Illegal Immigration & The Minimum Wage

[IBCoupe]

Look, Stebo, this is another case where I can't promise you that the government will function perfectly. I can't promise you that police and administrators will enforce every law on the book to its fullest extent. I'm not sure I'd want to promise you that, because the spirit of the law often isn't lock-step with its letter.

But I ask you: what's the difference between this and any other policy we talk about, from abortion to unmanned air-raids? If we're going so far as to assume that this policy becomes law, why wouldn't we go so far as to assume that it gets enforced?

Why stop there?

[IBCoupe]

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

I apologize for this, Greg. It was presumptuous of me, but it seems to me that your last post wasn't as hinged as I know them to be. I apologize for any insult I may have conveyed.

[96Qowner]

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

Of course not. This is getting to be annoying.

Yes, it is. So ... explain how the employer knows the employee is illegal and therefore treats him differently. That's the first step in a debate - define the problem. Can't fix anything if you don't define the problem. Is it easily-forged documentation, as I've proposed? Is the employer expected to have some sort of ESP that tells him a guy with all the right documents is actually illegal?

Employers foster 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.

Arg, shifting ground, IBC. So now you're not concerned with abuses towards legitimate employees? Why would we need two policies? Shouldn't one policy cover all employees, legitimate or not? You're blaming discrimination against illegals on policies of the DOL? Or are you now saying the problem is that DOL doesn't prosecute illegals? Your point is getting real fuzzy.

You also fail to propose the structure for a law, or show how it would be effective. If it's a law you want to propose, then propose it. My answer is and was, yes - all employees should be paid the same, we agree. Have you even looked into what present laws there are, or if they're being enforced? How can you ignore the cash market?

[AZhitman]

that's a silly argument to make.

Opinion. Your proposed law is silly.

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

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

Fussy, fussy, fussy.

Let me simplify:

You said it wouldn't increase bureaucracy. I countered that ANYTIME you add a new responsibility, you increase the number of employees needed, payroll, equipment, ERE, and other expenses.

I was pointing out the folly of your statement that this new law wouldn't increase bureaucracy. ERGO, my "relevant criticism" of your silly proposed law. Try to stay on-task.

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.

Neither of these mean a thing to me. She doesn't represent the "illegal immigration" that we're all concerned about, and you know it.

Marry the girl or ship her home. I vote for the former, but I fail to see the complication. Maybe she's being paid less than minimum wage, and you're upset about it? What's the problem?

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.

Don't come running at me with feigned indignation. I'm not buying your "fringed lizard" bluff.

Screwing me won't make you understand. You don't understand. You don't see the same impact from "illegal immigration" that we do, so I'll continue to point that out. Repeatedly.

A whole bunch of smart people have pointed out reasons why your proposed law is silly, but you don't like those reasons. That doesn't make them invalid.

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.

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?

What are you blabbering about? I'm not advocating for any of those things. Increasing wages? What? I didn't suggest any such thing. You're making this FAR more complicated than it has to be.

No one's gonna call any hotlines. The illegals won't, because they'll be deported. I won't, because I don't give a damn. You won't, because you don't know who's legal and who's not. Someone inside the company won't, because they don't want to lose their job, and THEY don't know who's illegal and who's not.

So, your utopian "hotlines" will be useless. Wacky, I know.

Pass your silly law that [proposes to] sanction employers for paying illegals less than minimum wage. Next thing you know, there's a huge McCarthy-esque hunt on for "Those Who Pay Illegals Less Money". OMG NOES!!!!

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

Right back at ya.

I don't recall getting emotional.

This is getting to be annoying.

Why? Because all of a sudden, you have a bright idea that no one else agrees with? Depite what your parents and professors might have told you, sometimes you're wrong. And from one arrogant prick to another, I know - it's a HARD lump to swallow.

You're running buck-nekkid into battle all by yourself, waving a flag that no one recognizes.

I like that about you.

[96Qowner]

You're running buck-nekkid into battle all by yourself, waving a flag that no one recognizes.

I like that about you.

LOL, I agree - ya gotta respect that.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, it is. So ... explain how the employer knows the employee is illegal and therefore treats him differently. That's the first step in a debate - define the problem. Can't fix anything if you don't define the problem. Is it easily-forged documentation, as I've proposed? Is the employer expected to have some sort of ESP that tells him a guy with all the right documents is actually illegal?

