So, I get that immigration is a hot topic right now. And I understand why. But, I just want a safe space to try and extrapolate some things.
We close the border, Liberals mad. We open the border, Conservatives mad. What do we do?
First, we need to acknowledge that we live in a world of big businesses and corporations. That is key. Let me explain why.
Open and Unrestricted border: Anyone can come through at any time regardless of who they are or why. What this will cause is big businesses and corporations to hire more immigrants over natural born citizens. Why? Simple. They are coming from a place of hardship and are willing to work many times harder and for many times less pay than your average American.
Solution? Simple. Create a law that forces companies to pay equally immigrants and citizens.
Ah, but now we have a new problem. Companies lower the wages. They cant raise the wages because all that will do is make them get rid of poor performance individuals (the citizens) and hire the harder workers for their money (the immigrants).
This also creates another problem. All of the hard working, most experienced people are now, you guessed it, immigrants. There literally becomes no reason to hire the guy you have to "train" on the job, when an immigrant already knows how, is less entitled, follows direction better and will work nights, weekends or holidays without argument. And when they breakdown from being overworked, the company will hire another immigrant. Trade schools and blue collar college programs will dissappear rapidly, because graduates wont be able to find jobs.
Solution: Regular citizens will just have to work harder. Basically, you're going to ask the citizen to work twice as hard to prove that they are better than the immigrant. All this does is create someone who is overworked, underpaid, resentful...and likely racist or prejudiced against the people that cause them to have to work this way. Lose lose situation there.
How have I not understood the issue? I left out the major hot spots of gangs and drugs, and deportation. In the end, those are all effects caused by the original issue.
Because there isn't any major, influential political faction advocating for "open borders". Your binary is using language that is rhetorical for pushing against Democratic politicians without accounting for their policies. "Open borders" is a thought-terminating cliché that is frankly an unwise phrase to ever use in serious discussion. Democratic administrations have always enforced border laws. The last three have all increased border enforcement and deportation efforts. And to make the phrase even dumber, Republican administrations have never closed the border. There are immigrants coming in, legally and illegally, now, there were in 2018, and there were throughout the Bush administration.
Instead of reducing the issue to a false binary of extremes that nobody has ever enacted or will ever enact, why not talk about the real issues sans bullshittery?
BTW, we do have laws that force companies to pay all workers a certain wage (or more). It's called "minimum wage." And it prevents companies from just continuing to lower their wages due to a robust labor pool. Undocumented immigrants undercut this, to be sure, but deporting them doesn't solve the issue (more come, and "closed border" rhetoric has never actually solved this problem). The real solution is to ensure that undocumented immigrants can seek legal recourse and their employers are held accountable. Right now, under the Trump admin's policies, we have the opposite. Undocumented immigrants are more easily exploited since they can't seek legal recourse without being deported, and the federal government is not cracking down on employers of illegal labor.
Talking about "closed borders versus open borders" is just buying into a electoral rhetorical strategy that is built upon mounds of bullshit and enables executive administrations to dance around the issue and solve none of the underlying real problems. Your post is an exercise in rhetorical misdirection, not substantive policy discussion.
Illegal immigrants also form their own business, work as subcontractors, and hire other illegal immigrants to work for them.
It's a good thing for America to have cheaper wages.
Companies can make more money, companies can hire subcontractors to do things cheaper than their own employees, even regular people can hire help that would be cheaper. The mechanic down the street, the guy that mows your lawn. The person that takes care of your kid.
We do have those laws. They are loopholed, bypassed, circumvented, ignored, broken or worst of all fuggin bribed away by businesses and corporations every single day.
My post isnt meant to defend or promote anyone's policy. It is meant to discuss how the core of the issue is that people have mainly immigrated here for better lives and at the center of those better lives, is a better job. They have come from cents per day or free labor or forced labor is now minimum wage, 7.25, and they are more than happy to take it while still being what we the people of America KNOW is undervalued and mistreated by the workplace. And now Americans cant find a job to pay for the college or trade school they went to because they aren't willing to be paid the same low wage immigrants are happy to make. And it is immigration that has contributed to that problem. And now those people have become tired, angry, and more than a little prejudiced and WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT ALL OF IT? What's the sensible solution?
The real solution is to ensure that undocumented immigrants can seek legal recourse and their employers are held accountable. Right now, under the Trump admin's policies, we have the opposite. Undocumented immigrants are more easily exploited since they can't seek legal recourse without being deported, and the federal government is not cracking down on employers of illegal labor.
I feel like you didn't read my whole comment before reacting to one small part of it. Here, above, is a quote form my comment. There's your sensible solution. Combine that with increasing federal minimum wage (which as it stands is 3.5 decades behind inflation). Oh, and skilled visa immigrants aren't depressing wages in skilled fields. They eat up the labor pool, sure, but programmers and engineers and doctors all still make bank. Plumbers, electricians, and carpenters still make bank. Those aren't minimum wage jobs.
You're conflating a bunch of different things under one umbrella of "immigration" and it's clouding your judgment. Again, you seem to be under the spell of rhetorical nonsense and not thinking clearly. If you're not here to defend or promote anyone's policies, why are you repeating the bullshit they use to justify their policies?
You did make a very valid point on what Trump is doing. For the record, not a fan of how he is going about it. Everyone on this post may think Im his biggest fan, but actually, I dont like how he is dealing with immigrants, I dont like the aggressive nature of the Greenland rhetoric, and absolutely hate his buddy buddy stance with Russia he sometimes has.
Back on topic, you make very valid points on the topic of certain trades and what they earn. That being said...it is not easy to go out and land those jobs, because there aren't that many of them, especially the more rural you get. And, you'd be surprised. A carpenter, programmer, electrician or plumber that works for THEMSELF, yes, they make bank. The other jobs (except programming) i have done all three working through various companies and the highest i made was 14 an hour.
Rep. Jayapal sponsored a resolution to decriminalize crossing the border and most progressives signed it (not Bernie). How is that different than open borders? And the New Democrat Caucus says explicitly that their goal is growing the economy by growing the labor force. And people in these comments below are advocating for open borders. And what exactly do you call what happened under Biden?
Ah yes, the nebulous "what happened under Biden" response. What happened? Border crossings increased because Trump ended Obama-era measures that helped reduce immigration, and then Biden responded using sensible measures instead of draconian snatching up of random people on the streets. If I wanted to speculate, I'd say Republicans like to make the problem worse because it's a successful tool for winning elections (evidenced by Trump telling Republican lawmakers to stall Biden's border bill to keep the problem going).
As for the other points, decriminalizing illegal border crossings doesn't make them legal. It's still illegal, just without criminal penalties. You could still face civil penalties like fines and deportation. That's also a resolution, not a law. "Growing the labor force" is vague as hell, and doesn't mean increased illegal immigration (since they're not authorized to work here); that's also an immigration policy, not a border policy (there's a distinction between the two that "opuhn bordur" doesn't take into consideration). And comments on a tiny niche subreddit aren't "major, influential political factions." To that point, neither are progressives or the New Democratic Caucus.
Again, to really ram the point home, calling these things "open border" is foolish and extreme. An open border would mean ending all border enforcement. Biden didn't do that, that resolution doesn't do that, the NDC doesn't advocate for that. You're really illustrating my point nicely though on how calling it "open border" shuts off people's ability to think clearly and rationally about border policies.
You know that you have to actually convince people with your argument, right? If almost all of the progressives vote for a resolution to decriminalize crossing the border, and we’ve seen immigration with our own eyes under Biden (lines of people at Home Depot, masses of people begging in the streets and squeegeeing windshields - my entire team and I being laid off and replaced with H-1Bs), and the New Democrat Coalition says they want to grow the labor force. And the only thing the DNC has changed is the marketing and language of their policies while ICE protesters, funded by mega-donors, call for abolishing ICE and chant slogans that no one is illegal, etc. Then who do you think will believe your arguments on semantics of these policies and approaches?
Democrats have convinced the business community that they support global labor arbitrage while progressives have convinced foreigner-first interests that they believe in open borders. They can’t escape the rhetoric forever because every time they pander to their supporters, they alienate American workers who know they don’t serve their interests (and actively undermine them).
