This program has less chance than Arlen Specter's latest immigration bill. When Tyson Foods, Walmart and your local builders association hear about this proposal, the White House will wonder what hit them.

I think it will be more along the lines of 2 in the piece.

The big problem I see, is that many illegal immigrants work in the underground economy. They are paid in cash, and their employer doesn't report anything.

If workers’ documents cannot be verified, employers would be required to fire them or risk up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Is that per illegal alien?

I am reminded of one place I worked that was investigated by the gov for stealing $10 million. After a two year investigation, the company was fined $3 million for a net profit of $7 million. What a deterrent!

I'll believe the government is serious when we rescind the jackpot baby program and start seriously prosecuting businessmen and deporting illegal aliens, who are not "immigrants," by the way. Such manipulative language from the PC libs. Evidence of low character.

We'll see a dog and pony show from the gov, and then they'll declare victory and try to import 100-200 million turn world immigrants legally to boost the number of taxpayers, as tax revenues and earmarks are their only real concern.

Judy, you are right about those guys hanging out around your local Home Depot, but the folks operating corporate chicken farms aren't really in the underground economy.

Expect a lot of legit citizens to be caught up in this dragnet as well.

I refuse to debate immigration with anyone who hasn't read The Grapes of Wrath.

If this was actually enforced, it would be a good idea. I'm not holding my breath though.

So what do we want?
a.) Fewer subsidized corn farmers in Iowa and sugar cane growers in Florida? Or...
b.) More civil scowflaws (it's a civil offense, remember?) crossing the border and taking up residence in the US?

So far, we continue to pick 'a'.

The horror... who will cut Mitt Romney's yard now?

This is such a ridiculous debate stirred up solely by some Rove like creature to win an election. If they really start coming after some west side nannies heads will roll.

Lew is right; this is just more of #2.

One also notes that the only downside for employers is that they have to fire the targeted employees, following which they presumably can hire others who have just been fired by their competitors. The result will be Musical Chairs, with increasingly long lag times between rounds.

It's silly. It's just racist red meat for the mouth-breathers, nothing more.

absent observer: I refuse to debate immigration with anyone who hasn't read The Grapes of Wrath.

In reality, if not the book, one of the biggest problems the California growers had with the Okies is that they were white Americans and there was a nascent labor movement. Obviously it shouldn't matter what color they are, or whether they're American citizens (so long as they can legally work in the US). However, given the political realities of the time, the growers knew that white Americans were more likely to complain, organize and get sympathy for bad working conditions.

Bottom line: illegal immigration promotes the sort of abuses that Steinbeck wrote about.

absent observer: "I refuse to debate immigration with anyone who hasn't read The Grapes of Wrath."

Well, that's certainly one way to guarantee peace and quiet ...

alex: If this was actually enforced, it would be a good idea.

What's the problem with an illegal alien using someone else's SSN and contributing to their SS account? Even if the contribution is minimal, a program that allows an illegal alien to use your SSN and contribute to your SS account could be a very popular.

Call it "Adopt an Alien"*. They work for a pittance, and you get the benefit of their SS contribution. Without, of course, any liability on your part. They are, after all, here by our good graces and largesse. Being allowed to earn an income with which to support their families in the home country should be than a sufficient quid-pro-quo.

Or maybe it should be a business-based program, with the adoptee's being businessess, the contributions go into a pool, and which are then distributed to SS recipients. Or maybe collaterlized and sold much like CDO's. The possibilities are endless.

* O'Hare may claim otherwise, but why limit the program? See his link to All the News That Seemed Unfit to Print.

I want concern over mass/illegal immigration to be taken seriously. It is a strain on our society and infrastructure (why apologize?), inflates the labor pool (that's why the Wall Street crowd wants it, and makes a devil's bargain with reflexive boosters of the idea that every single minority concern is valid), and when not applied for, it is illegal - which should count for something, damn it. A true progressive that cares about the middle and struggling lower classes is opposed to free and easy, and especially to, illegal immigration.

Neil B.: A true progressive that cares about the middle and struggling lower classes is opposed to free and easy, and especially to, illegal immigration.

Standard "liberal" or "progressive" response: you're a bigot - why do you hate brown people?! (even funnier if you're brown yourself).

In every single past posting about this topic that I've ever seen here, everything Kevin Drum has said has supported (3) (that's the "protection of cheap and docile labor for employers" bit).

Certainly, some might have been confused because he seemed like he was on the other side, but the net effect of all those posts has been to support the employers.

[Note: WM frequently deletes or edits legitimate comments without notice, so if you continue to see this message consider it an outlier.]

"Judy, you are right about those guys hanging out around your local Home Depot, but the folks operating corporate chicken farms aren't really in the underground economy."

Sure they are part of the underground economy, its just that they would be even easier for the government to shut down than more informal labor... well easier practically, harder politically.

Kevin, there is a ton of evidence of organized crime stealing the identities of US citizens and selling their Social Security #s to folks who get jobs in meatpacking and the like.

A number of such folks were caught when their employers participated in the Basic Pilot, which checks SSNs against names.

When ICE showed up at these plants, they looked at the forms these folks had filled out. Many had stated that they were legal permanent residents.... born in Puerto Rico.

The meatpacking industry, just to pick one, was a highly unionized industry when it was located in places like Chicago and Green Bay, where there was a workforce. The companies moved to places like Grand Isle, Nebraska and Garden City, Kansas -- where there was NOT a workforce. They imported one, which is not unionized -- and characterized by scams as described.

Do tell us, Kevin: why is this okay with you?

Neil B.: A true progressive that cares about the middle and struggling lower classes is opposed to free and easy, and especially to, illegal immigration.

Illegal is defined by law. Should "true progressives" therefore be required to unequivocally support the laws, or is it permissible to oppose laws that we feel are inappropriate or unjust? You also assert that "free and easy" immigration hurts the middle and lower classes; that is a debatable assertion.

Progressives are against illegal immigration, because progressives believe in CITIZENSHIP.

Citizenship depends on the rule of law.

Nannies, maids, and lawn workers existed long before we had a serious "illegal immigrant problem". These jobs were done by poorer segments of our society, for pretty much the same (real) wagethat people pay the illegal immigrants today. Maybe farm workers will be an issue, but I do not believe (3) directly effects people in quite the ways O'Hare claims it does.

alex: "However, given the political realities of the time, the growers knew that white Americans were more likely to complain, organize and get sympathy for bad working conditions."

That is, until Cesar Chavez came along some 20 years later and blew that idea out of the water. But your theory about whites sympathizing with other whites still generally holds water, even today.

I've always found it fascinating how white Americans view issues of racism and xenophobia as somehow abstract and theoretical in nature, until the problems are either presented to them through another white person's perspective (i.e., Sir Richard Attenborough's 1984 movie about South African apartheid, Cry Freedom), or an obvious injustice is just so blatantly shoved in their own face that they find it impossible to ignore.

I must admit I was also guilty of such benign neglect that until the latter occurred, when I was in college and came home to Pasadena for spring break.

I had gone with some old high school friends to a nightclub in Hollywood, and two of them -- who were black -- were denied entry for failing to show three photo IDs, while I was merely required to produce one (a far-from-uncommon practice even today, unfortunately). When I came back to the entrance looking for them and found them arguing with the doormen over the issue, I joined the argument, eventually making such a scene that I was tossed from the club by a bouncer.

Well, things rather quickly escalated (verbally, not physically), the LAPD showed up and unsuccessfully urged us to let it go and move on, and a couple of hours hence my mother was bailing us out of a downtown holding cell after we were charged with disorderly public conduct. Five months later the charges were summarily dismissed by a judge -- with prejudice, I might add without a hint of irony -- when the complainants from the night club in question failed to appear in court.

It was an ugly little incident that forever colored my own perspective on the issue of race in America, and it actually gave me an incentive to move to Hawaii.

Now, when I listen to recently-arrived haoles (white people) complain about how uncomfortable they are as part of a racial minority in these islands, I just quietly nod and smile.

Aloha.

Standard "liberal" or "progressive" response: you're a bigot - why do you hate brown people?!

As long as the anti-immigrant crowd limits their complaints to brown people and ignores the huge problem of illegal Irish and Eastern Europeans, then that is a valid criticism.

theAmericanist: Progressives are against illegal immigration, because progressives believe in CITIZENSHIP. Citizenship depends on the rule of law.

