Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[SSgt_Sniper]

Not conservative, independant.. Which is right of center minus the big business. I believe when you write a redundant law, you cause both damage to the word of law and damage to our freedom. I believe that when government puts it's nose too far into the peoples' lives, it loses the right to govern. I also believe in this day and age little can be done about it. I believe in protecting freedoms without turning businesses sooo loose that they lose sight of the moral responsiblity they have to you know, not blow up the planet? I also believe that part of what happens in these big businesses isn't that they are evil, it's that most of them only see their slice of things, so it's easy to turn a blind eye to the larger picture. Which is why I believe in capitalism with common sense. I believe you should try to leave the world better than you got it, which is sometimes hard to do but it's worth a try. But I also believe that tree hugging yourself back into the stone age isn't going to help things. Confused yet?

I don't refer to the job as a right, merely the right to not have it taken away by illegals. They want to fire me for being an ass, fine. Not because Jose works like he's your personal bitch for 2/3 what you paid me motherfucker.

 

[TJHairball]

I don't refer to the job as a right, merely the right to not have it taken away by illegals. They want to fire me for being an ass, fine. Not because Jose works like he's your personal bitch for 2/3 what you paid me motherfucker.

Legal immigrants often work like crazy for flat minimum wage. It's not just illegals who work hard for cheap. You here to complain about them too?

Now the stereotyping... that's not fair, and racial discrimination ("White people don't work hard") does violate your rights. But you're not hanging your hat on race there, you're hanging it on the immigrants being legal or illegal.

Working Jose in illegal conditions for sub-minimum wage violates his rights (to fair and safe labor conditions) - but not yours. None I've ever heard of, fundamental or expressed.

 

[The Question]

Legal immigrants often work like crazy for flat minimum wage. It's not just illegals who work hard for cheap. You here to complain about them too?

Legal immigrants are one thing; they're protected by labor law --and if/when they're not, they'd damned well better be. I'd be the first one to cheer any American citizen on, native-born or naturalized, when he, she or they take the piss out of a corporation for labor-related dipshittery.

But illegal laborers are cheaper than minimum wage, and have none of the protection of labor law -- nor do they deserve the protection of labor law. I've said it before, and I'll probably find myself saying it again: Illegal labor is a two-way street; they can come here legally, and they choose not to. No one's kidnapping them off the streets and marching them north through the desert at gunpoint -- and they know what they're doing is illegal. Their ticket, their ride when they get here.

Now the stereotyping... that's not fair, and racial discrimination ("White people don't work hard") does violate your rights. But you're not hanging your hat on race there, you're hanging it on the immigrants being legal or illegal.

I'd say it hinges more on businesses violating labor law to cheat Americans of equal employment opportunity.

Working Jose in illegal conditions for sub-minimum wage violates his rights (to fair and safe labor conditions) - but not yours.

But since Jose isn't legally eligible to work in this country, he's not protected by our labor laws. He has no right to fair or safe labor conditions in this country, because he has no right to be employed in this country at all.

 

[The Question]

It's illegal. It's not a violation of your rights.

I disagree. If EEOC was put in place to protect the rights of minorities to equal employment opportunity, then isn't preferential hiring of illegals also a violation of Americans' rights to equal employment opportunity?

 

[TJHairball]

Legal immigrants are one thing; they're protected by labor law --and if/when they're not, they'd damned well better be. I'd be the first one to cheer any American citizen on, native-born or naturalized, when he, she or they take the piss out of a corporation for labor-related dipshittery.

Illegal immigrants are also protected by labor laws.

Unfortunately, they're usually too scared to testify.

But illegal laborers are cheaper than minimum wage, and have none of the protection of labor law -- nor do they deserve the protection of labor law. I've said it before, and I'll probably find myself saying it again: Illegal labor is a two-way street; they can come here legally,

The INS can be very fickle and inconsistent. There is a good question there, though:

Why not come legally? I suspect it may have something to do with the number of work visas the INS is willing to issue. Got anything on that angle?

and they choose not to. No one's kidnapping them off the streets and marching them north through the desert at gunpoint -- and they know what they're doing is illegal. Their ticket, their ride when they get here.

I'd say it hinges more on businesses violating labor law to cheat Americans of equal employment opportunity.

Getting more convincing along these lines. Remember, though, that you need to distinguish between legal immigrants plus born Americans, while fitting this into the box "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;" do that, and you'll even have a case to work with legally in court.

But since Jose isn't legally eligible to work in this country, he's not protected by our labor laws. He has no right to fair or safe labor conditions in this country, because he has no right to be employed in this country at all.

He actually is protected by labor laws, last time I heard any experts talk about them. Theoretically. Labor laws don't only apply to legal workers... IIRC, if you could document an employer employing an illegal for $4 an hour, 50 hours a week with no benefits, you can get them up on multiple charges right there. He has, as it were, "no right to be employed," but he still has the right to not be maltreated.

