So who's defending them? The only open dispute is over how best to enforce the law, i.e. do you focus on the illegal immigrants themselves, or do you focus on the employers who exploit their situation by giving them jobs at pay and under conditions no citizen or legal immigrant would have to suffer?

The reason we aren't enforcing our immigration laws is because if we did, employers would not be able to get around our labor laws. As chrisl pointed out, there are two ways labor laws are enforced, through government inspections and through lawsuits. What he/she did not point out, though, is that lawsuits can't be brought by illegal immigrants without betraying their presence in the country and subjecting themselves to deportation, so the more important method of enforcement is lost.

That's by design. The federal government could very easily enforce the immigration laws by penalizing employers heavily and encouraging people to turn in lawbreaking employers. A campaign based around "they're bringing YOUR wages down" (which is true) would do the trick. But they don't. Nor do they increase the quota for legal immigrants so that the job slots can be filled with legals (whose rights are protected) rather than with illegals (whose rights aren't, or under the law don't exist).

Which party is worse about this isn't the important question, although the answer is obvious -- the Republicans are somewhat worse about pandering to sleazy corporate interests than the Democrats. Still, there's enough of that from both parties that this isn't a very useful observation. Recognizing the fact that it's happening might be more useful.

In short: nobody's defending illegals for being here illegally. Some of us, though, are focusing on the really nasty culprits in all this, which are the businesses that employ the illegals and not the wetbacks themselves.

Why make the choice? Chase everyone involved in it. Cracking down on employers and leaving illegal immigrants alone will just cause a lot of problems no-one wants to think about. Do you really want millions of unemployed illegal immigrants in your cities with no recourse to unemployment benefits? It'd be a recipe for massive increases in the crime rate.

People may not be defending the actual act of illegal immigration, which I do accept. But people are, including I think yourself, are tacitly defending the current situation and seeking to place the blame largely onto the shoulders of others who are only a part of the problem, not the bulk of it. No society can survive if millions of the inhabitants are living an illegal shadow life.

The only solution is to crackdown on everyone involved. The law is the law.

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men, will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

- John Maynard Keynes

not quite, when a roofing contractor who is licensed tells you he has to have 20K to roof your house and a another guys tells you 14k, its more than likely because he’s illegal and has illegal workers which he pays no benefits or carries no health coverage regards insurance against injury for and too, so he can undercut the price, and ipso facto its not longer a job Americans do.
That’s one of those things libs like to look past when they tell us how they do these jobs and at the same time tell us they have no healthcare or sick days etc etc.

I don’t know about you but in California, I hire licensed contractors only. IF an illegal undercuts him by 30% so what, if a worked gets hurt on my property the illegal can sue me, directly for damages etc. as he should have been with a licensed contractor who he had coverage and insurance for……………but the contractor skates because he has no license to lose.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I agree with you ... except how exactly are liberals responsible for some homeowners knowingly hiring unlicensed, unbonded, uninsured, and generally illegal contractors? The homeowners play an essential role in the crime.

Why do illegal immigrants come here? Because they like the weather? No, they come to work, because there are more and better jobs here than in their homelands (which doesn't say much for their homelands frankly, but it's true).

Crack down on businesses that hire illegals, and there would be fewer jobs available for illegals, or none if the crackdown worked perfectly. No jobs, no wetbacks. Problem solved.

If you're worried about illegals who are already here -- that's why you're seeing amnesty proposals from both presidential candidates, even if they won't call it that. I imagine that doesn't sit well with people who want to kick ass, but it's realistic, which kicking ass is not.

They are responsible for propagandizing the “fact” that they do jobs americans won’t. They will but have been handicapped because 12 million ( ihtink that’s low by the way) of them have come here, work hard by and large and mind their own biz. That’s great, but as you see, they have this opportunity because a) we hire them and b) because we are told there is NO recourse, we won’t do those jobs…which is hogwash. They help perpetuate this because they propagate the lie, to buttress their electoral base.
IF they were so concerned with millions not having healthcare and a way to afford it etc. they would be against this, but they play the ole 2 step, trying just a little bit but not quite hard enough. It’s a dem congress, let them enact very harsh laws as to the use of and hiring ala illegal aliens and make ICE go d its job by funding them etc.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

You think they'll move back? Yeah, it might stop the flow. But these people who are already there have built a life in the US. They have families, friends, neighbourhoods - all the trappings of normal life.

Some might move back, but most will probably stay in the hope of finding another job. As you said, the fact they came doesn't say much about their homeland - It won't be that easy to get rid of them.

Once you have millions of people in your country, it's very hard to get rid of them. Even unemployment and hopelessness won't make them leave (look at the Algerians in France or the Turks in Germany. Or, for that matter, the Pakistanis in Britain). Just cutting off their jobs will create a stagnant, angry and bitter underclass in America that will pose far greater problems than the currently aspirational class you have now.

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men, will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

- John Maynard Keynes

Stopping the flow is the important part. As for those already here, as I said this is why both presidential candidates are calling for an amnesty.

It's important to recognize that these people are criminals only technically. That is, they are criminals because they broke laws which make criminal behavior of something that is not obviously wrong. They are not thieves, murderers, frauds, rapists, etc. (Well, not necessarily -- the exceptions who are are another subject.) The point is that these are not "bad people." So it isn't harming the country to let those who have come here to work, stay here legally.

The problem lies in the continuing flood of illegal immigration, and also in the decay of labor standards brought about by encouraging the hiring of people who have no defensible legal rights. Cracking down on the businesses who hire them under the table would solve both of those problems. Anything else is amenable to finesse.

How about strengthening the border controls? A quite simple (though by no means whatsoever easy) way to stop as many people coming into the country illegally is to make it very hard for them to do so. Illegal immigration will never be stopped and no measure of control of employers will change that. Europe has very, very harsh penalties for employing illegal immigrants (Prison...) and quite regular enforcement. That hasn't stopped employers, it's just forced it even more into the shadows.

I suppose, there is really no solution in terms of stopping it. Britain is an island, where the only reasonable way of illegally coming into Britain is through the ports hidden in trucks that are x-rayed for illegal immigrants, yet even then we still have 500,000 illegal immigrants in this country... That on top of the stringent enforcement of the labour laws.

So, I suppose, at the end of the day, no matter what we do, people will always be willing to pay thousands and thousands of pounds or dollars or euros to work awful jobs in our countries... The price of living in a developed society I suppose.

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men, will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

- John Maynard Keynes

Well, it can be stopped a lot more easily on the demand side than on the supply side. As is usually the case. Have you considered how truly enormous the U.S. border is? Combine the borders with Canada and Mexico, and add in all the coastline along the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico, and the problem becomes completely unsolvable that way. Even if you were to build a fortified line with barbed-wire and machine-gun posts along the entire length of the Mexican border, at an incredible cost, that would still leave the coastlines and the possibility of sneaking in by boat, or of doing a slip through by way of Canada (easier from other countries than Mexico, but common enough).

I'm not sure how easy it would be to stem the flood by cracking down on employers, but I do know that at this point we aren't even trying.

Didn't we do an "amnesty" for illegals once before?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

I agree with you in that situation. My original point was how saying the jobs being worked by illegals for low wages were in some way invalid business ideas. But while being licensed, having insurance against injury in a contractor's position is necessary, is providing health care benefits and paid vacation necessary? What if two, licensed roofing contractors can offer the jobs at 20k and 17k, 17k because his employees' spouses don't get insurance, paid vacation is only half time and sick days are more closely monitored for actual illness? Do you go with 20k because the employees get better benefits?

__________________
There is no secret ingredient.