Thread: Part 4 - Greedy Employers Need Amnesty, too!

Part 4 - Greedy Employers Need Amnesty, too!
Don't be fooled by peddlers of ‘Immigration Reform’ Scams
By S. J. Miller


http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9304


{CLICK HERE for Series Overview}

Have you heard this "immigration reform" proposal lately?


"My fellow Americans, we need an amnesty for employers who hire illegal aliens. They're good hearted employers who only want to make a better life for their employees. But they want to come out of the shadows and be law-abiding employers, and amnesty will allow them to do that! We want to give them every chance to obey the law."

Of course not! I doubt that even politicians could keep a straight face at such swill; hysterical laughter would literally bring down the House. But don't be fooled; amnesty for employers hiring illegals is part of every amnesty or "guest-worker" plan.

What's universally overlooked in debate on amnesty for illegal aliens is that violating employers will also receive amnesty for their past illegal hiring practices. But D.A. King hit a bulls-eye by identifying the real movers and shakers behind giving amnesty to illegal aliens: "It comes from, and is designed to benefit the people who sell us beer, toothpaste, newspapers and housing. The many who pull the strings of the ruling few. (1)

Employers who hire illegal aliens also commit a federal crime. The "Immigration Reform" con-artists want to concentrate our attention on gaining sympathy for the "poor, desperate" illegal aliens. "Disconnect" notwithstanding, they aren't so delusional as to expect our sympathy for employers who knowingly hire illegals, year in and year out.

And let's be clear why employers hire illegals. We hear their excuses that "illegals work harder" or "I've tried to hire Americans, but couldn't find anyone...," but the answer is easy: Money. Radio callers even report that illegals demand wages of $10.00 hourly, more than many legal Americans are paid!

The money an employer saves isn't totally in wages; the "cash, off-the-books" feature offers jackpot savings in dollars and responsibility. Workers' compensation insurance, unemployment taxes, Employers' Social Security and Medicare taxes (7.65%) are only a few examples of costs such employers evade.

We all know how on-the-job accidents are handled: the illegal employee is dumped at the local hospital emergency room with a story of being hurt while working at home. The hospital staff knows both the true story and the real employer, but nonetheless obligingly labels the patient as "uninsured." They know that sooner or later a federal politician will deliver "federal money" to "reimburse hospitals for medical care that federal law requires them to provide."

"Federal Money?" That's taxpayers' money used to pay local hospitals to treat illegals working for employers violating the law.

As with the illegal alien, the penalty against employers is tied to their motive for violating the law. Added to legal costs, the $1,000 fine negates the financial savings of hiring illegals; prison time is an added deterrent. It would be a highly effective penalty if it were enforced.

Proof of the federal government's lack of interest in enforcing immigration laws is the statistic: 13 prosecutions in 2002 (1 employer per eech 4 states)! Recent headlines of action against Tyson Chicken and Wal-Mart appeared for only one reason--they're really news. That's the rarity of enforcement against violating employers, and why illegal immigration continues.

To illustrate, a recent Chicago Tribune article told of the hardships and backbreaking conditions suffered by illegal aliens working in the Smithfield meat processing plant in Tarheel, NC, all carefully designed to manipulate readers' sympathy for illegal aliens. That writer Stephen Franklin didn't mention any investigations by OSHA, FLSA or US Immigration authorities is for good reason - there was none! (2)

So let's be clear on the true purpose of "immigration reform;" it's to protect the employers who hire illegals. You can bet "immigration reform" bills won't reach the Oval Office without an employer amnesty.

Even if it's not in the original bill, there's always the old trick of sneaking it in as an amendment. Analyses of bills is on their original content; "last-minute" amendments are used to evade such review.

So before allowing yourself to be persuaded into an amnesty for the "good-hearted people who want a better life," remember that they're just a front for the employers who hire them to fatten their wallets. Do you really support an amnesty for such bottom-feeders?

So let's see how an amnesty benefits the employer:
Q. What is an employer amnesty?


