Illegal Immigration & The Minimum Wage

[IBCoupe]

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.

Greg, that's not a reason they shouldn't be entitled to lawsuit if they choose to bring it. That's a reason why they won't bring it. You didn't ask if they would bring it, you asked if they should get something out of a lawsuit. I see absolutely no reason to bar them access to the courts, should they choose to go that route.

I really doubt they would go that route, as now they're making their status a matter of public record, but hey, maybe the payoff is worth it.

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

Judge: "Dismissed."

Waste of time.

I'm not going to go through a mock trial with you, Greg, but it's not that simple. Thanks for trying, though.

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.

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue, Greg. You're kind of aimless here. You asked if they should be allowed to get money out of a lawsuit. I'm simply telling you the reasons why we shouldn't forbid them from doing so.

[IBCoupe]

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.

I know there's a hotline in New York City, but I don't know about any greater policies.

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.

Well, like I said before, it's a costless modification. There's no downside, and maybe it'll work.

[mattblancarte]

I meant a cost analysis from the standpoint of the business owner.

[AZhitman]

I'm not going to go through a mock trial with you, Greg, but it's not that simple. Thanks for trying, though.

Let's not forget who's already spent quite a bit of time inside a courtroom (all employment-related cases) and who's still working on getting in.

Yes, sometimes it IS "that simple".

The point you missed is this: It is not "how simple it is", because I'm not playing Junior Attorney with you either. The point is that there's no real avenue for liability on the part of the employer, and even on the eminently RARE occasion that some attorney teases out a little bit of culpability, it's cost more to uncover than it's worth.

I'm simply telling you the reasons why we shouldn't forbid them from doing so.

And I don't think we DO prohibit them from doing so already.

[IBCoupe]

I meant a cost analysis from the standpoint of the business owner.

I didn't even realize the way I wrote it. I was using "costless" as a response to your second paragraph. It would be interesting to investigate the things you're talking about, but I haven't done that, and I don't foresee that I'll be able to any time in the future.

Yes, sometimes it IS "that simple".

The point you missed is this: It is not "how simple it is", because I'm not playing Junior Attorney with you either. The point is that there's no real avenue for liability on the part of the employer, and even on the eminently RARE occasion that some attorney teases out a little bit of culpability, it's cost more to uncover than it's worth.

Which is all well and good to say when you're dealing with a purely hypothetical lawsuit. Again, that's not an argument as to why they shouldn't be allowed to bring it.

And I don't think we DO prohibit them from doing so already.

Fantastic, but you asked the question. Ahem:

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

'
If you'll look carefully at my response, the answer was "Yes." I suppose you could be arguing against the fact that I let out the implicit "successfully" in front of "bring a suit," but that's not something I'm going to debate with you because it's not something that really matters.

[AZhitman]

My second question doesn't supercede or preclude my prior point: Nothing prohibits them from currently bringing such a suit.

As such, you have nothing to lobby for.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not lobbying for anything, Greg. I'm answering the question you asked.

[stebo0728]

Look its this simple, ILLEGALS DO NOT GET EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER US LAW. That is reserved to US citizens. At best illegals may hope for equal protection under treaty guidelines ratified by our congress. But to my knowledge, no such regulations or sanctions exist, and to be honest it would be counterproductive for us to give sovereignty to such measures.

[IBCoupe]

That's only partially true, Stebo. When it's something that's a real "protection," you might be right. But when it's something that limits the power of government, they benefit from that as much as anyone else. And they are also free to use our court system - there is no requirement that you be a US citizen, or even a corporeal being, to use them.

[stebo0728]

How does that work exactly? Is it that nothing says they cant, and that means they can? Or is there something that specifically says they can? Use the court system equally I mean.

If its that they can because they arent specifically denied it, I dont have a problem there, just wondering if thats how it plays out.

[IBCoupe]

How does that work exactly? Is it that nothing says they cant, and that means they can? Or is there something that specifically says they can? Use the court system equally I mean.

If its that they can because they arent specifically denied it, I dont have a problem there, just wondering if thats how it plays out.

Because they're not specifically denied.

In thinking about it, I can't see a valid legal reason to go ahead and specifically deny them access, either. We allow foreign corporations, who aren't really "citizens" of America, or any other country for that matter, the use of our court system when a conflict arises between them and an American party or the American government.