Another example... if you were running a sweatshop full of 6-10 year old Mexican kids here with no documentation, I could still try to nail you on child labor laws.

 

[The Question]

Illegal immigrants are also protected by labor laws.

Then the answer to that is to pressure ICE/DHS to more strictly enforce existing law against illegals themselves, and both increase deterrent and punitive measures and more strictly adhere to enforcement against employers who violate labor law by hiring illegally.

There is a good question there, though:

Why not come legally? I suspect it may have something to do with the number of work visas the INS is willing to issue. Got anything on that angle?

Yeah, off the top of my head I'd say it's still their responsibility to obey the law. You can't get away with stealing a car just because your bank won't extend you financing.

Getting more convincing along these lines. Remember, though, that you need to distinguish between legal immigrants plus born Americans, while fitting this into the box "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;" do that, and you'll even have a case to work with legally in court.

As far as I know, it would work from the "national origin" angle, in cases where those whose national origin is the U.S. can't be hired due to preferential hiring of Mexican nationals.

He actually is protected by labor laws, last time I heard any experts talk about them. Theoretically. Labor laws don't only apply to legal workers... IIRC, if you could document an employer employing an illegal for $4 an hour, 50 hours a week with no benefits, you can get them up on multiple charges right there.

As I understand it, cases like that are the rule in illegal labor, rather than the exception -- it seems reasonable to suspect so, at least, because illegal labor wouldn't be as attractive otherwise.

He has, as it were, "no right to be employed," but he still has the right to not be maltreated.

That still ought to be a seperate issue from labor law, though, because extending special protection under labor law bears the risk of legitimizing illegal employment in cases where some of the objectionable elements aren't present, i.e. cases where the illegal employees still receive preference over legal employees for hiring, but under conditions the illegal employees are disinclined to complain about.

Another example... if you were running a sweatshop full of 6-10 year old Mexican kids here with no documentation, I could still try to nail you on child labor laws.

Right, but that's more a punitive measure against the employer than a protective measure on behalf of the employees, at least in the immediate sense.

 

[TJHairball]

Yeah, off the top of my head I'd say it's still their responsibility to obey the law. You can't get away with stealing a car just because your bank won't extend you financing.

Bad analogy... I'll get to that later.

I'll leave it as a question for you to answer:

Why don't illegals migrate legally?

Give me an answer here. What's stopping them from entering legally, rather than legally?

As far as I know, it would work from the "national origin" angle, in cases where those whose national origin is the U.S. can't be hired due to preferential hiring of Mexican nationals.

Fair enough. So in those cases in which employers are hiring illegals preferentially and turning away native US workers (i.e., hiring them at greater rates at the same degrees of qualification, recommendation, and what-not) then we have a equal opportunity rights violation.

But we don't in the case of simple competition.

As I understand it, cases like that are the rule in illegal labor, rather than the exception -- it seems reasonable to suspect so, at least, because illegal labor wouldn't be as attractive otherwise.

I don't really understand that to be the rule, with the notable exception of the agricultural industry.

The CIS, in a 2003 study, estimated average household income, for households headed by illegal immigrants, to be ~$30,000 or so. This is not any appreciably lower than the US Census figures for households headed by Hispanics of any variety (legal or illegal) in 2004 - the Census office actually estimated ~$27,000, a difference that matches very nicely with the difference in reported household size (2.54 vs 2.7).

I'm sure you agree, reading those figures, that the legal status of immigrants has little to no impact on income... which I conclude means that (perhaps with the exception of the well-documented abuses of seasonal migrant workers by the agricultural industry, who were probably not covered very well by any study) there is no appreciable difference in the frequency employers violate the law with legal unskilled workers, and illegal unskilled workers.

Which in turn suggests that the scenario you suggest (illegals being preferentially hired because they are illegal and therefore can be paid less) isn't very common.

Now, there may well be racial biases at work, or biases to hiring immigrants (legal or illegal, they care not which) in general.

That still ought to be a seperate issue from labor law, though, because extending special protection under labor law bears the risk of legitimizing illegal employment in cases where some of the objectionable elements aren't present, i.e. cases where the illegal employees still receive preference over legal employees for hiring, but under conditions the illegal employees are disinclined to complain about.

It's not so much special protection for illegals under law so much as the law being general, and not making exceptions for illegal workers.

It's like this. While robbing a bank, your pants fall down. You make your getaway without them - does that mean that, because you were robbing a bank, you can't get charged for indecent exposure as well?

I bet you'll usually get charged with both, as silly as indecent exposure laws are.

Right, but that's more a punitive measure against the employer than a protective measure on behalf of the employees, at least in the immediate sense.

