Tough on Illegal immigration...

[Pico and ME]

Unless it means your illegal immigrant maid.

[Shawnee123]

It's like she's trying to have some kind of stance due to pressure from her constituency ("is you is or is you ain't my constichency?") Then they're recognizing what an economic impact all out war on immigration will have on the state of Texas. But what a line to draw. It's all squiggly. Who decides that an illegal immigrant who works at McD's has to go but an illegal immigrant who mows your (probably HER) lawn is OK?

Why have a bill at all, then? All that tough talk about the darn illegals. Well, we really didn't mean it for EVERY illegal. Just the ones we don't need.

[classicman]

The bill was specifically designed to focus on businesses hiring illegals, not homeowners. Thats why it was written the way it was.

All the outcry from the left was about laws attacking the illegal immigrants. Instead the left wanted to go after the companies that hire them. OK, well this bill is EXACTLY what the left clamored for - and they're still bitching... wonder if thats because it was proposed by Republican... Nahhhhhh.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

The bill was specifically designed to focus on businesses hiring illegals, not homeowners. Thats why it was written the way it was.

All the outcry from the left was about laws attacking the illegal immigrants. Instead the left wanted to go after the companies that hire them. OK, well this bill is EXACTLY what the left clamored for - and they're still bitching... wonder if thats because it was proposed by Republican... Nahhhhhh.

Maybe it's because if a company shouldn't break the law, neither should an individual? Maybe because it would make one law for the wealthy and a different one for everyone else? After all, Senator Foghorn of the Texas legislature shouldn't be deprived of his cheap yard and house workers, should he now? Nahhhhhhh.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by the article

"It is an admittedly clumsy first attempt to say, 'We are really focusing on the big businesses,'" English said. Texans shouldn't be punished for hiring lawn care companies who hire unauthorized immigrants, he said, according to the Texas Tribune's website.

Wouldn't the lawn care company be the one hit by the law if it didn't have an exception, not their customer?

In a vacuum I could see an exception for one-on-one hires, as individuals may not have the resources or authority to check someone else's immigration status, while businesses are supposed to have all sorts of government-required employee info. But the law exempts certain classes of job, not one-on-one vs business, and all of the quotes in the article from supporters of the law are of the "everybody's doing it" bent.

[tw]

Simply increase the number of immigrant work visas to numbers demanded and required. Then eliminate $billions wasted on silly border security that was never needed and that exists only because of stupid immigrant restrictions.

If a nation needs hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers to bring in the crops, then who in this nation is so stupid as to restrict visas to 20,000? Wacko extremists. Provide enough visas. Then illegal immigration drops to near zero. Then the few who are entering illegally are probably criminals. Means Border Patrols can finally do real law enforcement. Not work for the most stupid who get political power by promoting fear of all immigrants.

[ZenGum]

... but TW, if they're not illegal, they have a smidgen of rights and maybe even bargaining power, and you'd have to pay them more.

IMHO the situation with illegals is maintained because it provides a pool of cheap labour that can't argue. Maybe that isn't the only reason, but I believe it is a major factor.

[Griff]

nailed it

[richlevy]

Berman himself has filed a number of immigrant-related bills this legislative session. One would make English the official language of Texas, a move that would save millions in printing costs, he said. The law wouldn't affect schools or ballots, he added.
Another bill would place an 8% surcharge on all money wired from Texas to Latin America. About $480 million could be collected from money sent to Mexico alone, the representative said. The proceeds would be earmarked for state hospitals.

FYI, the guy proposing the law is also proposing this, so I guess a Republican can find a tax that he likes. I wonder if this could be considered illegal by the WTO since it is a duty imposed on an export of money to a specific region.

As for the homeowner exemption, one reason it might be necessary is that it's very difficult for a private individual to do background checks. For a long term employee it might be worth paying $50-100 for some kind of verification. It would probably be simpler to hire through an agency and place the onus on the agency to do the background check for any short term help.

I would admit that if this law passed and applied to homeowners I would have to think twice before hiring a handyman that my neighbor recommended.

What if the handyman claimed to own his own company, leading me to assume that the State of Texas had verified him, and instead of writing a check out to Mr. Ortiz I wrote it out the Muchos Illegatos Home Improvement Company? What if the bank honored the check under that name. If Mr. Ortiz turned out to be illegal, would I or the bank be in trouble?

Here in PA I discovered some guys tearing up my sidewalk a few years back to lay cable. They were working for a phone company, and an official looking phone company truck was up the block. I asked them for some information on what they were doing and they claimed to speak no English. I was never sure if they were joking. I know the phone company was too smart to hire illegals. But are the contractors and sub-contractors that smart?

