Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Vigorous Prosecution of Employers of the Undocumented
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should the US vigorously prosecute employers of undocumented immigrants?
Yes
33%
 33%  [ 1 ]
Increase prosecution, but do not make it vigorous, as such
66%
 66%  [ 2 ]
No
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 3

Author Message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:15 pm    Post subject: Vigorous Prosecution of Employers of the Undocumented Reply with quote

I hope that you will read at least the opening post before you vote in the poll.

Once, I asked Fox what he would do to stem the tide of undocumented immigration. His answer was quite good.

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=236854&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=65

Fox wrote:
On the one hand, vigorous prosecution of anyone who hires illegal immigrants, the explicit illegalization of "sanctuary cities," and the abolition of birthright citizenship for anyone who qualifies for any other citizenship (though people already possessed of birthright citizenship would obviously be grandfathered in). On the other hand, greater access to rigorously-overseen-but-easily-and-quickly-acquired work visas for industries which are actually dependent on low-cost migrant labor (though visa overstay would result in long-term disqualification from future intakes). I would also recommend a national ID system to help facilitate law enforcement on immigration, all the more given it would come with other benefits as well with regards to issues like voting, government benefits, and so forth. Plenty of other countries in the world manage this without a problem. It's slightly more complex than I've outlined here of course, but not much, and any first world country is more than capable of this level of governmental administration.

Beyond that, I would ignore the issue and let it resolve itself, and it would resolve itself. People with no access to opportunity here will not come, and those already here will leave, because they aren't fools.


Overall, this is a sensible plan, no? But look where Fox started:

Fox wrote:
On the one hand, vigorous prosecution of anyone who hires illegal immigrants


Who would oppose this? Not me. Not many Bernie Sanders supporters. Not many Donald Trump supporters. The Chamber of Commerce would probably oppose this. Hillary Clinton's donors would probably oppose this.

But wait a moment. Has the United States ever attempted vigorous prosecution of anyone who hires illegal immigrants?

Let us start with a description of the law.

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-pitfalls-hiring-undocumented-immigrants.html

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a

Before 1986, no penalties were assessed against companies employing undocumented immigrants. Today, it appears that the penalties are as follows:

Quote:
You may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for hiring undocumented immigrant workers. Civil penalties range from a minimum of $375 per unauthorized worker for a first offense up to a maximum of $1,600 per worker for a third or subsequent offense. If you are found to have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of hiring undocumented workers, then you can be fined up to $3,000 per employee and/or imprisoned for up to six months.


Another source indicates that employing ten or more undocumented immigrants in one year can mean imprisonment for more than six months. In addition, the RICO Act opens up possibilities for severe, widespread, and systematic violation of the law.

The fines amount to a mere cost of business. Threat of imprisonment is critical. Nonetheless, standard of proof and enforcement priorities mean few prosecutions.

www.fairus.org/issue/employer-sanctions

Quote:
If there are no employers willing to hire them, then the flood of illegal aliens will subside. The Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 outlawed hiring illegal alien workers, although common practice has proven that measure ineffective for two reasons:

The law requires proof that the employer knowingly hired the illegal worker.
The prevalence of fake documents make it difficult to prove the employer knew that the employee’s work documents were not legitimate.


The Federation for American Immigration Reform includes only seven prosecutions over the last two and a half years. I have bolded the manner of plea below.

Quote:
June 2016 — Ming Fong Cheung pled guilty to employing illegal aliens and tax evasion in State College, Pennsylvania. Cheung operated Asian food restaurants. Previously, eight other Asian food operators were similarly found to employ illegal worker in State College. Cheung could be sentenced to 30 years in prison, but as a result of his plea, is more likely to be sentenced to 18-20 months. (Pennlive.com June 17, 2016)