Agree that "citizenship depends on the rule of law". However, the debate extends beyond the current rights of immigrants, legal or otherwise, under today's laws, but what those laws should be.

In short, it is not the current law of the land that is being questioned, but what the law of the land should be. Or do you suggest that it is unreasonable to question current law? That we constrain our debate to what the laws are, as opposed to what we feel the laws should be?

has407: Call it "Adopt an Alien"*. They work for a pittance, and you get the benefit of their SS contribution.

Great idea, and when they're still here in their old age they can do without that daily bowl of cold oatmeal that Social Security will buy you. They're not spoiled like Americans.

In fact, you don't go far enough with this whole idea of a two tier society. Sounds great - as long as you're in the upper tier. We can even punish Americans we don't like by pushing them into the lower tier. We all know that historically two tier societies are stable and cohesive. After all, the Peasant's Revolt was defeated.

has407: Should "true progressives" therefore be required to unequivocally support the laws, or is it permissible to oppose laws that we feel are inappropriate or unjust?

Which laws do you think are inappropriate or unjust? Do you believe in the libertarian ideal of completely open borders?

Disputo: As long as the anti-immigrant crowd limits their complaints to brown people and ignores the huge problem of illegal Irish and Eastern Europeans, then that is a valid criticism.

I wasn't aware that opposing illegal immigration in specific made one "anti-immigrant" in general. Nor did I know that there was an "anti-immigrant crowd" that always makes exactly the same criticisms (and hence presumably all think alike). Sounds like an unjustified generalization to me, just as some people generalize about brown folks.

Donald from Hawaii: That is, until Cesar Chavez came along some 20 years later and blew that idea out of the water.

Yeah, of course changing times made it possible for him to do that. Gotta admire him though. I remember raising money for the UFW and stuff as a teenager.

two of them -- who were black -- were denied entry for failing to show three photo IDs, while I was merely required to produce one

Makes me glad I'm white - I don't think I've ever had more than one photo ID I carry, and only two even if I bring my passport! That goes beyond a double standard; it basically means "no Negros allowed".

Way to miss the pt, alex. I mean really, brilliant fucking job there.

Please, in the future do not bother feigning surprise when people don't take your shit seriously.

alex: Do you believe in the libertarian ideal of completely open borders?

No.

My advisor from graduate school had a badly botched typo on his Social Security card. His name is quite common and easy to spell, nevertheless, the name on his Social Security account was, officially, not his.

A few years back, this suddenly became an issue, as the no-match letters finally caught the attention of some university bureaucrat. It took him about a year to straighten the thing out, and he had an administrative assistant to help him with the paperwork.

You all might want to check if you have a similar issue.

If it was twelve million white, Christian, hardcore libertarians crossing the border, would the liberals still support illegal immigration?

If it was twelve million white, Christian, hardcore libertarians crossing the border, would the conservatives still complain about illegal immigration?

(Geez Brian, if you're just going to lob 'em down the middle of the plate . . .)

"You also assert that "free and easy" immigration hurts the middle and lower classes; that is a debatable assertion."

Back to NeilB's point, "I want concern over mass/illegal immigration to be taken seriously." Progressives have defined opposition to immigration, and even more so opposition to workers who enter the US illegally, as an expression of racism. Therefore, they are totally for immigration because they are for social justice.

What if the evidence suggested that in communities, high levels of diversity erode public trust, reciprocity, people's willingness to support social programs, participate in elections and volunteer? And what if that were not just suspicion against "out-group" members but also against "in-group" members? Check out Robert "Bowling Alone" Putnam's latest work. In short, increasing diversity may work against many other progressive goals.

Or what if the evidence suggested that high rates of immigration results in lower wages for the less skilled native born workers (aka, NeilB's lower classes), increases social and economic inequality, and dilutes democratic participation, as found by economists who studied the effects of American immigration from 1880-1920?

What if the best evidence suggested that the size of the American population at our current standard of living was not sustainable? That as the population increases beyond the capacity of the land to support it, the standard of living will decline for everyone. For example, last winter, Minnesotans were surprised to discover that state officials predict that in 25 years, given population growth (almost entirely due to immigration) even Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes, would start experiencing water shortages. What if the evidence is pretty clear that our obsession with growth will result in an Easter Island ecological scenario.