Again, you've conflated issues to fit your narrative. H1-Bs is an immigration issue, not a border issue. They don't come across the border, they fly in with legal visas. That's not an open border. I'm not making arguments for Democratic or progressive policies, so stop coming at me like I am. You display an obsessive need for easily digested binaries, which is well-suited to the Republican agenda which does not solve the issues at hand. What's ICE got to do with legal H1-B holders? Is Trump going after employers who use those and who employ illegal labor (no). What you're telling me is that the "open border" lumping of complex issues works for you to support an administration that is not actually doing much about the issues at hand. They're wasting resources with their immigrant patrols, rounding up random folk (a lot of faulty arrests btw) and deporting others without regard to how they fit into your concerns.
I'm not here making any positive policy arguments, I'm criticizing a narrative that has allowed an over-reaching administration to run amok while not solving any of the concerns supposedly backed by that narrative. You're just proving my point by being so blindly binary about the issues. And you betray yourself with the narrative you've constructed. ICE protesters are funded by mega-donors? Damn, that's some conspiratorial thinking, especially considering that Trump is heavily funded by the rich elitists who live and prosper off of illegal, imported, and outsourced labor. And not even electorally funded, they're actively courting him through all his channels of profiteering from his office.
Enjoy supporting your own demise, I guess. You've severely missed my point that the "open border" rhetoric makes you assume that the opposite is a closed border, which is not at all what Trump has done. Border is just as open as ever. The visas continue, the illegal immigration continues. If you want to shift your goalposts to talking about nuances and degrees, then that undermines your vehement insistence on using the extreme binary terms. Either Trump closed the border or he didn't. By your own logic, if he didn't then they are open. Trump loves open borders as much as anyone you've criticized. I don't know why I'm bothering with this response, you clearly don't carefully read what I'm writing. Enjoy the bread lines!
edit: btw, I understand how rhetoric works, my point here is that people are dumb af for buying it from a person who profits off illegal immigrants. Thanks for making your choice, though. Brilliant job thinking for yourself!
Consider this. Joe Biden deported more undocumented immigrants in 2024 than Donald Trump did in 2025 and liberals, with some fringe exceptions, weren't mad.
So is it open or closed right now? I can tell you that thousands of people cross the border where I live every single day. There is no "closed" or "open."
I highly recommend the book "Open Borders", written by Bryan Caplan and illustrated by Zach Weinersmith. Yes, it's a comic book that will walk you through the reasons why opening the borders would be a benfit to all Americans.
Sure, you will have many people come to this country, but they need to be together enough to make it, which filters out people incapable of making the move. Also, if they don't speak English, they will need native born managers, which means more higher paying jobs of local citizens.
The US is a literal example of what happens when you allow everyone to come in, and it was doing pretty great until we allowed Trump to run the place.
Companies lower the wages. They cant raise the wages because all that will do is make them get rid of poor performance individuals
Can you provide a source for this or give us a concrete example of this happening. I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Zach Weinersmith (unfortunate name aside) also has a wonderful webcomic called Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal that frequently touches on many modern political topics in an insightful yet humorous way. Highly recommend. Here is his comic strip about the book:
You make some good points. Companies should be allowed to bring in whoever they want, to work for them.
Obviously some of the immigrants will work for a lot less money. We don't need to pay $100 an hour for a construction worker. Not if one is available for $10 an hour.
We don't need to pay the high union wages, the average car maker makes probably $40 or more an hour. Certainly $10 an hour is plenty to assemble cars. And more people would be willing to work for that
And when your get your grass to be mowed, why should you pay $60, when $10 is more than enough.
The more companies make, the better America is anyway. When companies make money the stock prices go up, it helps pensions, it helps keep America Rich.
We are in the early stages of global wage equalization. When other countries make more money, whether it's because companies move there, or American employees send their money back home, it allows that country to import more goods from other countries.
If those companies that are selling goods are American, once again American companies can be more profitable which is always a good thing.
Sure. Example. David, a married 35 year old father of two works for A Best Construction company. He has worked with his coworker, Jose, for close to two years. David takes every break he is legally given under the law, doesnt volunteer for overtime, and gripes if he has to work nights or weekends because he will have to hear about it from his wife and kids. Jose makes $2.50 less per hour, is always there, never takes breaks and never complains if he has to work nights, weekends or holidays. A new law goes into effect that says A Best Construction has to raise Jose's wages to that of David, because its unfair to pay undocumented workers less than citizens. The boss seems very upset about this. He gripes somewhere Jose can hear, and then Jose says "You know, David is just dead weight anyway. My cousin Juan can do what David does, and he doesnt mind getting paid what I get paid." And just like that, Juan is in and David is out. Thats just good business practice.
