A modest proposal for illegal immigration

[Inquartata]

From the article I posted earlier, one survey had 88% of foreign-born and 78% of US-born Latinos favoring letting illegals get citizenship. I have no idea whether the attitudes of non-Latino legal immigrants run substantially the other way, or in such numbers as to make "most" legal immigrants unfavorable to illegal immigration. I suspect not, though.

Substantial numbers of legal immigrants are unfavorably inclined toward illegal immigration, however.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

From the article I posted earlier, one survey had 88% of foreign-born and 78% of US-born Latinos favoring letting illegals get citizenship. I have no idea whether the attitudes of non-Latino legal immigrants run substantially the other way, or in such numbers as to make "most" legal immigrants unfavorable to illegal immigration. I suspect not, though.

That was a strange, strange article full of vague and contradictory phrases...

Like:

"People will take a snapshot of these marches and draw conclusions that this is representative of the Hispanic community in the entire country,"

But a significant minority of Latinos has views closer to the rest of the U.S. population and expresses concern about illegal immigration and its effect on the economy, Escobar said

What's significant? And the stats (we can debate their worth I suppose) provided show that it's a big difference in the numbers...

For instance, though a majority of Latinos, 68 percent, said they believe undocumented immigrants help the economy by providing low-cost labor, nearly a quarter felt undocumented immigrants hurt the economy by driving down wages.

And the 88% and 78% numbers above seem to imply that it's not what I would term a 'significant minority' with illegal/undocumented immigrants...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Substantial numbers of legal immigrants are unfavorably inclined toward illegal immigration, however.

What do you mean by substantial? Not that I necessarily disagree, I'm just curious after reading that link which describes a 'significant minority'...

And, without any studies available to you, what makes you think this?

[Inquartata]

The studies ARE available. Google the Pew Research survey mentioned in the article, for instance.

If there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and if there are even 5 million legal ones, then 12% or 22% of 5 million is what? 60,000 and 110,000? Pretty substantial gross numbers, no?

Meanwhile, did anyone read the article today about how illegal immigrants into Mexico are treated?

We get indignant marches by illegals demanding that illicit border crossing not be made a felony here. Guess what it is in Mexico? A felony.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The studies ARE available. Google the Pew Research survey mentioned in the article, for instance.

Oh, I'm sure there are studies on a variety of different issues...

But I'm referring to your comment:

I have no idea whether the attitudes of non-Latino legal immigrants run substantially the other way, or in such numbers as to make "most" legal immigrants unfavorable to illegal immigration. I suspect not, though.

You appear not to have any studies or numbers as to what non-Latino legal immigrants believe, yet you state an opinion...

I'm just curious as to what you base your opinion on...

A hunch? Gut feeling? Tea leaves?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and if there are even 5 million legal ones, then 12% or 22% of 5 million is what? 60,000 and 110,000? Pretty substantial gross numbers, no?

12% of 5 million is still 12%.

I mean, the basic premise of the article is, to me common sense, that not all immigrants feel the same way about immigration. I just see it as...misleading, to say a 'substantial amount', when it's 12%. This doesn't mean their opinions or concerns aren't valid or worthwhile...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

You appear not to have any studies or numbers as to what non-Latino legal immigrants believe, yet you state an opinion...

Yes.

I'm just curious as to what you base your opinion on...

A hunch? Gut feeling? Tea leaves?

Common sense and an understanding of human nature. Don't ask me to explain it to an epeeist, though.

There are relatively few illegal immigrants from Europe, Asia, Africa, etc, compared to those from Latin America and the Caribbean, simply because of the distances and expenses involved in coming here from there. Most of those there are almost certainly came in legally and then didn't leave when their visas expired, and so forth, rather than border-crossers. And most immigrants from other than Latin America and the Caribbean remain here legally. If one goes to the trouble and effort to jump through the legal hoops to come here, one is unlikely to applaud those who "cut the line". Those who abide by the law do not in my experience have much sympathy for those who don't. Ergo, most probably don't approve of illegal immigration.

I could be wrong, of course. But had I to make a reasoned guess, that's how I'd bet.

12% of 5 million is still 12%.

And as I said, it is a substantial number. I did not say "substantial percentage". That's YOUR hangup, not mine.

I mean, the basic premise of the article is, to me common sense, that not all immigrants feel the same way about immigration. I just see it as...misleading, to say a 'substantial amount', when it's 12%. This doesn't mean their opinions or concerns aren't valid or worthwhile...

I said a substantial numbers. Not "amount", not "percentage", not "segment".

And you're the one forever complaining that I don't read what you actually write...

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If one goes to the trouble and effort to jump through the legal hoops to come here, one is unlikely to applaud those who "cut the line". Those who abide by the law do not in my experience have much sympathy for those who don't. Ergo, most probably don't approve of illegal immigration.

Exactly. Which is why I oppose illegal immigration.

[lochinvar]

A free-fire zone at the boder with machine guns planted every 100 yds would solve the problem nicely.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Common sense and an understanding of human nature.

Yet this is the very stance for which you castigated me in the $3 a gallon thread.

Fickle, thy name is Inquartata!