Would this evidence affect progressive enthusiasm for current rates of immigration in any way?

Every time people bring up actual enforcement, you people pretend it's impossible. That's because you know it's politically untenable to just admit the truth: You like illegal immigration and do not want it to stop.

You do not care about the jobs of working people. You do not care about wage stagnation. You do not care about Americans. You only care about exploiting mexican workers ands acquiring cheap labor.

Donald, you're in Kailua, right? That's just about the last place in Oahu where recently-arrived haoles should be describing themselves as part of a racial minority. Yeah, Lanikai is just awash with Filipinos and native Hawaiians...

when I listen to recently-arrived haoles (white people) complain about how uncomfortable they are as part of a racial minority in these islands, I just quietly nod and smile.
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 9, 2007 at 11:09 PM |

This ain't complex, folks.

It has NOT been legal to enter the United States without permission since 1928 (the law was passed in 1922, but they delayed implementing it). From '28 through '52, though, there wasn't much to it except the new designation W.O.P. (without papers).

Then in 1952, they added that it would also be unlawful to "harbor" a foreigner living in the U.S. illegally. But LBJ and Sam Rayburn concocted the "Texas proviso", by which employing a foreigner who was here illegally was not 'harboring' him. So oddly enough, whenever Chavez (among others) tried to organize farm workers (among others), the employers would drop a dime to the Border Patrol, and deport the union men.

That is why it was Cesar Chavez, as much as any other person, who made employER sanctions into a cause. He was the main moving force to change the law to go after those who hire illegal workers, AND to eliminate the anti-worker subsidy of illegal hiring, from the early 60s through his death. QED.

We had a guest worker program, too, from 1942 1964. We admitted 4.6 million braceros -- and deported 5.2 million illegal workers. So much for the idea that a guest worker program would eliminate illegal immigration. There has NEVER been a guest worker program that has ever worked -- anytime, anyplace: Turks in Germany, Filipinos in Kuwait, Chinese and Koreans in Japan, our own braceros, and (my personal favorite) Pakistanis in Norway... all failed. The same economics which attract folks to come 'temporarily', compel them to stay ... illegally.

Employer sanctions enacted in '86, repealing the Texas proviso, purport to fine employers who 'knowingly' hire illegal workers. So they respond: how were they to know? That's where the SSN/name check comes from.

That's why I cited a REAL example -- the workers at Swift and other plants who claimed to be US citizens... born in Puerto Rico.

Well, Kevin?

And as for Brian's question: "If it was twelve million white, Christian, hardcore libertarians crossing the border, would the conservatives still complain about illegal immigration?"

There's a true story about the answer. A bigtime restrictionist conservative I know asked perhaps the most prominent libertarian activist why he supported bringing in so many low wage workers from Mexico and Central America, since after all those folks were very likely to vote for the kind of big government, high tax policies he had dedicated his life to defeat.

"What makes you think we're going to let 'em vote?" was his reply.

THAT's what failing to enforce the law gets progressives. I say progressives, not conservatives, cuz conservatives can live with a permanent foreign underclass.

Why are WE willing to help make it happen?

Somebody asked what the law oughta be -- a long argument, but if he meant repealing employER sanctions, he's buying the permanent foreign underclass. (And he ain't getting it cheap, either: nothing is as expensive as cheap labor.)

It enrages me when people conflate legal and illegal, when progressives especially figure that ALL immigration is the same -- legal, illegal, permanent, 'temporary', because that degrades CITIZENSHIP, which is what makes us America.

If we can't say "no", our "yes" becomes meaningless.

So, Kevin: you're scoffing at employer sanctions. What do YOU have to offer?

As a Manhattan resident who legally employs a nanny (she has a green card, we report all of her wages and do all of the withholding (try 1-800-BREEDLOVE - they do all of the paperwork), I can speak to the nanny part of this. Many, if not most, of my neighbors either (a) hire out-of-status aliens, (b) pay in cash and do not report wages or withhold taxes, or (c) both (a) and (b). The market for nanny wages is defined by the takehome pay, so I am paying 40% extra out of pocket (FICA, workman's comp plus withholding) then those who are failing to comply with the law. We have no problem with paying our nanny her due (she earns every penny). I am frustrated by the fact that my following the law has the effect of subsidizing those who do not.

