits, retirement - are intangible, while $2,500 is real money that they usually don't have.
Actually, they often pay a fair portion of that just to get into the country, and almost all are willing and able to pay a few thousand for citizenship. They work; they can get money. This isn't the problem you think it is.
Better no bill at all and another 10 years of the status quo than a campaign-consultant-written piece of garbage that solves no problems and adds a host more.
This is just wrong on its face. It obviously solves one huge problem: that it's impossible for the illegals who have lived here for years to become citizens. Most of those, like Ted Kennedy and other long-time advocates for immigrants, who know how these things actually work, strongly disagree with you.
Why you think think there would be a better bill in ten years is mysterious. People need to look at this and the realistic alternatives very carefully before passing it up, because, like health care in 1993, the better bill isn't right around the corner.
I'm with Stephen, the more I learn about the compromise the more I think we can do so much better (sometime in the future) than we can by getting this law this year.
Dream on.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 19, 2007 2:03:19 PM
Sanpete: I believe we can do better in the future if we change the focus from supply (of job-seekers) to demand (by employers for workers), as I've explained above.
With a few years of enforcement on employers, the situation will change - fewer people will cross the border (and some will return home to where ever), and then we can have a more realistic, less jingoistic approach to determining how many new immigrants the economy needs to to prevent major inflation in wages.
That isn't a dream, but a pragmatic view of where the real problem is located (not on the workers, but on the employers).
And Ted Kennedy can be wrong. He was wrong to trust Bush on No Child Left Behind, because Bush choose to administer the law in ways that Kennedy didn't expect. That will happen again with immigration.
A pact with the devil, when the devil's party is mostly anti-immigrant, is always risky, and the lawmaker is always at a disadvantage when the executive wants to use the laws for partisan gain.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 19, 2007 2:38:02 PM
"Better no bill at all and another 10 years of the status quo."
This is really ludicrous. Ten more years, plus four million more illegal immigrants being added to a shadow population, constantly worried about being deported, no job security, no housing security, not sure if your kids will be split from the rest of your family -- are you crazy? Whatever bureaucratic junk they have to jump through, from the people I've talked to, it's worth it to be on a path to citizenship.
Posted by: Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 3:12:56 PM
No law is better than this law.
Media, your argument is a profoundly undemocratic one. You are arguing that rather than serve the interested of the people they were elected to represent, that leaders should instead serve some higher calling and purpose. That is the same argument that's always used by people who have no respect for the democracy. If leaders don't exist to represent their citizens, then they exist to thwart their will. There is no middle ground.
Posted by: soullite | May 19, 2007 3:42:07 PM
As a liberal that became a naturalized U.S. citizen as a result of the 1986 immigration bill signed by Reagan, I realize that this is probably as good as it is going to get. Here are a few quick hits:
A. It will cost much more than $2500 per person by several fold becuase legal assistance will be both pushed and sought for this process. In addition, some employers will charge cash fees to their employees for proof of employment forms. This was pervasive in 1986 (fortunately, my parents did not get charged such fees). Regardless, immigrants will manage.
B. To those that believe ALL illegal immigrants are involved in illegal activity I want to say that it is your type that make facist nations possible.
C. A guest worker program will be good. Any legal channels in place for increasing access to America will be better for immigrants. The hardship with coming to America will only decrease.
D. More border patrol agents will aslo be better than a fence. We need more agents simililar to those that knew what Osama bin Ladden plans were. However, we also need administrators that will listen and act appropriately. Immigrants are just as terrified of terrorists as Congressman Boehner (however, the average Mexican immigrant does not agree with the Bush-GOP Iraq illegal war).
E. Two of the last Mexican elections have been outright stolen by conservatives. Agressive free market reforms have been implemented religously over the last 20 years (Ezra, do you have any insight on this?). Privatization has created the second richest man in the world, Mexican Carlos Slim. It also led to the aquisition of the Bank of Mexico by Citibank of which Robert Rubin is CEO. All of this has lead to dangerous levels of inequality. If Democrats don't address these issues things will only get worse for both countries.