My guess is that if the law passes, a whole cottage industry of disposable middleman companies will emerge to absorb the damage, much like already exists now. I the home building industry there used to be companies that did business under one name, went bankrupt, and were up and running under a new name.

From here

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), the world's largest retailer, escaped criminal charges when it agreed to pay $11 million, a record fine in a civil immigration case, to end a federal probe into its use of illegal immigrants as janitors.

Additionally, 12 businesses that provided contract janitor services to Wal-Mart will pay $4 million in fines and plead guilty to criminal immigration charges, officials said.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I asked them for some information on what they were doing and they claimed to speak no English. I was never sure if they were joking. I know the phone company was too smart to hire illegals. But are the contractors and sub-contractors that smart?

What the subcontractors are smart enough to do is hire day laborers, rather than repeat employees. They get paid in cash at the end of the day. Though many are skilled enough in certain trades to bring their own equipment, they still rotate among ongoing jobs from day to day, and they prefer it that way. If there's an investigation into the subcontractor, the workers can quickly disappear and only be out one day's wages.

[classicman]

.

[BigV]

that shit is only funny on ONE side of the wall.

[TheMercenary]

And in recent news....

The two most controversial provisions of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) - making illegal presence a state crime and requiring local law enforcement to follow up on reasonable suspicion of illegal status - have been enjoined by federal judges.

On Wednesday, however, a federal judge upheld the same provisions in a recently enacted Alabama law. That sets the stage for a more protracted and closer legal battle than SB 1070 opponents anticipated - a battle that will be complicated by the Obama administration's plan to enforce immigration laws only against illegal immigrants who commit other serious crimes.

The legal case against the requirement to follow up on reasonable suspicion of illegal status has always been weak. What the provision requires is that local law enforcement check with federal authorities when such reasonable suspicion arises in the context of a lawful stop for some other purpose.


The Obama administration says this is pre-empted by federal law because it doesn't want the calls and fielding them would be a burden and a diversion from its priority of going after illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes.

Federal law, however, flatly says that the federal government shall respond to all inquires about legal status from local officials. And pre-emption only occurs when there is a conflict with federal laws enacted by Congress, not administrative preferences or practices.

In the Arizona case, Judge Carlos Bea made that point in a 9th Circuit dissent. In the Alabama case, Judge Sharon Blackburn quoted Bea's dissent and adopted its reasoning.

I've always assumed that, at the end of the day, this provision would be upheld. It's basically a state legislature dictating priorities for local law enforcement. It might be a bad idea (I think it is). But it's not really any of the federal government's business.

This reasonable suspicion follow-up has gotten most of the attention. In the hands of someone who might abuse it, say Sheriff Joe Arpaio, it could become an instrument of racial discrimination. But Arpaio could implement such a policy independent of state legislation mandating it.

The heart of SB 1070, however, was always making illegal presence a state crime. This was the provision that would enable Arizona, and Alabama, to do the job of enforcing immigration laws that the feds can't or won't do.

I have always assumed that this provision would be found to be pre-empted by a comprehensive federal scheme to deal with immigration violations. Local law enforcement could beef up efforts to identify illegal immigrants. But after identification, they had to be turned over to the feds for processing.

That's the way every federal judge who has looked at the Arizona law, including Bea, saw it. But given Blackburn's close reasoning on the matter and the Obama administration's recent administrative amnesty, I'm no longer so sure.

According to Blackburn, there is no congressional statement of an intent to pre-empt in this area. And absent that, Alabama's decision to create a state crime that mirrors federal immigration crimes enacted by Congress can't be argued to be inconsistent with Congress' purpose.

The complication is that the federal immigration crimes in question are pretty much a dead letter. There are federal criminal statutes which illegal immigrants perforce violate. But for a long time, illegal presence has been treated as a civil rather than a criminal matter - leading to deportation, not fines or jail.

A more important complication is that the Obama administration has declared it isn't going to enforce laws against illegal presence as a civil matter, except against those who commit other serious crimes. Basically, the Obama administration is saying, we're not going to enforce the immigration laws. But we don't want states to do so either.

That's going to be a difficult argument to sustain.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...#ixzz1ZQQE9WmQ

Obama's JOD is ignoring the law.

[Lamplighter]

Oregon is going to pass a similar law.
It will be a crime to be in Oregon if you are from California

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Oregon is going to pass a similar law.
It will be a crime to be in Oregon if you are from California

Oh God I wish that were a crime in the other 49 states as well....