The US government publicly admits to Americans that they've so badly bungled their job of prosecuting employer violations that the vast number of employers hiring illegal aliens are now too many to identify and prosecute, and hollers "olly, olly outs in free." Employers' past offenses are now erased; they'll never be held accountable.

If citizens will just grant another employer amnesty, the US government promises they'll do a better job of handling employer violations in the future, promising "severe crackdowns." Just as they did in 1986. Are we really that gullible?

Q. Who wins?


Criminal Employers. They've hired illegals at cut-rate wages and cut-rate working conditions, pocketed fatter profits and literally "passed the buck" to taxpayers for their employee costs. In the process, they've given Americans' jobs away for only one reason: greed.

Politicians make lots of political points with employer groups like National Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, nursery & landscaper owners, agri-business employers, hospitals, restaurants and hotels. Political points often translate to campaign donations.

Q. Who loses?


Law-abiding Employers. Employers who want to hire Americans and pay fair wages can't compete with the "predatory employers" above. They're put in the moral quandary of hiring illegals themselves to survive. Sometimes they're forced to close their businesses, eliminating free market competition that leads to monopolistic business conditions.

American taxpayers. The deluge of newly-amnestied, largely unskilled people generates a huge pool of eligible applicants for social services, increasing Americans' tax burden. Employers who hire illegals do so to evade taxes and other business costs (workers' compensation taxes, unemployment taxes, Social Security/Medicare taxes), shifting them to American taxpayers instead. The worker injured on the job goes to the hospital emergency room and treated at public cost rather than his employers business insurance.

Unskilled workers don't make higher wages just because they're now legal. What IS different is that their legal status now makes them eligible for publicly-funded benefits, and we KNOW who pays for that.

Former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander reveals his estimate of $311 billion in uncollected taxes (3) lost in the "shadow" economy. (Do you notice that news of how disastrous things really are so often come from "former" government officials?) American taxpayers foot the bill here as well; government's higher costs are paid by citizens by either higher tax burdens or interest on money borrows to meet current costs.

Been there, done that.
The 1986 "one-time only" amnesty was an unmitigated disaster, with an unknown number of employers pardoned. Because the promised "crackdown" never happened, amnestied employers resumed hiring illegals and the employment of illegal aliens is now epidemic. The 20 million+ illegal aliens reported by Barrron's writer Jim McTauge are working somewhere!


The major difference in amnesties for illegals vs employers is that employers are "repeat-offenders." Employers pardoned in 1986 are still hiring illegals. When the promised federal "crackdown" faded into oblivion, new employer-offenders joined "repeat offenders."

Do we really believe that ANOTHER employer amnesty will convert repeat-violator employers who have made clear their intention to continue hiring illegals?

Of course they won't! The only deterrent they'll comprehend is consistent prosecution, fines and jail time. Employer amnesties only perpetuate lawbreaking. Isn't it amazing how amnesties affect both illegal aliens and employers identically--the lawbreaking continues.

Q. How can Americans identify an employer amnesty?


Merriam-Webster's definitions apply to employers just as to illegal aliens:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals

pardon: (a) a release from the legal penalties of an offense (b): an official warrant of remission of penalty.

Employers knowingly hiring illegals have violated the law, carrying a penalty of $10,000 and/or 1 year in jail per offense.


Junior is Blind....
Any "immigration reform" bill is a potential AMNESTY. If the "immigration reform" plan exempts an employer from penalties of past violations, it's an AMNESTY!

The Conspiracy of Silence on Employer Amnesties
Why doesn't all the "immigration reform" rhetoric mention employer amnesty? You can be sure it's no coincidence but carefully designed that way.


It's mind-boggling that so many groups of people who talk for a living can maintain such a complete and effective silence when they choose. The White House is silent. "Immigration panderers" in Congress are silent, as are the American Immigration Lawyers groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the ethnic advocates of illegal aliens (MALDEF, LULAC, LaRaza and the others).

Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zip. Yet there's no doubt they know that "employer amnesty" will accompany amnesty for illegal aliens.

