Employer Sanctions

Enough nonsense and idiot solutions.

$5000 fine for hiring an illegal.
Double for second offense.
Jail for third.

They will WALK Back across the border with No work.
Cut the Border Patrol in Half.

Lower unemployment and raise wages for Americans.
All those "jobs American won't do", they WILL do when the wage rises to a Fair/Market one for that job.
Benefiting all menial labor, (incl. unemployed factory) College students, elderly who must continue working, etc.

Probably lower unemployment 2-3 points overnight.
Be nice to find out what the real/Market Minimum wage is without unfair competition.

Cost? some inflation for paying more to... Us.

I think it's good idea. I just believe the part about walking back accros the border is a bit flawed. Some will simply resort to other means of acquiring income, like stealing mbig's automobilio.

I would adjust the fine for hiring an illegal.

1st offense... 3 months total revenue of the company
2nd offense... 6 year of total revenue
3rd offense.... 1 year of revenue, putting the business license/corporate charter for the company on probation for 3 years and mandating quarterly personnel reviews by the state to ensure compliance.

you'll have business clamoring and begging for meaningful immigration reform in no time... and it might finally get done.

mbig said:

Enough nonsense and idiot solutions.

$5000 fine for hiring an illegal.
Double for second offense.
Jail for third.

They will WALK Back across the border with No work.
Cut the Border Patrol in Half.

Lower unemployment and raise wages for Americans.
All those "jobs American won't do", they WILL do when the wage rises to a Fair/Market one for that job.
Benefiting all menial labor, (incl. unemployed factory) College students, elderly who must continue working, etc.

Probably lower unemployment 2-3 points overnight.
Be nice to find out what the real/Market Minimum wage is without unfair competition.

Cost? some inflation for paying more to... Us.

Click to expand...

I think employers should be subject to the same assets seizure and forfeiture laws that drug dealers,mobsters and other criminals who profit from and or use their money for illegal activities upon a guilty conviction. Knowingly hiring illegals or avoiding checks so you can hire illegals should be seriously punished. There should be prison time, loss of assets, 5,000 per illegal hired and the loss of business license for a designated amount of time.

mbig said:

Enough nonsense and idiot solutions.

$5000 fine for hiring an illegal.
Double for second offense.
Jail for third.

They will WALK Back across the border with No work.
Cut the Border Patrol in Half.

Lower unemployment and raise wages for Americans.
All those "jobs American won't do", they WILL do when the wage rises to a Fair/Market one for that job.
Benefiting all menial labor, (incl. unemployed factory) College students, elderly who must continue working, etc.

Probably lower unemployment 2-3 points overnight.
Be nice to find out what the real/Market Minimum wage is without unfair competition.

Cost? some inflation for paying more to... Us.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of this. However I dont think they will walk back. I think fewer will stop coming, but I dont think those here will walk back. I think what you will see is a tremendous increase in crime, violence, etc. Desperate people tend to do desperate things.

I think this is an ABSOLUTE MUST as a component of the solution.

I like the idea in theory. I don't think you fine enough in your outline. It definitely has to at least hurt the company. If the fine does not exceed the amount of money they save by hiring illegals instead of Americans then it does nothing.

I think mine would look more like this.

First offense: $75,000 plus $5,000 per illegal immigrant in fines.
Second offense: $150,000 plus $10,000 per illegal immigrant in fines.
Third offense: $300,000 plus $15,000 per illegal immigrant in fines.

Thrilla said:

I would adjust the fine for hiring an illegal.

1st offense... 3 months total revenue of the company
2nd offense... 6 year of total revenue
3rd offense.... 1 year of revenue, putting the business license/corporate charter for the company on probation for 3 years and mandating quarterly personnel reviews by the state to ensure compliance.

you'll have business clamoring and begging for meaningful immigration reform in no time... and it might finally get done.

Click to expand...

That would have to be put through under the radar first for businesses to lobby immigration reform.

Great idea but I would tie the fine to the businesses' revenue - maybe 3% per illegal. That would keep small businesses and farmers from being wiped out if caught and be a sizable incentive to not hire illegals. Second offense should be a felony with mandatory prison time in addition to a fine. I seriously doubt their would be many second timers if they knew it would mean prison time.

One year in jail for the president or CEO plus $25,000.00 fine for each illegal employed. That will nip it in the bud.

I think employer sanctions may well be the most effective way to combat illegal immigration. But I think there are some practical issues. For example, how do you prove that an employer knew that he or she hired an illegal immigrant?

Krhazy said:

I think employer sanctions may well be the most effective way to combat illegal immigration. But I think there are some practical issues. For example, how do you prove that an employer knew that he or she hired an illegal immigrant?

Click to expand...

Duh...if they can't speak English, that's a pretty good sign.

Krhazy said:

I think employer sanctions may well be the most effective way to combat illegal immigration. But I think there are some practical issues. For example, how do you prove that an employer knew that he or she hired an illegal immigrant?

Click to expand...

Make the SSN database a requirement for employers. Green light/red light go no go checks. They fail and you still hire them...you are in a world of hurt. They pass...even if they are illegal...all good for the employer.

Harsher punishments seldom actually deter a crime. If you want to actually deter illegal immigration, make legal immigration easier. Very few would choose to deal with a dangerous coyote or other illegal smuggling operation if they had the option not to. Those given the chance to be legal and documented will take the opportunity. Give them the opportunity, and there will no longer be nearly as many illegal immigrants.

If the real goal is just keeping Mexicans out, though, then neither position will really help.

Paschendale said:

Harsher punishments seldom actually deter a crime. If you want to actually deter illegal immigration, make legal immigration easier. Very few would choose to deal with a dangerous coyote or other illegal smuggling operation if they had the option not to. Those given the chance to be legal and documented will take the opportunity. Give them the opportunity, and there will no longer be nearly as many illegal immigrants.

If the real goal is just keeping Mexicans out, though, then neither position will really help.

Click to expand...

based on what criteria? At some point as the host nation dont you HAVE to implement levels of immigration based on the countries ability to support/sustain its population?

Paschendale said:

Harsher punishments seldom actually deter a crime. If you want to actually deter illegal immigration, make legal immigration easier. Very few would choose to deal with a dangerous coyote or other illegal smuggling operation if they had the option not to. Those given the chance to be legal and documented will take the opportunity. Give them the opportunity, and there will no longer be nearly as many illegal immigrants.

If the real goal is just keeping Mexicans out, though, then neither position will really help.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your first sentence. Harsher punishments have an impact it just doesn't stop the determined criminal trying anyway. At least when he is caught it takes him out of circulation. We need to get tougher with the employers who has been let off way, way to easy in what is essentially a human trafficking operation. Start with the employers then work your way down. I agree with the idea that we need to make legal immigration easier if we truly need the workers. Get them in the system paying taxes and drive wages up so citizens would consider working the jobs too. If we have plenty of able bodied citizens, we don't need to be flooding the market with workers. Make the employers raise the wages to attract people to the job.

coolwalker said:

Duh...if they can't speak English, that's a pretty good sign.

Click to expand...

Ok, so what happens when illegal immigrants start speaking English? Or is it your opinion that if they have to do that, it will cease to become worth it to them?

mbig said:

Enough nonsense and idiot solutions.

$5000 fine for hiring an illegal.
Double for second offense.
Jail for third.

They will WALK Back across the border with No work.
Cut the Border Patrol in Half.

Lower unemployment and raise wages for Americans.
All those "jobs American won't do", they WILL do when the wage rises to a Fair/Market one for that job.
Benefiting all menial labor, (incl. unemployed factory) College students, elderly who must continue working, etc.

Probably lower unemployment 2-3 points overnight.
Be nice to find out what the real/Market Minimum wage is without unfair competition.

Cost? some inflation for paying more to... Us.

Click to expand...

And that there is just how easy it is. So. Why doesn't our government do it???

What is the hidden agenda? There is "something going on" that we're not privvy to, some goal is being actively pursued that the American people aren't aware of. Find out what that is, and it'll all become clear.

You think we have high unemployment now?? Read this:

The Census Bureau estimates the US population will grow from 281 million in 2000 to 397 million in 2050 with immigration, but only to 328 million with no immigration.[69] A new report from the Pew Research Center projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will account for 47% of the population, down from the 2005 figure of 67%.[70] Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960.[71] It also foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050.[72] The Asian population is expected to more than triple by 2050. Overall, the population of the United States is due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million in 2050, with 82% of the increase from immigrants.[73]

Click to expand...

No matter which one is right, I'm thinkin' we're being invaded with the full support and consent of our legislators.

MaggieD said:

And that there is just how easy it is. So. Why doesn't our government do it???

What is the hidden agenda? There is "something going on" that we're not privvy to, some goal is being actively pursued that the American people aren't aware of. Find out what that is, and it'll all become clear.

Click to expand...

Money.
On the Liberal/Democratic side.. we know the reason.
On the Republican side-- it's more stealth.
You find states like Texas and their Govs (Bush/Perry, etc) who are Soft on illegals. Both for the Hispanic vote and Money.
Many Business constituents/contributors Profit on Unduly Cheap labor. Not just hiring illegals but making Natives compete.
So you have Most (non-union) liberals/Democrats on the same side as Many Republicans for the Worst possible reason.

I am currently 'for' a minimum Wage.
But if we would Enforce fair competition/market wage for Legal [menial] labor I would probably drop my support.
I'd like to know what a truly fair wage is for working in the 'Greek' Diner or Cleaning store across the street from me (NYC).
Because right now it's 100% Illegal Mexican labor.
No doubt living immediately above them, there are retirees who'd love to take the $12 they could probably make if the wage wasn't 1/3 that for illegals.
And so it is with millions of Jobs. Otherwise Taxpaying jobs too.