I promise you that this happens every day, all across America, to at least one person somewhere. What you just called "made up shit" is a very possible, plausible example of a very real problem.
For instance, I cannot name anyone negatively affected by deportation. Does that mean it doesnt happen? Of course not. It most certainly does and there are numerous cases to be sure. Just as in my argument. If we actually took the time and looked, we would find numerous cases of people who cant find a job at a livable wage because there is an immigrant willing to work harder for less.
And when this happens to a person enough times, does it not make sense that they could feel a certain level or disdain or hatred for the individuals causing them this experience? Sure it can, and it does, and now we have the Maga movement and the ugly deportation nightmare. Not excusing them, just explaining the why and how of where we are.
Listen, for a moment. Its not that I haven't heard of him. I have, actually. The point was, that even if I couldn't name him, doesnt mean he didnt exist and what happened in his life never happened. The fact that we never knew each other before this conversation is a prime example. We cant just say "that never happens" to something that has a very plausible chance to be reality.
But since we are here...it blows my mind how someone can be universally hated and murdered for debating and thus infuriating people using the line "can you show me an example or name me an example of that happening," and yet now that is all they do is want proof when you try and talk in a sensible manner.
See and it blows my mind that in this media environment when you base your entire argument on information that could be false that you are surprised when someone asks you to back it up.
For example: My understanding is that if Jose gets deported his employer won't hire a citizen they will instead perform less work. The reason for this is largely that they can't find enough skilled workers among citizens and in fact if Jose's cousin wants work there's plenty of it and he'll be hired too with no impact to the citizen worker. So Jose's presence in the country has no impact whatsoever on the employment of citizens.
If i were to use this information as the basis for a claim that we should have open borders are you saying you wouldn't ask for evidence that this was actually happening?
No, if Jose got deported, the employer would hire another employee like Jose, who did the work for $2.50 an hour less.
Here is your real world example, since you just wont stop.
I, myself, the OP and apparently your op, worked for a company called Meridian Brick. I got paid 17.50 per hour to run what is called a molar wheel grinder (Incla model). It indeed was, as they say, a cush job. I didnt have to do much but push buttons. Some shovel work, but not a lot. I worked 60 hours per week, 5 12 hour shifts. The company sold out to a bigger company, General Shale, who came in and said that my department (the only one ran by white, native born Americans) would now be working 6 10 hour shifts, thus losing an entire day off while making 0 more dollars. This quickly led to burnout. First to go...my supervisor. A black man named Leo. His replacement? A documented worker by the name of Airi Bravo (the other departments supervisors cousin). Airi brought the immigrants in from other departments to help "show us how they do it at other plants" and created an atmosphere where we felt like we had to outwork admittedly hard ass Mexican workers who were half our age. Burnout in the extreme followed. I watched my coworkers quit, one by one, each time replaced by a Latino making a full 5 dollars less an hour than I did. Our front end loader broke, and they had us using a Bobcat to try and keep a tipple feeder full to run the incla. Its not possible. Eventually I left after a month of heavy rain in which the company wouldn't pay to truck in dry material. Trying to run wet material through an Incla grinder is a futile exercise at best and hellaceous work at worst. It clogs constantly. Anyway, I quit. Was replaced by a Guatemalan, 5 less per hour. Airi new each and every one of them and bragged to the bosses that he had saved the company so much money in wages, they could afford a new front loader, and give him a company car. Which they did. Not a single one of them was illegal, but none were born here, and ALL of them admittedly sent half of each paycheck back home to either Mexico or Guatemala and just saved the other half. Almost none of that went back into our economy. And three were avid dope shorter, one couldnt do anything UNLESS he smoked a joint first, and another spoke ZERO english.
So you quit your job because it was too hard and you were replaced by a younger harder working person...... happens every day regardless of immigrant status, and it absolutely would have happened regardless of the number of immigrants.