February 2016 — A limited liability farming company, HW Group, of Lexington County South Carolina pled guilty to illegally employing more 300-350 illegal aliens over a six year period. The company was fined one million dollars and put on probation for four years. A condition of the plea agreement is that the company enrolls in the E-Verify program. The employment of the illegal workers was proven as the result of the guilty plea in a separate legal action against a person who worked as a form of labor contractor who received weekly lump sums of cash to pay the company's illegal workers. That person was sentenced to probation as a result of cooperating in the prosecution of the company. (The State, consulted Feb. 26, 2016)

July 2015 — Chinese Immigrant brothers Wen Ping Chen and Wen Qiu Chen pled guilty to employing and harboring illegal alien workers in the restaurants they owned in Santa Fe and Rio Rancho, New Mexico. The brothers were put on probation for one year and ordered to forfeit the house in which they had harbored the illegal workers. (The Santa Fe New Mexican, July 2, 2015)

June 2015 — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that Broetje Orchards in Walla Walla (Eastern Washington) agreed to pay a $2.25 million dollar penalty for the continued employment of 950 illegal alien workers. This was said to be one of the largest fines ever to an agricultural employer. In an audit in 2012, Broetje was notified by ICE following a 2012 audit that it had a suspected 1,700 illegal aliens on the payroll. The firm actively lobbied Congress for adoption of an amnesty for illegal aliens so that it would be able to retain its illegal alien agricultural workers. (The Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2015)

April 2015 — Farrukh Baig, who employed at least 50 illegal aliens at his 7-Eleven franchises, was sentenced to seven years in prison in New York. He pled guilty to committing wire fraud and concealing and harboring immigrants. He provided fake Social Security numbers to his employees by stealing them from minors and deceased persons. In addition, Baig also loses franchise rights to his 10 stores in New York and four stores in Virginia, as well as five houses in New York worth $1.3 million and has to pay $2.5 million in restitution for back wages to his workers. Also charged with the fraud were his wife and two brothers.(law360.com, April 27, 2015)

March 2015 — Munir Ahmad Chaudary, the owner of a hotel in Kansas, was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. His sentencing followed the sentencing of his wife to 21 months imprisonment. They both had pled guilty to "conspiracy to harbor undocumented aliens for financial gain." Earlier two other management employees of the hotel were also convicted. (Topeka Capital Journal, March 9, 2015)

February 2014 — The owner of Winterscapes LLC, Stanley Porter, pled guilty to visa fraud and money laundering in connection with getting visas for H-2B temporary workers. His North Carolina operation obtained visas under false pretentions and made the foreign workers available to other firms. He was sentenced to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. (Washington Post, February 20, 2014)

January 2014 — The owner of Williams Brothers Roofing and Siding Co. in Dayton Ohio pled guilty to conspiracy of recruiting, transporting and using illegal immigrant workers from Mexico, falsifying documents and wire fraud. Gregory Oldiges will get between 24 to 57 months imprisonment and forfeit more than $2 million in cash, a $500,000 house and his pickup. (The Dayton Daily News, January 7, 2014)


As you can see, in each case, there was a guilty plea, a plea bargain, or an agreement to pay. It may be that we should be skeptical of FAIR's presentation. In honor of the end of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's DNC tenure, I obtained this link from politifact.com: www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/jul/03/debbie-wasserman-schultz/obama-holds-record-cracking-down-employers-who-hir/

Quote:
[Debbie Wasserman Schultz] Says President Obama has cracked down "on employers who are attracting undocumented immigrants and hiring them more than any previous president."

. . . we turned to the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies worldwide migration. Their 2013 paper about the history of immigration enforcement includes a chapter on workplace enforcement. We also found some background in a 2010 investigation from the Orange County Register.

. . .

At times, members in Congress have called for stiffer workplace enforcement. But when the reality hit home in their districts and led to complaints from business owners, politicians urged the federal government to ease up, according to border expert and University at Albany professor Rey Koslowski. That’s why border security has been more politically popular to fund than worksite enforcement. (We should note that a significant percentage of people working illegally don't cross the border; they simply overstay their visas.)

. . .