Posted by: jncam | May 19, 2007 3:45:51 PM
Jim, I don't see how what you say addresses the illegals who have already been here for years, who ought to have a way to become citizens. More employer sanctions can be added at any time without torpedoing that chance for the illegals who live here. Bush won't be administering this law, or not for very long.
No law is better than this law.
I wouldn't praise it that highly, soullite. It's highly undemocratic to have millions of people here working and paying taxes who cannot vote because we won't let them become citizens.
There is no middle ground.
Black and white are pretty much your favorite colors, aren't they?
As in the past, there will be pro bono and subsidized legal and other aid for those who can't pay needed legal fees. Not all will need much if any legal help, though.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 19, 2007 3:56:43 PM
I don't think no law is better than this law... but I think this law is just so bad that we will have to start over, preferably with a new administration. Bush is simply in no position to help lead the most anti-immigration elements in his own party to thinking about this problem in a new way. And as long as they are focused on punitive, border closing approaches that cause more problems than they will solve, we will get nowhere. If it were one thing in this bill that were bad, and I thought a House bill and a conference negotiation would fix it, I'd say, cautiously, let's go forward. But so much of how this billl is structured, and so much of what this bill attempts to address is so wrong-headed, it's just head-scratching that some liberals want to puch this as the best solution at this time. At best, it's A solution, among others, and a bad one among the possibilities, all things considered, and it should be put to rest by all concerned. I think it's telling that a lot has already started to unravel even in a little over a day.
Posted by: weboy | May 19, 2007 4:13:56 PM
Stephen makes excellent points, and I'm mostly in agreement.
I want to add that there is an enormous difference between the way Big Ag--along with the hotel and restaurant chains, and other large corporate interests who "hire" illegal labor--and growers/famers of the small-business variety are scrutinized and penalized when it comes to labor law.
At the nursery (ornamental) my husband owns, we face massive fines if we hire someone who is undocumented. What happens is, when you cut a person's first paycheck and file that week's FICA and social security, if his newly-added social security number does not match his name (or belongs to a dead woman born in 1900, say), you get a letter informing you to have said employee produce a legitimate social security card and bring it to the regional office STAT. If instead you cut another paycheck to that person, meaning you're now knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant who's using falsified documents, you, the small farmer, get hit with fines and eventually, prison: according to The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) all employers are required to verify that each and every employee is eligible to work in the United States, or face per-hire fines that start at $250 for the first offense and rise to $5K each after the third. And there are other fines: record-keeping and document fraud fines as much as $5K per illegal hire that a small farm must pay. Believe me, it's incentive and then some for us small guys to toe the line, and we do.
But the above-described large corporations (factory farms, hotel chains, restaurants, etc.) find ways around this. Evidence? For one thing, there are huge numbers of immigrants working in such places, far more than could possibly be part of the miserly number afforded legal status by our backed-up INS (now Homeland Security). If you stay in a hotel and speak a little Spanish, talk to the maids and janitors; I bet some will tell you flat-out how they came to this country: by foot. In order to work. Yet somehow you rarely hear about the big guys getting in trouble, with cases like Wal-mart's hiring janitorial services that happened to use illegal labor being remarkable only in that they were found out and publicized.
The DOL et. al. already crack down on the small businesses, but we are not the ones hiring illegal workers en masse, we are not the de facto grail-shaped beacon that's attracting people from south of the border, inspiring them to risk life and limb to come here. Any meaningful immigration reform must start with all the powerful, campaign-contributing, policy-dictating cash-cows who are, by and large, the ones shining that beacon above the Rio Grande.
Posted by: litbrit | May 19, 2007 4:16:10 PM
Soullite,
My position on immigration is undemocratic? "Fully three-quarters (75%) of American voters support a comprehensive immigration reform proposal."
Strange how facts seem to get in the way of your argument. Maybe we should deport facts, too.