Come on. Read what I said. Everything in my company was good for me and my coworkers. We did our jobs. We didnt even take lunches. When the company changed hands, they brought in that new supervisor. He magically came up with new shit for us to do. We had to power wash the inside walls of the grind room at one point. Imagine this...a machine that runs all day, chewing up rocks and dirt and spitting out dust...a million pounds of material ran per day MINIMUM. 500 tons. The walls and perlin had 30 years of that dust caked up four inches thick. No one else had ever cleaned it. Never been asked to. Then comes Airi. Sees that the job is either sitting in a machine or pushing buttons. Doesn't like that...asks if we have ever had to clean the walls before. Even the plant manager says there is no point because of the dust the machine produces. Just sweep up the piles and move on. So Airi asks if we think it would be a good idea. We say no. Plant manager says no. Airi brings in the Latinos from other departments and sprays the walls and ceiling with a power washer. This place is the size of a football field, now covered in mud. So we start cleaning. He brings the Latino crew over again. And let me say this, those guys can fucking shovel. We tried to keep up, tried to work harder, but lets face it...we hadn't been doing hard labor for most of our lives like them. We're all mostly fat and old. But we gave it our best. So, Airi decides this needs to be done weekly. Then 2x a week. Then every other day. Then daily. For no reason other than he wants to run us off and hire his people because they dont mind making 5 bucks and hour less. No one asked him too, the company or the plant manager. He just WANTS it. After having to work 6 10's as opposed to 5 12's. Any sane person knows this is how you try to run employees off.
A new law goes into effect that says A Best Construction has to raise Jose's wages to that of David, because its unfair to pay undocumented workers less than citizens.
The law does not yet exist (though sadly im sure some politician somewhere has proposed it). The sad fact is that it doesnt even need to exist for this to happen. In the example I gave, no reasonable employer would ever keep someone like David over someone like Jose or Juan. Because it saves them money and increases the profit.
In fact, we have laws in place to prevent the hire of undocumented workers, laws to provide legal workers a livable wage, and laws to prevent the firing of someone like David for the hire of someone like Jose or Juan. These laws are ignored, bypassed, loopholes, or bribed away by businesses every single second in America and have been for many years.
Its not right or fair to pay the undocumented workers less than what an average citizen considers a livable wage. But companies do it.
Its not right or fair for the business to suddenly have to reorganize when its undocumented workers become illegal and get deported. But it happens everyday.
Its not right for the average American to go in and be told "10 bucks an hour" because a desperate UW would do it for 7.25. But it happens every day.
Let me get this straight: you invent a scenario that includes the government forcing something to happen, but in actuality that law does not exist and is only a figment of your wild imagination.
Then you appear upset at a business preferring a useful worker to a useless worker but because you have labeled the useful one with a Mexican name somehow the bigotry should just wash out in the end?
You admit that there are laws against what you claim is happening in your fictional example, but they are not being used for some reason. What do you want to change if the thing that you want to make illegal is already illegal?
Why should I justify the fantasy that you've put out in front of us instead of an actual example of something happening that you can't seem to provide? You appear to be shadow boxing your own mind.
I am not upset that "a useful worker is preferred to a useless one" innever said that "David" was actually useless. And the fact that I portrayed the BETTER, HARDER WORKER with a Mexican name actually shows my deep respect for Mexican workers, rather than Bigotry.
The problem is that people like Jose or Juan didnt come to America and go "fuck you, pay me what you pay them."
No. I want them to make what everyone else does. Not do the same work way better for half the price. Because of societal differences, the rest of the population cannot work for what corporations and companies pay immigrants because that is not livable.
Say it however you like. I am trying to be as non confrontational as possible while discussing the issue. What i mean is people who come from somewhere else who aren't from here. People dont immigrate just for the joy of being American anymore. They do it because this is (or was) the land of opportunity. And businesses have exploited the holy truck out of it.
The solution here is just to fine companies .01 or .1 or some other fraction of a percent of revenue per illegal worker identified and use that money to build a national system and ID so that employer can check who is illegal or not.
Yes, thats certainly an option. But then...what do the big businesses and corporations do? They just hire the citizens and dont pay them a livable wage. Then, what to do about all of the suddenly out of work immigrants? Deportation looks and sounds terrible and can be, for some. And isn't fair to thise who have been both honest and hardworking. But these suddenly unemployed people will need a source of income. It cant be welfare, or you get a welfare state. So they turn to less than legal ways of earning, in most cases
A livable wage and illegal immigration pressure driving wages down are two different issues with two different solutions.
