Thread: Worker rules called likely to hurt economy

Worker rules called likely to hurt economy
Immigration crackdown could bring labor shortages in agriculture, Chertoff acknowledges.
By Nicole Gaouette
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... crosspromo
6:34 PM PDT, August 10, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff predicted painful economic fallout from the array of immigration enforcement measures the administration unveiled Friday in an attempt to choke off the jobs "magnet" that draws illegal immigrants.

The changes, which would stiffen work-site enforcement, add border agents and increase penalties for rogue employers, could cause havoc in immigrant-dependent industries like agriculture, hospitality and healthcare, Chertoff acknowledged. "There will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this," he said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

Chertoff said he had little sympathy for businesses that hire illegal workers, saying they should have seen the crackdown coming after the Senate failed to pass immigration reform. "We have been crystal clear about what the consequences would be," he said.

The announcement of the multi-agency initiative -- made by Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez -- was the Bush administration's first extensive explanation of how it plans to ramp up the fight against illegal immigration. In a statement, President Bush called the measures "important" and promised "to take every possible step" to strengthen the nation's "broken immigration system." The enforcement approach is aimed partly at placating GOP conservatives who are livid about the administration's failure to enforce existing immigration laws and the president's support for a plan that would have allowed illegal immigrants to become citizens.

But it also could create a political climate that might lead to the comprehensive changes the administration has sought, including a guest worker program and some accommodation for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Chertoff said the provisions, some of which take effect in 30 days, could push corporate America to apply more pressure on Congress to reconsider broad reforms.

"I'm not a lawmaker, but I presume, at some point, somebody's going to take a look and say we've got to find a way to address this problem and that's probably going to require some legal changes," he said.

But he stressed that "this is not an effort to punish Congress." Gutierrez framed the issue more starkly. "We do not have the workers our economy needs to keep growing each year. The demographics simply are not on our side," he said. "Ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Business groups, unions, immigrant advocates and religious organizations protested the provisions. But longtime opponents of comprehensive reform greeted the news happily.

"This is exactly what the American people were saying. . . . when they said why don't we start out by enforcing existing laws and prove that Washington will do the right thing?" said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, R-Calif. "Once we reinstate confidence in the government, then we can come back and talk about the other stuff." Bilbray compared ending the nation's economic dependency on illegal immigration to weaning an addict off drugs. "If there's some pain, it's not because we didn't have amnesty, it's because we didn't enforce the law 20 years ago when we should have," he said.

Others expressed skepticism about the Department of Homeland Security's ability to enforce the measures, pointing out that the department cannot even come up with the number of high-skilled visa-holders in the country. "The agency that can't count is now going to go on this enforcement gig," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House immigration subcommittee. "We'll see how they do." Business groups predicted the effect would be broadly felt.

"It's going to be awful; the harvest is going to be awful," said Laura Foote Reiff, co-chair of the Business Immigration Group, anticipating the impact on agriculture, where more than half of the 2.5 million workers are thought to be illegal. "People will feel it when they go grocery shopping, when they read in the newspaper that we're importing our meat from China." Many of the measures the administration highlighted Friday are already under way, including a dramatic increase in criminal prosecutions of employers with illegal workers. Immigration officials made 24 arrests in the 1998-99 fiscal year and have made 742 in the first 10 months of this fiscal year.

Some measures are at the early planning stages. A couple are a few months from launching, including a requirement that federal contractors use E-Verify, an electronic system to confirm that their employees are legal.

Others had been under consideration for some time, including a move to force businesses to fire workers with discrepancies in their Social Security data or face penalties of up to $10,000. That regulation takes effect in 30 days and has companies intensely concerned, in part because the error rate in Social Security data for U.S. citizens has been estimated as high as 11 percent. Because many illegal immigrants work under fake Social Security numbers or use those of citizens, it is considered a relatively easy way to identify them.

"We're giving employers a clear choice," Chertoff said. "If you take the steps we lay out, you'll have a safe harbor. If you don't, you're putting yourself at risk." He characterized the effect of the Social Security rule on most businesses as a "thunderstorm." "There will only be a tsunami if I have a business where I have 80 percent of my employees I fear are illegal," Chertoff said. "If I'm basically confident my work force is legal, it's going to be a little thunderstorm. But for some it will expose patterns and practices that may be illegal." Chertoff brushed aside concerns that the rule could drive businesses to hire employees off the books. "An employer who does that is making a deliberate decision to compound their legal difficulties by committing tax crimes as well as immigration crimes," he said.

