U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2013, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
116 posts, read 91,223 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
But, we aren't discussing what employees will pay, are we? We are discussing whether an employer would have an incentive to hire a newly-legalized illegal alien, which, given the addition $3000 they can save, they clearly would.
Sure, and when I go to the grocery store I walk out with a lot of goodies. If you look at it holistically I pay for them too, and that balances things out, but if you want to present a one sided view to make me look like I benefit unfairly, then we can leave the payment part out and just talk about how I walk out with a lot of things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2013, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis View Post
Sure, and when I go to the grocery store I walk out with a lot of goodies. If you look at it holistically I pay for them too, and that balances things out, but if you want to present a one sided view to make me look like I benefit unfairly, then we can leave the payment part out and just talk about how I walk out with a lot of things.
Let's stay on-topic, shall we? The fact remains, employers will not be required to spend an additional $3,000 to insure newly-legalized illegal aliens, whereas, they will be required to pay for citizen employees. It is clearly an incentive to employ those who will cost less. It's a no-brainer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
116 posts, read 91,223 times
Reputation: 15
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is independent of any immigration reform efforts, and the disincentive to hire employees imposed by the so-called employer mandate will continue regardless.

As it relates to provisional immigrants, for one we know the employer mandate only applies in limited circumstances. The mandate only applies to firms that employ more than 50 employees, so jobs at small businesses will not have the $3,000 difference. For businesses larger than 50 employees, if they provide "affordable coverage" as defined by the PPACA, they would not be penalized the $3000 for citizen employees, thereby not creating the incentive to hire provisional immigrants.

To avoid the penalties, most business are already either artificially keeping below the 50 employee mark (unintended consequence) or offering their employees affordable coverage (intended consequence). Instances of employers eating the penalty and not providing affordable coverage to employees should be rare, as the law was designed to make it too costly for them to choose the penalty over choosing to insure their workers.

So yea I guess in the rare situation where an employer is refusing to provide health care to their employees, they will have an incentive to hire provisional immigrants to skirt the law. The $3,000 is not an "across the board" thing by any means.

Personally, I'd like to see that removed from the law. Let provisional immigrants be covered by the PPACA. It'll remove the exploitation where employers would hire them just because they could deny them health care coverage without penalty, and it will benefit the provisional immigrant with getting affordable care. It'd benefit all of us when they don't end up in the emergency room with a preventable condition that would then require thousands of dollars worth of surgery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis View Post
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is independent of any immigration reform efforts, and the disincentive to hire employees imposed by the so-called employer mandate will continue regardless.

As it relates to provisional immigrants, for one we know the employer mandate only applies in limited circumstances. The mandate only applies to firms that employ more than 50 employees, so jobs at small businesses will not have the $3,000 difference. For businesses larger than 50 employees, if they provide "affordable coverage" as defined by the PPACA, they would not be penalized the $3000 for citizen employees, thereby not creating the incentive to hire provisional immigrants.

To avoid the penalties, most business are already either artificially keeping below the 50 employee mark (unintended consequence) or offering their employees affordable coverage (intended consequence). Instances of employers eating the penalty and not providing affordable coverage to employees should be rare, as the law was designed to make it too costly for them to choose the penalty over choosing to insure their workers.

So yea I guess in the rare situation where an employer is refusing to provide health care to their employees, they will have an incentive to hire provisional immigrants to skirt the law. The $3,000 is not an "across the board" thing by any means.