Obama doesn’t hold a record on final orders against employers. The numbers of final orders hit higher numbers in the 1990s. Those 495 final orders under Obama were consistently exceeded between 1992 and 1998, with a peak 1,063 final orders in 1992, according to data from the government’s Immigration Statistics yearbook.

. . .

Our ruling

Wasserman Schultz said that Obama has cracked down "on employers who are attracting undocumented immigrants and hiring them more than any previous president."

She used the word "employers" and not "employees" here for a reason: Obama shifted away from Bush’s strategy of workplace raids and turned the focus on employers. Between 2008 and 2009, immigration audits soared from 503 to more than 8,000. But other metric tell a more nuanced story. Final orders against employers, for example, were higher in the 1990s than they are now.

We rate this claim Half True.


It appears that neither the Bush nor Obama administrations have been very serious about enforcing the immigration laws against employers of immigrants without status.

It appears that presently, the United States only performs perfunctory prosecutions of employers of undocumented immigrants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:18 pm    Post subject: Trump's proposal is to build a wall and other things Reply with quote

Trump's Proposal

Trump is well-known for his claim that he will "Build a wall" between Mexico and the United States. The idea is "first secure the border," as undocumented immigrants must pass through the southern border before they can work in the United States. A summary of his immigration plan has been described as follows:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/16/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plans/index.html

Quote:
Trump's immigration plan is based on three core principles:
(a) that the U.S. must build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border,
(b) that immigration laws must be fully enforced
(c) and that "any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans."


As for enforcing immigration laws:

Quote:
Trump calls for requiring a nationwide system to verify workers' legal status, tripling the number of immigrations and customs enforcement agents and implementing a tracking system to identify people who overstay their visas.


Conspicuously absent: vigorously prosecuting anyone who hires undocumented immigrants. So let us go deeper.

Here is Trump's immigration plan, in his team's own words: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Quote:
Make Mexico Pay for the Wall

Defend the Laws and Constitution of the United States

Triple the number of ICE officers

Nationwide e-verify

Mandatory return of all criminal aliens (i.e. immigrants convicted of crimes other than entry or remaining without status)

Detention - not catch-and-release

Defund Sanctuary Cities

Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa

Cooperate with local gang task forces

End Birthright Citizenship (for children of illegal immigrants)

Put American Workers First

[Statistics about the black and hispanic youth unemployment crisis]

Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs

Requirement to hire American workers first (some visas do not already have this requirement)

End Welfare Abuse

Jobs program for inner city youth

Refugee program for American children

Immigration moderation - (i.e. pause on isssuing green card to foreign workers abroad)


Nowhere does Trump promise to vigorously prosecute those who hire undocumented workers; and yet the headings suggest he might be promising to do exactly this:
"Defend the Laws and Constitution of the United States" and
"Put American Workers First."

Indeed, unlike the rather honest and unfalsifiable promise to "Build a Wall," it turns out that vigorous prosecution of those who hire undocumented workers does not fit under the platitudes of "Defend the Laws of the United States" or "Put American Workers First."

Indeed, statements Trump has made confirms that he has no intention of vigorously prosecuting the companies and wealthy individuals who employ undocumented immigrants. Back in November, 2015, Trump praised, not by name, Eisenhower's deportation program.

www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trumps-immigration-solution-bring-back-controversial-operation-wetback-n461381

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/11/9714842/operation-wetback

Quote:
Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. I like Ike, right? The expression. I like Ike. Moved a million 1/2 illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again, beyond the border, they came back. Didn't like it. Moved them way south. They never came back. Dwight Eisenhower. You don't get nicer, you don't get friendlier. They moved a million 1/2 people out. We have no choice.


Nevermind the name. The point here is that the policy did not work. Eisenhower kept moving them back, beyond the border, further south. Obviously, it did not work. If it had worked, undocumented immigration would not be such a hot topic today.

https://newrepublic.com/article/132988/operation-wetback-revisited

Quote:
In 1942, the Mexican and American governments tried to bring order to this exploitive system by agreeing to the Bracero Program (formally known as the Migrant Labor Agreement), which permitted vetted contract laborers (mainly screened for health problems) to be legal guest workers for a fixed term, usually a few months at a time. Braceros were promised fair treatment in wages and boarding, but enforcement was lax and employer abuse was widespread.

