|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
 Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| If they want fewer illegal immigrants, they need to target the people who hire them, not the immigrants themselves. That's the cost effective way to do it, and it's also in accordance with the law... |
Busting employers makes sense.
But doing that would entail checking to see if workers are legal or not.
Which is something along the lines of the recent law just passed.
So, to those who say "Bust the employers, bust the employers" how do you do that without verifying the immigration status of the employees they hire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If they want fewer illegal immigrants, they need to target the people who hire them, not the immigrants themselves. That's the cost effective way to do it, and it's also in accordance with the law... |
Busting employers makes sense.
But doing that would entail checking to see if workers are legal or not.
Which is something along the lines of the recent law just passed.
So, to those who say "Bust the employers, bust the employers" how do you do that without verifying the immigration status of the employees they hire? |
I think it's possible to enforce the law against employing non-citizens without resorting to racial profiling. In fact, random checks would probably suffice, especially if the fine for being caught was significant enough. The goal would be to scare businesses collectively into changing their actions, rather than to force them one-by-one to change ways. That's not something you can really do with illegal immigrants; they'll keep coming as long as there is work, since even a temporary stay followed by deportation can result in profit for them.
The outcry about the Arizona legislation is that attempting to enforce it will almost certainly result in racial profiling. That needn't be true of random checks of the citizenship status of all employees at a place of business, so long as it's done regardless of their ethnicity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Plus, I don't understand why the US should accept 10 million illegal people in thier country? |
I'm not saying illegal aliens should be tolerated, but rounding them up one by one and throwing them out of the country is incredibly cost ineffective. Needlessly harassing people based on racial profiling is ludicrious. |
Yes, but that's exactly what people who advocate cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants are asking for. What do you think happens when Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids a factory? It sweeps up dozens illegal immigrants as evidence that the employer has employed the immigrants.
There's a best solution for this, but it must come from the Federal level: visas, amnesty, visas, visas, visas. Then you crack down on the illegals with criminal histories or current immigration violations (ones who have ignored final orders of deportation, or have re-entered the United States illegally, etc). Yes, a crackdown like that will actually cost manpower and funds.
In the meantime, whatever you think of the provisions of the law itself, Arizona is doing EVERYONE a favor by bringing much needed attention to this issue. In my eyes, the best part about it is that it puts pressure on Congress to handle immigration reform while the Democrats still have a one-less-than solid majority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If they want fewer illegal immigrants, they need to target the people who hire them, not the immigrants themselves. That's the cost effective way to do it, and it's also in accordance with the law... |
Busting employers makes sense.
But doing that would entail checking to see if workers are legal or not.
Which is something along the lines of the recent law just passed.
So, to those who say "Bust the employers, bust the employers" how do you do that without verifying the immigration status of the employees they hire? |
I think it's possible to enforce the law against employing non-citizens without resorting to racial profiling. In fact, random checks would probably suffice, especially if the fine for being caught was significant enough. The goal would be to scare businesses collectively into changing their actions, rather than to force them one-by-one to change ways. That's not something you can really do with illegal immigrants; they'll keep coming as long as there is work, since even a temporary stay followed by deportation can result in profit for them.
The outcry about the Arizona legislation is that attempting to enforce it will almost certainly result in racial profiling. That needn't be true of random checks of the citizenship status of all employees at a place of business, so long as it's done regardless of their ethnicity. |
How about enforcing the law without violating the Constitution? Whenever an illegal immigrant is found through normal, typical, legal, Constitutional, everyday means, check if he is employed, and if so, bust his employer then. No added costs, just routine police work. Employers will still get the message that they can be screwed if they employ illegals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If they want fewer illegal immigrants, they need to target the people who hire them, not the immigrants themselves. That's the cost effective way to do it, and it's also in accordance with the law... |
Busting employers makes sense.
But doing that would entail checking to see if workers are legal or not.
Which is something along the lines of the recent law just passed.
So, to those who say "Bust the employers, bust the employers" how do you do that without verifying the immigration status of the employees they hire? |
I think it's possible to enforce the law against employing non-citizens without resorting to racial profiling. In fact, random checks would probably suffice, especially if the fine for being caught was significant enough. The goal would be to scare businesses collectively into changing their actions, rather than to force them one-by-one to change ways. That's not something you can really do with illegal immigrants; they'll keep coming as long as there is work, since even a temporary stay followed by deportation can result in profit for them.
