Obama's Healthcare woud give $3K Incentive to Hire Illegals over American citizens (green card, visa)
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.
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.
Companies are only concerned with their bottom line. They are certainly not a benevolent group, willing to provide insurance coverage to employees out of the goodness of their hearts. Previously, they only covered employees because it benefits their recruitment and retention. They realize few would choose to be employed by their company without certain benefits, medical coverage being one of the most essential. However, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, employers were not required by law to provide medical insurance coverage for their employees. Now, they are. If you actually think an employer will provide coverage for a newly-legalized illegal alien without having a legal obligation to do so, please think again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
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.
No, our current laws aren't toothless. Any law is meaningless without enforcement, including the proposed bill, which will also lack enforcement. This is nothing but a repeat of 1986, and we will have the same result: massive illegal immigration.
If you think we have an illegal immigration problem now, just wait until they pass this. The future will make our current problems look like child's play.
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.
The laws were enforced for the most part. The bitterness people have comes from the promised effects of the law not actually happening. We were promised no more illegal immigration, but we still have it.
This time around they are putting in triggers, and handing enforcement authority to the border states themselves. We know for a fact that border states want to enforce the law, but the Supreme Court and Federal Government aren't allowing it until the immigration reform passes. The best bet for getting enforcement is to sign this bill which includes the provision to hand power to the border states if the feds fail.
The immigration reform bill does all of what you are asking, except for ending birthright citizenship. But see to get what you want, in a democracy, you have to give the other side what they want. That's how politics works. Do you think I want an end to the diversity visa? Do you think I want drones in the sky in the border or cops busting tourists who fudge up dates and overstay their visas? I'm no fan of turning businesses into immigration cops. The only reason I'm willing to consider the draconian anti-immigrant provisions of this bill is because it gives 11 million people the chance to come out of the shadows. This is how a democracy works. We compromise and meet in the middle or nothing gets done.
The laws were enforced for the most part. The bitterness people have comes from the promised effects of the law not actually happening. We were promised no more illegal immigration, but we still have it.
This time around they are putting in triggers, and handing enforcement authority to the border states themselves. We know for a fact that border states want to enforce the law, but the Supreme Court and Federal Government aren't allowing it until the immigration reform passes. The best bet for getting enforcement is to sign this bill which includes the provision to hand power to the border states if the feds fail.
The immigration reform bill does all of what you are asking, except for ending birthright citizenship. But see to get what you want, in a democracy, you have to give the other side what they want. That's how politics works. Do you think I want an end to the diversity visa? Do you think I want drones in the sky in the border or cops busting tourists who fudge up dates and overstay their visas? I'm no fan of turning businesses into immigration cops. The only reason I'm willing to consider the draconian anti-immigrant provisions of this bill is because it gives 11 million people the chance to come out of the shadows. This is how a democracy works. We compromise and meet in the middle or nothing gets done.
A country does not have untold millions living illegally within its borders if its laws are being enforced, period. This is just simple common sense.
Now, they are. If you actually think an employer will provide coverage for a newly-legalized illegal alien without having a legal obligation to do so, please think again.
Uh, are you trying to claim that no employer would provide health care benefits unless legally forces to? You know we had benefits well before PPACA right? A not insignificant number of employers have, and will continue to provide benefits to all their employees. For those employers, who hire more than 50 and decide not to pay medical benefits, and assuming they even know their hire is a provisional immigrant, which I doubt anyone would be required to disclose, then in those circumstances, yes it will create an advantage. It shouldn't. I'm hoping the Democrats will introduce an amendment to change that without Republicans crying bloody murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
No, our current laws aren't toothless. Any law is meaningless without enforcement, including the proposed bill, which will also lack enforcement. This is nothing but a repeat of 1986, and we will have the same result: massive illegal immigration.
They are toothless precisely because there is no significant penalty for non-enforcement. Now we've figured out a significant penalty, and it's the cession of border enforcement duties to the southern border states. They should get the job done.
Normally, we learn from mistakes instead of giving up. There are so many improvements that can be made to the system, but noooooo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
If you think we have an illegal immigration problem now, just wait until they pass this. The future will make our current problems look like child's play.
If Obama signs the law and then doesn't enforce it immediately afterwards, impeach his ass. I'll lobby for it along with you guys.
Uh, are you trying to claim that no employer would provide health care benefits unless legally forces to? You know we had benefits well before PPACA right? A not insignificant number of employers have, and will continue to provide benefits to all their employees. For those employers, who hire more than 50 and decide not to pay medical benefits, and assuming they even know their hire is a provisional immigrant, which I doubt anyone would be required to disclose, then in those circumstances, yes it will create an advantage. It shouldn't. I'm hoping the Democrats will introduce an amendment to change that without Republicans crying bloody murder.
I have already explained why most companies previously offered medical coverage for their employees. It's for the benefit of the company, not the employees. In other words, it's just good business. Why would they not realize the applicant is a newly-legalized illegal alien? After all, won't their new classification indicate their provisional status?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
They are toothless precisely because there is no significant penalty for non-enforcement. Now we've figured out a significant penalty, and it's the cession of border enforcement duties to the southern border states. They should get the job done.
I don't believe that for one minute. These promises will be as empty as the 1986. There will be very little enforcement, if any. But, it looks good in print.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
Normally, we learn from mistakes instead of giving up. There are so many improvements that can be made to the system, but noooooo.