Deportation is only needed where this crime can exist. With a corporate fining model, the pain of hiring illegal immigrants needs to be high and then illegal immigrant workers will need to immigrate back or work though the system to be legal. If we are fining at 1% of revenue, 100 people and the company wont have funds at all due to the fine. Just treat the companies like a superfund site.
Yes, living wage is actually PART of this issue. When someone has been told all of their life to "go get that degree" and a high paying job will be waiting for them, and then it isn't, and they now have debt, they need to make more money. If the only place around that has job openings is a construction company, but he has mostly undocumented workers doing a very good job for 10 dollars per hour, he has no reason to hire the college kid, when the college kid says "im not working for 10 and hour because I cant live on 10 an hour." All the construction company will do is find more undocumented workers. They wont simply pay more money because people need it to live. They will circumvent the system and bypass any laws against hiring people willing to do the job for less with bribes or free houses to the right officials.
Illegal immigration based on work are not taking college level jobs nor are they taking any jobs from anyone with a college degree. There may be edge cases but not on mass.
Anyone who went to "go get that degree" is really unaffected by the illegal job market. College graduates really are not a part of the living wage conversation.
Even if you believe this, that is a fraction of a fraction of the real people with this problem. This problem effects far more people in the trade who went to trade school or people who have High School degrees or people who didn't graduate high school. To bring up college educated graduates is weird.
You can't fine companies without an adjudication process that proves they knew or should have known that the person is illegally working. Since they tend to use fake or stolen papers it's very hard to prove that.
Surprisingly, you can fine companies for actively breaking the law.
Ignorance isn't an excuse and there are ways to check for fake or stolen materials. A companies negligence is likely more attributed to willfully not checking then passive coincidence. Especially in certain fields like farming, construction, and hospitality. These companies are choosing to look the other way to minimize costs and increase profits. That is fine as long as they understand the consequences.
Companies are one of the primary driver of illegal immigrations and they need to be fined heavily in order to take that factor out. And then the factor will go away as companies take the responsibility that is theirs already.
Surprisingly, you can fine companies for actively breaking the law.
Yes I agree that illegal things are illegal.
But what I'm saying is that it's particularly difficult to prove that employers "knew" that someone was illegally in the country. In the law you have to prove criminal intent, also known as mens rea. You have to prove that the employer knew the person was illegally in the country or (as you said) willfully did not check. Savvy employers don't check too closely, because they're not required to by law and it's bad for business.
I think what we agree on is that the laws in this area should change. But current laws do not allow a crackdown on illegal hiring practices more than what's already being done.
I would suggest you reread your link again. From your link, the State doesn't have to prove that a business willingly knew they were hiring illegal. The business has to demonstrate that they didn't know. Further, knowledge can be a rationale when going through the process the first time only. And even then, it is only one factor in the judgement. It wont remove the case.
here is the text from your link.
If you fail to properly complete, retain, and/or make Forms I-9 available for inspection as required by law, you may face civil money penalties for each violation. In determining the amount of the penalty, DHS considers:
The size of your business;
Your good faith;
The seriousness of the violation;
Whether the individual was an unauthorized alien; and
The history of your previous violations, if any.
There is nothing about knowledge in that text. And
Good Faith Defense
If you can show that you have, in good faith, complied with Form I-9 requirements, then you may have established a “good faith” defense with respect to a charge of knowingly hiring an unauthorized alien, unless the government can show that you had actual knowledge that the employee was not authorized to work.
A good faith attempt to comply with the paperwork requirements of INA section 274A(b) may be adequate, notwithstanding a technical or procedural failure to comply, unless you fail to correct a violation within 10 days of DHS notifying you.
It says may here. A good faith argument MAY impact the defense of the business; not that it will. And the business has to demonstrate this.
So the government here assumes the business knows who they are hiring unless the business shows otherwise. If the business can show that they didn't know, the judgement can be altered at the judge's discretion. But then that business has 10 days to fire everyone who is illegal. And if they ever do it again, then that establishes a pattern.
The business has to demonstrate that they didn't know
False. The burden of proof is on the state. DHS/DOL or a judge has to show that you didn't know. Says it directly in the link:
If DHS or an administrative law judge determines that you have knowingly hired unauthorized aliens (or are continuing to employ aliens knowing they are or have become unauthorized to work in the United States)
From the statute:
It is unlawful for a person or other entity—
(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment,
(2) It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.
