The two are inapposite. Staying in the house is a continued criminal act (trespass); staying in the country is not (since we have not yet criminalized “trespassing” by people in the country without permission.
Not legally you are not. Your presence is illegal.
They are living in secret, the “owners” (the government in this case) do not have a reasonable opportunity to confront them and object to their presence.
Illegal immigration is not being blamed the war in Iraq or the financial crisis. They are being blamed for driving down wages of uneducated unskilled workers (AKA Trump voters). It is pretty clear that they do this at least to some extent.
Yes and I thought that adaher was saying that the government should exercise this power the way the voters want them to. But apparently someone thought that adaher was saying that he thinks that we can kick out the Jews. So I was reminding that person that we are talking about illegal immigration and the rules regarding immigration are set by the government and they should be set in a way that is consistent with the will of the voters.
Which raised the obvious question; if kicking out the Jews were popular with voters, should the government set the immigration rules to produce this outcome?
How about I-9 inspections like the ones done on 7 11s all over the country today? They did get some illegal workers in the process but the focus was on fining and/or arresting the franchise owners for violations of regulatory compliance.
Well, and of course during any I-9 inspection you have to suspend or fire all your non-compliant workers.
That’s the beauty of our Constitution. It already provides for robust citizenship rights: if you’re born here, you’re an American citizen. If you have an American parent, you’re an American citizen. Most countries do not enshrine that in their supreme law. We did.
Now of course anything beyond that, we can decide who comes and who doesn’t, although other Constitutional concepts like due process and equality can come into play. But as long as we obey due process and don’t discriminate too much(some discrimination in immigration policy is allowed, although it’s not clear how much), we can ban all immigration if we want. Most rich countries don’t even allow low skill immigration at all. They allow high skill immigration and they allow refugees. That’s pretty much it.
That’s a choice we make though, it’s not in the Constitution. And it’s a good choice. First time entry should not be a crime. Second time is though, and that’s also as it should be.
Russia doesn’t make a deal with President Trump; Russia makes a deal with the United States of America. Constitutionally, President Trump is the agent who acts on behalf of the United States in negotiating and concluding the deal, but it remains a deal with the US, not a deal with Donald J. Trump.
Actually its both. While immigration (both legal and illegal) is a net benefit to the economy, even to the point of driving up certain wage groups, according to The Center for Immigration Studies(among others):
Let’s see what happens to the owners- this was apparently related to a 2013 investigation where 8 franchisees and managers pled guilty, apparently to charges regarding using stolen identities so they could employ illegal workers and pay them less than minimum wage. As far as I can tell, the only punishment was that they had to pay back wages. Not much of a deterrent, more a cost of doing business.
Well, the penalties are supposed to be $10,000 per violation. And they can keep on coming back and fine that same $10,000 per employee every time employee files aren’t compliant. Employers can be hit hard financially, the tools are there.
First of all, the Center for Immigration Studies is NOT a neutral source, though surprisingly, despite your source, I don’t think your claims are particularly biased in this case.
What I would submit, however, is that automation and the overall restructuring of the labor force over the past decades (including the shift to global supply chains) has had much more to do with declining wages than immigration. Immigration usually follows a demand for labor that is not being filled by the existing labor pool within the country. When the demand for labor dries up, then you see competition for labor, but the natural born citizens have the advantages that immigrants (legal or otherwise) don’t. I agree with the criticism that it’s over-simplification to claim that immigrants always take the jobs that citizens don’t want - that’s not always true, I agree. But more often than not, the fill labor shortages that are caused by a multitude of factors.