Texas lawmakers struck hard at illegal immigrants Monday

[SlowwHand]

Imran, you're rambling now.When you decide to discuss and lose the zaniness, let me know.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And yet, if they wanted to go to a US hospital, they wouldn't HAVE to immigrate. They could just walk over, right? Of course immigration will increase and you will get some deadbeat payers in that new sample, but lets realize that legal immigrants will be far less likely to deadbeat than illegals (who may think they'll be found out).

If they can get legal status, of course they will. They'll be little to no risk for providing such info.

Except the risk of having to pay for the services they consume. You honestly think that legalizing them will make them want to pay? When they know that they really don't have to?

Because they'll be a marked decrease in the sub-min wage jobs. Those sub-min wage jobs are going to have to become min wage jobs when the light is shined (W2 forms especially), hence the number of min wage jobs increases.

Those employers aren't just going to employ the same number of workers and give them a raise just cause the gummint says so.

Just in seeing that federal education and medicaid are already provided to illegal immigrants due to Supreme Court decisions. Why exactly would, say, the federal education budget go up if the illegal->legal immigrants use the exact same education services?

Look into the specifics of the study, and tell me where they failed to take account of this. Vague assertions just don't do it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Most of them won't. The reason is working under the table means you can't document your income so you can't qualify for credit cards, car loans, home loans, unemployment insurance, SSI, and a million other things. Plus most illegals stay in very low wage jobs because they're afraid of getting caught and deported plus employers deliberately exploit them because if the workers complain then they just get reported to the INS and deported.

That removes all of that and the mobility and freedom to chose other jobs WILL mean more money and more freedom for these people. That's why they'll do it.

The problem is that higher wage jobs won't be available to most of them. The market will be over-saturated with unskilled labor, so those employers who pay minimum wage will get to pick and choose.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Exactly. That's why it is impossible to stop this just by criminalizing the people who migrate. If you want to stop illegal immigration then you need to fine employers who hire illegals out of business. That won't happen but if it did then illegal immigration would stop over night.

Tyson Chicken runs ads in Mexico telling people anyone who comes to their poultry plants will get a job for $6 per hour no questions asked. Of course Tyson knows this is illegal but they don't care because a legal poultry worker would cost at least double per hour. Meaning the company saves around $1000 per month just in wages (not counting benifets) so even if they are ever caught the $1000 fine represents just 2-3 weeks worth of savings to Tyson Chicken. If the worker works for more then a month before getting caught then the company actually MAKES money off of the whole tranaction instead of just breaking even.

Tyson knows the fines almost never happen and even when they do they are so small they break even in just 10-15 business days. Thus they break the law and laugh at everyone. If the fines were $100,000 for the first offense and doubled for each additional offense then you would never see a company like Tyson hire illegals. They'd be bankrupted if they did and their share holders would never allow it.

Fine employers and the jobs go away. No jobs, no illegals. It is as simple as that.

Yep.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Caligastia


The problem is that higher wage jobs won't be available to most of them. The market will be over-saturated with unskilled labor, so those employers who pay minimum wage will get to pick and choose.

Fine with me. Those who can move up will and those who can't find jobs will leave. Right now, employers hire them because there is just about NO downside for the employer and there is plenty of $$$upside$$$. Workers move here because there are jobs.

You're saying there won't be jobs for them after we legalize so where are you contradicting what I said?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Fine with me. Those who can move up will and those who can't find jobs will leave. Right now, employers hire them because there is just about NO downside for the employer and there is plenty of $$$upside$$$. Workers move here because there are jobs.

You're saying there won't be jobs for them after we legalize so where are you contradicting what I said?

I'm saying there won't be minimum wage jobs, and if enforcement continues to be as lax as it is, then the below minimum wage jobs will still be there and be filled by illegals or under-the-table workers.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Yep.

That would be the way to solve this "problem", however, it won't happen because businesses love the cheap wages. Thus we get the absolutely idiotic crap coming out of Texas which will NEVER, EVER, EVER do one tiny bit to slow illegal immigration or even pass court muster. The politicians in Texas don't care about solving the "problem" and instead just want trick ignorant and/or stupid people into voting for them.

That's what I've said all along. I've also said that since we obviously won't take meaningful action to enforce the law then we should be honest and get rid of the law. This playing of both sides by all parties (politicians, businesses, illegals) is counter productive and makes people think they can ignore the law. Either pay the huge economic price of firing all the illegals, bankrupting businesses, and fueling inflation or just change the laws but please make the politicians stop making lots of noises but doing nothing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I'm saying there won't be minimum wage jobs, and if enforcement continues to be as lax as it is, then the below minimum wage jobs will still be there and be filled by illegals or under-the-table workers.

Remember how we agreed that you continue to fine the living **** out of employers such that the fines are so huge companies start going under? That's why companies won't hire illegals at any price because the $500 a month they save per employee isn't worth it when a company is facing millions in fines.

Then you take the money gained in the fines and use it to hire more INS agents and have them go look for yet more companies who hire illegals. The end result is there will be virtually no employers willing to hire illegals no matter how cheaply because the cost of the fines are simply to great. The massive risk (meaning the cost of the fines) wouldn't be worth the relatively small reward (cost savings by hiring illegals).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except the risk of having to pay for the services they consume. You honestly think that legalizing them will make them want to pay? When they know that they really don't have to?