We should provide status for those who are here and working, followed by meaningful employer sanctions for those who continue to pay off of the books.

I mis-stated myself: "That's why I cited a REAL example -- the workers at Swift and other plants who claimed to be US citizens... born in Puerto Rico."

should read "claimed to be legal permanent residents... born in Puerto Rico."

LOL -- I notice that when threads bring up actual choices, policy decisions like 'you can make employer sanctions work, if you verify identity', or 'you can abandon employer sanctions, and perpetuate a permanent foreign underclass that is already the largest since slavery', most folks here (including our host) have NOTHING to add.

The problem is people like Ephus's neighbors. Reward systems should be implemented to make it worthwhile for people to help them out, and the people who hire these people should be charged as accessories. Perhaps a new form of felony should be created for them, to prevent them from voting in the several states that don't let felons vote.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to ruin this country without paying a price. If you're too much of a scumbag t pay the minimum wage, you should be arrested and jailed. Until that happens everything else is bullshit.

the law should be simple. If you are a business that employers an illegal worker, you should be fined $100,000 dollars per illegal worker. That is enough to cover the salaries of any American worker that would have taken their place and level a heavy punitive price.

If you are an individual who makes hiring decisions, and you either do not verify the information or you do not bother to collect it, you should serve 6 months in a federal prison and be stripped of your voting rights.

I don't really care about the whiny rich people who will protest. Screw them, they've been screwing us for long enough. This is the nice way of handling them, and they should be made to understand that.

Americanist. This is a fairly right wing site as far as left wing blogs go (and indeed, as far as the democratic party as a whole goes). They simply do not care about America or Americans. They only care about other wealthy people and maintaining their privileges.

Basically, your average Kevin Drum reader is a moderate Republican trying to convince themselves that they are better people than they really are.

alex: Do you believe in the libertarian ideal of completely open borders?

has407: No.

Ok, but you also don't believe in enforcing the laws on immigration limits. So what do you believe in?

PTate I very much appreciated your good points (Hey, did you move from MN?) BTW if we really could make employers pay a lot to hire illegals (better, any immigrant's employer period should have at least some temporary extra fee to pay, to comp. for increasing the labor supply.) But the best point to me is indeed, *if you are a real progressive you care about the environment, and more people mean a harder stress on the environment* - that is a gauntlet to throw down.

As for all the supposed illegal Irish and Eastern Europeans; OK, stop them too (more strain on our environment and swelling of labor pool) - and BTW it is a logical fallacy to think that the contradictions and faults of the typical Opposition to X somehow invalidates all their criticisms of X. We are supposed to care about logic, avoiding ad hominem and presumption of bad faith etc. around here.

Finally, I really want to hear -
If it was twelve million white, Christian, hardcore libertarians crossing the border, would the liberals still support illegal immigration?
Hey, you answer that one, let the conservatives answer their own vice-vers-ion.

Ok, but you also don't believe in enforcing the laws on immigration limits. So what do you believe in?

Alex: I don't presume to answer for has407, but my answer would be "change the law so that it comports with reality, and then we can talk about stepped-up enforcement; otherwise we're gonna waste a whole heap of taxpayer money harming our economy and hassling hardworking Latino people -- both legal and illegal -- in the bargain."

Mackie: my answer would be "change the law so that it comports with reality

Ok, but can you be more specific about how you would change the law?

then we can talk about stepped-up enforcement

I'd do it the other way around. What you're proposing is like the 1986 "reform" - change the law now and we really, really promise to enforce it later.

It's not that your proposal is intrinsically bad, it's just that after the 1986 debacle I have no faith in pledges to enforce. There are too many vested and influential interests in this country that want the cheap and compliant labor of illegal aliens.

I'm even in favor of amnesty after it's been demonstrated that we'll actually enforce our laws.

otherwise we're gonna waste a whole heap of taxpayer money harming our economy and hassling hardworking Latino people -- both legal and illegal -- in the bargain.

The proposal doesn't sound very expensive, as it uses existing paperwork. Unfortunately some hassle in enforcing laws is unavoidable. It would also affect non-Latinos with messed up paperwork (my daughter's birth certificate still has a typo on my SSN). If implemented decently it would not affect Latinos whose paperwork isn't messed up. As for illegal aliens, both Latino and non-Latino, the "hassle" is what you should expect when you knowingly do something illegal.

