IMMIGRATION: THE NEXT BIG FIGHT

"... using SSA or IRS data to find either illegals or folks who hire them is a non-starter."

Why ? Especially if it is a company, which is a public entity.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm again stuck in the middle. I despise people who smuggle immigrants across the border, but more because of what those immigrants suffer than anything else.

I think the problem is too big to go after, even if employers wanted to do (which of course they don't). Given how many illegals there are in the country, it's an impossible task to find them all, which makes it a near-impossible task to find all their employers, in my opinion.

I don't like the idea of a national ID, I see to much chance of misuse. I'd like another answer, but I don't see one...and enforcing our borders is something I don't see as possible, either--it's too many miles with too few people to enforce it.

So I have no answers to postulate. Just that I hate it, but I don't hate the people themselves.

---

I find myself in much the same boat. I keep hearing various candidates being described as "anti-illegal immigration" - and I have to wonder, are they implying that there are candidates out there who are running on a platform of being PRO-illegal immigration? Can anyone show me where these alleged candidates have said in their speeches that this would be a better nation if only more people would come here illegally? Better yet, maybe Rappy could find a video of such claims being made, since that seems to be the new standard of evidence in his world! Still waiting for that death threat video against Cantor. Haven't seen it, can't find it - guess he made it all up, eh?

As to securing our borders: good luck with that. People who've never been anywhere near our borders have this imagined solution where we just put up a twenty foot wall, and then rely on our neighbors to the south (and, to a lesser extent, the north) to NOT start selling twenty-one foot ladders on the other side. HOW do you legitimately propose that we secure thousands of miles of borders? Better still, how do you out there who are so concerned about "big gubmint" and its overreaching intrusion into our lives propose that we secure our borders, without either becoming more intrusive into everyone's lives who lives in any border state, AND without growing the big nasty evil federal gubmint?




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I don't think we should, nor will we ever, find all employers - especially not individuals who hire nannies or 'casual help' off the local parking lot. But there are enough large employers - corporations - who hire illegals by the dozens if not hundreds that could be prosecuted. They are large construction companies, agriculture, garment manufacturers, chicken producers, janitorial and housekeeping companies etc. These are viable targets for enforcement.

I would start with a list of lobbyists and campaign contributors who support amnesty and better IDs (anything BUT targeting employers) - it could reveal which sectors have the largest concerns about a supply of illegals drying up.

Still waiting for an answer from Geezer about the use of SSA's database to find corporate employers who hire illegals.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Rue, I think Geezer addressed that already, in that SSA & IRS simply *WILL NOT* allow data to be used by other agencies if it might possibly someday somehow be used to track down actual real people.

At least, that's how I took his response.

And while I can see your point perfectly clearly, and while I agree with you, I see his point as well - and yes, you can 100% ironclad guarantee that those who are right now screaming the loudest about illegals, would also be the same folks screaming the loudest about "gubmint intrusion" if anyone seriously proposed doing anything like this. Folks hate it enough when the IRS goes looking into their tax records; how bad do you think it would get if Immigration or Homeland Security got to poke around in the IRS database, or the Social Security Administration's database?

The right would absolutely shit brick kittens if that were so much as MENTIONED, much less if anyone tried to bring such an idea to the floor of the House or Senate...




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rue, I think Geezer addressed that already, in that SSA & IRS simply *WILL NOT* allow data to be used by other agencies if it might possibly someday somehow be used to track down actual real people.

---

Actually, it's more like Congress won't allow SSA or IRS to provide data to other agencies.

Don't know about SSA, but the IRS issues with Congress over disclosure go back at least to when the first IRS computers (IBM 360s) were first being installed. Congress mandated that data sent from the processing centers where the tax return information was input had to be copied to tape for shipment to the computing centers, rather than being transmitted by wire (even on dedicated lines and encrypted) due to fears of disclosure of tax info. The Nixon enemies list stuff also caused a backlash. Penalties for unauthorized access of taxpayer data are severe. Back in the late 60s we had one lady in Atlanta fired and jailed for looking up Elvis' return, just out of curiosity. Fines and jail terms are even higher now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Again, thanks for clarifying further, Geeze.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

I don't think we should, nor will we ever, find all employers - especially not individuals who hire nannies or 'casual help' off the local parking lot. But there are enough large employers - corporations - who hire illegals by the dozens if not hundreds that could be prosecuted. They are large construction companies, agriculture, garment manufacturers, chicken producers, janitorial and housekeeping companies etc. These are viable targets for enforcement.

---

why do they hire cheap labor? because its the only way they can stay in business here in America. 1st thing we have to do is create an economic climate that enables American companies to compete HERE again. thatll never happen with the anti-capitalists running washington, regulating people and business to death

and in the meantime, get rid of the minimum wage laws. we could shave a few percentage points off the unemployment rate by that alone

and of course, address the incentive created by the 'lefts' sacred cow, and deconstruct the wellfare state! they cant abuse a wellfare state that doesnt exist

nobody had any rebuttals to my prior response? i listed a number of policy changes that would be helpfull. i garauntee going after Americans with mandatory ID cards, or chasing domestic companies oversees isnt the answer

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"why do they hire cheap labor? because its the only way they can stay in business here in America. 1st thing we have to do is create an economic climate that enables American companies to compete HERE again. thatll never happen with the anti-capitalists running washington, regulating people and business to death"


I'm bored.


May I point out just briefly that the regulations you THINK are so detrimental have somehow kept most of Europe out of the economic quagmire the US has deeply sunk itself into - you know, all the huge banks, investment companies and insurances that went belly-up just a few short months ago ... or maybe you forgot about them ?

It's not regulations that cause the problem Einstein. How 'bout you do a little thinking and come back when you have a clue ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Rue-

May I point out just briefly that the regulations you THINK are so detrimental have somehow kept most of Europe out of the economic quagmire the US has deeply sunk itself into

---

with all due respect, i disagree with your premise. if you look at GDP alone, several european countries had a greater annual decline then the US did through 2008/'09- starting maybe back in 2006. not that GDP is the only indicator, but many European countries have been hit harder then we have, believe it or not

but if lack of regulation was the cause, why the failures in current regulation? how did this happen to begin with.. i thought the New Deal, the creation of the SEC and FDIC was to prevent this? going farther back, this was why the Federal Reserve was created!.. to ensure stability in the marketplace, to prevent inflation and secure low unemployment rates. it hasnt happened! in fact we're arguably worse off now then we were 80 years ago

Quote:

---

you know, all the huge banks, investment companies and insurances that went belly-up just a few short months ago ... or maybe you forgot about them ?

---

but what was the cause? its my understanding that a steady rise in housing prices caused many banks to malinvest in these mortgage backed securities; when the housing bubble burst, this then precipitated many of the banking failures. the government responds with TARP, threatening to nationalize banks and so forth, which just exhaserbated the problem.

people like to use Enron as this example of laissez faire capitalism run amok- so government creates the the Sarbanes-Oxley act, in response to this 'threat' of corporate accounting manipulation. well.. if all this precious regulation was so effective, with all we had in place, shouldnt we have caught these massive bank failures, before they occurred?

most experts believe it was the rise in oil prices that really contributed to the US recession of '08. and then of course artificially low interest rates and government subsidies in housing had no role what-so-ever in all this.. right?

Quote:

---

It's not regulations that cause the problem Einstein. How 'bout you do a little thinking and come back when you have a clue ?

---

why dont you get a clue. if it werent for government, the Fed, the FDIC, we wouldnt have this policy of 'too big too fail', which creates the moral hazard of excessive risk taking. if it werent for precious government 'regulation', we wouldnt have bailed out GM, AIG, and these other banks that liberals hate so much

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME