Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76
Thanks Tree41Thanks

Thread: Any moves yet toward disincentivizing the hiring of unauthorized workers?

  1. #51
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,418
    Thanks
    251

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by metheron View Post
    Employers need to choose candidates that are eligible for the job. You don't get to choose the best candidate if they are ineligible.
    The state does own the right to define legal status. That is the pool employers get to choose from, and they know that.
    Presupposing that people have unalienable Rights, the employer gets to decide who is eligible to get the job; immigration laws can only be used as a regulation tool, NOT a tool to disqualify people from participating in the free market.

  2. #52
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,418
    Thanks
    251

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzareta View Post
    Calm down.

    Let me know where in the constitution it mentions employers and businesses? Also let me know where in the constitution it mentions capitalism at all.
    Did I mention capitalism? I don't think so. What I have asked, continually, is how it is not contrary to the 14th Amendment to deny to some employers the equal opportunity to fill their open positions with those from foreign countries.

    My critics want to insinuate that one must be a citizen in order to be able to come here and work. That isn't in the Constitution.

  3. #53
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    25,843
    Thanks
    15295

    From
    Under the boardwalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Presupposing that people have unalienable Rights, the employer gets to decide who is eligible to get the job; immigration laws can only be used as a regulation tool, NOT a tool to disqualify people from participating in the free market.

    Uhhh, no. If someone has entered the country illegally they are not eligible for employment.

    Are you just trolling? Or are you really that clueless...?
    Thanks from metheron

  4. #54
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    158
    Thanks
    137

    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post

    The last sentence is false. I know this because as a union electrician I had to prove my status every time I was dispatched to a new job. We had to present certain documentation; a passport or birth certificate or a drivers license and social security card and sign a document swearing I was a citizen (or otherwise authorized to work). The documents were photocopied and placed into a file and sent somewhere.

    I found it strange that scab contractors didn't have to do this.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  5. #55
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,825
    Thanks
    9463

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    People don't migrate in a vacuum. If there are no illegal jobs, and no employers to provide them, then theres no attraction to come.
    People don't use illicit drugs in a vacuum. If there are no illegal drugs, and no drug dealers to provide them, then there's no demand for them.

    How's that War on Drugs been working out?

    You cannot reduce illegal immigration by focusing on just one part of the equation.....you cannot reduce illegal immigration if the borders are porous and 'Sanctuary Cities' are offering them safe harbor. You can't reduce illegal immigration by luring them here with inviting rhetoric, welfare and education for their anchor babies, driver's licences, amnesty proposals, Dream Acts... and then turn around and try to lay all the blame on the fact illicit jobs (illicit drugs) can be had.
    Last edited by webrockk; 19th March 2017 at 07:29 AM.

  6. #56
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    18,523
    Thanks
    15954

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    People don't use illicit drugs in a vacuum. If there are no illegal drugs, and no drug dealers to provide them, then there's no demand for them.<br>
    <br>
    How's that War on Drugs been working out?<br>
    <br>
    You cannot reduce illegal immigration by focusing on just one part of the equation.....you cannot reduce illegal immigration if the borders are porous and 'Sanctuary Cities' are offering them safe harbor. You can't reduce illegal immigration by luring them here with inviting rhetoric, welfare and education for their anchor babies, driver's licences, amnesty proposals, Dream Acts... and then turn around and try to lay all the blame on the fact illicit jobs (illicit drugs) can be had.
    <br>
    <br>
    You seem to believe that your response addresses what was said. Never mind.
    Last edited by Dangermouse; 19th March 2017 at 08:46 AM.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,825
    Thanks
    9463

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    <br>
    <br>
    You seem to believe that your response addresses what was said. Never mind.
    my response was a rebuke of your pitiful attempt to misplace blame for illegal immigration.

  8. #58
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,418
    Thanks
    251

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    Uhhh, no. If someone has entered the country illegally they are not eligible for employment.

    Are you just trolling? Or are you really that clueless...?
    Hold on there Champ. The American people disagree with your assessment. Obviously, if the American people hire the undocumented worker, they are eligible for employment. How come you think that because someone asks you an honest question it is trolling or an opportunity to start slinging skeet? OR, could it be that you're clueless and in need of a civics lesson?

    When all you have is the "it's illegal" mantra, it's a very weak argument. The United States Supreme Court has opined:

    "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."



    — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    We aren't talking a case where a few hundred or even a few thousand people have disagreed with the law and have, ethically, rejected it. We're talking where the numbers of Americans rejecting unconstitutional statutory laws are in the millions. Like it or not, they have a voice in this discussion. I realize from previous encounters that your hatred only extends to the foreigner... maybe corporate employers; however, if you went after everyone connected to the passive resistance and civil disobedience connected to this topic, America would be owned by the government and millions of its citizens would be in jail or prison.

    Sometimes you just have to wake up and accept reality. From my perspective, the government has NO jurisdiction when it comes to my unalienable Rights. Their own decisions support the principle. For me, the threats of fines, fees and even threats of prison for engaging in free enterprise is a wasted effort (much like the threats government makes against pot smokers.) It's more rational to accept that and offer some proposals that incentivize employers to hire Americans without forcing them to do so. Bear this in mind: What I create is mine. I'll do with it whatever I want and you can pound sand if you don't like it.

    But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. .. Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law

    I'm sorry, sir. You do not have a de jure (lawful / constitutional) right to lay claim to anything I create. The tools of labor cannot prohibit me from giving a job to the best qualified candidate simply because some people want to misuse immigration laws in order to interfere with Liberty.

  9. #59
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    41,520
    Thanks
    11541

    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    Agree on the first part of your post. Would add a caveat to the second.

    Those who hire illegals should be held accountable. But would like to see the penalty element be graduated. The practice of hiring undocumented workers has become so common and ingrained in our society that it going to take a little time to undo. There needs to be a practical/realistic approach to the problem.

    First offense should be a fine and a warning. That should be the wake-up call. A second or third offense penalty would be notably harsher.
    Who is going to pick veggies in CA?

  10. #60
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    41,520
    Thanks
    11541

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Because of the screwed up way that the government has of communicating about the status of employees, it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to inadvertently hire an unauthorized alien. That's why I support a fine for the first offense, then harsher punishment later.


    Of course, this could backfire. Especially if we don't make it easier to confirm status. But even then. There could be some employers who just won't hire Latinos because they worry more about getting a penalty than about being charged with discriminatory hiring.
    CA farmers could not possibly harvest their crops without migrants from south of the border. do they get these fines and imprisonment too?

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 24th January 2017, 04:04 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th November 2016, 09:27 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 24th June 2013, 07:29 AM
  4. Cisco CEO says no more hiring US workers
    By bajisima in forum Economics
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 31st May 2013, 07:23 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed