Illegal Immigration & The Minimum Wage

[AZhitman]

How is government size increased at all?

I'd agree with you if it were the same department. But it's two different departments with two different sets of resources, two different motivations and two different sets of administrators.

I think you answered your own question.

Come work in government for a week and you'll see.

[IBCoupe]

The two departments already exist, though. We already have INS and DoL. Not having this policy wouldn't get rid of either. So: how does this make government bigger?

[AZhitman]

Seriously? You need to ask how increased responsibilities, more oversight and an influx of new cases will affect a government agency?

Never mind - DON'T go to work in government.

[96Qowner]

Actually, IBC, your opening post didn't mention passing a new law. I took it as more of a moral ethical issue. The job should pay what its worth, no matter who does it.

So, how to make that happen? To get hired legitimately, you need a SSN and either a green card or proof of citizenship. Neither one of those is the least bit difficult to forge. You can't expect an employer to shoulder the responsibility for fraudulent papers. The government can require him to collect and file the information, but it should be the government who verifies it. Of course, picture that bureaucratic nightmare. Millions of people are hired each year. How many will it take to individually verify each set of documents? Yes, we need biometric IDs, first step.

If we had that, the whole issue becomes moot. It's pretty much moot, anyway, for the reasons others have pointed out. We need to start from scratch, incorporating biometric IDs and a guest worker program.

Of course, the cash labor market, where most of the problem behavior lies, will remain. It's by definition illegitimate and uncontrollable.

[AZhitman]

Bingo x 5.

[stebo0728]

Of course, the cash labor market, where most of the problem behavior lies, will remain. It's by definition illegitimate and uncontrollable.

Actually there is one solution to the cash labor market, and I think we are heading there, and I have not decided yet whether its a good thing.

A cashless society. No tangibly currency at all. Only one's and zero's in a bank computer.

[AZhitman]

Or, we go REAL old-school: Barter for everything.

The left would be screwed. Then again, they might like it. Hell, they might prosper.

[C-Kwik]

I'm not so sure it would be very effective to make minimum wage apply to illegal immigrants. Enforcement would be difficult and likely only occur in conjunction with catching someone who employed an illegal immigrant. I'm not so sure it will be a strong deterrent for someone who is already breaking an immigration based law. It might also present a legal complication that making such a law may imply that its okay to hire illegal immigrant. Can't speak to how credible such an argument might be, but I can see the argument being made.

Yes, we need biometric IDs, first step.

We may not be ready for biometric ID's yet. Here's a recent article I came across about it:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/co ... tion_N.htm

[IBCoupe]

Enforcement would be difficult and likely only occur in conjunction with catching someone who employed an illegal immigrant.

In New York City, hotlines are set up and doors are open to any person who believes their employer is violating the law. When a person walks in or calls, they are not asked about their citizenship status. An investigation of the employer is then launched. That's how you do it.

The job should pay what its worth, no matter who does it.

...

You can't expect an employer to shoulder the responsibility for fraudulent papers.

You're having an entirely different debate. Actually, you're having more than one different debate. None of what you've written is actually pertinent to the argument I've put forward.

Enforcing immigration laws is not the duty of the Department of Labor. Enforcement of labor laws is, and employers should not be allowed to violate labor laws, regardless of who they employ. To tell ourselves that it's okay for them to violate labor laws for certain people, meaning that it's okay for them to profit from hiring one kind of person over another, is to tell the illegal immigrants that there wil always be jobs here for them.

[96Qowner]

Yes, we need biometric IDs, first step.

We may not be ready for biometric ID's yet. Here's a recent article I came across about it:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/co ... tion_N.htm

Hey, I just checked it out and the hardware cost is $239 for an Iris recognition system and $79 for fingerprint. That's under $400 for a dual system. Try fooling that one. And it doesn't seem like a large financial burden for an HR department.

[96Qowner]

The job should pay what its worth, no matter who does it.

...

You can't expect an employer to shoulder the responsibility for fraudulent papers.

You're having an entirely different debate. Actually, you're having more than one different debate. None of what you've written is actually pertinent to the argument I've put forward.