Explain to me where I've said that the employer must know that the employee is illegal? Here's the turn of events: the Department of Labor receives a complaint about worker exploitation. They send an investigator, who stumbles upon information that reveals that at least some of the employees involved are illegal immigrants, working without proper papers. My proposal suggests that the DoL would take the same actions it would otherwise take, had that revelation not been realized. At what point does the employer's knowledge of the actual immigration status come into relevance for this policy?

I hope it was just that you needed me to explain it better, because if that's not enough to explain why your line of questioning has no relevance, I don't know what else I can say.

Arg, shifting ground, IBC. So now you're not concerned with abuses towards legitimate employees? Why would we need two policies? Shouldn't one policy cover all employees, legitimate or not? You're blaming discrimination against illegals on policies of the DOL? Or are you now saying the problem is that DOL doesn't prosecute illegals? Your point is getting real fuzzy.

What? You're not actually reading what I'm saying. Go back and try again.

You also fail to propose the structure for a law, or show how it would be effective. If it's a law you want to propose, then propose it. My answer is and was, yes - all employees should be paid the same, we agree. Have you even looked into what present laws there are, or if they're being enforced? How can you ignore the cash market?

It may very well be the existing policies. In that case, I'm defending them. If not, I'm proposing that they be altered. And I'm not ignoring the cash market - I'm simply rejecting the claim that a greater difficulty in regulation makes the policy impotent.

[IBCoupe]

Let me simplify:

You said it wouldn't increase bureaucracy. I countered that ANYTIME you add a new responsibility, you increase the number of employees needed, payroll, equipment, ERE, and other expenses.

And my response is that there is no increased responsibility.

I was pointing out the folly of your statement that this new law wouldn't increase bureaucracy. ERGO, my "relevant criticism" of your silly proposed law. Try to stay on-task.

I will as long as you stop telling me that in responding to your "relevant criticism" I'm focusing on minutiae.

Neither of these mean a thing to me. She doesn't represent the "illegal immigration" that we're all concerned about, and you know it.

I know it's not the illegal immigration you're dealing with, but the rest of the country is dealing with illegal immigration, too, and we don't all live along the Mexican border. You don't have a monopoly on the issue in Arizona; you just have the limelight for the moment. Try to remember that.

Marry the girl or ship her home. I vote for the former, but I fail to see the complication. Maybe she's being paid less than minimum wage, and you're upset about it? What's the problem?

No problem. I'm just pointing out that you haven't the foggiest sense of how familiar I am with the issue. ERGO, the problem is your dismissive attitude of my opinion, formed on the basis of my geographic location and on my substantive disagreement with you.

Don't come running at me with feigned indignation. I'm not buying your "fringed lizard" bluff.

Screwing me won't make you understand. You don't understand. You don't see the same impact from "illegal immigration" that we do, so I'll continue to point that out. Repeatedly.

A whole bunch of smart people have pointed out reasons why your proposed law is silly, but you don't like those reasons. That doesn't make them invalid.

No, my explanations as to their invalidity makes them invalid. That I live in Connecticut doesn't make them make any more sense. Either you can support your arguments or you can't, Greg.

You won't, because you don't know who's legal and who's not.

It doesn't matter if I know they're legal or not. It matters if I know they're getting the shaft. This quote right here demonstrates that you aren't understanding.

Pass your silly law that [proposes to] sanction employers for paying illegals less than minimum wage. Next thing you know, there's a huge McCarthy-esque hunt on for "Those Who Pay Illegals Less Money". OMG NOES!!!!

Also demonstrates that you don't get it. It's not about seeking out underpaid illegal immigrants.

I don't recall getting emotional.

My mistake, then. Usually, you make good arguments and don't give me personal stories about how scared your wife was Home Depot. Usually you make sense. I assumed that because these posts were so consistently inconsistent with what I know of your intellect, as demonstrated in other threads, there was something getting in your way here.

Again, my mistake.

Why? Because all of a sudden, you have a bright idea that no one else agrees with?

No, because I'm tired of trying to come up with new ways of explaining it. I do it because when I tell you guys that the implementation of this policy would look like the DoL doing what it has always been doing without letting citizenship matters get in the way, and you come back with an argument that says the DoL will fail in seeking out illegal immigrants, it becomes obvious that I'm not explaining well enough, and my bag of rephrasing tricks is getting empty.

You're running buck-nekkid into battle all by yourself, waving a flag that no one recognizes.