[stebo0728]

You can draw a distinction between

1) Allowing foreign bodies access to our courts when cases against them are brought by US bodies

2) Allowing foreign bodies to bring suit against US bodies using our courts

Whether you allow both or not, is that not a fair distinction to draw?

[IBCoupe]

I don't see a distinction between the two. The courts are absolutely not supposed to take sides. Our courts have diversity rules that get into a Federal court, instead of a State court, when there's a difference in citizenship, even when there's a difference between State citizenship.

You can try to construct a distinction, but I don't think it carries water. When seeing "plaintiff" and "defendant," the Court doesn't see "good guy" and "bad guy." It sees "One party to a conflict" and "One other party to a conflict."

[stebo0728]

Well Im not trying to construct it as "good guy" and "bad guy". Im trying to construct it as "US citizen" and "non-US citizen"

[AZhitman]

[This was inspired by something that came up in another recent thread.]

Illegal immigrants should be paid the minimum wage. They should be compensated for expenses that should contractually or legally be compensated for.

Ah, but you protest: IT'S ILLEGAL! THIS IS A NATION OF LAWS!

So let me put it another way:
Illegal immigrants shouldn't be paid at a discount. They should be just as expensive to hire as a legal citizen.

If we excuse employer misbehavior on the grounds that the employee shouldn't be an employee in the first place, we create an incentive for employers to try and save a buck by hiring those employees. If we, instead, make illegal immigrants exactly the same in the eye of employers, we eliminate that incentive. In that case, the risk that they could get caught for employing illegal immigrant doesn't have an accompanying benefit of decreased costs. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a illegal immigrant should be paid less. In fact, that they're paid less is part of the problem.

Your thoughts?

1) Paying someone less than minimum wage is illegal.
2) Illegal immigrants have full and unfettered access to the courts system.
3) No prohibition exists to prevent illegal immigrants from suing their employer.

Even if your proposed law costs $ .39 to implement from start to finish, it's STILL an unnecessary waste of resources.

I'm not the "Party of No", but I can pretend to be when presented with a persistently obstinate purveyor of wasteful legislation.

[IBCoupe]

Well Im not trying to construct it as "good guy" and "bad guy". Im trying to construct it as "US citizen" and "non-US citizen"

And you're suggesting that the Court should treat one more favorably than the other. "Good guy" and "bad guy" about sum it up.

[IBCoupe]

1) Paying someone less than minimum wage is illegal.
2) Illegal immigrants have full and unfettered access to the courts system.
3) No prohibition exists to prevent illegal immigrants from suing their employer.

Even if your proposed law costs $ .39 to implement from start to finish, it's STILL an unnecessary waste of resources.

I'm not the "Party of No", but I can pretend to be when presented with a persistently obstinate purveyor of wasteful legislation.

I don't see creating disincentives to hire illegal immigrants as a waste of resources. Guess we just disagree.

[stebo0728]

Theres a difference between labeling "good guy" and "bad guy", and then saying "ok you are a US citizen, you can bring suit; you are not a us citizen you can defend suit but not bring suit. if you have a grievance then file an international complaint (assuming such exists) and if as long as its considered sovereign by our nation, will will force said defendant to honor it"

[IBCoupe]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Constitution says that the judiciary is to consider these cases. How, exactly, is it that you wish to prevent the Court from considering cases brought by international parties?

[stebo0728]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Constitution says that the judiciary is to consider these cases. How, exactly, is it that you wish to prevent the Court from considering cases brought by international parties?

Thank you for posting that. I was not advocating that we do ban them. I was simply making what I consider a fair logical distinction between two different scenarios. Again I said whether you choose to allow both is fine, and as show, constitutional.

[IBCoupe]

And I'm saying that, from the law's perspective and from the perspective of court procedure, it's not a logical distinction. A conflict is a conflict, and what matters is whether the Court can hear the case at all.

[C-Kwik]

I agree with IBC on the issue of the courts providing equal access. As a former claims adjuster, I handled many claims involving illegal immigrants. Being in Socal, such cases weren't uncommon. We didn't distinguish about their immigration status as we knew the courts did not. Another way of looking at it might be a rather obtuse example that someone being an illegal immigrant does not give someone else the right to cause damage to them.