Enforcing immigration laws is not the duty of the Department of Labor. Enforcement of labor laws is, and employers should not be allowed to violate labor laws, regardless of who they employ. To tell ourselves that it's okay for them to violate labor laws for certain people, meaning that it's okay for them to profit from hiring one kind of person over another, is to tell the illegal immigrants that there wil always be jobs here for them.

Your entire premise rests on the idea that there is a minimum wage in the first place. A job is worth what it's worth. If illegals are being paid less, it's because there is a system in place that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. The disadvantage is that they're illegal. Tough noogies. They have no right to any job in the USA. You still haven't explained how employers can violate labor laws in the first place. If the employee presents the documentation required by law, then it's no longer the employer's responsibility. In this case, the documentation is the equivalent of a note from their mother. It's the responsibility of legislators and the regulatory departments to issue documentation that isn't easily forged.

And yes, there will always be jobs for illegals. This is a free country. I'm free to hire, without fear of prosecution by the Federal government, anyone to mow my lawn, or paint my house, or tile my bathroom, etc. I wouldn't want it any other way.

[AZhitman]

. It might also present a legal complication that making such a law may imply that its okay to hire illegal immigrant.

[C-Kwik]

In New York City, hotlines are set up and doors are open to any person who believes their employer is violating the law. When a person walks in or calls, they are not asked about their citizenship status. An investigation of the employer is then launched. That's how you do it.

People who aren't here illegally are not as likely to call in for the same reasons many illegal immigrants don't call the police to report crimes committed against them. And for the case of being paid less than minimum wage, it would be less so as many are thankful to have work in the first place. And these days, as dangerous is it making the trek to the states with the cartels around, they certainly don't want to risk having to make the trip again if for whatever reason they get deported (and I'm sure regardless of how often that occurs, illegal immigrants are going to be somewhat paranoid about the likelihood of that occurring. Even then, what proof of that will exist anyways? There is no paper trail to follow.

Hey, I just checked it out and the hardware cost is $239 for an Iris recognition system and $79 for fingerprint. That's under $400 for a dual system. Try fooling that one. And it doesn't seem like a large financial burden for an HR department.

Its one thing to check for a biometric match from a small database of people (employees of a company perhaps). Its another to do so for 350 the million plus people in this country. Consider how long it takes your virus scan program to seek out viruses on a single hard drive. We're talking about 350 million plus images or some kind of recorded data that it has to compare to. And virus scans only compare file names, not the code. Not to mention the challenges of comparing the readings as well. The more accurate the comparison is, the more time it will take. Streamlining will likely mean it will compare less data points based on some algorithm. But with such a large pool of biometric data, the chance of a false positive increases quite a bit. This is not a simplistic solution by any means.

[heliochrome85]

People who aren't here illegally are not as likely to call in for the same reasons many illegal immigrants don't call the police to report crimes committed against them. And for the case of being paid less than minimum wage, it would be less so as many are thankful to have work in the first place. And these days, as dangerous is it making the trek to the states with the cartels around, they certainly don't want to risk having to make the trip again if for whatever reason they get deported (and I'm sure regardless of how often that occurs, illegal immigrants are going to be somewhat paranoid about the likelihood of that occurring. Even then, what proof of that will exist anyways? There is no paper trail to follow.
.

they are also not as likely to show up to hospitals because they are afraid of their status being an issue and being reported. ive only had two this week, but given the demographics of the neighborhood i work in, for every one that comes in, 100 dont.

[IBCoupe]

Your entire premise rests on the idea that there is a minimum wage in the first place.

If your disagreement is based on a belief that we don't have a minimum wage, then I'm going to tell you to do your homework. Now, I know that you're trying to argue that we shouldn't have a minimum wage, and that may be something worth arguing about. But it is not relevant to what I have presented. That this policy rests on the premise that we continue to have laws that we currently have is not a flaw in the policy, because we currently have those laws.

You still haven't explained how employers can violate labor laws in the first place.

By paying less than the minimum wage. By refusing to pay for proper maintenance and clean-up, and fostering unsafe working conditions. Labor laws don't care whether you're here legally or not - they are restrictions upon American employers; not simply protections for American employees.

