If you have an accent

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary,

you are right in theory, and I,ve proposing the very same thing forever, but you know that will never work. First, asking people to show legal presence whenever they want to do what you outlined feeds right into the argument of a police state. Secondly, I won't hire someone to mow my lawn. It's not an employment situation. And if I hire Jose, who's here legally, and sends George, a helper who's not, what then?

You're in jail, your house is confiscated, you are fighting a long uphill battle to justice. Jose all of a sudden has never heard of George as he does not want to lose his livelyhood, and so it goes.

If I have a small business, I don't hire anymore. I subcontract via 1099. This way I'm not responsible. See where I'm going with this?

You can't really kill a gigantic snake with 300 heads.

No Bob, I do not. Subcontracting IS hiring and it WOULD (and is) be punishable and you WOULD be responsible to verify the employment status of the sub-contractor and any employees he has. I am a construction consultant and deal with sub-contracts all day, every day for more than 30 years, more than 35 years in four countries and 48 states of the USA. These things are required to be verified NOW, not only that but various states add their own rules and regulations, depending on the project and who the client is. For example, any sub-contractor working on a state project in Vermont MUST employ ONLY legal residents and citizens and MUST pay at least the "prevailing wage", which is much higher than minimum wage (it is, in essence, the union labor wage for that job whether the sub-contractor is union or not) My clients hire ME to make sure all the rules are followed, labor law, workman's comp verifications, insurance verifications, bonds as well as safety rules, environmental rules, tax rules, wage and hour laws, etc. I am hired by property owners and by General Contractors to oversee projetcs and be sure that the sub-contractors follow all the rules and regulations and plans and specifications and that the sub-contractor's employees do the same. The property pwner and/or the general contractor is most assuredly in the chain of responsibility RIGHT NOW. I have, on each contract I oversee the absolute authority to immediately remove ANY employee or contractor from the property that is not meeting his obligations under the law. If I see an employee of a sub-contractor on a platform without a safety rail or safety harness in OSHA compliance, that employee is immediately gone off the property and WILL NOT return. The sub-contractor can use him somewhere else, I do not care. The sub-contractor receives a $500 sanction in his final payment for every OSHA violation I catch and write up. He agrees to this in his contract. Even a $500 penalty gets them to comply 99% of the time.

I have a copy of the I-9 form for every employee of every sub-contractor on every project. New employees of sub-contractors to the project must first report to my office and present information including a copy of their I-9 or they do not work. Period. Thank you...GOOD BYE. I accept fax copies.

My clients do not pay me thousands of dollars because they like me and want to make me rich, they pay me this money to COVER THEIR @SS and keep them from being fined for violations. They need to know these things and follow these rules now, please do not act as though it some unbearable burden. It is required NOW, I am not suggesting ANY new rules...NONE. Contractors and employers that hire illegal aliens do so to save money and put more money in their pocket. Immigration laws are only ONE of many they are violating, many are for the good of the worker.

Lest you think I am of this opinion to generate business for myself, I am already semi-retired and will not be accepting any more work than I already do. I will retire completely in 6 years, maybe less if someone pisses me off. I make plenty of money working 20-25 hours per week, sleeping until 9-10am and finishing for the day by 3pm and have no desire to do more, I have plenty to do with a family and home to work on. And my fishing and skeet shooting duties. However, because of my job. I understand the fragile concept of economic feasibility. I have seen projects scrapped, many times, for simple tax code hang ups. Of course this cost people (including me) jobs because of a tax code a project is not done and 300 people lose work. I ASSURE you, if the penalties were increased for employing illegals, the practice will stop. Cold, dead, STOP. There will be NO illegals hired or contracted anywhere for any reason...except maybe by a really stupid person.

Let me repeat that....NO NEW RULES ARE NEEDED OR WANTED OR SUGGESTED. I simply suggest increasing the penalties exponentially for violating rules they should already be following.

[LvivLovers 39]

So, let us say that we have a pair of "legal" refugees. They are not USCs yet, and maybe it will take them years to qualify for citizenship. They have a child. According to your logic, the child has no citizenship, unless the parents return to a country where they escaped from and in which they may be murdered, or at least jailed for life.