The Bracero Program was meant to be an alternative to undocumented immigration, but ended up providing a cover for it. Though there were between 200,000 and 450,000 braceros per year in the 1950s, farmers wanted more laborers—and the existence of a large number of braceros created communities where undocumented workers could also find work. And as large farms employed braceros, smaller farmers often turned to the undocumented to stay competitive. If braceros were shadow workers with nebulous rights, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers who came in the wake of the program existed as shadows of shadows.

Operation Wetback, initiated in 1954 and overseen by President Eisenhower’s military pal, retired Major General Joseph M. Swing, had an ostensibly humanitarian rationale; social groups like churches and labor unions had been raising alarms about the exploitation of immigrant labor. But the most influential push came from farming interests who had created the problem. For them, it was a way to shut down proposed laws that would penalize them for hiring undocumented workers.

. . .

Over one million people were reportedly sent back to Mexico in 1954, and a further 242,000 the following year. The methods of removal were cruel: More than a quarter of the migrants were taken in cargo ships from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico—a form of transportation that a congressional investigation would later compare to an “eighteenth-century slave ship” and a “penal hell ship.” Others were simply dumped deep in the interior—or, in Trump’s words, “way south.”

. . .

By citing Operation Wetback as a model, Trump has given us a chilling foretaste of what he means to do. Just as in the Eisenhower era, he would give a free pass to the business leaders who employ undocumented workers (a wise move, in a purely self-serving sense, since Trump himself falls into that camp). The brunt of the policy would fall on the most vulnerable, and the effect would be to degrade an entire ethnic group. While Trump hasn’t deigned to say how he’d go about rounding up and removing millions of people, his version of Eisenhower’s program would undoubtedly cause massive collateral damage. The undocumented are woven deeply into the fabric of existing American society. Going after them would tear apart families and whole communities.


Donald Trump's policy appears tough. It is a mirage to protect business interests. Fox is right: the most important new step for halting undocumented immigration would be vigorously prosecuting those who hired undocumented immigrants. This is something that has yet to be tried or seriously or honestly proposed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallacy



Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Vigorous Prosecution of Employers of the Undocumented Reply with quote

Wall = construction project (increases profits). Prosecution = destruction project (decreases profits). Capitalists will lobby against the latter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FMPJ



Joined: 03 Jun 2008

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Literally all the produce harvested in California relies on undocumented migrant labor. If you want affordable fruit and vegetables, you don't really want the undocumented workers to be deported or prevented from working.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends on how easy it is to check. I wouldn't want to impose a system that punished people who hired illegal immigrants unknowingly, especially if there is no easy comprehensive way to check (if there is let me know, I'm honestly not sure).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FMPJ wrote:
Literally all the produce harvested in California relies on undocumented migrant labor. If you want affordable fruit and vegetables, you don't really want the undocumented workers to be deported or prevented from working.


Under my proposal, industries in which that was genuinely the case would benefit from efficient, low-cost access to workers visas for that particular type of labor. This would allow them to continue to employ the workers in question, but in an actually legal capacity. The fact that said workers would be here legally would also increase their access to legal recourse in cases of abuse or rights violations. A system which relies on completely ignoring its own provisions for the sake of achieving desired results is not a good system; if our society genuinely wants to produce food in this fashion, then best to make it official.

Leon wrote:
Depends on how easy it is to check. I wouldn't want to impose a system that punished people who hired illegal immigrants unknowingly, especially if there is no easy comprehensive way to check (if there is let me know, I'm honestly not sure).