Not to mention recent graduates who are having trouble finding work because the economy stinks could start to at least make a bit of a living.
How much do OUR sons and daughters want to do these jobs.
Would the market for legal [English speaking] workers all of a sudden get tight. I think so.

Just like we have fire inspectors and safety inspectors, we need to have employee inspectors, people who go around and verify that legal paperwork is filled out for all employees in every company. Everyone gets hit at random, at least once a year. All files get pulled for all employees and all companies are required to eVerify. All employees must have a copy of their legal identification and social security card on file. For any that don't, $10,000 fine to the company. Second offense, $20,000 fine per offense. Third offense, business license is revoked. Three strikes and you've proven you're not interested in following the law.

They'll run across the border.

I've got a better idea.....

If you're found with even a single illegal in your employ, YOU LOSE YOUR BUSINESS LICENSE.
If you're found a second time to have done it, YOU LOSE THAT LICENSE TO, AND CANNOT EVER APPLY FOR ANOTHER ONE.

Here in Michigan, an extremely conservative member of the State House introduced a bill which would mandate the use of the federal system Everify for anyone entering into state construction contracts. It was asked why such a law would not apply to ALL employers. A little bit of digging discovered that several very important business groups including the rather conservative Farm Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce both - behind closed doors - carefully negotiated exemptions which would protect their businesses from such a mandate. And this was done in the very office of the very conservative sponsor of the legislation.

haymarket said:

Here in Michigan, an extremely conservative member of the State House introduced a bill which would mandate the use of the federal system Everify for anyone entering into state construction contracts. It was asked why such a law would not apply to ALL employers. A little bit of digging discovered that several very important business groups including the rather conservative Farm Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce both - behind closed doors - carefully negotiated exemptions which would protect their businesses from such a mandate. And this was done in the very office of the very conservative sponsor of the legislation.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right, haymarket. EVERYONE should be required to use EVerify on every single employee in their employ. Period.

Tigger said:

You are exactly right, haymarket. EVERYONE should be required to use EVerify on every single employee in their employ. Period.

Click to expand...

But the reality is that there are many employers - some of which have very strong ties to the republican Party - who do not want this for their own reasons. The example I gave here in Michigan was like ice water in the face with that realization. There is no single lobby more powerful in Republican politics in the legislature than the Farm Bureau. They dole out lots of money and endorsements and in some areas of the state, they can make or break a Republican politician. They are 100% against Everify and are 100% against any measure which would even suggest that they will not be able to hire the necessary number of seasonal workers they need to plant and harvest crops. To a lesser extent, the Chamber of Commerce lobbies against his also especially in the area of hospitality - restaurants, hotels, personal services and the like.

haymarket said:

But the reality is that there are many employers - some of which have very strong ties to the republican Party - who do not want this for their own reasons. The example I gave here in Michigan was like ice water in the face with that realization. There is no single lobby more powerful in Republican politics in the legislature than the Farm Bureau. They dole out lots of money and endorsements and in some areas of the state, they can make or break a Republican politician. They are 100% against Everify and are 100% against any measure which would even suggest that they will not be able to hire the necessary number of seasonal workers they need to plant and harvest crops. To a lesser extent, the Chamber of Commerce lobbies against his also especially in the area of hospitality - restaurants, hotels, personal services and the like.

Click to expand...

That's part of why I'm not a member of the Republican Party. They are no more ideologically pure than the Democrats are. If EVerify is a good thing, then why not mandate it for EVERYONE. If it's not a good thing, it shouldn't be necessary for ANYONE.

It's completely out of hand.
I have been traveling in [non-border] areas and still overwhelmed by the amount of people/places who/where Spanish is pervasive.

Politically it only gets Worse/more conducive to such as now the legal-illegals have enough political power to make the other illegals.. legal. The decision now unduly influenced by those here illegally or 'amnestied' subsequently.
The GOP now realizing to win, even they have to cater to.. Illegals (and their predecessors)
There allies of course those who directly profit from hiring them... Which include traditional foes of illegal immigration, the GOP.

But, if you're not directly benefiting from hiring 1 to 1000 illegals.. YOU'RE PAYING for someone else's abuse of the system.
You/we are paying taxes for people who either work off the book/pay no taxes, or make so little money there's no way there are not net Losses for the economy in the services (School/Medical, etc) they Take. (not to mention sending there money back home)

I reiterate the OP as the only solution, even as our unduly influenced politicians (by benefit of bribe or power of past amnesties) work out a horrific 'solution' by making 11 Million MORE illegals legal. They will then also be voters for the next wave, just as the last wave have influenced the decisions/leaders on this one.

We don't need Billion dollar, 1000 mile border fences, Border patrol, etc, just ID cards and penalties for employERs.
But it would work so they'll never do it, just more dishonest posturing measures.