A Washington DC-based expert group has publicly disclosed the information on their website. NumbersUSA, an educational and research institution on US population growth, found "employer amnesty" in every major amnesty or "guest worker" legislation introduced during the 108th Congress (2003-2004):


Senator John Cornyn's "guest worker" Bill (S 1387)

Senator Craig & Congressman Cannon's AgJobs Amnesty (S 1645, HR 3142)

Senator McCain & Congressmen Kolbe & Flake's "guest worker" Bill (S 1461, HR 2899)

Senator Chuck Hagel's guest worker" Bill (S 2010)

Senator Kennedy & Congressman Gutierrez' Jackpot Amnesty (S2381, HR4262) (4)

Those in the "conspiracy" hope that if they maintained total silence on the "employer amnesty" feature and talked long and loud enough about good-hearted people, securing our borders, chasing terrorists, and the American Dream that simple American voters would be fooled, and they'd slip another one by us.

They've been largely successful, wouldn't you agree?

A true "guest worker plan" might provide the future cheap labor that business wants, but wouldn't exempt them from prosecution, fines and jail for past crimes of hiring illegals. Here's why that's important:


Recall Bernard Kerick, the New York Police Commissioner nominated for the cabinet post of Homeland Security Secretary. He quietly withdrew his candidacy when his past hiring of an illegal alien nanny was publicly exposed.

Had any of the several amnesty bills passed Congress last year, Kerick's past crime of knowingly hiring an illegal alien would have been pardoned; he could have remained in the running for Secretary of Department of Homeland Security. (There would still have been the matter of his two extramarital affairs, misuse of supervisory influence on behalf of his mistress, and conflict of interest with stock ownership in a DHS government contractor, but perhaps the Senate could have lived with those).

Until Congress and the President pass another "employer amnesty," Lemick and other potential public office nominees will have their past offenses hanging over their heads. Do we doubt that there are thousands more like Lemick hiring illegals with impunity?

Opposition to amnesty for illegals is based on the prediction that amnesty breeds expectations for future amnesties. That illegals will continue to come in the continuing hope of amnesty. We know that prediction is true, because that's exactly what happened after the 1986 "one-time amnesty."

When we know that amnesty for illegal aliens rewards and perpetuates illegal behavior, it's undeniable that amnesty for employers rewards and perpetuates their intentionally hiring illegals.

The "reality" of employer amnesties.
What we learned about "safeguards" with illegal alien amnesties is even more certain with "penalties" against employers who hire them. The harsher they are, the less likely is their enforcement.

Congressman Dave Dreier (R, CA) has introduced HR-98, crowing how the stronger penalties ($50,000 per occurrence and up to 5 years' imprisonment) will deter employers from hiring illegals. Even if his bill passes, those penalties are strictly for show. Despite his long tenure (24 years), Congressman Dreier's bare 11-point victory last November clearly showed voters' fury with his abominable record on immigration law enforcement. He's desperate to show at least an appearance of improvement, even if no actual substance.

Politicians who support and vote for these harsh penalties know in advance they won't be enforced. The louder the claims that this "immigration reform" legislation will actually "crack down" on employers hiring illegals, the more certain you can be that the penalties are strictly window-dressing.

As with non-enforcement of laws against illegals, the non-enforcement of laws against employers won't be exposed until it's inadvertently exposed (perhpas by a "former" immigration official?) That's when immigration officials will finally come clean and admit that the laws were never enforced because of political pressure or undertaffed departments (or some other pretext).

That's great for politicians who continue receiving "employer donations" in the meantime, but it's not acceptable to Americans who demand "zero tolerance" to continued flagrant violations of immigration laws.

~ Resources ~
(1) D.A. King, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and their Employers, MichNews, Jan. 12. 2005

(2) Stephen Franklin, Jobs that Americans won't do' filled by desperate migrants., Chicago Tribune, January 17 2005

(3) Illegals estimated to number 18-20 million, WorldNet Daily, January 3 2005

(4) Comparison of Various Selected Guest Worker and Amnesty Bills in the 108th Congress, NumbersUSA

[quote]Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California â€â€