Is that your suggestion? Interesting!

I like the ideas of this group of people more and more every day. Слава Богу!

Obviously, there are corner cases that need to be individually considered. That's the problem with the original amendment. They tried to make it simple and straightforward, but that just doesn't cut it.

[mox 298]

Taking apart the 14th amendment is tackling the problem from the wrong end. If you fix the illegal immigration problem, then it becomes a non-issue.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Taking apart the 14th amendment is tackling the problem from the wrong end. If you fix the illegal immigration problem, then it becomes a non-issue.

True. As it applies to illegal immigration, Yes. If there were no economic incentive for women to come here and drop an anchor baby, they would not do so.

I think, Mox, what we have here (and I do not object to the idea of changing this law, per se) is another attempt to say "See, we DID something" when in fact, nothing is done to reduce illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is overwhelmingly an economic phenomenon. The people come for $$$, employers hire them for $$$. ANY "solution" that isn't economic in nature is smoke and mirrors and doomed to fail.

It is economically feasible to immigrate illegally and work for in the USA because ...

1. It is easy to find work (at the wages they work for)

2. The penalty for getting caught is virtually nothing and at worst deportation

And it is economically feasible to hire illegal workers because.

1. It puts more money in your pocket to avoid all the labor laws, wage and hour laws, etc.

2. The penalty for getting caught is so low as to not offset the economic gain

Employers are the "source". They are the "prize". If there is no gold in the mine, no one digs for gold there. They are the "gold". That is a big reason why I suggest going after employers FIRST. There are many other reasons which are all tied to the success of elimnating the problem...

1. There are less employers than employees. Easier to monitor.

2. Employers are known, or at least most of them are, illegal immigrants are anonymous.

3. Going after employers for violating wage and hour and safety laws gets the phony liberals on your side. It is hard for anyone with a functioning brain to oppose providing a safe working environment, wage laws, child labor laws, sexual harassment laws, etc. Works great when the opposition cannot oppose your ideas...because you use THEIR ideas.

4. No one accuses you of being a racist for targeting "greedy American employers"

5. Few people with funtioning brains and a spinal cord oppose verifying legal presence for taxpayer paid goodies like welfare, schools, medical care, etc. Politicians cannot do so, at least not publically, not even liberal democrat politicians

[Cixelsyd 1]

I was debating the nature of how to best curb illegal immigration with a coworker of mine.

Of course we had disagreements on the best method to handle this issue.

He said my Tigers would be too territorial and I said his pack of Wolves just wouldn't be aggressive enough.

Well, I suppose I'm poking fun over the issue of illegal immigration. I guess I look at it like the issue of homosexual marriage: Is this really the most pressing issue we should be addressing?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I was debating the nature of how to best curb illegal immigration with a coworker of mine.

Of course we had disagreements on the best method to handle this issue.

He said my Tigers would be too territorial and I said his pack of Wolves just wouldn't be aggressive enough.

Well, I suppose I'm poking fun over the issue of illegal immigration. I guess I look at it like the issue of homosexual marriage: Is this really the most pressing issue we should be addressing?