People who aren't here illegally are not as likely to call in for the same reasons many illegal immigrants don't call the police to report crimes committed against them.

Correct. But that they're not as likely to call in doesn't mean we shouldn't react when they do.

Why is it that no one is talking about the incentives for employers? The purpose of the policy? I keep reading that they're illegal and they don't have a right to anything, and that means you're not addressing what this policy would do. I don't know if you're not understanding or if you're just disagreeing but are incapable of actually coming up with a relevant criticism.

[wingFeather]

IB, step away from the keyboard or risk joining my ranks!

[AZhitman]

incapable of actually coming up with a relevant criticism.

Hold up there, lawyer-boy. The onus is not on those who oppose the as-yet unwritten law. YOU need to convince everyone else why it's a good idea.

Chano (C-Kwik) nailed it, yet his criticisms weren't relevant?

Here's your "relevant criticism": It's increased bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, with no measurable benefit to society.

[IBCoupe]

I've already addressed C-Kwik's critique twice.

Greg, again, where's the increased beaurocracy? I'm suggesting that the Department of Labor continue performing its existing responsibilities without going into an unnecessary and counter-productive additional investigation into citizenship status. That looks like less beaurocracy to me.

I will happily consider each of your criticisms, and I will defend the policy where appropriate. I would appreciate it, however, if you restricted your criticism to pertinent issues. If I say, "This is a good idea," and you respond by saying, "But illegal immigrants have no rights to anything" or "But the sky is blue," there's only so much I can say. This proposal does not empower illegal immigrants - in the long view, it undermines them by creating a system where it's less profitable to employ them.

I have already demonstrated to you the positives, and all of your collective complaints about the negatives have turned out to be either incorrect or inconsequential.

[stebo0728]

How about the notion that you are creating an avenue to punish OUR OWN CITIZENS while completely disregarding someone who IS NOT our citizen. Does that sound crazy? Well consider, your talking about a legislative move that will seek to punish a company for underpaying an illegal. This company is composed of US citizens (with exception of the illegals employed or in question) the higher ups involved in the hiring and paying are the US citizens, and they or by proxy the company, are going to be punished by this, while the NON CITIZEN that is employed can dance on off the scene and get another company in trouble, or better yet STAY employed at a higher rate?!? Theres my problem really, I like the idea behind the law, intentions are good, and i wouldnt have so much of a problem with it if it were being considered as a "compliment" to existing law, but from what I see, it seeks to be the more commonly used deterent rather than actually deporting and enforcing laws we already have. I suppose we could come to an agreement that if we decide to actually start enforcing laws against THE ILLEGAL first, then as a compliment this law could aid in determent by punishing the company also.

[IBCoupe]

How about the notion that you are creating an avenue to punish OUR OWN CITIZENS while completely disregarding someone who IS NOT our citizen. Does that sound crazy?

Yes, stebo, it does sound crazy, and again, here's why:

THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IMMIGRATION LAW.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LABOR LAWS.

If nothing else, trying to get the Department of Labor to do another Department's job is fundamentally creating unnecessary beaurocracy by creating overlapping jurisdictions. This policy would be an incentive against using illegal workers, without creating conflicts in jurisdiction.

Here's what else makes it sound crazy:

NO ONE HAS PROPOSED THAT WE SHOULD ELIMINATE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

You want to stop illegal immigration? You can't just go after the illegal immigrants. You have to go after the incentives that drive them here. You have to convince them that it isn't worth it to come here. You have to go after the employers, or else you will accomplish nothing.

[stebo0728]

How about the notion that you are creating an avenue to punish OUR OWN CITIZENS while completely disregarding someone who IS NOT our citizen. Does that sound crazy?

Yes, stebo, it does sound crazy, and again, here's why:

THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IMMIGRATION LAW.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LABOR LAWS.

If nothing else, trying to get the Department of Labor to do another Department's job is fundamentally creating unnecessary beaurocracy by creating overlapping jurisdictions. This policy would be an incentive against using illegal workers, without creating conflicts in jurisdiction.

Here's what else makes it sound crazy:

NO ONE HAS PROPOSED THAT WE SHOULD ELIMINATE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

You want to stop illegal immigration? You can't just go after the illegal immigrants. You have to go after the incentives that drive them here. You have to convince them that it isn't worth it to come here. You have to go after the employers, or else you will accomplish nothing.