I'd call taking out the sweatshop a protective measure of its employees, in a sense.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

The CIS, in a 2003 study, estimated average household income, for households headed by illegal immigrants, to be ~$30,000 or so. This is not any appreciably lower than the US Census figures for households headed by Hispanics of any variety (legal or illegal) in 2004 - the Census office actually estimated ~$27,000, a difference that matches very nicely with the difference in reported household size (2.54 vs 2.7).

What this doesn't address is how many hours worked in each household, which would be the tell of what the wages earned actually is. If the homes of illegals are working let's say.... 25% more hours, then they're getting paid 25% less per hour, get my drift?

 

[TJHairball]

What this doesn't address is how many hours worked in each household, which would be the tell of what the wages earned actually is. If the homes of illegals are working let's say.... 25% more hours, then they're getting paid 25% less per hour, get my drift?

Possible. Just not a particularly likely correlation to coincidentally occur in any significant quantities, and with all the figures sitting where they are, it seems clear enough that most illegals who are working are earning at least minimum wage, just as most legals are. Run the math through the employment levels of the population and the typical amount of time spent between jobs, on vacation, or otherwise not working for one reason or another.

An estimated 55% of households headed by illegals even file tax returns. Some fake paperwork floating around, ya think?

The CIS, in their studies of the economic impact of amnesty (i.e., legalizing everybody), don't anticipate any shift in the supply of labor or the earnings of immigrant households, and with good reason... the statistical evidence indicates that either the abuse of immigrant labor extends [nearly or completely] to legal aliens with work visas, or employers hiring illegals are by and large not violating other labor laws to exploit them.

 

[The Question]

Then the question is, why are they hiring illegally in cases where they follow other labor laws? To me, the answer is just preferential hiring -- discrimination against legal American employees.

So we can slice it two ways: Employers are either violating anti-discrimination laws, or violating labor laws and anti-discrimination laws. They're violating federal law against harboring illegal aliens in either case.

 

[The Question]

Bad analogy... I'll get to that later.

I'll leave it as a question for you to answer:

Why don't illegals migrate legally?

Give me an answer here. What's stopping them from entering legally, rather than legally?

Because doing it legally requires time and money -- again, much as does purchasing something as opposed to stealing it. Thievery is faster, free and (sometimes) just requires less effort, overall, than acquiring the same thing legitimately. And the fact is that there is a large and very vocal cheerleading section here, including politicians, who are essentially saying, "It's not wrong for you to break the law because you need to, and (by implication) you're not white. So go ahead, more power to ya."

That's with individuals whose sole concern is bettering their lot in life. It also remains a fact that there are a percentage of them who do it because they simply don't respect our laws, or the existence of the United States as a nation seperate from Mexico.

 

[TJHairball]

Then the question is, why are they hiring illegally in cases where they follow other labor laws? To me, the answer is just preferential hiring -- discrimination against legal American employees.

But it doesn't have to be.

55% of the time, illegals even file tax returns. At that point many employers may think themselves to have plausible deniability; others may simply not check.

In other cases, they may just not give a crap. Jose has a good recommendation from Miguel, who's legal and a good worker; Jose has no criminal background they're aware of; Jose interviewed well, in Spanish anyway; etc etc.

Overall, illegals don't have an unusually high degree of employment as a population. That and the income levels per household suggest to me that in most cases, they're being treated much like legal immigrant employees - perhaps paid under the table rather than over, but I've known many legal immigrants and native residents who prefer that in order to cheat Uncle Sam on his taxes.

So we can slice it two ways: Employers are either violating anti-discrimination laws, or violating labor laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Or neither, or just violating labor laws. The case of violating anti-discrimination laws is the one where you can really beef about it violating the rights of American workers... and that's not intrinsic to illegal immigrants, who could simply be hired by employers who don't look closely and don't care (because who's going to audit them? Nobody... at this point, the construction industry comes to mind), and employers could easily also prefer hiring immigrants in general, which would also violate anti-discrimination laws just the same.

They're violating federal law against harboring illegal aliens in either case.

Of course federal law is against employing illegals.

 

[The Question]

Well, in the case of employers not giving a crap -- there's no way for Jose to not have a criminal background, considering the fact that he committed a crime by the method in which he came here. Every illegal alien has a criminal background. This is part of the problem, and part of the reason why the majority of the public is fed up -- the double-standard that holds that it's okay for Jose to just come right on over, breaking the law in the process, and he'll have a job, where John Doe can't find jack because the positions are all filled by Jose and his 12 million familia, and Jacques LeBlanc is still standing in line waiting to become a citizen legally and meet the same job prospects as John Doe.

 

[The Question]

Oh, and then -- to add insult to injury -- we've got Georgie Boy in the big chair claiming that these are "jobs Americans won't do," ignoring the fact that agriculture, food service, janitorial and landscaping jobs, and especially construction -- are jobs Americans have done and gladly would do... if only those jobs were available to Americans. It's a bit like stealing someone's car and then claiming it's a car the victims won't drive (because they can't drive it now, of course), so why give it back.