Administration officials began meeting to discuss these steps in June, immediately after the Senate failed to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. The White House presided over sessions that included the Departments of State, Labor, Commerce, Homeland Security and Education. Officials from Treasury and the Social Security Administration also took part.

Chertoff said the administration held off on implementing these measures in hopes that a legislative overhaul would provide a tougher arsenal. "We looked at these programs late last year, early this year, and we thought, you know, this is kind of a half-measure. Wouldn't it be better to get the full measure and the sharpest, newest tools if Congress passes them and gives it to us?" he said.

While some of the new measures would add to the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement personnel, Chertoff admitted that it would not have the agents to track down every employer who breaks the law. Instead, he argued that high influence, high visibility enforcement would act as a deterrent.

"I'm not a lawmaker, but I presume, at some point, somebody's going to take a look and say we've got to find a way to address this problem and that's probably going to require some legal changes," he said. "Ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

NO THEY WON'T! STOP POLITICKING AND DO YOUR JOB!

But it also could create a political climate that might lead to the comprehensive changes the administration has sought, including a guest worker program and some accommodation for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Chertoff said the provisions, some of which take effect in 30 days, could push corporate America to apply more pressure on Congress to reconsider broad reforms.

That's the plan!

"This is exactly what the American people were saying. . . . when they said why don't we start out by enforcing existing laws and prove that Washington will do the right thing?" said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, R-Calif. "Once we reinstate confidence in the government, then we can come back and talk about the other stuff." Bilbray compared ending the nation's economic dependency on illegal immigration to weaning an addict off drugs. "If there's some pain, it's not because we didn't have amnesty, it's because we didn't enforce the law 20 years ago when we should have," he said.



Bilbray's statement above really resonates with me. We all just need to get over the hump, the rough period and the nation can make it. I hope he keeps bringing this up when others say we must go for amnesty.

Chertoff said the provisions, some of which take effect in 30 days, could push corporate America to apply more pressure on Congress to reconsider broad reforms.

This is Bush-speak for "Let's create a lot of chaos in the labor market so we can pass our immigration reform bill." I say declare a moratorium of any new legislation affecting immigrants for a year and give enforcement a chance to make a difference. We need to take stock of where we are before we complicate it with more laws.

The truth of the matter is the economy is tanking and it has everything to do with subprime lending and the death of the real estate market. Boosh's fake economic boom was as fake as the reason for us going into Iraq. They continue to cover up the truth with propaganda and lies. Illegals being deported has been timed to make it appear that we need them in order to have a strong economy, when the truth of the matter is the real estate boom was as superficially viable as the people given loans who weren't qualified to receive them in the first place.

It is naive to think that some businesses won't be hurt by the removal of illegals.

They will now have to hire legal Americans, do the paperwork, get along without the obscene profits they have been making. Yes, ik will be a change.

For the average American, it could me a safer, cleaner nation.

DEPORTING ILLEGALS AND MAKING SURE WORKERS ARE HERE LEGALLY WILL NOT HURT THE ECONOMY.

IF ANYTHING IT WILL HELP THE ECONOMY. WAGES WILL GO UP AND NOT SO MUCH MONEY WILL BE SENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY TO FEED ANOTHER ECONOMY.

ILLEGAL WORKERS ARE NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA. THEY ARE LIKE SCAB LABOR WHO UNDERMINE THE ABILITY OF THE AMERICAN WORKER TO NEGOTIATE A DECENT WAGE AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT.

WHEN WAGES IMPROVE, THE ECONOMY WILL GET STRONGER. WHEN THE MONEY THAT IS MADE HERE IS SPENT HERE, THEN IT WILL REALLY MAKE US STRONGER.

THE LOSERS WILL BE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO CAN NO LONGER LINE THEIR POCKETS.

What would the effect be on hospitals, jails and schools?

Does that enter into the economic picture Chertoff or does businessmen's pocketbooks the only indicator you go by?

What would the effect be on hospitals, jails and schools?

......and the judiciary. Court calendars all over the nation are clogged with their civil and criminal cases.