I like that about you.

It's my lot in life.

[AZhitman]

Explain to me where I've said that the employer must know that the employee is illegal? Here's the turn of events: the Department of Labor receives a complaint about worker exploitation. They send an investigator, who stumbles upon information that reveals that at least some of the employees involved are illegal immigrants, working without proper papers. My proposal suggests that the DoL would take the same actions it would otherwise take, had that revelation not been realized. At what point does the employer's knowledge of the actual immigration status come into relevance for this policy?

So, basically, you're asking the DoL to enforce laws that require all workers to be paid minimum wage.

We already have that.

If the Investigator determines that Paco, Magdalena, Juan and Felipe are being paid $5.75/hr, and Frank, Bill, Perry, Dwayne and Edward are all making $7.75/hr, the DoL STILL has to PROVE that the employer KNEW they were illegal before they can sanction the employer for underpaying illegals (above and beyond the requirement that all employees receive minimum wage, which already exists, and doesn't require your proposed policy change).

[AZhitman]

...it becomes obvious that I'm not explaining well enough, and my bag of rephrasing tricks is getting empty.

Better step it up, then. I know a lot of good attorneys (the best in AZ, in fact), and they'll empty that bag in short order, just for sport.

At that point, the only contempt in the room is that with which the judge glares at you.

[96Qowner]

Yes, it is. So ... explain how the employer knows the employee is illegal and therefore treats him differently. That's the first step in a debate - define the problem. Can't fix anything if you don't define the problem. Is it easily-forged documentation, as I've proposed? Is the employer expected to have some sort of ESP that tells him a guy with all the right documents is actually illegal?

Explain to me where I've said that the employer must know that the employee is illegal? Here's the turn of events: the Department of Labor receives a complaint about worker exploitation. They send an investigator, who stumbles upon information that reveals that at least some of the employees involved are illegal immigrants, working without proper papers. My proposal suggests that the DoL would take the same actions it would otherwise take, had that revelation not been realized. At what point does the employer's knowledge of the actual immigration status come into relevance for this policy?

I hope it was just that you needed me to explain it better, because if that's not enough to explain why your line of questioning has no relevance, I don't know what else I can say.

Ya, I missed the gist of the issue. Ok, we still need to ask how the employer could have known he had any illegals. And the issue of pay has nothing to do with illegals as far as I can tell, in the case you cite. The DoL complaint has nothing to do with illegals, unless someone is complaining that illegals are working there. Ahhhh, ok, it sunk in - got it. Someone complains to the DoL about Fed wage minimum wage abuse or other abuses occuring at XYZ Lawn services, and tied into the complaint is the allegation that he's using illegal laborers. Yes? Does the status of employees presently matter to the DoL? I don't see how the employer gets off the hook, just because the employees are all illegal. Does he?

Isn't that like a guy saying he couldn't have been the rapist because he was robbing a bank at the time?

[IBCoupe]

Greg, I'm not suggesting additional punishments for underpaying illegal immigrants, though that would be one way to make an even stronger disincentive for hiring them. I'm simply arguing that we don't withhold the normal punishment on the basis of the citizenship status of the employee in question.

[IBCoupe]

Does the status of employees presently matter to the DoL? I don't see how the employer gets off the hook, just because the employees are all illegal. Does he?

My argument is that it shouldn't matter, and whether or not it matters probably varies from state to state - I don't believe the federal government occupies the field of employment law, so States might have leeway. Haven't taken that course yet, though.

There's some who would argue that illegal immigrants don't deserve to get paid minimum wage. "Screw them." I'm arguing against that, as it's counterproductive.

[stebo0728]

Greg, I'm not suggesting additional punishments for underpaying illegal immigrants, though that would be one way to make an even stronger disincentive for hiring them. I'm simply arguing that we don't withhold the normal punishment on the basis of the citizenship status of the employee in question.

BAM - so you finally manage to get it truely into laymens terms. Congrats. And I will follow by saying the above statement as it stands gets my agreement, but ONLY IF, through this process, and discovery of illegal status is then communicated and dealt with accordingly by the authority having jurisdiction.

[IBCoupe]

I wouldn't agree to that. Part of what gets people to cooperate with agencies on policies like this is the understanding that they will not be deported for correcting wayward employers.