[Inquartata]

Different cases, quite, I say.

I am reading the broad patterns of human behavior, not divining the secret machinations of a few individuals.

[lochinvar]

Since it was my "common sense and understanding of human nature" that led me to draw inferences concerning the behavior of the individuals in question, I'd say the cases are quite similar.

Of course, it's always easier to deduce the feelings of a large group of people you know nothing about than it is to speculate on the motivations of a few people you at least know something about...

We call that Occam's Butterknife.

Note: edited to correct spelling.

[dcmdale]

I think the overall tenor of your proposal has some merit, although I could quibble with some of the details; however, I think that any proposal for dealing with economically motivated illegals that only deals with changes on the side of handling the illegals is not going to have a significant impact. It takes two sides to create the illegal economic relationship that is the backbone of this type of this problem.

As long as there are jobs here and poverty there, people will try to get here. To the extent that our economy can benefit from external cheap labor, we should allow that labor into the country legally. We create a problem for ourselves if we create "extra-cheap" labor because illegals have to work at an effective discount.


In addition to your proposal; however, I think that it is necessary to deal with the other side of the equation. It is much easier to enforce laws relatively to illegal employment with the employers rather than the employees. While there are laws on the books, they can be toughened and enforced. Employers usually have something to lose whereas the illegal employee often does not.

Throw-out Suggestion (in addition to your suggestion):

("Knowing" = failure to comply with laws regarding proof of right to work or actual or constructive knowledge of illegality.)

Increase penalties to make it less profitable to hire illegals

a. Knowingly hiring or retaining an illegal day laborer: first offense, $10K per laborer per day; second offense, $20K per laborer per day + felony record + min. 1 year federal prison.
b. Knowingly hiring or retaining an illegal nanny: first offense, $50K + 1 month; second $100K + 1 year + felony.
c. Knowingly hiring or retaining an illegal in a regular job: $100K per individual + felony + 3 years (10 years for management) + confiscation of profits and implements (i.e., the farm) + back payments to workers of triple the difference between union pay and what they received + big corporate fines + SEC liability (management and corporate) for material misstatement of financials based on accrued liabilities to for payment of underpaid wages.

Close loopholes

a. Companies become responsible for not just their own employees but employees of service contractors operating on their property. No more hiding illegals within labor contractor shell corporations or janitorial companies. Large companies need to establish controls over vendors that will assure them that the vendor is properly documenting employees or to maintain access controls over people sent by the vendor or to collect documentation as people enter the buildings / land.
b. Require all companies with more than 100 employees to designate an officer responsible for compliance (probably HR manager). Regularly communicate to those officers information about counterfeit document detection and known scams (creating potentially “constructive knowledge” of things in their own company) and regularly communicating the fate of companies that do not comply.

Increase the likelihood of being caught

a. 20% finders fee for a successful prosecution. This is similar to what is done with tax fraud today. If an illegal alien reports an employer resulting in a successful conviction, they get situation immunity or a green card for them and their family, amnesty for having been here illegally, and 20% of the fines resulting from the conviction. So if someone turned in a large box retailer and they were found to have 300 undocumented janitors, they could see an $18M reward plus their green card. In a small time environment, a “nanny” could work for a year, get paid, then turn around and rat out the family and get a $10K bonus.
b. Situational immunity could apply to all illegal employees so that turning state’s evidence only causes fellow workers to lose their jobs, not to be deported.


Not that any of this is really going to happen... too many Congresspeople have "nanny" problems.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Since it was my "common sense and understanding of human nature" that led me to draw inferences concerning the behavior of the individuals in question, I'd say the cases are quite similar.

Ah, ah, ah...fallacy of division! Knowledge of what masses of people tend to do does not enable us to fathom the behavior of individuals. Sociologists may be able to describe what the "average" member of a society is likely to think and do, but that does not mean that he can tell you that Abner C. Peasquaddle of Gary, Indiana will behave in accordance with the averages. There is still the phenomenon of deviance from established norms to be accounted for. And that throws a huge amount of uncertainty into the mix.

Of course, it's always easier to deduce the feelings of a large group of people you know nothing about than it is to speculate on the motivations of a few people you at least know something about...

Yes. That's why sociology ( and economics! ) are at least marginally more respectable sciences than...whatever the science of trying to scry the thoughts and intentions of specific individuals is called.

We call that Occam's Butterknife.

It needs a good washing. Waiter! Oh waiter!

[Inquartata]

Except those created by the failure to use the shift key.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by dcmdale

In addition to your proposal; however, I think that it is necessary to deal with the other side of the equation. It is much easier to enforce laws relatively to illegal employment with the employers rather than the employees. While there are laws on the books, they can be toughened and enforced. Employers usually have something to lose whereas the illegal employee often does not.

Throw-out Suggestion (in addition to your suggestion):

("Knowing" = failure to comply with laws regarding proof of right to work or actual or constructive knowledge of illegality.)