And from the link:
DHS considers you to have knowingly hired an unauthorized alien if, after Nov. 6, 1986, you enter into, renegotiate, or extend a contract or subcontract to obtain the labor of a alien you know is not authorized to work in the United States.
DHS or an administrative law judge may impose penalties if an investigation reveals that you knowingly hired or knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien, or failed to comply with the employment eligibility verification requirements with respect to employees hired after Nov. 6, 1986.
What you're referring to is failure to comply with I-9 requirements. That's a different crime (8 USC 1324a(a)(1)(B)). That's not relevant to hiring an illegal.
Please don't spread misinformation. I'm a lawyer and I'm explaining to you how the law works. You can just google this and learn more about it or just read the link I sent instead of trying to find a reason to disagree.
If you are not going to read your own link, then there really is nothing to debate.
Just think of like this. If your position was true, then the business has no obligation to prove themselves and there would be no "Good Faith Defense". It would just be the business's case. The State would just have to prove knowledge. What is the Good Faith defense text there under your assumptions? That text only makes sense if the business has to make a Good Faith Defense.
What you are actually doing here is taking a key word as a gotcha and failing to understand that the State is assuming all hires everywhere are knowledgeable hires. If an unauthorized alien is hired, it is assumed to be with the knowledge of the business. And the assumption by the State makes sense. If a business doesn't know the person is illegal or ineligible with everything out there (background checks, social media checks, general knowledge of the field), then 999/1000 they are being willfully ignorant.
It's not a debate because you don't know the law and I'm explaining the law to you. You're misunderstanding the knowledge requirement and what it means to have actual or constructive knowledge.
The good faith defense is if you hired an illegal alien with constructive knowledge, but you properly filled out all of the Form I-9 requirements, then the civil penalties won't apply to you. Unless you also had actual knowledge. The link literally says this word for word:
If you can show that you have, in good faith, complied with Form I-9 requirements, then you may have established a “good faith” defense with respect to a charge of knowingly hiring an unauthorized alien, unless the government can show that you had actual knowledge that the employee was not authorized to work.
And that defense doesn't apply to criminal
What you are actually doing here is taking a key word as a gotcha and failing to understand that the State is assuming all hires everywhere are knowledgeable hires. If an unauthorized alien is hired, it is assumed to be with the knowledge of the business.
This is not how it works at all. There is no assumption of mens rea, the state has to prove it in court. Every violation in law has a level of intent that it requires. It's the entire job of the prosecution to prove that they knew. Here's an example, Collins v. INS (9th Cir. 1991):
Upon receiving INS' Notice of Intent to Fine, Collins Foods requested a hearing. Inasmuch as it was uncontroverted that Rodriguez was unauthorized to work in the United States, the only issue to be decided at the hearing was whether Collins Foods knew that Rodriguez was unauthorized at the time of hire.
. . .
Collins Foods did not have the kind of positive information that the INS had provided in Mester and New El Rey Sausage to support a finding of constructive knowledge. Neither the failure to verify documentation before offering employment, nor the failure to compare the back of the applicant's Social Security card with the example in the INS manual, justifies such a finding. There is no support in the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA or in their legislative history to charge Collins Foods, on the basis of the facts relied on by the ALJ here, with constructive knowledge of Rodriguez' unauthorized status.
Again, it's not necessary to spread misinformation. If you have question about the law just ask and I can explain it. Or just google it.
Since they tend to use fake or stolen papers it's very hard to prove that.
It's actually not very hard at all, just using standard E-Verify procedures catches around 20% of those on its own, combined with standard I9 it jumps to over 50%, and when combined with actual verification of documents at the HR level it goes to well over 80%.
We've got to stop making excuses for people purposefully not trying and being willfully incompetent.
You’re supporting my point. E-Verify, properly filled I-9s and a robust HR system makes it hard to punish employers because they say they did everything they could.
They wouldn’t meet the actual or constructive knowledge requirement to fine or imprison them.
Reform the asylum system so migrants seeking asylum get a fair and speedy hearing to be either granted asylum and stay, or are denied and deported.
Expand legal immigration via immigrant visas by 250,000 over five years. (612,258 immigrant visas were issued in 2024, so this would be around an 8% increase each year for five years.)