The outcry about the Arizona legislation is that attempting to enforce it will almost certainly result in racial profiling. That needn't be true of random checks of the citizenship status of all employees at a place of business, so long as it's done regardless of their ethnicity. |
How about enforcing the law without violating the Constitution? Whenever an illegal immigrant is found through normal, typical, legal, Constitutional, everyday means, check if he is employed, and if so, bust his employer then. No added costs, just routine police work. Employers will still get the message that they can be screwed if they employ illegals. |
Places of business are regularly checked to ensure they are in accordance with the law. Gas stations are a good example; regulators literally go around checking to make sure that gas station pumps are accurate. If they aren't, the owners are charged in accordance with the law. This would be no different.
That said, I have no particular problem with your approach either, and if experts on Constitutional law agreed with you that my suggestion would violate the Constitution based on its treatment of places of business, then I'd have no problem seeing your suggestion implemented instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe that polls show that a majority of legal hispanics support this measure. the talk of terrorist is not that far out, the drug syndicates which have close ties to the mexican government and police have been running wild. WE are talking about gangs with billions of dollars behind them and access to military weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If they want fewer illegal immigrants, they need to target the people who hire them, not the immigrants themselves. That's the cost effective way to do it, and it's also in accordance with the law... |
Busting employers makes sense.
But doing that would entail checking to see if workers are legal or not.
Which is something along the lines of the recent law just passed.
So, to those who say "Bust the employers, bust the employers" how do you do that without verifying the immigration status of the employees they hire? |
I think it's possible to enforce the law against employing non-citizens without resorting to racial profiling. In fact, random checks would probably suffice, especially if the fine for being caught was significant enough. The goal would be to scare businesses collectively into changing their actions, rather than to force them one-by-one to change ways. That's not something you can really do with illegal immigrants; they'll keep coming as long as there is work, since even a temporary stay followed by deportation can result in profit for them.
The outcry about the Arizona legislation is that attempting to enforce it will almost certainly result in racial profiling. That needn't be true of random checks of the citizenship status of all employees at a place of business, so long as it's done regardless of their ethnicity. |
How about enforcing the law without violating the Constitution? Whenever an illegal immigrant is found through normal, typical, legal, Constitutional, everyday means, check if he is employed, and if so, bust his employer then. No added costs, just routine police work. Employers will still get the message that they can be screwed if they employ illegals. |
Places of business are regularly checked to ensure they are in accordance with the law. Gas stations are a good example; regulators literally go around checking to make sure that gas station pumps are accurate. If they aren't, the owners are charged in accordance with the law. This would be no different.
That said, I have no particular problem with your approach either, and if experts on Constitutional law agreed with you that my suggestion would violate the Constitution based on its treatment of places of business, then I'd have no problem seeing your suggestion implemented instead. |
The difference is that people have rights that gas pumps do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If they want fewer illegal immigrants, they need to target the people who hire them, not the immigrants themselves. That's the cost effective way to do it, and it's also in accordance with the law... |
Busting employers makes sense.
But doing that would entail checking to see if workers are legal or not.
Which is something along the lines of the recent law just passed.
So, to those who say "Bust the employers, bust the employers" how do you do that without verifying the immigration status of the employees they hire? |
I think it's possible to enforce the law against employing non-citizens without resorting to racial profiling. In fact, random checks would probably suffice, especially if the fine for being caught was significant enough. The goal would be to scare businesses collectively into changing their actions, rather than to force them one-by-one to change ways. That's not something you can really do with illegal immigrants; they'll keep coming as long as there is work, since even a temporary stay followed by deportation can result in profit for them.
The outcry about the Arizona legislation is that attempting to enforce it will almost certainly result in racial profiling. That needn't be true of random checks of the citizenship status of all employees at a place of business, so long as it's done regardless of their ethnicity. |
How about enforcing the law without violating the Constitution? Whenever an illegal immigrant is found through normal, typical, legal, Constitutional, everyday means, check if he is employed, and if so, bust his employer then. No added costs, just routine police work. Employers will still get the message that they can be screwed if they employ illegals. |
Places of business are regularly checked to ensure they are in accordance with the law. Gas stations are a good example; regulators literally go around checking to make sure that gas station pumps are accurate. If they aren't, the owners are charged in accordance with the law. This would be no different.
That said, I have no particular problem with your approach either, and if experts on Constitutional law agreed with you that my suggestion would violate the Constitution based on its treatment of places of business, then I'd have no problem seeing your suggestion implemented instead. |
The difference is that people have rights that gas pumps do not. |
In both cases, though, it's the business being checked. I could see the possibility that it would not be constitutional to use data turned up in a random business search to deport individual illegal aliens, if that's what you're saying. So long as the focus is ensuring the business itself is in compliance with the law, though, it seems to me it should be constitutional by the same logic that the gas pump checks are, since the only "entity" facing direct legal consequence is the business itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because Arizona just hasn't been doing enough patently stupid stuff lately:
| Quote: |
The Arizona state Senate on Thursday passed a bill making it illegal for a person to �intentionally or knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid.�
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from �creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.�
The measure would also outlaw �transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb,� �transferring or attempting to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb� and �transporting or receiving for any purpose a human-animal hybrid.�
Louisiana passed a similar law in 2009, the same year Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009. The Senate did not take up Brownback proposed law.
A state House panel has also passed the bill, though it has not faced a full vote. GOP Gov. Jan Brewer has not spoken about the bill.
The bill is designed to block potential embryonic research which combines any human and animal cells as well as the �fertilizing a human egg with a nonhuman sperm or a nonhuman egg with human sperm.�
The bill would make it a class 6 felony in the state to knowingly create such a hybrid during research and class 1 misdemeanor to create or a purchase a human-animal embryo otherwise. |
Most of this bill is just pure, pointless legislation for it's own sake, declaring out-of-bounds certain research that, while it might teach us something about genetics, really isn't particularly necessary.
However, I do take some issue with this:
| Quote: |
| The measure would also outlaw �transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb,� |
The idea of transferring human embryos into artifical wombs (which, obviously, would qualify as non-human ones) one day to make human reproductive safer seems to me to be a potentially good one. It also seems like a potential solution to the abortion debate; if you can bring a baby to term without it relying on a woman's body, then you destroy the need for abortions at all.
This bill seems very poorly thought out to me. Arizona seems to be in a rush to pump out as much poorly-thought-out legislation as possible these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cisco kid
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: Outlaws had us pinned down at the fort
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me just stir the pot with this....
| Quote: |
What if I told you that the Federal government has no business what-so-ever getting involved in these issues? That the Bill of Rights is intended as a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government ONLY, not the states, and that any federally elected person, conservative or not, that votes in favor of laws that interfere with these things is breaking their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
The Founding Fathers debated this issue quite thoroughly. There were many in attendance who wished to have us become a consolidated, national government. James Madison repeatedly tried to grant the federal government the power to negate all state laws. He was soundly defeated each time.
In the end we were given a Federal Republic that was made up of individual sovereign states. These states delegated limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. To be certain that there was no mistake, they had the Tenth Amendment added: �The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.�
Couldn�t be much clearer � if it�s not in the Constitution, it�s left for the states or the people to decide. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cisco kid wrote: |
Let me just stir the pot with this....
| Quote: |
What if I told you that the Federal government has no business what-so-ever getting involved in these issues? That the Bill of Rights is intended as a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government ONLY, not the states, and that any federally elected person, conservative or not, that votes in favor of laws that interfere with these things is breaking their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
The Founding Fathers debated this issue quite thoroughly. There were many in attendance who wished to have us become a consolidated, national government. James Madison repeatedly tried to grant the federal government the power to negate all state laws. He was soundly defeated each time.
In the end we were given a Federal Republic that was made up of individual sovereign states. These states delegated limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. To be certain that there was no mistake, they had the Tenth Amendment added: �The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.�
Couldn�t be much clearer � if it�s not in the Constitution, it�s left for the states or the people to decide. |
|
It's enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution affords the federal government the power to �establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,� U.S. Const., art. I � 8, cl. 4.
This is by far the worst 10th Amendment argument I've ever encountered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cisco kid
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: Outlaws had us pinned down at the fort
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes.
Arizona is a neo-Nazi, fascist, racist state. It makes Apartheid South Africa look like amateur hour and it's only a matter of time until the parallels to Pol Pot's Cambodia are reported.
The Feds don't want Arizona setting this kind of precedent, and all of a sudden you have 50 different states with different immigration laws. So I can see the point in that argument.
However, we can't blame Arizona for doing what is necessary to protect themselves since Washington isn't in any hurry to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and cartel activities.
Almost all of our freedoms are an illusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cisco kid wrote: |
The Feds don't want Arizona setting this kind of precedent, and all of a sudden you have 50 different states with different immigration laws. So I can see the point in that argument. |
The Constitutional argument is fairly straightforward.
| Quote: |
| However, we can't blame Arizona for doing what is necessary to protect themselves since Washington isn't in any hurry to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and cartel activities. |
I'm sympathetic, but this argument is insufficient to set aside clear Constitutional provisions. The AZ law may have one beneficial effect: getting national immigration reform on the agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