It all makes so much more sense now that Ive read it in much larger text....

Of course DoL doesnt enforce immigration law, I never said they did. But the same government sanctions both does it not? Im not suggesting you tell the DoL to do ICE's job, im suggesting that your telling the DoL to do its job while you lax on how much you require ICE to do its job.

Please let me know if I need to repost that in larger text.

[96Qowner]

You still haven't explained how employers can violate labor laws in the first place.

By paying less than the minimum wage. By refusing to pay for proper maintenance and clean-up, and fostering unsafe working conditions. Labor laws don't care whether you're here legally or not - they are restrictions upon American employers; not simply protections for American employees.

Again, your proposal rests on premises, one of which is that employers currently pay illegals less than minimum wage. How does the employer know the worker is an illegal? The employer must have the proper documentation before hiring an employee, yes? So ... how would he know who's illegal? You must show the problem exists in the first place. If we're talking about the cash labor market, no law will help. If we're talking about the traditional employment with withholding and FICA, then the employee is presumably legit, since he's provided the documentation the law calls for.

I've already agreed that your principle is correct, but not that you've shown any necessity for a law, or that any such law would be effective. That burden falls on you.

"Refusing to pay for proper maintenance and cleanup"? ?? What's that? Employers only foster unsafe working conditions for those they somehow guess might be illegal? Again, if they've provided the documentation required by law, how does the employer know they're illegal and that he can skimp on maintenance and cleanup and working conditions?

Minimum wage is simply a meaningless arbitrary figure. It really has no place in your argument. What you're proposing is that illegals be paid the same wage as legitimate employees. It has nothing to do with any so-called minimum wage.

[AZhitman]

I already explained myself.

Seriously? You need to ask how increased responsibilities, more oversight and an influx of new cases will affect a government agency?

It's amazing how much of a hardon you have for something that's a non-issue.

You have to go after the incentives that drive them here. You have to convince them that it isn't worth it to come here. You have to go after the employers, or else you will accomplish nothing.

I can't discuss immigration issues with someone whose only exposure to actual illegals (and the problems presented by their presence) is through pictures and news articles from 3000 miles away. I don't care if you don't like it. You're either underinformed or misinformed, and since you're a smart person, the only explanation I can offer for that information deficiency is that you're insulated / isolated from the issue.

Do you seriously think that the border-crossers are coming here with the notion in their head that they'll be filling out an application, interviewing with prospective employers, get hired, attend orientation, meet with Human Resources, fill out important forms, and get a big "welcome to the company, we'll see you Monday morning!" ?

Dude.

[For the most part] They're NOT on the record. They're NOT submitting a SSN. They're NOT even giving their real name!!! They're hanging out at Home Depot (or in our area, a downtown corner)... When a pickup truck drives through, they swarm it ( * )... they're doing DAY LABOR for cash. Can you smell the huevos con queso yet?

And even legitimate employers have developed their own multi-level immunity from consequence. You think every person that built my pool was legal? HELL no. The pool company hires a subcontractor, say, to do the rebar. That company has a main guy or two that come out, but their 2 helpers aren't EMPLOYED BY that company, they're day laborers. Know how I know? Because the same two guys came out three weeks later (with a different subcontractor) to do the finishing on the concrete decking!

( * ) Side note: The provision of SB1070 to prohibit soliciting work on the street corner is valid and needed, in my opinion. When groups of 30 - 100 men congregate for hours at a time, they generate garbage (they're not getting paid to pick up litter). They hurt local businesses. And they're a goddamned nuisance.

Case in point: My late wife always owned a truck. When we bought our first house, I was doing a ton of renovations, so I usually drove the truck to Home Depot. A few months in, I was neck-deep in a tile project on a Saturday morning and asked her to go pick something up at the HD for me. She's 6 months pregnant, but I didn't need anything heavy. Our truck had a pallet of tile in the bed. Taking a shortcut through the back parking lot, she pulls up to the store and two men just leap into the back of her truck as she's slowing to a stop. Not knowing what to do, and scared, she drives to the front of the store, gets out, goes inside and tells a cashier to call the police. The two men were STILL hanging out in the bed of her truck when they arrive, they ask the guys (and HER) a ton of questions - The two guys CLAIM that she asked them, in Spanish, if they could do tile work (lies, my wife didn't speak a word of Spanish)... the cops completely dismissed the two guys, and then proceeded to harass HER and told her that it was illegal to solicit day laborers (to my knowledge, it's not).

