Obama Administration Intensifies Crackdown On Illegal Workers

[Gerald]

In a move aimed at curbing illegal hiring by Fortune 500 companies, the Obama administration announced the creation of a new sub-unit of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that will use the companies' tax documents to purge their payrolls of unauthorized workers and illegal immigrants.

Comprised of fifteen audit specialists based in Crystal City, Virginia, the Employment Compliance Inspection Center will be overseen by John Morton, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is in turn a branch of DHS. The specialists will scour the I-9 tax and employment records of large companies - those employing tens and even hundreds of thousands of people - to determine if their hiring practices violate immigration law.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...llegal-workers

Note: January 20, 2011

[UnderseaLcpl]

What a perfectly worthless and completely ineffective move designed only to appease the conservative electorate.

I don't imagine that Fortune 500 companies hiring illegals is a particularly big problem. I have to say, I'm just supposing here because I have no hard data, but I imagine that illegal labor in this sector isn't "stealing" much from the country. What positions could these people possibly hold in companies that have armies of accountants and lawyers making sure they are in compliance with labor laws? Probably those where they do little record-keeping because the jobs pay next to nothing and have high turnover rates.

Americans have little interest in such jobs for obvious reasons, but I'm all for letting some disadvantaged parent from Mexico fill the position and get the opportunity to earn a better life for his or her family. It's a low rung on the ladder, but at least it in't Mexico.

The real problem here is that we pay for illegals to recieve medical care and other benefits, and we ecnourage them to obtain US citizenry by having children here, at which point we often end up bringing the rest of the family over, even the extended family because doing so is required to satisfy their "cultural dynamic" of having huge families.

Now, I'm all for being understanding and open-minded when it comes to other cultures but, one, that is not a cultural dynamic. It is not something that is important to their identity and way of life. It is the result of living in a very poor country where having many children is both a necessity for income and the result of poor education. There is not one developed nation on this entire planet, no matter where it is, that has such a strongly positive birthrate. Most of them have negative birthrates or barely stable birthrates.

Texas is all but overrun with Hispanics, and we have a huge population of illegals, but pound for pound we're one of the most economically successful states in the nation, as well as overall. California, on the other hand, is a richer state that has been brought to its knees by government spending. To me, the situation seems clear. Having more Mexicans here is not detrimental. It's more the result of economic policy than anything else; not that I approve of paying for non-citizens. Actually I don't have much fondness for paying for citizens either, but that's another discussion.

Two, paying for even one person through entitlements gets really expensive, really fast. The government has failed to pay for Social Security in a remarkable way, and that's a system people have to pay into first - and for many more years and at greater amounts than the benefits they get. This is not sustainable, and that's why it pisses people off.

Thirdly, the government is incapable of patrolling the border now, even with an astronomical budget that pays for $4-million mile-long sections of fence and a good contribution of resources from the DEA as well. If the border patrol were to spend its budget hiring agents, not including what they've spent on permanent fixtures, it could hire agents in three shifts at the median salary for the US to patrol every 65 feet or so of US-mexican border. I forgot what the exact figure was because I calculated it months ago but it was pretty darn disturbing. In any case, even if the figure was 10 miles per agent, it's still unsat.

I would simply deny them any kind of federal benefits and decline to reimburse hospital expenses for treating illegals. Make the hospitals take the hit. The hippocratic oath is all well and good, but it doesn't mean anything if doctors are reimbursed by the government for their losses. Is one a doctor or a profiteer? I have no respect for an oath that requires compensation for ethical behaviour. Good soldiers die all the time without concern for pay, but they do it because it is their duty. Should one expect any less from a doctor? A manner of professional that virtually demands respect for their selflessness? If they're so noble they shouldn't even be asking for compensation because they are doing the right thing. But they do, and they will, because it is made available to them. And of course, this is in the context of a person who cannot pay. Most people are honest enough and capable enough to pay their bills.

The only reason that there is a fight over illegals and that this is even an issue is that politicians buy votes with . The Republicans buy botes by demonstrating action against the issue, no matter how ineffective, and the Democrats buy votes by giving them free junk in the guise of social justice. And now Obama makes a token gesture by targetting what is easily one of the least-contested illegal demographics because he has to appease conservatives.