Posted by: Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 4:17:40 PM
Litbrit - that's illuminating... the reports I've seen on the verification process say that something like 10-11% of people are being missed... would that have something to do with big operations being more successful at hiring illegals? Isn't part of this about identity theft being more sophisticated lately as well? And, as in your Wal Mart example, if Wal Mart hires a contractual cleaning service, is the cleaning service liable, or is Wal Mart... or both? If those contractual operations are, say, paying cash under the table, would that give them an out? I'm just wondering, because I lkeep thiking these SSN verification systems can't be that easy to get around, but I'm honestly puzzled about how so many seem so able to get around them.
Posted by: weboy | May 19, 2007 4:28:23 PM
I think this law is just so bad that we will have to start over, preferably with a new administration.
Unless it's a Republican administration that happens to favor citizenship for illegals, it won't happen. Democrats won't be able to take the fire for this. They don't have the numbers or the will. That's the basic fact that has to be dealt with in evaluating this bill. If Kennedy and others who know the politics within the party thought they could wait two years and get a bill better than this, or even this good, you can bet they would. Won't happen unless McCain becomes President. Don't hold your breath for that.
If you want to wait for something, wait to fix some of the bill's more odious points rather than sinking the best shot for citizenship these people are likely to see for a long time.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 19, 2007 4:40:36 PM
If those contractual operations are, say, paying cash under the table, would that give them an out?
Um, hello...
(Small growers don't have the sort of cash lying around to make up an entire payroll week after week, and even if they did, the unexplained cash outflow could not be as anywhere near as easily expensed/hidden--coded, for you accountants out there--as it could be, and is, at large companies with reams of expenses and outlays.)
Posted by: litbrit | May 19, 2007 4:44:43 PM
If we're planning to take the massive bads in this bill because of what it offers as a citizenship solution, I think we'd be fooling ourselves. What's bad in this bill (including those citizenship provisions, which are still not great), seems to me to outweigh the admirable goal (not necessarily well realized) of settling citizenship questions of millions of people here in limbo. I appreciate that we have that issue as a major problem, one that we cannot take too long to address. We have other issues that also need to be addressed, though, and other pressing problems that will be exacerbated, not solved, by this bill. But again, I think the broader problem here is the way that we're framing these questions; defining the problem differently - i.e., we need a better run, better working INS, would be one way; there are certainly others - would go a long way to creating energy for a different solution. As long as we're in the thrall of "They're illegal! They cross the borders day and night! Boo! Brown People! Be afraid!" then no, I don't think Democrats can get in on that argument and win - this is an ugly time, and anti-immigrant fervor these days is an ugly, ugly business. We need to take the anti-immigrant, fear of strangers stuff off the table to really have this discussion in a useful way, not give quarter to some people's worst impulses. If we can't do that now - and we probably can't - than this is probably not the right time for attempting this fix. Bad bill is not better than no bill. No bill is not better than getting serious about these problems. But we need another bill. Not this one.
Posted by: weboy | May 19, 2007 4:56:45 PM
Again, that the INS sucks is no reason to sink this bill. Deal with the INS problems separately--it's something that can be done separately without the political problems involved in a citizenship-for-illegals bill. Now is in fact the best time, and probably the only time for a long time, to get the citizenship part passed.
If you can show what problem outweighs the good for 12 million living and working here, who also have families, and who ought to have a path to citizenship, go ahead. You haven't explained the numbers or whatever it is that makes you think that's outweighed. I sure can't see any. You just keep claiming it won't work because of the INS, which just isn't true. The INS can be fixed with more money and personnel.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 19, 2007 5:14:36 PM
"This is an ugly time, and anti-immigrant fervor these days is an ugly, ugly business." Weboy, anti-immigrant fervor has always had a special place in American culture, against the Irish, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese. The only reason those feelings became obsolete was because the immigrants became full-fledged citizens, neighbors, friends and partners of a large percentage of the population. So in my opinion, the hatred is not going away for Central Americans until they become citizens, friends, partners, etc., which is only helped by this bill.