She came home rattled and upset, and without the pack of tile saw blades.

That's a load of crap, and NOT an isolated incident. WHY should we have to put up with this?

Go solve THAT problem since you're so gung-ho to legislate something.

[AZhitman]

I've already agreed that your principle is correct, but not that you've shown any necessity for a law, or that any such law would be effective. That burden falls on you.

Minimum wage is simply a meaningless arbitrary figure. It really has no place in your argument. What you're proposing is that illegals be paid the same wage as legitimate employees. It has nothing to do with any so-called minimum wage.

[IBCoupe]

...im suggesting that your telling the DoL to do its job while you lax on how much you require ICE to do its job.

Ah, you found the secret message I typed in invisible pixels, where I told you all secretly that we should simultaneously back off of our immigration laws! You've found me out!

Stebo, I'll try fine print this time:

Nobody has said that we should stop enforcing immigration laws.

Stop challenging me to defend statements I haven't made, please. If you can, quote me where I suggested that we should let INS and ICE slack on doing their thing. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[AZhitman]

You're evading the big critiques and focusing on the minutiae.

We don't need a law that makes it illegal to pay illegals an illegal amount of money to do an illegally-gained job.

[IBCoupe]

How does the employer know the worker is an illegal? The employer must have the proper documentation before hiring an employee, yes?

In theory. But I'm failing to see your point.

If we're talking about the cash labor market, no law will help. If we're talking about the traditional employment with withholding and FICA, then the employee is presumably legit, since he's provided the documentation the law calls for.

Your criticism is premised on the assumptions (1) that there's no other way to catch employer abuses except by checking their paperwork, (2) that documentation can't effectively be forged, and (3) that employers don't know they're hiring employees with forged papers.

Employers only foster unsafe working conditions for those they somehow guess might be illegal?

Of course not. This is getting to be annoying. Employers forster unsafe working conditions for all kinds of workers, and it's not like employers only stiff illegal immigrants. Also, it's not like employers go out and only hire illegal immigrants or only hire legal immigrants.

But approaching the issue of correcting employer abuses from the stance that "Oh, well, you're illegal so we're not going to correct abuses for you, but we will correct abuses against the legal citizen down the street" means that the abuses benefit employers who choose to employ illegal immigrants.

Here's what you're apparently uncomprehending on: Absent this policy, the Department of Labor will not stop enforcing labor laws; it will continue to do so in such a manner as to make employing illegal immigrants more attractive.

Minimum wage is simply a meaningless arbitrary figure.

Except that it's an arbitrary figure that has legal force. When it stops having legal force, you'll be right. Until that point, your claim that "it has nothing to do with the so-called minimum wage" is complete crap.

[IBCoupe]

You're evading the big critiques and focusing on the minutiae.

No, I'm not. I edited out the snark and supporting architecture and cut to the heart of Stebo's comment. If you disagree, explain to me the logical significance that is lost by editing out the portions of Stebo's comment I chose to remove.

We don't need a law that makes it illegal to pay illegals an illegal amount of money to do an illegally-gained job.

Unless it's your belief that INS and ICE can do the job by immigration enforcement alone, that's a silly argument to make.

[IBCoupe]

Seriously? You need to ask how increased responsibilities, more oversight and an influx of new cases will affect a government agency?

It's amazing how much of a hardon you have for something that's a non-issue.

You frakking labeled it your "relevant criticism." What the hell else am I supposed to do with that but respond to it?

I can't discuss immigration issues with someone whose only exposure to actual illegals (and the problems presented by their presence) is through pictures and news articles from 3000 miles away. I don't care if you don't like it. You're either underinformed or misinformed, and since you're a smart person, the only explanation I can offer for that information deficiency is that you're insulated / isolated from the issue.