Right, which is why I suggested a national ID system would logically accompany such an approach: being able to firmly identify whether or not a person is a citizen would both make things easier for honest employers and make prosecution of law-breaking employers more practical. It would also have other benefits with regards to societal administration, but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread. The way in which we use social security numbers as some poor man's substitute for actual identification is not very practical given the size of our society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
FMPJ wrote:
Literally all the produce harvested in California relies on undocumented migrant labor. If you want affordable fruit and vegetables, you don't really want the undocumented workers to be deported or prevented from working.


Under my proposal, industries in which that was genuinely the case would benefit from efficient, low-cost access to workers visas for that particular type of labor. This would allow them to continue to employ the workers in question, but in an actually legal capacity. The fact that said workers would be here legally would also increase their access to legal recourse in cases of abuse or rights violations. A system which relies on completely ignoring its own provisions for the sake of achieving desired results is not a good system; if our society genuinely wants to produce food in this fashion, then best to make it official.

Leon wrote:
Depends on how easy it is to check. I wouldn't want to impose a system that punished people who hired illegal immigrants unknowingly, especially if there is no easy comprehensive way to check (if there is let me know, I'm honestly not sure).


Right, which is why I suggested a national ID system would logically accompany such an approach: being able to firmly identify whether or not a person is a citizen would both make things easier for honest employers and make prosecution of law-breaking employers more practical. It would also have other benefits with regards to societal administration, but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread. The way in which we use social security numbers as some poor man's substitute for actual identification is not very practical given the size of our society.


What would a national ID card do that a green card doesn't? My Korean wife uses that when she works in the states.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

What would a national ID card do that a green card doesn't? My Korean wife uses that when she works in the states.


Nothing, but as a natural born citizen, you don't have a green card, and neither do I. I mean a national ID card for every single citizen, which positively proves one is a citizen, such that citizenship could be easily and immediately confirmed. All Korean citizens (for example) have such an ID, and the system works very well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

What would a national ID card do that a green card doesn't? My Korean wife uses that when she works in the states.


Nothing, but as a natural born citizen, you don't have a green card, and neither do I. I mean a national ID card for every single citizen, which positively proves one is a citizen, such that citizenship could be easily and immediately confirmed. All Korean citizens (for example) have such an ID, and the system works very well.


Well yeah, that's nice for other things, but a lot of people are eligible to work on the states, but are not citizens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FMPJ wrote:
Literally all the produce harvested in California relies on undocumented migrant labor. If you want affordable fruit and vegetables, you don't really want the undocumented workers to be deported or prevented from working.


So here is a situation in which a plea bargain might be sensible. An entire industry cannot become legal overnight, but also an entire industry cannot continue to operate illegally.

I believe Fox's solution, btw, is far more humanitarian than deporting people by the millions. It is also far more affordable.

Frankly, I would rather do damage to Monsanto and Tyson, the real culprits, than to a bunch of Central American and Mexican migrant laborers (many of whom intend to leave anyway). Once the industries have begun to change and food costs begin to rise, we will see more small and sustainable farms spring up in states like Maine and Wisconsin.

The Southern California mass agricultural system is unsustainable in terms of water use, anyway.

I actually had been thinking about this for months. Just waiting for the atmosphere to clear before I invested any energy into developing a serious policy thought in this space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

What would a national ID card do that a green card doesn't? My Korean wife uses that when she works in the states.


Nothing, but as a natural born citizen, you don't have a green card, and neither do I. I mean a national ID card for every single citizen, which positively proves one is a citizen, such that citizenship could be easily and immediately confirmed. All Korean citizens (for example) have such an ID, and the system works very well.


Well yeah, that's nice for other things, but a lot of people are eligible to work on the states, but are not citizens.


Right. So citizens have ID cards, PRs have green cards, and everyone else with work eligibility has a work authorization card. The latter two already exist (Employment Authorization Document in DHS parlance).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

What would a national ID card do that a green card doesn't? My Korean wife uses that when she works in the states.


Nothing, but as a natural born citizen, you don't have a green card, and neither do I. I mean a national ID card for every single citizen, which positively proves one is a citizen, such that citizenship could be easily and immediately confirmed. All Korean citizens (for example) have such an ID, and the system works very well.