Want is one thing; however, knowing where they are is another. As Oerdin pointed out, the benefits of a legal citizen are many, including credit cards, etc. Debts can make that a more arduous process.

Those employers aren't just going to employ the same number of workers and give them a raise just cause the gummint says so.

They probably will employ less workers, but the work has to get done. They won't be able to keep paying them what they are paying them currently however, because then the IRS gets interested (it impacts personal income taxation and all that and now they know who is where because they are registered - the fact that the IRS now will know where these people are is a big thing in their income tax enforcement) and they'll certainly poke around into things. Secondly the immigrants will have greater rights and won't be scared to call the government and lodge complaints about working conditions.

They won't do it because they want to, but because they'll have to, because they'll be greater heat on them as a result of legal workers working under them. Enforcement will increase, but as a result of other, more powerful agencies having greater incentives to look into them.

Look into the specifics of the study, and tell me where they failed to take account of this. Vague assertions just don't do it.

Did you look at how the study is conducted? They compare the estimated costs of illegals with what current legal immigrants are costing the government. So no, it doesn't seem they took account of this.

The problem is that higher wage jobs won't be available to most of them. The market will be over-saturated with unskilled labor, so those employers who pay minimum wage will get to pick and choose.

That's where the market plays its role. Not enough jobs and people will go back for the jobs available in Mexico.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That would be the way to solve this "problem", however, it won't happen because businesses love the cheap wages. Thus we get the absolutely idiotic crap coming out of Texas which will NEVER, EVER, EVER do one tiny bit to slow illegal immigration or even pass court muster. The politicians in Texas don't care about solving the "problem" and instead just want trick ignorant and/or stupid people into voting for them.

That's what I've said all along. I've also said that since we obviously won't take meaningful action to enforce the law then we should be honest and get rid of the law. This playing of both sides by all parties (politicians, businesses, illegals) is counter productive and makes people think they can ignore the law. Either pay the huge economic price of firing all the illegals, bankrupting businesses, and fueling inflation or just change the laws but please make the politicians stop making lots of noises but doing nothing.

Well, I think we both argee that something needs to be done, however, I certainly don't think removing all immigration laws is it. The U.S., particularly in the border states, is already paying a large economic price for illegals in that they consume more than they produce. Their employers benefit, and no doubt food prices are somewhat lower, but the taxpayer is getting soaked. If you look at what I posted about Parkland Hospital in Dallas, you'll see a part of what the problem is - freeloading Mexicans! All I ask is that people pay for the services they consume. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Remember how we agreed that you continue to fine the living **** out of employers such that the fines are so huge companies start going under? That's why companies won't hire illegals at any price because the $500 a month they save per employee isn't worth it when a company is facing millions in fines.

Then you take the money gained in the fines and use it to hire more INS agents and have them go look for yet more companies who hire illegals. The end result is there will be virtually no employers willing to hire illegals no matter how cheaply because the cost of the fines are simply to great. The massive risk (meaning the cost of the fines) wouldn't be worth the relatively small reward (cost savings by hiring illegals).

You'll note that in my post I stated "if enforcement continues to be as lax as it is". Let us agree once again that the solution is to fine the living **** out of employers of illegal aliens.

[SlowwHand]

Yes, indeed.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Want is one thing; however, knowing where they are is another. As Oerdin pointed out, the benefits of a legal citizen are many, including credit cards, etc. Debts can make that a more arduous process.

If they do the same thing as they are currently doing - showing up at hospitals with no ID and no money - how are you going to make them pay? How are you going to affect their credit if you can't identify them?

They probably will employ less workers, but the work has to get done. They won't be able to keep paying them what they are paying them currently however, because then the IRS gets interested (it impacts personal income taxation and all that and now they know who is where because they are registered - the fact that the IRS now will know where these people are is a big thing in their income tax enforcement) and they'll certainly poke around into things. Secondly the immigrants will have greater rights and won't be scared to call the government and lodge complaints about working conditions.

They won't do it because they want to, but because they'll have to, because they'll be greater heat on them as a result of legal workers working under them. Enforcement will increase, but as a result of other, more powerful agencies having greater incentives to look into them.

So you want to do what Oerdin and I agreed on? Enforce the law against employers who employ illegals? What is the difference between doing that now, or doing it after amnesty? Answer: millions of Mexicans. So you want to force employers to pay minimum wage, and at the same time flood the market with labor. Brilliant! And somehow you think this won't lead to an increase in welfare rolls?

Did you look at how the study is conducted? They compare the estimated costs of illegals with what current legal immigrants are costing the government. So no, it doesn't seem they took account of this.

Keep reading. Not just the part I linked to.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html

That's where the market plays its role. Not enough jobs and people will go back for the jobs available in Mexico.

Why would they do that when they can get far more on welfare? Round and round we go.

[Asher]

Immigrants.
Immigrants from New Zealand and Australia.

Penal colonies go home!!!!!

[SlowwHand]

Imran is of the opinion that whatever illegals want, they're entitled to.

I know. I can't understand it either, but there you have it.