Yes. It is a very pressing issue for the Federal government who seems to think they can play around in health care, the auto industry, bank bailouts, education etc., NONE of which are roles for the federal government in this country and ignore our borders and the fact that hundreds of thousands of employers thumb their nose at our federal laws and increase the financial burden on US. "US" means those of us that produce, hire people, provide employment and pay taxes, both personal and business payroll tax from employing US citizens and legal immigrants. We have a medicare and Social Security system that would benefit from additional payments into it that are being avoided by hiring illegals. We have millions of workers going to work every day in unsafe conditions who may eventually end up in our hospitals with injuries we will pay for because, GUESS WHAT?????, no workamn's comp. insurance paid by their employer. We have millions of people going to work every day being paid less than the legal minimum wage, which means they have less to spend in an economy that needs spending, not to mention the fact that it could be US citizens and legal immigrants doing those jobs. And YES they WOULD do those jobs, Americans do all sorts of distasteful and difficult work...but they WIL NOT DO SO FOR $3 per hour, no benefits, no workman's comp., no insurance, no protection from harassment, no wage and hour restrictions, no overtime. It is insulting and downright ignorant to suggest illegals do work "Americans won't do" Horsesqueeze. Put those jobs on the market at the going wage with the usual benefits and Americans will line up for the jobs. Plenty of Americans work in Agriculture, construction, janitorial and restaraunt work. Vermont has a huge agricultrual industry and the lowest number of illegal immigrants of any state. Yet somehow all our cows get milked, all the manure gets spread, all the hay gets mowed and bailed, all the cheese gets made and all the syrup gets collected...and the workers make at lkeast $8.06 per hour and time and 1/2 for anything over 40 hours per week. PLUS they have health care provided by their employer OR the employer reimburses the state for it...ALL Vermonters have health care insurance and have had it for several years.

Immigration, border protection, national security ARE the most important roles for the federal government.

Though I have to admit, it could be humorous to watch a "debate" between two people so clueless of the role of our government.

[Cixelsyd 1]

Yes. It is a very pressing issue for the Federal government who seems to think they can play around in health care, the auto industry, bank bailouts, education etc., NONE of which are roles for the federal government in this country and ignore our borders and the fact that hundreds of thousands of employers thumb their nose at our federal laws and increase the financial burden on US. "US" means those of us that produce, hire people, provide employment and pay taxes, both personal and business payroll tax from employing US citizens and legal immigrants. We have a medicare and Social Security system that would benefit from additional payments into it that are being avoided by hiring illegals. We have millions of workers going to work every day in unsafe conditions who may eventually end up in our hospitals with injuries we will pay for because, GUESS WHAT?????, no workamn's comp. insurance paid by their employer. We have millions of people going to work every day being paid less than the legal minimum wage, which means they have less to spend in an economy that needs spending, not to mention the fact that it could be US citizens and legal immigrants doing those jobs. And YES they WOULD do those jobs, Americans do all sorts of distasteful and difficult work...but they WIL NOT DO SO FOR $3 per hour, no benefits, no workman's comp., no insurance, no protection from harassment, no wage and hour restrictions, no overtime. It is insulting and downright ignorant to suggest illegals do work "Americans won't do" Horsesqueeze. Put those jobs on the market at the going wage with the usual benefits and Americans will line up for the jobs. Plenty of Americans work in Agriculture, construction, janitorial and restaraunt work. Vermont has a huge agricultrual industry and the lowest number of illegal immigrants of any state. Yet somehow all our cows get milked, all the manure gets spread, all the hay gets mowed and bailed, all the cheese gets made and all the syrup gets collected...and the workers make at lkeast $8.06 per hour and time and 1/2 for anything over 40 hours per week. PLUS they have health care provided by their employer OR the employer reimburses the state for it...ALL Vermonters have health care insurance and have had it for several years.

Immigration, border protection, national security ARE the most important roles for the federal government.

Though I have to admit, it could be humorous to watch a "debate" between two people so clueless of the role of our government.

I'm still waiting for the punchline.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm still waiting for the punchline.

Of course you are.

[SMR 368]

ALL Vermonters have health care insurance and have had it for several years.

Are you sure Vermonters is correct and not Vermontians?

[Cixelsyd 1]

Of course you are.

I can see you're still mulling that one over. I'll give you a little more time.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Are you sure Vermonters is correct and not Vermontians?

Vermontites, clearly.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Are you sure Vermonters is correct and not Vermontians?

It is Vermonters if you are an angliphone. Vermontois (Vare-mon-twah) if you are a francophone.

[Brad and Vika 129]

It is Vermonters if you are an angliphone. Vermontois (Vare-mon-twah) if you are a francophone.

Or Vermontaters if you eat too much or talk too much.

[slim 1,519]

I thought the familiar term was "Green Mountain Boys."

[Brad and Vika 129]

I thought the familiar term was "Green Mountain Boys."

There you go