Mackie -- kindly 'xplain to us how treating everybody exactly the same hassles Latinos?

You get a job -- you present the documents that establish you're working here legally. The gummint checks the name you give, against the Social Security # you provide. The name matches the #, end of story.

Just how does this hassle any particular group?

Not to be mean or anything, but perhaps a reality check might be helpful. From yesterday's SF Chronicle:

()

Here's one way to put the irritation I feel when critics of illegal immigration are met with cries of "racism" etc. from the childish/sensitivity hack wing of the progessisphere: It's like when righties call critics of Israel "antisemites." And BTW, some people really are antisemites just like some people are really racists, but that isn't the point here.

You want a reasonable alternative - not popular but reasonable? Amnesty, and permanent residency for all undocumented workers currently here, with an optional path to citizenship for them. The same should be offered for all people legally here who have something less than permanent residency and want permanent residency. At same time offer new permanent residency visas in the actual quantities people are coming over the border.

If you want you can combine this with stronger enforcement; but stronger enforcement should mean more certain enforcement, not stepping up the already cruel nature of that enforcement (which should be racheted down.) Right now if you are here without papers, you have a very small chance of being caught, but if you are caught you will be treated pretty cruelly. If you want to strengthen enforcement, increase the certainty of being caught, but treat people without papers less severely than you treat burglars, and vandals.

Also if you are going to increase enforcement, then increase enforcement of labor laws as well -- health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, laws on unionization.

Basically there are two ways that can be claimed that undocument workers hurt other workers. One is the simple increase in supply. But most evidence shows that has a fairly small effect, because it is overwhelmed by the difference in bargaining power between workers and owners which occurs on a lot of other dimensions besides supply and demand (laws weighted to managment over owners, transactio costs of losing a job vs losing a worker, employer tied health care and so on.)

The other way is the existence of the undocumented as an underclass with legally different status than citizens. Give the people who are coming anyway legal status, and a path towards the right to vote for those who want it, and you remove most of the harm. Increase labor and social rights in other ways, and you gain more for workers than deporting every undocumented foreign born person in the U.S.

Gar Lipow: Amnesty, and permanent residency for all undocumented workers currently here ... If you want you can combine this with stronger enforcement

Uh, yeah. That's what they said in 1986, and I fell for it. Fool me once ...

The result? A many fold increase in the number of illegal aliens. Great solution.

The same should be offered for all people legally here who have something less than permanent residency and want permanent residency.

That's about as vague and fuzzy as you can get - which specific categories of people do you mean?

At same time offer new permanent residency visas in the actual quantities people are coming over the border.

In other words, eliminate all restrictions that have any effect. If you're in favor of an libertarian style open borders policy, then just be honest and say so.

stronger enforcement should mean more certain enforcement, not stepping up the already cruel nature of that enforcement

First, the "cruel enforcement" that we have now is just deportation. In other words, the punishment for the offense is just to stop committing that offense. That's about as far as you can get from draconian.

Second, the proposed plan would just require employers to fire anyone who's here working here illegally, which is even less severe. It would also increase the odds of getting caught, which is exactly what you claim to want.

treat people without papers less severely than you treat burglars, and vandals

Burglars get imprisoned, vandals are often jailed, illegal aliens are just deported. That's like telling burglars to stop burgling and everything is forgiven. Not that I think we should do anything other than just deport illegal aliens, but it's hardly as severe as imprisonment.

Give the people who are coming anyway legal status, and a path towards the right to vote for those who want it, and you remove most of the harm.

In other words, an open border policy. Visas for everyone who wants them.

Increase labor and social rights in other ways, and you gain more for workers than deporting every undocumented foreign born person in the U.S.

Why do you pose this as an either/or? I say increase labor and social rights in other ways, and deport illegal aliens. A double bonus for "workers", and about time.

As to your debatable claim that supply increases have a small effect on wages, are you talking about at the current levels or at the levels we'd see with your proposed plan? Right now we have hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens coming here every year. With your proposal to issue as many visas as people want, how many additional immigrants would we see. Millions, quite likely. At what point do the supply effects stop being small? At what point do we say that as a sovereign country we want to limit the number of immigrants?