Increase penalties to make it less profitable to hire illegals

a. Knowingly hiring or retaining an illegal day laborer: first offense, $10K per laborer per day; second offense, $20K per laborer per day + felony record + min. 1 year federal prison.
b. Knowingly hiring or retaining an illegal nanny: first offense, $50K + 1 month; second $100K + 1 year + felony.
c. Knowingly hiring or retaining an illegal in a regular job: $100K per individual + felony + 3 years (10 years for management) + confiscation of profits and implements (i.e., the farm) + back payments to workers of triple the difference between union pay and what they received + big corporate fines + SEC liability (management and corporate) for material misstatement of financials based on accrued liabilities to for payment of underpaid wages.

While I agree that going for the employer is a good way to go, I suspect that you have set the penalties far too stiff. With too stiff penalties, there is always the motive to murder/supress witnesses, since the marginal punishment between original crime and murder/coverup crime is so small so that it is counteracted by the decreased detection risk.

At one time, the Soviet Union made rape a capital offence, which murder already was at the time. The consequence was not a decrease in rape cases. Rather, the number of rape-then-murder cases went up, since the rapists knew that they were not increasing the punishment, but reducing the risk to get caught, by the subsequent murder of the rape victim. I am afraid that something like that could happen if your suggested punishments were implemented. I think that cutting the monetary punishments to 10% would still deter most employers, if the detection risk was reasonably high.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Close loopholes

a. Companies become responsible for not just their own employees but employees of service contractors operating on their property. No more hiding illegals within labor contractor shell corporations or janitorial companies. Large companies need to establish controls over vendors that will assure them that the vendor is properly documenting employees or to maintain access controls over people sent by the vendor or to collect documentation as people enter the buildings / land.
b. Require all companies with more than 100 employees to designate an officer responsible for compliance (probably HR manager). Regularly communicate to those officers information about counterfeit document detection and known scams (creating potentially “constructive knowledge” of things in their own company) and regularly communicating the fate of companies that do not comply.

Good suggestions both.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Increase the likelihood of being caught
a. 20% finders fee for a successful prosecution. This is similar to what is done with tax fraud today. If an illegal alien reports an employer resulting in a successful conviction, they get situation immunity or a green card for them and their family, amnesty for having been here illegally, and 20% of the fines resulting from the conviction. So if someone turned in a large box retailer and they were found to have 300 undocumented janitors, they could see an $18M reward plus their green card. In a small time environment, a “nanny” could work for a year, get paid, then turn around and rat out the family and get a $10K bonus.
b. Situational immunity could apply to all illegal employees so that turning state’s evidence only causes fellow workers to lose their jobs, not to be deported.

a. I think that you do not have to have such high rates to get those that can consider ratting to rat.
b. The fellow workers will get angry, and I suspect that you will have to throw in a witness protection program here.

What about:
c. Using latino-looking cops posing as illegals to tempt would-be criminal employers, just like in drug-busting schemes?
d. About the congresspeople: since they are currently not doing the legal thing, why do not their opponent in elections throw the dirt at them? Not everyone can be doing the same thing!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

While I agree that going for the employer is a good way to go, I suspect that you have set the penalties far too stiff.

Could be. I just threw them out. The key from my perspective is that they are harsh enough that people not be thinking in terms of economic balancing of chances of getting caught vs. being able to pay much cheaper wages. I agree that it would be wrong to set them so high as to encourage follow-on crimes.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

a. I think that you do not have to have such high rates to get those that can consider ratting to rat.

I am flexible about the figure. I believe the tax snitch rate is 50%, but it may not be necessary to go that high in this situation.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

b. The fellow workers will get angry, and I suspect that you will have to throw in a witness protection program here.

I have no doubt that they will (one of the reasons I made the payout so high). It is alot easier to avoid angry ex-co-workers if you have a few million in your pocket.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

What about:
c. Using latino-looking cops posing as illegals to tempt would-be criminal employers, just like in drug-busting schemes?

I don't know if this is done or not today. Certainly it is a possibility.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

d. About the congresspeople: since they are currently not doing the legal thing, why do not their opponent in elections throw the dirt at them? Not everyone can be doing the same thing!

Basically, the opponent needs to know about it before they can bring it up. In hard fought races, candidates may have the money to afford investigators to dig up dirt. Even then, they are more likely to go for easier to find dirt from newspaper archives, etc. than to do actual investigations. Most congressional races are between well-funded incumbents and self-funded token opponents. In these cases, the challengers are often lucky to get enough money to put up a few signs.

Main philosophic point is that we spend a lot of time talking about the illegality of what the illegal immigrants are doing and comparatively little about the just as illegal activities of employers.

[Gav]

I'm not sure if this appropriate to the discussion, or perhaps worthy of its own thread, but I have just come across this.

It seems there has been a day of 'silent protest' about Bush's attitude to illegal immigration.

I thought I was flag it up to the debate for consideration.

I think that the issue of "what do we do with the illegal immigrants" is a complex one.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Gav

I think that the issue of "what do we do with the illegal immigrants" is a complex one.

Absolutely, but also one where there are a lot of vested interests that don't want it solved.

I often get accused of being anti-immigrant (or even racist), but I think that it is a really bad thing to base an economy on the existence of a legally disadvantaged class. It smacks of the Old South to me.