Monday, January 17, 2011

Those Darn Illegals

Who is the criminal? The person entering the United States to reap the benefits of a better life which has been allowed by us, or the employers who exploit human beings in order to get their avocadoes picked as cheaply as possible?

Example: I recently heard a story about a family farmer in California who employed illegals for a pittance and defended it by providing housing. He would bitch when the workers sent the little bit of money he paid them home to their families in the Old Country. Then, lo and behold, the workers unionized and he could no longer afford to provide housing because he now had to provide higher wages. Now, doesn't it seem that any home that costs less than minimum wage must be kind of a dump? Does this sound at all like plantation slavery to anyone else?

Poor me, I have to pay people to work for me. Even though I broke the law as much as they did, it's the union's fault I can't tell them where to live anymore. boo hoo.

Now, the simple law of supply and demand, which should be well understood by all adults in a free economy, would say that if we cut off the jobs and entitlement benefits to undocumented people, they would not try to come here illegally. The problem with that is the US based criminals who are all too willing to provide assistance. It is not that the workers are UNdocumented, it is that they are FALSELY documented. How many forms of proof should an employer require of a job applicant who might speak little or broken English? Because no matter what paperwork becomes required (Arizona), they will find a way to get it. The point is- how do we prove whether the employer knew s/he was hiring illegals?

Um, if they are willing to work for less than minimum wage. That's how.

"But what if the employer pays cash?" Well, then we need investigators to go over the tax records of businesses very carefully, and intensify the negative consequences.

"You mean put business owners in jail with drug dealers and killers?"

That sounds a lot like "You mean put the rich in jail with the poor?"


Drug dealers are business owners in a manner of speaking, just undocumented business...oh wait- isn't that the same thing?

I am at the top of the list of people who believe in personal liberty, but when it comes to selling products and services to the American people, regulation is certainly in order. We can't stop people from developing a taste for money and power once they get that first whiff, but we can attempt to theoretically legally control the immoral things they might to do one another to get it.

Want to prevent the exploitation of anchor babies? First I want to know this- how many pregnant women have died trying to enter this country to have an anchor baby here?

Second- you loons who want to selectively apply the 14th amendment-- get over it. The anchor babies have citizenship and they are citizens. BUT, children who are American citizens whose parents go to prison are sent to foster care. We need to be more strict at the food stamp office. Parents who are illegal but whose children are citizens should be given the choice between deportation together or parent deportation/ child foster care. The only way to avoid having one's child taken would be to not apply for any public services. School included. Here is where the republican principle of "take care of yourself" would be perfectly applicable. The parents would need a job that pays well enough to obtain all of the child's care without public asistance so they could remain under the radar.

"But how can an illegal immigrant acquire such employment" you ask?... Precisely.

Or, through the legal channels, of course. Get documented before coming. People do it every day. Every single day.

"But what about giving legal custody to a legal resident who is a friend or relative?"
Obviously, they would need documentation/ identification to enter into such a contract.

"But it is so easy to get fake ones!"

OK, so intensify the penalties for anyone (the relative) who withholds the location of an illegal. Send everyone into hiding except the child. The child will be in foster care hidden from family and parents, and like all foster children, available for adoption after 12 months if the parents do not meet requirements.

"Wouldn't that lead to millions of uneducated children working long hours for slave wages?"

Possibly, and if that's what the parents want for their children then that is their choice. Otherwise, don't be illegal.

So to sum up:
1. Punish employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. If you are worried this might lead to racial discrimination, the ability to speak basic English could become a mandated employment requirement. (Face it, there are a lot of US born Americans who can barely speak proper English.)
2. Increase vigilance toward business activity.
3. Remove the anchor babies from their criminal parents as we do to US born citizens. Remove access to public support from illegal parents of anchor babies.
4. Punish those who would hide and/or help illegals by falsifying documents or impersonating a guardian. You may love your cousin, but is her desire to avoid legal documentation worth your own nickel in the pen?
5. Figure out if an immigration quota is absolutely necessary or if it can be relaxed; and ease the naturalization process.
6. Once people are documented, they can send all the money back to the Old Country they want, after they have paid taxes and living expenses here.

If these measures are not a step in the right direction toward balancing the budget and stimulating the economy, what is?

Progressives get- more opportunity for everybody in the form of jobs, including prison and IRS jobs; and at least minimum wage for all workers in the US (except tipped employees).

Conservatives get- reduction in the number of illegal immigrants, more tax revenue without raising rates, less entitlement expense.

We can use negative reinforcement productively to ensure the availablity of opportunity, and to decrease the exploitation of workers both directly and indirectly through tax-funded entitlement costs.

Also, we should cap the salaries of Congresspeople at $100,000. They do not deserve any more than that. If anyone should make more money, it's cops, teachers, social workers, paramedics, and rescue workers. I think soldiers are well compensated, but will have to look into it.

Maybe next time we will examine public salary schedules. If your child is not learning, have you asked what more you could be doing at home? Or the actual cost for smaller class sizes? Public servants' perspective coming soon.

No comments:

Post a Comment