Mackie -- kindly 'xplain to us how treating everybody exactly the same hassles Latinos?

I hardly think it's debatable to stipulate that Americans with brown complexions and last names like "Sanchez" and "Gutierrez" will be impacted by stepped up workplace enforcement much more adversely than fair-skinned Americans with names like "Murphy" and "Smith". To an employer, hiring the former is associated more strongly with the possibility of a costly fine than hiring the latter. Now, some of this may well be unavoidable -- and even justifiable -- but we ought least to have the honesty to admit not all Americans will be equally affected.

I'd do it the other way around. What you're proposing is like the 1986 "reform" - change the law now and we really, really promise to enforce it later.

No: what I'm proposing is enforcing laws that can be enforced. Our current policy -- the prohibition of economic migration from Mexico -- cannot. The 1986 "reform" didn't end this unenforceable, infeasible policy, because it continued the prohibition. Quite predictably, two decades later we're left with the results (13 million and counting!) of the, er, reform (AKA prohibition): a huge black market.

In other words, an open border policy. Visas for everyone who wants them.

No, that would essentially be the policy America employed in the 19th century. What most "open borders" types support at the current time is a visa for anyone who wants one and is sponsored by an American employer. In other words, the flow of immigration would correlate directly with the growth in the economy -- and this would imply an economic limit to the number of new immigrants. That's pretty much what happens now anyway, it's just that the government doesn't provide a legal means for this to happen. But in any event, even the most radical Cato-types don't support a policy where literally anybody who can swing a plane ticket from Chongqing or Lima can just arrive at LAX and permanently settle. What they want is a legal framework for that which, under the status quo, occurs in the form of a black market.

With your proposal to issue as many visas as people want, how many additional immigrants would we see. Millions, quite likely. At what point do the supply effects stop being small?

This is a complicated issue, but just look at the even greater (proportionally) inflows of immigration during the 19th century. The population of the country went from 5 to 75 million, and much of that increase was immigration-driven. In other words, the supply of labor increased vastly -- surely in proportional terms far greater than anything we're currently experiencing or will likely experience in the future -- and yet Americans in 1900 were far richer, and enjoyed higher standards of living, than Americans a century earlier. Obviously this scenario doesn't mean that large scale immigration or workforce expansion creates higher living standards, but it's pretty strong evidence they don't prevent higher living standards, either.

Mackie, you're stooooopid, not to mention ignorant: "we ought least to have the honesty to admit not all Americans will be equally affected."

The LAW is that EVERY new hire presents documents to establish that they are legal to work.

Kindly explain how treating everyone exactly the same promotes discrimination.

The LAW further provides that asking any individual for more, or different documentation is a violation. (There is an offce at the Department of Justice which does nothing all day but chase companies who do this -- the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.)

Kindly explain how providing vigorous prosecution of employers who do not treat people equally, promotes discrimination.

The LAW also puts employers into a serious dilemma. They are REQUIRED to accept documents which on their face appear to be genuine. They are PROHIBITED from asking for more or different documents than those (from the list) which any new hire presents. They cannot use the system for screening applicants: those are all very serious violations of the law -- and have been for more than twenty years.

There are FACTS to be acquired here, dude. You might acquire some before you develop an opinion.

Do explain, Mackie, how any of this promotes discrimination. Cite some evidence. (I suggest you call the Special Counsel's office, ask for a list of employers who have been fined for discriminatory practices, then compare it to those fined for illegal hiring: might do you some good to experience the tragedy of science, in which the theory you cherish beyond thinking is murdered by the facts.)

Electronic verification that someone is legal to work AND that they are who they say they are, is not particularly complex and it is the opposite of discrimination BECAUSE IT TREATS EVERYONE THE SAME.

Let's test YOUR honesty, Mackie. Explain to us -- use some actual facts -- how your fond notion that this must all be some tool to discriminate against Latinos actually WORKS.

I suggest, after you talk to the Special Counsel's office and compare fines for discrimination against fines for illegal hiring, that you explain away all those US citizens born in Puerto Rico whose identities were stolen to be used by Mexicans working illegally in Colorado.

You really think that busting people who steal Social Security #s from Puerto Ricans is discriminating against ... Latinos?

Well?

thanks,