Greg, my girlfriend is a Chinese student on a visa that's about to expire, and who might soon become an illegal immigrant if we don't get married. I make regular trips to Flushing, NY. You know nothing of my understanding of illegal immigration, and screw you for trying to tell me otherwise. Explain to me why I'm wrong, or don't bother to respond. Stop wasting my time.

Do you seriously think that the border-crossers are coming here with the notion in their head that they'll be filling out an application, interviewing with prospective employers, get hired, attend orientation, meet with Human Resources, fill out important forms, and get a big "welcome to the company, we'll see you Monday morning!" ?

No, I don't, Greg. What is it that I've written that suggests I have? What is it about the policy that suggests that this world exists?

Dude.

Dude.

[For the most part] They're NOT on the record. They're NOT submitting a SSN. They're NOT even giving their real name!!! They're hanging out at Home Depot (or in our area, a downtown corner)... When a pickup truck drives through, they swarm it ( * )... they're doing DAY LABOR for cash. Can you smell the huevos con queso yet?

Great! And you know who can call the DoL hotlines? Not only can they call it in themselves, but you can, too! A novel idea, right? I know. It's wacky.

And even legitimate employers have developed their own multi-level immunity from consequence. You think every person that built my pool was legal? HELL no. The pool company hires a subcontractor, say, to do the rebar. That company has a main guy or two that come out, but their 2 helpers aren't EMPLOYED BY that company, they're day laborers. Know how I know? Because the same two guys came out three weeks later (with a different subcontractor) to do the finishing on the concrete decking!

Great, again! But what makes you think that the only response is to increase wages? That the fines only have to be applied for current employees?

( * ) Side note: The provision of SB1070 to prohibit soliciting work on the street corner is valid and needed, in my opinion. When groups of 30 - 100 men congregate for hours at a time, they generate garbage (they're not getting paid to pick up litter). They hurt local businesses. And they're a goddamned nuisance.

I'm not going to respond to your side note; I only put it here to cover my a** so you can't whine that I'm not adequately addressing your argument.

Case in point: My late wife always owned a truck. When we bought our first house, I was doing a ton of renovations, so I usually drove the truck to Home Depot. A few months in, I was neck-deep in a tile project on a Saturday morning and asked her to go pick something up at the HD for me. She's 6 months pregnant, but I didn't need anything heavy. Our truck had a pallet of tile in the bed. Taking a shortcut through the back parking lot, she pulls up to the store and two men just leap into the back of her truck as she's slowing to a stop. Not knowing what to do, and scared, she drives to the front of the store, gets out, goes inside and tells a cashier to call the police. The two men were STILL hanging out in the bed of her truck when they arrive, they ask the guys (and HER) a ton of questions - The two guys CLAIM that she asked them, in Spanish, if they could do tile work (lies, my wife didn't speak a word of Spanish)... the cops completely dismissed the two guys, and then proceeded to harass HER and told her that it was illegal to solicit day laborers (to my knowledge, it's not).

See above.

She came home rattled and upset, and without the pack of tile saw blades.

That's a load of crap, and NOT an isolated incident. WHY should we have to put up with this?

Go solve THAT problem since you're so gung-ho to legislate something.

I might. But what about this proposal suggests to you that there's something preventing me from getting to that? You're angry; your wife got scared. I get it. But that doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make this policy crap. It doesn't mean that there aren't other aspects of the issue that need to be addressed.

Maybe you need to walk away from this issue. I'm not sure you're capable of thinking clearly about it.

[stebo0728]

Ok ok so maybe I hinted that YOU made the statement that we need to cut back on immigration enforcement. If I did, that was not my intention, I have never attributed that sentiment to you. What I have done, is failed to deny that this government already HAS cut back on immigration enforcement, for whatever reason, and Im not just meaning this administration either. So I guess I took some fact and mixed it in with your theory, and for that I apologize, but it still remains, we HAVE cut back on immigration enforcement, and now to start enforcing other laws in other areas, by other departments seems a bit off color.

Ok so just ASSUMING we pass this, what gives you a thrill up your leg that we would even enforce IT? At least over the long haul?