Well yeah, that's nice for other things, but a lot of people are eligible to work on the states, but are not citizens.


If they are eligible to work, then they will have verifiable documents proving it. Accordingly, should a worker have neither such documents nor a national ID, then an employer hiring them could be rightly treated as having knowingly employed illegal aliens. As things stand, faking some semblance of citizenship -- enough, at least, for plausible deniability -- is too easy. That is the relevance of national IDs here: obliterating plausible deniability. Or at least so it seems to me. After all, as you yourself pointed out, we would not want to vigorously prosecute employers who genuinely thought they were hiring citizens or otherwise legal workers, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

What would a national ID card do that a green card doesn't? My Korean wife uses that when she works in the states.


Nothing, but as a natural born citizen, you don't have a green card, and neither do I. I mean a national ID card for every single citizen, which positively proves one is a citizen, such that citizenship could be easily and immediately confirmed. All Korean citizens (for example) have such an ID, and the system works very well.


Well yeah, that's nice for other things, but a lot of people are eligible to work on the states, but are not citizens.


If they are eligible to work, then they will have verifiable documents proving it. Accordingly, should a worker have neither such documents nor a national ID, then an employer hiring them could be rightly treated as having knowingly employed illegal aliens. As things stand, faking some semblance of citizenship -- enough, at least, for plausible deniability -- is too easy. That is the relevance of national IDs here: obliterating plausible deniability. Or at least so it seems to me. After all, as you yourself pointed out, we would not want to vigorously prosecute employers who genuinely thought they were hiring citizens or otherwise legal workers, right?


I guess I'm missing something, ID cards are not hard to get fakes of, as many young people at bars could tell you. Also, i think in America they take a photo copy of two forms of ID before you can work, regardless of citizenship or residency. I had to give two forms before I started working.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

I guess I'm missing something, ID cards are not hard to get fakes of, as many young people at bars could tell you.


Giving an example of how easy it is to fabricate an ID in a country with inadequate identification services reinforces my position. Employers would be expected to run a proper check on any ID provided by a potential employee, through a much more efficient and available system provided by the national identification service, and failure to do so would result in liability if the employee turned out to be illegal. "Hey, his card looked legitimate," would be no excuse.

Leon wrote:
Also, i think in America they take a photo copy of two forms of ID before you can work, regardless of citizenship or residency. I had to give two forms before I started working.


Yes, and why do they need two forms of ID? Precisely because identification is handled in a sloppy fashion in America. I've never been asked for two forms of ID in Korea, because the official identification cards are verifiable and effective. You're essentially making my case for me at this point, which makes it essentially perplexing that you seem to take such issue with it. We've all lived in a country where we've seen this system work and work well, it ought to be non-controversial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

I guess I'm missing something, ID cards are not hard to get fakes of, as many young people at bars could tell you.


Giving an example of how easy it is to fabricate an ID in a country with inadequate identification services reinforces my position. Employers would be expected to run a proper check on any ID provided by a potential employee, through a much more efficient and available system provided by the national identification service, and failure to do so would result in liability if the employee turned out to be illegal. "Hey, his card looked legitimate," would be no excuse.

Leon wrote:
Also, i think in America they take a photo copy of two forms of ID before you can work, regardless of citizenship or residency. I had to give two forms before I started working.


Yes, and why do they need two forms of ID? Precisely because identification is handled in a sloppy fashion in America. I've never been asked for two forms of ID in Korea, because the official identification cards are verifiable and effective. You're essentially making my case for me at this point, which makes it essentially perplexing that you seem to take such issue with it. We've all lived in a country where we've seen this system work and work well, it ought to be non-controversial.


Not taking an issue with it, just trying to understand it. I guess my thinking is that a database and an easy way for even small employers to access it is more important than the actual plastic card. Also, many people working illegally are doing so under the table, so the ID card wouldn't help this situation, it would require a more invasive police state to show up on job sites and actually check each individual employee for compliance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International