EDIT: I wouldn't be too concerned about this - if the policy is done correctly, those people won't get hired in the first place. If the cost of hiring illegals is forced to be the same as the cost of hiring legals, why bother with the extra hassle? The extra risk?

[stebo0728]

I wouldn't agree to that. Part of what gets people to cooperate with agencies on policies like this is the understanding that they will not be deported for correcting wayward employers.

EDIT: I wouldn't be too concerned about this - if the policy is done correctly, those people won't get hired in the first place. If the cost of hiring illegals is forced to be the same as the cost of hiring legals, why bother with the extra hassle? The extra risk?

Why would they have the understanding that they WOULDNT be deported? Oh thats right, weve given them that understanding by NOT enforcing law. Lifes tough, if we have these laws, and an illegal wants to report it, fine, but do so knowing you may well seal your fate in being ushered back across whatever border you came across in the first place. See that line over there? Ya the long one, filled with all sorts of sad stories on why they need to be here? Ya go stand at the END of THAT line, and when your time comes maybe you can come back in.

[IBCoupe]

Look, do you want to end illegal immigration or do you want to punish illegal immigrants? Know that you might need to give one up to achieve the other.

Employers are part of the problem, and so part of the solution must be to address them. If you want to discourage employee cooperation, fine, but that just indicates to me that you're not really serious about this.

[stebo0728]

Look, do you want to end illegal immigration or do you want to punish illegal immigrants? Know that the two might be mutually exclusive.

Either we are a society of law, or we arent. Know that those two ARE mutually exclusive.

As I said, the way you most recently described your theory, Im on board. Agreeably it may HELP in ending illegal immigration. It will not be the final solution. Holding illegal immigrants accountable for their infraction is also part of the equation. Heres the simply truth. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DO NOT HAVE NOR DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER US LAW. As far as Im concerned they could be treated as enemy combatants. Instead we garnish our laws in such a way that life gets easier and simpler TO BE ILLEGAL HERE. No way, not having it. If labor law wants to slap the wrist of an employer for paying the daggum guys too little, thats fine, but while were at it, hmmm, why are they here in the first place? Lets go ahead and take care of that too.

[stebo0728]

Employers are part of the problem, and so part of the solution must be to address them. If you want to discourage employee cooperation, fine, but that just indicates to me that you're not really serious about this.

^^ Nother daggum ninja edit.

What part of what I said makes you think Im not serious about it? The part where I failed to have sympathy for someone who might report unfair wages, and end up deported? Sorry, you knew when you snuck in here you might end up making less than they folks here legally, thats the chance you take. If you come on in and end up working cash money and its not enough for you, go back to Mexico where Im sure you made less. And for the record, go back anyway since you came illegally.

[IBCoupe]

But the labor laws aren't to be used to enforce citizenship laws, Stebo. Yes, we're a nation of laws, and those laws have been established to say that one department can't go around enforcing the policies of another.

Not to mention if you start reporting people to the INS, you might as well not have a law, because what little cooperation you would have had you have now lost.

[stebo0728]

Ok so were getting to the meat of it again here. Explain to me your vision of how this law would WORK. Would it involve an illegal filing a complaint to the DoL about unfair wages, with which the DoL would then launch an investigation regarding the matter, and from there appropriate sanctions based on findings of the investigation? Am I right thus far? Assuming so...would the report be tied to specifics of a person, or be in anonymity? If its in anonymity I dont see the anonymity aiding in the investigation regarding the matter. Therefore I dont see illegals even filing a report or using this system regardless of HOW we debate over it here. I dont see it helping much at all. The ILLEGALS arent stupid, they know how to manipulate the system, and they know this measure wouldnt be much use to them. They will be thankful for what they ARE getting, and that will be that. I dont have a problem with that, and I dont think its unreasonable to tie identity specifics to further deportation measures.

[IBCoupe]

It could come up in any way. The point is you don't want to give them an incentive not to cooperate in an investigation that maybe they started, or maybe was started by a legal coworker.

[stebo0728]

I dont want to give them ANY incentives, period. Not in any avenue of our society or economy. Im ok with your theory as pertains to keeping employers from hiring illegals, im not ok with sheltering said illegals from deportation.

Ive been reading back through this, and 96 is making alot more sense. We are really arguing for the sake of arguing, with no real accomplishment in sight, because of things 96 has already laid out. This new legislation MIGHT effect 2% or so (arbitrarily low number) of the cases, because either the employer was duped in hiring the illegal, and they are on payroll books that already have in-house measures to assure that all employees are paid at least minimum wage. The other case is, said employer is intentionally employing said illegal, paying cash under the table, most likely aside from any payroll books, and your measure gets no where with that.