And now is the time to do it. Bush has nothing more to lose; he will sign it. The Dems want a Bush stamp on it to deflect blame for the amnesty-lite sections of the bill. I say, support this as much as possible, because this kind of opportunity isn't coming around again soon. And it can have a huge boost on the health of our country if 12 million people can come out of the shadows, which, in the end, this bill accomplishes.
Posted by: Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 5:22:53 PM
JimPortlandOR says: Let's not forget that none of the so-called positive provisions relating to legalizing existing "illegal aliens" will take effect until after all the wasteful increases in border protection are in place.
Take heart! This is a "legalize first" bill, with the triggers coming later (promise!) tinyurl.com/2gybjb
jncam says: It will cost much more than $2500 per person by several fold becuase legal assistance will be both pushed and sought for this process.
He should be more optimistic: one of the past proposals including an immigration lawyer-written provision mandating government-paid lawyers for applicants. That may be true in this case.
Media Glutton points to a poll that, to its slight credit, does discuss attrition. However, it does so in a biased fashion ("so hard"), and it also doesn't discuss the impacts of the other option. Make no mistake: this proposal will vastly increase legal immigration and there will also be continued illegal immigration because of it. How many people would agree to that poll if the certain results were included in the first choice?
Posted by: John Edwards: get ready to help us oppose amnesty | May 19, 2007 5:39:38 PM
The problems with this bill - and I keep saying it, though you don't like it - are practical ones about how this "path to citizenship" will actually work. I'm not opposed to solving the problem; I just don't think what we have here is a solution. I think the administrative problems at the INS - which are more then money and personnel, but how they approach process as well - are bigger than you like to admit, and if they could be solved (by personnel and money) then you'd think, after more than 30 years, somebody would have - surely when DHS was being formed, and INS reform was clearly on everyone's mond, that would have at least been a time to do it. But no, not then, not before, and not now.
Second, it's not just the problems with the citizenship plan, it's all the baggage you're accepting to get one questioable piece of moderate good.
Third, I agree with the people who suggest that what this bill does, really is help a large number of eople with immigration problems (with a sort of Deus ex Machina), not solve the problem of demand for illegal workers, and leave us with more legal immigrants - with a bunch of continuing issues - an illegal problem as before, and still no long term solutions. If we can't do better than that (i.e. let's accept this bad bill, better than nothing), then no, we're really in pretty bad shape.
I think what's going to sink this bill - and it's why a lot of this is really so moot - is that the questions being raised, and the oppostion of conservatives in particular, are just the start of what will be a painful reckoning that what's supposed to be attractive to some people to get this passed is just unacceptable to others. You could then get a cold, pratical calculation - "we may never get another opportunity" - but I think what you get is a bill with more enemies than supporters, which is pretty much where it seems to be now, and really, nothing much has even happened yet. There will be more questions, more concerns, and right wing anger on this as "amnesty" will only grow. And that alone could make for other opportunities. But I think Bush is way more damaged than people talking hopefully on this bill like to admit, and his tin ear to doing this over the objections of his most faithful voters could be his real undoing. And if that happens, Democrats really will have no political reason to stay on board. But mostly, I still think the reason this fails is that it's a bad bill.
Posted by: weboy | May 19, 2007 6:04:32 PM
Posted by: litbrit | May 19, 2007 4:16:10 PM, knocking it out of the park, said:
... I want to add that there is an enormous difference between the way Big Ag--along with the hotel and restaurant chains, and other large corporate interests who "hire" illegal labor--and growers/famers of the small-business variety are scrutinized and penalized when it comes to labor law.... But the above-described large corporations (factory farms, hotel chains, restaurants, etc.) find ways around this. ...
... because the system was designed in the 1980's for the large corporations to be able to find ways around it, and they have been doing so ever since ... though it does seem likely that the tricks of the trade have been picked up more progressively more large employers over the past two decades.
Posted by: BruceMcF | May 19, 2007 6:05:26 PM
Why am I to believe that the enforcement provisions of both worker and employer will be enforced this time? We already have laws against knowingly hiring illegals. We already have laws that make the worker guilty as well.
So, what assurance does anyone have that *this* time is any different than the last two times?
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 19, 2007 7:04:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
