# Immigration: Mr. President, I have a question. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108 "2006-05-02T15:22:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/61 "2006-05-03T20:28:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know the percent of illegals who overstayed their visa as opposes to snuck in, but let’s just say that it’s half. Well, Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center [sez](http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/28/who.are.immigrants.ap/index.html) (n.b.: I had to get that out of cache) it’s a quarter. > [@](#): > > The Pew center estimates there are as many as 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, though researchers acknowledge that they are difficult to count. Other organizations have put the number at 11 million; all agree the total is rising quickly. > > About one-quarter of them arrive in the U.S. legally and simply overstay their visas, Passel said. So that would be somewhere around 8 or 9 million illegal residents who didn’t even arrive in the US legally and have no visas to check. So no, I’m afraid I’m still not convinced that the self-deportation effect would take care of a major amount of the problem of deporting illegal residents. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/62 "2006-05-03T21:44:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center [sez](http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/28/who.are.immigrants.ap/index.html) (n.b.: I had to get that out of cache) it’s a quarter. > > So that would be somewhere around 8 or 9 million illegal residents who didn’t even arrive in the US legally and have no visas to check. So no, I’m afraid I’m still not convinced that the self-deportation effect would take care of a major amount of the problem of deporting illegal residents. Fair enough. But we’ve cut the cost for 25% by 90% So if this was going to cost $10 billion, we’re now down to $7.75 billion, or just 77.5% of the total. Do some of the earlier things I mentioned earlier in this thread and that number should come down quite a bit more. And another thing that has to be taken into the eqyuation is the amount saved on medical care and education. In fact, we might even make money on the deal. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/63 "2006-05-03T22:00:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t think you know what a Strawman argument is. Sure I do, let me educate you: You accuse me of waging a “war on illegal immigrants”, when actually, I am waging a “war on recalcitrant employers”. My plan will work even if no illegals are arrested; with no jobs, they will go home. But you would rather portray me as being a hardass toward the workers, which is an easier argument to knock down. That is a [straw man](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman). > [@](#): > > As long as the law is as it is right now, I think we should prosecute business. Which means we cannot prosecute them at all, because we have given them no legal means to separate legal workers from illegal ones. You are shielding business. > [@](#): > > Raising wages will only make the matter worse, as illegals would work under the table for sub-minimum wage, and there would be an even greater demand for their cheap labor. How about we pass an enforceable law that makes illegals unattractive to employers, and let the free market decide what a fair wage is? You are in favor of a free market aren’t you? > [@](#): > > I didn’t say you were a racists, nor did I mean to imply that you were one, only that if we follow your suggestion, it will likely result in acts of racism by the authorities. Otherwise, they won’t be effective in arresting illegal aliens. Another straw man. You don’t want to argue about my real proposal for prosecuting employers, you would rather portray me as wanting to allow mass arrests of brown people. That clearly implies racism, and is a strawman argument to boot. Arresting illegals is optional; my goal is to eliminate opportunities for them in this country so they will leave, or at least stop coming here. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/64 "2006-05-03T22:31:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > This is a demand driven problem, and you can’t address it as a supply driven problem. It’s just like keeping drugs out of the country. The more successful you are, they higher the price for the durgs/people and more lucrative it is to smuggle them in (and create false documents so they can stay). Seal the border, and they’ll dig tunnels. Close up the tunnels, and they’ll use boats and enter along the coast, or airplanes flown into remote locations. Increase the border patrol, and that’s just more people who can be bribed. > > We’ve been trying to eliminate drugs coming into th eUS for how many years now, and how successful has that been? Same thing here. Why can’t we address both sides of the problem? Give american companies incentives to improve working conditions and wages at their mexican (hell, why not all foreign) facilities in concert with securing our borders. Is this reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/65 "2006-05-04T01:09:43Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Which means we cannot prosecute them at all, because we have given them no legal means to separate legal workers from illegal ones. You are shielding business. How about we pass an enforceable law that makes illegals unattractive to employers, and let the free market decide what a fair wage is? Sure we do. It’s called the [I-9](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-9.htm) audit. Every employee hired by a U.S. business since 1986 is [required to complete an I-9 form](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/EEV.htm), and employers are required to maintain them for [three years from the employee’s date of hire or one year after the employee is terminated, whichever is later.](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/faqeev.htm) There’s even [a sliding scale of monetary fines for violations, depending on number and severity,](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/EIB111.pdf) but in practice, the vast majority of employers are never audited. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/66 "2006-05-04T01:39:05Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > Sure we do. It’s called the [I-9](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-9.htm) audit. Every employee hired by a U.S. business since 1986 is [required to complete an I-9 form](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/EEV.htm), and employers are required to maintain them for [three years from the employee’s date of hire or one year after the employee is terminated, whichever is later.](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/faqeev.htm) There’s even [a sliding scale of monetary fines for violations, depending on number and severity,](http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/EIB111.pdf) but in practice, the vast majority of employers are never audited. I am aware of the I9 requirement, I even mentioned it in post #53. The only problem is, it has a loophole you could drive an INS Hummer through. If applicants use forged documents, the worker is responsible, not the employer. Employers have no incentive (and no means) to insure that the documents are not forged. It simply isn’t their problem. Under my plan, employers do not have to judge whether documents are real or not. All they have to do is check the website, and avoid hiring workers whose SSN returns a “declined” judgment. And they would be criminally responsible and subject to asset forfeiture if they do. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/67 "2006-05-04T01:52:44Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Under my plan, employers do not have to judge whether documents are real or not. All they have to do is check the website, and avoid hiring workers whose SSN returns a “declined” judgment. And they would be criminally responsible and subject to asset forfeiture if they do. Would you have this database show the name matching the SS#? If not, then it doesn’t solve the problem of people who use SS numbers that belong to someone else. If so, then I foresee personal privacy issues. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/68 "2006-05-04T02:28:30Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Why can’t we address both sides of the problem? Give american companies incentives to improve working conditions and wages at their mexican (hell, why not all foreign) facilities in concert with securing our borders. Is this reasonable? We could try, but how many Mexican workers are fleeing Mexico because they can’t make good wages at American companies there? I don’t think American companies are the problem-- what % of the Mexican workforce is even employed by American companies? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/69 "2006-05-04T03:23:22Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > Would you have this database show the name matching the SS#? If not, then it doesn’t solve the problem of people who use SS numbers that belong to someone else. If so, then I foresee personal privacy issues. The employer would enter the SSN and the information supplied by the worker (name, birth date, address, etc.); the website would check it against the data associated with the number in the SS records. All the employer would see is “Approved” or “Declined”. I would also envision additional security data, such as the dollar amount of the tax refund or tax liability from the most recent tax return submitted by the holder of that SSN. This number would not reveal anything about the finances of the worker, and it would change each year, which would frustrate workers who share numbers. Each verification would be assigned a transaction number; if the employer is ever challenged on an employee, he can supply the transaction number which can be used to confirm that the number was valid at the time the employee was hired. I am certain there are other security measures that could be devised to make this plan secure and accurate. As I pointed out in the other immigration thread: > [@](#): > > Solving this problem will impose some additional hassle on the law abiding citizens. So what else is new? The problem will only get bigger if we demand a solution that puts all the burden on “somebody else”. Would it be foolproof? Would it catch every undocumented worker? Of course not, but even with a marginal error rate, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. We cannot throw out ideas simply because they are not foolproof. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108/70 "2006-05-04T15:27:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > We could try, but how many Mexican workers are fleeing Mexico because they can’t make good wages at American companies there? I don’t think American companies are the problem-- what % of the Mexican workforce is even employed by American companies? There are buttloads of american businesses in Mexico - especially in manufacturing and retail. I heard a story on NPR the other day (anecdotal perhaps, but its an example) about a woman who had a job in Mexico, but because the pay and opportunities where so much better here, she decided to risk it and sprint across the border with 3 very young children. Now I’m not sure if the company she was working for was american or not, but it speaks to the heart of the issue, which you raised - making people’s lives better in Central and South America will significantly reduce the amount of illegal immigration. If American companies are paying well, it’ll force other companies to pay well over time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immigration-mr-president-i-have-a-question/355108.md?page=3)