On a side note, one argument against cracking down on illegal immigration is completely at odds with your theory. That removing under priced labor from this economy would have negative effects on the economy. I can see this holding some merit. Lets be honest, some jobs that HAVE to be done by SOMEONE, just arent worth minimum wage to the employer, or to the consumer that ultimately pays the higher price resulting from employers HAVING to pay minimum wage. For this reason I have argued against the minimum wage from the beginning of my political awareness era. Get rid of the minimum wage and Americans will fill these jobs, and be happy doing it, well at least some will be happy doing it. I can remember stories, some media, some personal arena, of people getting canned when the minimum wage went up a few years ago to $7. Some employers had to make the call that it was better to run with less people than pay everyone at least $7, and often times the people faced with loosing their job would have been content in keeping their job at the old rate. At least then they still HAD a job. Would they want the 2 buck raise? Sure! But with no raise on one hand, and no job on the other, I think you take no raise, right?

[IBCoupe]

I dont want to give them ANY incentives, period.

Great, but what's your realistic approach to the problem? I have no patience for idealism that gets in the way of actually accomplishing the goal it purports to uphold.

On a side note, one argument against cracking down on illegal immigration is completely at odds with your theory.

Yes, because my theory is a crackdown on illegal immigration. You just don't like that we use the illegal immigrants in implementing that crackdown.

[stebo0728]

Great, but what's your realistic approach to the problem? I have no patience for idealism that gets in the way of actually accomplishing the goal it purports to uphold.

My approach does not involve the DoL

Yes, because my theory is a crackdown on illegal immigration. You just don't like that we use the illegal immigrants in implementing that crackdown.

I dont mind you using the illegals, I just dont want you sheltering them either. If that precludes their involvement, so be it.

[mattblancarte]

I'll jump in on this one. Still not sure whether or not this idea is to be taken seriously.

Lots of yelling and jabbing from both sides, but the closest I've seen anyone ground this in reality was the anecdote provided by Greg.

The sell is pretty soft, IB. Have you any evidence that this would work other than your hypothesis?

I'm particularly interested in solving this problem, but would like to see more data come into the picture.

If we, instead, make illegal immigrants exactly the same in the eye of employers, we eliminate that incentive.

How would this actually happen? I'm honestly confused. How could the employer position himself to employ illegal aliens in the same way he would employ otherwise legally entitled folks? Where is the incentive to increase payroll expenses? Is it the lower risk?

It would be interesting to run this idea by a real employer of illegals to see what they'd say. Might be tough to do, but you could get some real reactions from the relevant party involved.

[AZhitman]

I'm simply arguing that we don't withhold the normal punishment on the basis of the citizenship status of the employee in question.

Well, you should have said that up front.

...and I don't know that we do (withhold the normal punishment), but that brings into question a whole other area of law, that I'm admittedly deficient in:

Are those illegals (after our inquisition is complete) entitled to our full host of legal protections and recourse as non-citizens?

Are we gonna award them a fat civil judgement for working for less-than-minimum wage?

I see what you're getting at, but this still brings us back to the 2nd post in this thread - Sounds good on the surface, but the devil is ALL up in the details.

To add to it: I think solving the issue is a two-pronged attack:

One, removing the incentives for them to show up (no more loitering and seeking day labor, must show proof of citizenship to get a job, and if you;re illegal and caught working without authorization, you get on the bus - no pay, no PB&J, just a GTFO order.

Two, removing the incentives to hire said cheap labor, through employer crackdowns, stiffer penalties for knowingly hiring illegals, and assistance / education in documentation verification.

[IBCoupe]

Have you any evidence that this would work other than your hypothesis?

Nope. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for that, even if I had the drive to do so. I'm not trying to be flippant.

Is it the lower risk?

Mostly, yes. In order to resolve the extra risks of additional costs of fines, an employer would look for ways to reduce those risks. He could do it by being sneakier - which probably incurs more costs. Alternatively, he could do it by paying all of his employees better, to avoid detection - which means the savings to be had from hiring illegal immigrants are lower, which means he's less likely to seek them out.

Are we gonna award them a fat civil judgement for working for less-than-minimum wage?

