- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
How long exactly is this wall going to take to build?
How many crimes will he commuted by illegals before it is finished as opposed to how many if we started seriously pounding employers with fines right now, today?
And fines would mean it would cost taxpayers little or nothing.
How many billions would Trump's Folly cost?
Hmm...
How many JOBS would "Trump's Folly" create? Jobs in construction, and material manufacturing production. Public works are typically a good economic stimulus.
Then there is the barrier itself. Like ANY "wall" it would serve a useful purpose in limiting ease of access. To deny this is to deny the reality that most of us use walls for this very purpose, to protect our property and persons from the depravations of weather, animals, and OTHER humans. If walls didn't work, why would we bother with them at all?
Now I agree that we should also be enforcing employment law, and fines and imprisonment should be assessed against businesses and persons who fail to follow it. Note that imprisonment requires walls too.
IMO, as the world's population grows and other's eye our wealth and land resources the problem of illegal immigration will only increase.
A "wall" shows the world our intent to maintain our national integrity as nothing else would. It worked for Athens against Sparta, for the Roman's in Britain, for China in Asia as long as the people had the strength and the will to defend it.
IMO it will work HERE the same way.
I agree that we need both better border security (including a wall/fence where appropriate) and much better interior enforcement. Obviously, criminals (mainly gang/cartel members) don't much care about their employment status and can now easily return if deported.
I have suggested that we mandate an annual eVerify certification for each and every US worker (W-2 employee or 1099 subcontractor) That allows a fairly simple change to the federal income tax (FIT) code, making it illegal to deduct any direct labor costs of non-certified employees/subcontractors, to effectively prevent the profitable use of illegal labor.
Fines require convicting the employer of a federal crime which has a significant costs of enforcement (actual on-site inspection of each employer's workforce). Changing the FIT code to deny the deduction of the costs for using any non-certified labor is simple and we already have fairly decent FIT auditing enforcement.
What are all those invaders going to do for a living if no one will hire them?
I always thought a fine/reward system would largely if not completely cover the costs of enforcement.
Charge $5000/head and pay a ten percent reward for a successful bust of the employer.
Should take care of the problem in short order.
But re-working the tax code would definitely help with the problem.
The same things many illegals already do now; figure out something else illegal to get around the laws.
Things like identity theft, prostitution, drug dealing, robbery, fraud (including welfare), finding jobs off the books, etc.
One problem is that illegal immigrants often possess "fake IDs" which makes proving employer intent difficult and another problem is that fining/jailing the employer affects all of their employees not just the illegal employee(s).
Modification of the FIT code, mandating annual eVerify (re-)certification of each employee/subcontractor, would eliminate the guesswork by the employer - they either used (claimed labor cost deductions for) legal labor as certified by the federal government or they did not.
That would suck for me a little, as I had 17 w2s last year. But I don't think its a bad idea.
And threats to the continuity of the business would be a strong deterrent.
I just think we need to focus our ire where it belongs, on the employers, who aren't desperate like illegals often are, just greedy.
How we go about it is up for discussion.
Yeah, there's plenty of illegal things for millions of people to do.
Not.
That is an amazingly stupid counter to my argument.
The vast majority of illegal workers are just that.
Illegally working at regular jobs.
If they all went into illegal activities they would flood the market with them, drive prices down, and eliminate those "jobs" in the process.
Entering a list of 17 employee names/SSNs each year is not that hard to do. If the feds tell you that one of them is not suitable then you simply replace that worker or keep paying them without being able to deduct that labor expense. A "greedy" employer is not apt to like paying labor costs that are not tax deductible and a "compassionate" employer can keep paying their illegal labor totally out of their own pocket without getting any taxpayer subsidy for doing so.
Actually it is a FACTUAL statement of reality, starting with the FACT that the term "Illegal" referencing such "immigrants" shows they are not above breaking the law to suit their goals.
You are ignoring what is already occurring and assuming that they would stop coming merely because we've somehow increased law enforcement resources and fine/imprison employers.
Yet there will always be employers who will flout the law, people who will harbor illegals, and illegals who will keep coming because each one thinks things will be different for them.
A wall will not be an absolute barrier to a person dedicated to breaking in. However, it makes it more difficult to do so and if properly defended makes the costs to try prohibitive for all but the most dedicated criminals.
NOW, having said all that I would honestly prefer we not have to use a wall. That we could figure out ways to cooperate with Mexico so that they worked to protect our borders and their own. That we could work some "magic" in Central America to make their own lands safer and more like our own.
However, that dream is inhibited by the actions of certain political special interests groups who want to flood our nation with excess "bodies" to depress wages, garner votes, etc.
Solving that problem along with better border enforcement without a wall? You'd get my support.
I meant I had 17 employers, so I would have to prove my identity 15-20 times every year.
The other benefit to your plan would be forcing employers to pay minimum wages and labor burden. Which they REALLY don't want to do.
Hence their donations to republicans to keep that from happening.
It appears as if the majority of the caravan remaining at Benito Juarez are not willing to march today. Many are saying they’re frustrated they’ve been lied to about getting into the United States. One woman was saying it’s unconscionable “the leaders” would lie to hungry people pic.twitter.com/AzoJMcjSGO
— WendyFry (@WendyFry_) December 1, 2018
Fox News correspondent Griff Jenkins sat down with Tijuana Mayor Juan Manuel Gastelum to discuss the caravan currently camping out in his city.
Gastelum told Fox News that the federal police should arrest the organizers of the caravan for “putting people at risk.”
“Let’s take care of them in a legal way,” Gastelum added.
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/tijuana-mayor-goes-scorched-earth-caravan-organizers-calls-arrest/
You, as an employee, would have no more paperwork at all - you already must fill out an application, W-4 and I-9 for each job. I work (as a self-emplyed handyman) for many customers yet only a handfull ever report my pay (to IRS) via a 1099 - most simply pay me cash and never report the (non-deductible) expense. Under my proposal only my 1099 issuing customers would have to get an eVerify certification for their deduction of my labor costs.
I'd still have to fill out forms probably.
But that's not too onerous.
I don't have a problem with dealing with the problem.
Because of IS a problem
I just reject the disingenuous scapegoating of poor people trying to improve their lives while giving a pass to those drawing them here with jobs.
I actually suspect much of this is about the consumer price index shooting WAY up if farmers had to pay minimum wages.
Which might make people agitiate for higher wages.
Which the donor class does NOT want.
I have stated that. There are folks on this board that live hear the borders. They may have different priorities, and I understand that.
Trump now has about 1 soldier at the border for each of those migrants, if that makes you feel better.
Trump has 6000 soldiers at the border?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?