Penalizing Employers for Hiring Illegal Immigrants
Apparently the Obama administration has changed its approach to reducing employment of illegal immigrants:
BREWSTER, Wash. — The Obama administration has replaced immigration raids at factories and farms with a quieter enforcement strategy: sending federal agents to scour companies’ records for illegal immigrant workers.
While the sweeps of the past commonly led to the deportation of such workers, the “silent raids,” as employers call the audits, usually result in the workers being fired, but in many cases they are not deported.
So which strategy makes more sense? In my view, neither.
I oppose any attempt to interfere in employer decisions about whom they employ. This means I oppose anti-discimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and any laws that bar hiring of illegals. Business should be treated as private, and employers should be able to employ whomever they please without interference.
In the case of immigration policy, moreover, I doubt that employer sanctions will reduce immigration to a significant degree unless the enforcement is draconian that it imposes crippling costs on businesses. That would produce some combination of reduced employment for everyone and a much larger underground sector.
The incontrovertible reality is that illegal immigration will occur in substantial amounts so long as wage differences between the U.S. and Latin America remain large. We can either accept that fact, or legalize more immigration.
Categories: My Blog
David M Myers
It seems to me that you could and should have commented on the concept of illegal immigration.
Should the state (government) be able to restrict immigration? If so, why? If not, why not?
If a person enters the USA in a completely peaceful, non-aggressive, and self-sustaining manner, why should there be restrictions?
Prior to the 1920s, there were no quotas. Explain. Why quotas now?
How about “welfare” as a magnet that draws illegals.
How about “anchor babies” (thanks to a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment) that grant US citizenship to every child born within the borders no matter what the citizenship or nationality of the parents?
Talk about such things a little bit, please.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Employer sanctions generate problems through the enforcement mechanism. Employers must identify workers, which implies that workers must carry valid ID. This limits every citizen’s freedom to remain anonymous. Border control makes more sense than employer sanctions.
I part company with most libertarians (and Libertarians) on environmental issues. Their “it’s your end of the boat that’’s sinking” attitude will doom civil society and biodiversity worldwide.
1. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition).
2. Value is determined by supply and demand.
3. The Earth’s human population cannot grow without limit.
4. The Earth’s human population will stop growing when either (a) the birth rate falls to meet the death rate or (b) the death rate rises to meet the birth rate.
5. The Earth’s human population will stop growing as a result of either (a) deliberate human agency or (b) other.
6. Deliberate human agency is either (a) democratically determined or (b) other.
7. All human behavioral traits are heritable.
8. Voluntary programs for population control selectively breed non-compliant individuals.
9. Humans who will reproduce at high density have a selective advantage over humans who require lots of open space.
10. Human misery is like heat; in the absence of barriers it will flow until it is evenly distributed. Build a wall.
11. The Earth’s maximum possible instantaneous human population is higher than it’s maximum possible sustainable human population. Absent deliberate controls on reproduction or a gradual increase in the death rate, expect a sudden massive die-back in the Earth’s human population.
12. The Earth’s maximum possible sustainable human population leaves little room for wilderness or large terrestrial animals.
Given the futility of “moral restraint” (see #8), between Malthus’ “vice, misery, and moral restraint”, your realistic choices are “misery” (war, epidemic disease, pollution-induced illness, famine) and “vice” (compulsory limits on reproduction).
Where do you disagree? I know: as the man who jumped from the roof of the 40 story building said as he passed the 10th floor: “everything’s fine so far”, right?
cheyenne
I think it’s inhumane to keep modern day low paid slaves, particularly children (IF that was happening). On the other hand, I think they need to lock down the border and send illegals back. Lawlessness generates the chaos that we’re in. The real problem is Mexico, not America. This kind of weak thinking and compromise is destroying America. Why is it our problem for how things are over there? It’s not enhancing America, it’s doing the opposite. Immigration is one thing, invasion another.
cheyenne
I don’t think all problems are going to just go away if you legalize everything. That to me seems like weakness, not strength, when you completely and utterly compromise with everything.
I say prosecute them. All of the problems caused because they don’t want to play by the book. It’s un-American. So is everything you touch here being made in some slave camp overseas, it’s killing us.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
I should expand on #2, just in case someone missed the point: value is determined by supply and demand. Therefore, a world in which human life is precious is a world in which human life is scarce.
Immigration control extends the State’s protection of property to property held in common by citizens. It is no more “libertarian” to advocate open immigration than to advocate non-enforcement of laws against theft.
Madeline Ganie
Pretty good article. I just stumbled upon your web site and wanted to point out that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your weblog content. I’ll sign up for your feed and I hope you write again shortly!
Marc
Your opinions are clear (and simple). It’s the reasoning that is lacking.
WHY do you oppose any laws that bar hiring of illegals?
Illegal immigration has dropped in recent years, while the wage differences have not. You cannot explain this, because you simply assume (without reason) that “illegal immigration will occur in substantial amounts so long as wage differences between the U.S. and Latin America remain large”.
However, if you understand that illegal immigration is reduced substantially by taking away the incentive to immigrate, namely by making it impossible to find a job, then the solution is obvious: enforce current law. Prosecute employers who hire illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrants will stay away.
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Borders
Search Jeffrey's Site
Jeffrey’s Recent Posts
Recent Tags
Jeffrey’s Archives
Entries (RSS)