If they bring suit, I don't see why not. You don't need to be an American citizen in order to sue someone in American courts. If the labor agencies can document the violations, that could serve to empower individuals to sue those employers, creating further disincentives for them to hire illegal immigrants in the first place.

And you know what the magic is of that idea? Now you've got real motivation to act, because you're including this phrase: "class action." Now you've got a lawyer involved who's got a huge stake in the lawsuit, even if the individual class members don't have much individually.

One, removing the incentives for them to show up (no more loitering and seeking day labor, must show proof of citizenship to get a job, and if you;re illegal and caught working without authorization, you get on the bus - no pay, no PB&J, just a GTFO order.

Two, removing the incentives to hire said cheap labor, through employer crackdowns, stiffer penalties for knowingly hiring illegals, and assistance / education in documentation verification.

Absolutely.

[C-Kwik]

I'm gonna preface this by saying that I'm not of a strong opinion in either direction on the overall issue of illegal immigration. There are both positives and negatives associated with illegal immigration so I tend to be quite moderate as over-enforcing the law is costly but we certainly don't want to leave the gates wide open.

But as far as this idea is concerned, I think current law is fine. As I mentioned before, a law that specifies that an illegal immigrant has to make at least minimum wage creates an ambiguity that could be interpreted as making illegal immigration legal. I suppose the law can be specifically stated as such, but the whole thing is still quite redundant. An employer who claims they unknowingly hires an illegal immigrant but pays less than minimum wage is either violating minimum wage laws already (by intent) or lying about their knowledge of the employee's immigration status. In either case they are breaking the law. Chances are, the only illegal immigrants that are making less than minimum wage are going to be those that are paid off the books. In which case, it might be rather hard to prove. Those that are on the books are likely to be paid at least minimum else the payroll documentation is gonna show a problem. I don't know if the DoL would catch this as the payroll reporting is done or not, but I'd be hard pressed to believe any employer with any hint of intelligence is going to leave that kind of a paper trail.

Bear in mind that I don't think the idea is silly, but it is for the most part already built-into the system for all practical purposes. More fines may deter some for a while, but as its going to be relatively unenforceable employers aren't going to worry that much about the risk. Understand that many illegal immigrant workers aren't going to care about this law either. They are here to work for whatever money they can get. Consider what happens if illegal immigrants start reporting this. They stop getting hired and won't have any work. They didn't traverse the dangers of crossing the border to put themselves out of work. I think that if the ultimate intent is to raise the fine, the most practical method is simply to increase the fines for the existing law(s). This would keep the law more simple which avoids the potential ambiguity I mentioned.

[AZhitman]

Are we gonna award them a fat civil judgement for working for less-than-minimum wage?

If they bring suit, I don't see why not.

I see PERFECTLY why not. They're not interested in being in the spotlight. They don't trust our courts, our lawyers, our government.

How many class-action suits (for other types of mistreatment) have you heard of in AZ, brought by illegals? If ANY place would have seen them, it'd be here.

...sue those employers, creating further disincentives for them to hire illegal immigrants in the first place.

Defense: "My client didn't know. Birth certificate and Social Security Card are Exhibits A and B."

Judge: "Dismissed."

Waste of time.

Now you've got a lawyer involved who's got a huge stake in the lawsuit, even if the individual class members don't have much individually.

Great. The attorney gets rich.

So, do the illegals get to stick around and await the outcome of the case? Why? They should be put on a bus before the case gets to court.

Are you gonna wire transfer their settlement to them? Good luck with that.

[mattblancarte]

Nope. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for that, even if I had the drive to do so. I'm not trying to be flippant.

I've never heard or thought of this concept, so I was just curious as to if there was some precedent you were aware of.

This was partially why I thought it would be a good idea to go right to the source and ask some employers what they think.

Mostly, yes. In order to resolve the extra risks of additional costs of fines, an employer would look for ways to reduce those risks. He could do it by being sneakier - which probably incurs more costs. Alternatively, he could do it by paying all of his employees better, to avoid detection - which means the savings to be had from hiring illegal immigrants are lower, which means he's less likely to seek them out.

I wonder how effective the system of fines has worked thus far. Also, it would be interesting to do some legitimate cost analysis between the two proposed scenarios.

I'm leaning towards the OP not being a viable plan, but it is fresh enough to warrant some curiosity. Superficially, it unfortunately smells like pie in the sky.