Personally, I'd like to see that removed from the law. Let provisional immigrants be covered by the PPACA. It'll remove the exploitation where employers would hire them just because they could deny them health care coverage without penalty, and it will benefit the provisional immigrant with getting affordable care. It'd benefit all of us when they don't end up in the emergency room with a preventable condition that would then require thousands of dollars worth of surgery.
Only very small businesses employ less than 50 employees. Hence, most businesses will have the option of either hiring someone who will cost them $3000, or one who will not. It's just that simple. Unfortunately, we will continue to foot the medical bills for most illegal aliens, legalized or otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
116 posts, read 91,223 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Only very small businesses employ less than 50 employees. Hence, most businesses will have the option of either hiring someone who will cost them $3000, or one who will not.
Actually no, like I said, even for larger businesses, the penalty only applies if they fail to provide coverage. If they already have a policy to provide coverage to new hires then the penalty wouldn't apply to them. In other words, they'd pay $0 penalty if they hire a provisional immigrant, AND a $0 penalty if they hire a citizen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Unfortunately, we will continue to foot the medical bills for most illegal aliens, legalized or otherwise.
So I take it you support allowing undocumented immigrants to be eligible for coverage under PPACA? That way they will be insured by their employers, wouldn't be preferred over citizens, AND their employer would pick up the tab when they get emergency care, not us?

Sounds like you need to call your Congressmen and lobby them to allow undocumented immigrants to be eligible for PPACA!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis View Post
Actually no, like I said, even for larger businesses, the penalty only applies if they fail to provide coverage. If they already have a policy to provide coverage to new hires then the penalty wouldn't apply to them. In other words, they'd pay $0 penalty if they hire a provisional immigrant, AND a $0 penalty if they hire a citizen.
Are you now trying to claim hiring someone an employer will have to cover, will cost the same as hiring someone they will not have to cover? If so, please explain. Penalty aside, an employer can hire a newly-legalized illegal alien and not bear the burden of insurance coverage. That's a savings by any calculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis View Post
So I take it you support allowing undocumented immigrants to be eligible for coverage under PPACA? That way they will be insured by their employers, wouldn't be preferred over citizens, AND their employer would pick up the tab when they get emergency care, not us?

Sounds like you need to call your Congressmen and lobby them to allow undocumented immigrants to be eligible for PPACA!
If that is your assumption, you are sorely mistaken. No, I support having our current laws enforced, and companies severely punished for employing illegal aliens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
116 posts, read 91,223 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Are you now trying to claim hiring someone an employer will have to cover, will cost the same as hiring someone they will not have to cover? If so, please explain. Penalty aside, an employer can hire a newly-legalized illegal alien and not bear the burden of insurance coverage. That's a savings by any calculation.
If the employer plans to cover the employees regardless of their legal status, then the disincentive won't matter.

But the whole thing is rendered moot when you consider the current situation. Even if provisional immigrants aren't legalized, we are in the same situation. An employer could hire them now, not just skirting the PPACA penalty of $3,000, but minimum wage laws and labor laws. The preferential incentive to hire undocumented people is much, much higher when they are undocumented because the employer can willy nilly ignore all labor laws.

Just because legalization doesn't eliminate the $3,000 difference doesn't mean it doesn't level the playing field in other areas, such as minimum wage laws etc. In fact, it should be preferable to the current situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
116 posts, read 91,223 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
No, I support having our current laws enforced, and companies severely punished for employing illegal aliens.
Our current laws are toothless against past and future undocumented migrants. Looking forward, it would appear like a good deal to get tough on future illegal entries and overstays, and to make that politically feasible, offer relief to the past migrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 11:03 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,013,914 times
Reputation: 17978
Waasn't that what was said i the 80's bill ?Seems I remmber the same thig then and it certainy didn't stop. In fact they didn't even really try to enforce the billin that regrard.We can do what needs done with no amnesty of any type in fact.Do you really think they are goig to get tought on other that continue to come illegal. This is just a emploter and poltical move by people who never wanted to enfroce out immagration ;laws. If we are goi gto make chnages then make it something like no child born of a illegal is a citizen. Then setup a compouter program to cheack status on hiring and put arge fine:how about 3k;for hiring a illegal nt cleared by data base.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 02:32 PM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,097,724 times
Reputation: 2199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis View Post
Our current laws are toothless against past and future undocumented migrants. Looking forward, it would appear like a good deal to get tough on future illegal entries and overstays, and to make that politically feasible, offer relief to the past migrants.
Laws were not enforced from Regan until now.

A new bill would be much of the same as it is being exposed, maybe much worst than before.

I would enforce our current laws, end birthright citizenship from parents that are illegals, make English the official language and get tougher on employers who employ illegals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top