Senate The US Politics discussion

Um, guys....It is already against federal law to hire illegal aliens, which probably accounts for the illegal part. It's covered under the section for "Unlawful Employment of Aliens" in Title 8:

It is illegal for any employer to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work in the United States. This includes hiring contractors who employ illegal immigrants. It is also illegal for any employer not to verify work authorization. An employer who does not correctly complete an I-9 for each employee three days after the employee is hired is also subject to criminal and civil punishment.

For first offenders, there is a $250-$2,000 fine per illegal employee. For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee. For employers who have been convicted of hiring illegal immigrants more than twice, the fine can range from $3000-$10,000 per employee. If a company engages in a pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants, the owner or person in charge of hiring could face additional fines, and up to six months in jail. The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act includes “harboring” illegal immigrants, or knowingly employing ten or more illegal immigrants in one year. Harboring an illegal immigrant can lead to ten years of prison time.

However, the employer is limited to "good faith" efforts to verify employment status, which is why there is such a market for stolen social security numbers, the penalties of which do fall squarely on the person using the fraudulent information.

As a bonus, under the RICO penalities, the reporting person should get a percentage of the fines. So if someone here knows of a company that is hiring lots of undocumented workers, call ICE or the IRS, and you should get 10-15% of the total fines.

 

exactly what we need. A live-in undocumented nanny should get you hauled in under RICO. What we need is police sweeps of all the co-ops in Manhattan. Start there. Then work your way through the Chicago Gold Coast, then LA, San Francisco and Dallas Ft. Worth.

 

Well, of course you'd have to scope out the establishments first. Getting someone busted for having an illegal nanny would probably only net $25 in profit, which is barely enough to go out to lunch after calling in the tip. Now, if you find a place with 10-12 illegals, that could probably net thousands of dollars, which is worth it.

There could be an entire underground economy for turning in illegals.

 

Not only that, but the House GOP voted last year to do exactly the same thing.

If this isn't an election-year show, then I don't know what is.

Peace,

V-03

 

To be fair, you have before when FIDo questioned the pictures I had posted.

 

V, you and KW are so funny in this regard. Hey, look here:

House Resolution 1258 June 10th, 2008. Sponsor: Dennis Kucinich Representative for Ohio's 10th congressional district. Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States. of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Link is right https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres1258]HERE[/url]

Now, help me remember, but what event was also happening in 2008? I'd like to say there was some sort of election going on? You two must have the shortest memory of any people here, but it's so funny to watch you two act like such actions are limited to one party over the other. Also:

-On June 16, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) assembled an unofficial meeting among democratic party leaders to consider grounds for impeachment against the President. (although this was never officially voted on)

-Based on rumors of impending action, in November 2007, Joe Biden, then a US Senator, stated that he would "move to impeach if President Bush were to bomb Iran without first gaining congressional approval." However, no such bombing occurred when Bush was President. Help me out here again. Does Biden currently hold a different position in government? And did the current President ever bomb a country without first gaining congressional approval?

- 2008 Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) signed articles of impeachment against President Bush. Interestingly, here are his exact words, and the exact http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2008/06/impeach_bush_wexler_says.html]LINK[/url]

"A decision by Congress to pursue impeachment is not an option, it is a sworn duty. It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against the blatant violations and illegalities of this Administration. Our Founding Fathers bestowed upon Congress the power of impeachment, and it is now time that we use it to defend the rule of law from this corrupt Administration." <---again, to review, this is a quote from a democratic party representative. Why it seems downright "Tea Partish" doesn't it?

If you guy's sole point is simply try and characterize what you view as the "other side" in difference to the facts, have at it. I still think it's because the current President is in the crapper so much that I think your desperation is showing. But this behavior isn't new, and it isn't even outside of the norm when it comes to Congressional behavior when the roles were reversed. But I know, I know. If you don't understand by now. You never will.....

 

i also have no idea what you're talking about. i mean, i assume there are undocumented workers working, (that's what they're here to do, after all, not vote), but i simply dont see them "clogging street corners" like vermin or whatever it is you imagine you're seeing. like others, i dont think it matters all that much. the fact is that they are working jobs and nobody disputes that

Jabbadabbado this is a fine point. people who hire people without checking their immigration status are rarely, if ever, doing it for political reasons. they're doing it because they want to save some money by taking advantage of someone who is unable to seek protection from labor laws. if you really want to stem the supply, cut out the demand, eh?

 

So don't complain when I post pictures.

 

i dont think i have? i certainly dont remember any pictures. in any case, i spent 8 months living by val vista and the 60, (with an undocumented immigrant for a housemate, no less!), so you'd think id have seen what you were talking about if it were that common, wouldnt you?

 

All brown people on street corners are undocumented immigrants.

 

Yeah, you know. Of course we're doing some generalization. There are catholics, Jewish folks, and we do have a sizable hispanic and Somoan community. But even the Pac. Islanders are mostly LDS. So yeah, pretty much Mormonville.

"Golly gee" "Shucks" and "You betcha" flow off the tongue like water.

 

i thought the whole reason the pacific islanders were there was because there are so many pacific islander converts?

fun fact i recently became aware of: SLC is the epicentre of tongan gang activity

 

tongang activity

 

Gangnam Activity.

 

Racism and xenophobia are indeed puzzling.

 

at the risk of getting a bit astract, the "illegal immigrant" issue is pretty interesting from an anthropological perspective when you think about the fact that its really the only official "status crime" in the united states. by which i mean the crime is not in an act you've committed, but in the status conferred. the crime lies not in crossing the border illegally, but in the undocumented status. otherwise, why would adults who crossed the border with their parents decades prior be considered "illegals"? not even pedophiles can be detained simply because of their status as pedophiles (officially, tho california certainly tries to keep them locked up indefinitely after their sentences have ended), and they certainly cant be arrested for it unless they've committed a crime. its pretty bladerunner-y when you think about it

 

It's not even a crime-- at least not a federal crime (don't remember the status of state and local attempts to criminalize it). It's not a misdemeanor or a felony. It carries no criminal penalties. Technically the worst that can happen to an undocumented (really a better term since that's their only "crime") immigrant is that he gets deported back to his country of origin. It's like saying playing music too loud at a party is a crime.

 

yeah i shouldnt have said "official"

 

Yeah, but you're not accurately describing the penalty either. Being in the country illegally isn't a criminal offense, so there is no "status crime" per se. It's a civil offense, for which deportation is the penalty. Sure, the lines may get blurred depending on the circumstance. (you'll be held in a secure detention facility until processed for deportation which may seem like a prison) or other crimes may have been committed along with the civil status. (Forging work documents or caught driving without a driver's license, etc...are criminal offenses.) But immigration violation alone is not really how you're characterizing it.

All countries have similar penalties for crossing/entering their borders without permission.

 

i didnt mean to imply that they dont. saying "in the united states" was meant to exclude other countries that still have other status crimes, like being gay

this article provides a good overview of the "status" model of looking at immigration and crime

 

Gotcha.