When will these improvement be made, and by whom? Any idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
If Obama signs the law and then doesn't enforce it immediately afterwards, impeach his ass. I'll lobby for it along with you guys.
Obama will be impeached as much as Reagan. The failure will again be blamed on Congress and/or a lack of funds.
I have already explained why most companies previously offered medical coverage for their employees. It's for the benefit of the company, not the employees. In other words, it's just good business. Why would they not realize the applicant is a newly-legalized illegal alien? After all, won't their new classification indicate their provisional status?
Right, employers offer coverage to citizen employees to get group discounts from providers and to retain the employees, the same reasons we can expect them to give those benefits to provisional immigrants. Only in the instances where those reasons wouldn't compel the employer to give benefits, then would the penalty differential kick in. But I'll agree with you in SOME instances a provisional immigrant would be preferred. That should be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
I don't believe that for one minute. These promises will be as empty as the 1986. There will be very little enforcement, if any. But, it looks good in print.
To be honest, I share your skepticism, but not your pessimism. I'd like to see A LOT less discretion and waivers in the bill so the Department of Homeland Security can't do as it pleases and is bound by the written word. I'd also like to see an independent agency set up to investigate the DHS for failure to enforce and charge them with corruption like the FBI does now. Perhaps set it up under the FBI. I've heard talk of Senators hoping to introduce amendments to the bill that would require Congress to re-vote every year to confirm the DHS is doing it's job and enforcing the law this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
When will these improvement be made, and by whom? Any idea?
The amendment I mentioned above is prepared by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and his staff will be introduced to the Senate Judiciary committee during the bill mark up process in the second week of May. It will be streamed live on C-Span. I haven't missed a single hearing, you should watch it. It will allay some of your fears I bet haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Obama will be impeached as much as Reagan. The failure will again be blamed on Congress and/or a lack of funds.
Congress is A LOT more partisan these days, and Republicans have already shown the apetite to drag a President through the mud (see Clinton impeachment). I don't think Obama can get away with not enforcing the law. And even if he didn't get impeached, his legacy would suffer. That's gotta concern an outgoing President way more than impeachment.
Beni that's like saying no one would die or get robbed if the laws were enforced. Lack of perfect results doesn't mean laws aren't being enforced.
That's not a valid comparison. When criminals commit murder or robbery and are caught, they are prosecuted, and if found guilty, incarcerated. And, to my knowledge, police officers are not being told to ignore murderers or robbers. Conversely, illegal aliens are not only being ignored by law enforcement, and allowed to remain in this country, but they are also being pardoned for criminal offenses such as ID theft, fraud, and tax evasion. Not to mention, the slap on the wrist illegal employers have received. No one takes our immigration laws seriously. In fact, the entire world knows the U.S. has had lax immigration enforcement for years. Otherwise, millions wouldn't come illegally. There's a very good reason few would attempt to enter China, Iran, or N. Korea illegally.
A country does not have untold millions living illegally within its borders if its laws are being enforced, period. This is just simple common sense.
If our government were serious about e-verify and allowing our states to enforce our immigration laws then why haven't they done it already? Why does it take amnesty for millions of illegals to make that happen? Now they will be using our sovereign borders and labor laws as a bargaining tool? Why? Prior to this Obama was suing the states for enforcing immigration laws. I smell a rat.
If our government were serious about e-verify and allowing our states to enforce our immigration laws then why haven't they done it already?
Because a certain brand of uncomprimising ideologues won't come to the negotiating table and we have to carefully and tenuously craft legislation to allay their fears. This is what's happening now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Why does it take amnesty for millions of illegals to make that happen? Now they will be using our sovereign borders and labor laws as a bargaining tool? Why?
It's political horsetrading. Immigrants overwhelmingly favor Democrats, especially Hispanics, and they want their elected representatives to help them and their families out. Some of their family members are not in the country legally. Others like Christian leaders see it as their God given mission to be kind to the sojourner. Left wing laborers don't want people who don't have legal papers to get paid pennies under the table and drive down wages. Now that we agree we can't mass deport or attack by attrition and self-deportation, the most logical solution is legalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Prior to this Obama was suing the states for enforcing immigration laws. I smell a rat.
Yes, because he wants to make that part of the deal. If he let the states have what they wanted outside of the deal, would they come to the negotiating table? See this is what happens when you have a history of not compromising, people stop helping you until you become reasonable and agree to negotiate a deal.
Although let's be fair. Democrats tried to pass the DREAM act without any border security provision in it hoping it would be popular and narrow enough to pass. It didn't. Republicans who support the DREAM act voted against it because they knew they could get more stuff relating border security if they made it part of a deal.
So there are things many parties want, in fact in immigration, everyone from labor, business, christians, defense buffs, and of course Hispanics and current citizens want something. And none of them are gonna get anything individually because everyone else says, "what about me?" So the only way to pass anything is to do it is part of grand bargain with a little bit of what everyone wants, but not giving too much to any one party.
This process appeals to moderates, and will upset extremists who are unflinching in their positions. I say that's good, who likes extremists anyways. Moderation is cool.
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.
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.
Because a certain brand of uncomprimising ideologues won't come to the negotiating table and we have to carefully and tenuously craft legislation to allay their fears. This is what's happening now.