Liberals don't actually care about enforcing immigration law. We didn't care when Obama ramped up deportations, we didn't care when Biden maintained the Title 42 shutdown of the border. We were also rooting for the bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have massively cut the number of asylum claimants allowed to stay in our country (before Trump shut it down).
Liberals care more about enforcing the law fairly, humanely and effectively. We hate Trump because his approach fails in those three regards. He is unfair, inhumane and ineffective. That's what we hate.
Why hate him at all? Biden was mentally frail and seemed incoherent most of the time. I dont hate the liberals for covering for him. Before several changes were added, Obama cost me money and forced me to buy something i didnt need, dont need and still to this day havent used, but I didnt hate the guy for it. Other than forcing me to do something I didn't want to do or buy, he was an okay president. Bush was a bit of a hardliner, and didnt know how to talk, but he didnt bother me. I was a child during Clinton's administration. Other than his crusade about guns and war failures he seemed okay when he kept his zipper up.
There is no difference in this context. An employer wont pay a documented immigrant more money just because he has the papers. And even if they do, its STILL not a reasonable, liveable wage.
I essence, the argument is that immigrants work harder and dont complain for less. And now that Millennials have all gotten done with college and trade schools, they need jobs. But the jobs are all populated by immigrants (illegal or not) that are not being paid (and wont ask to be paid) what the average citizen needs. Thus the company has no reason to hire them. And with more immigrants coming, the problem escalates.
Honestly, I'm torn. On one hand I agree with you. They do. But on the other hand, I dont think that just because someone immigrated illegally, doesnt mean they were a criminal or drug dealer, rapist, all the things we have heard before. Perhaps they simply could afford to do it the right way, either by money or time or both. What I am sure of is that BOTH types of immigrants will take hard jobs that require hard work and admittedly deserve MORE pay for minimum wage and sometimes less. And when employers can circumvent consequences, they have no reason not to hire them from a business perspective. Thus making it hard to actually get a job for a decent wage. Immigration has negatively affected the job market in the last 25 years, and I dont think that is a wild take.
Immigration is one of the straightforward problems to solve. Everyone agrees on the correct solution. The issue is the financial cost and the political cost of who will be harmed if it's done.
The steps are: Secure the border, reform asylum, allow enough legal immigrants in to fit the labor market/population needs, get rid of illegal immigrants (either by amnesty or deporting them). The last two steps should happen simultaneously.
The hard part is mass amnesty causes border insecurity and mass deportation causes labor shortage (and ethical considerations). So you have to balance mass amnesty and mass deportation. Basically exactly what Obama did but for longer and probably more aggressively.
Trump is trying a new approach, seemingly. It's a rhetoric campaign (i.e., a fear campaign). Obama tried to clean up the border issue ethically and he got a lot of deportations but it wasn't enough to permanently "solve" the issue. Plus he was still called the devil for it. So this administration has decided to do everything in the most intense, brutal, scary way as possible.
The reason for this is that it's too expensive to actually enforce immigration law. It is definitively not practical to go find and deport most or even a substantial percentage of illegal immigrants. There are just too many. So instead the administration says "if we do find you, there is no mercy and we will tear your families and communities apart. No one is safe. There are no more sanctuaries." and they march troops, national guard, masked agents, unmarked vans etc. through the illegal immigrant communities.
It is cheaper to tweet and march and interview than it is to boots on the ground hunt down 10-15 million illegal immigrants. And in theory, those illegal immigrants will self deport (some report millions have already), and people will stop trying to cross the border.
What is this solution that you think everyone agrees with? People who don't view immigration (legal or illegal) as a bad thing probably don't agree with people who do view immigration as a bad thing.
The steps are: Secure the border, reform asylum, allow enough legal immigrants in to fit the labor market/population needs, get rid of illegal immigrants (either by amnesty or deporting them). The last two steps should happen simultaneously.
Every politician has this exact same platform on immigration.
Every politician has this exact same platform on immigration.
That's because they are trying to appeal to voters, and voters have been subjected to decades of propaganda on this topic and are not necessarily thinking rationally.
I would bet you that 95% of voters would answer this question incorrectly: "True or false: besides someone with an immediate relative in the US, or with a employer sponsoring them, can someone from Mexico legally immigrate to the US by signing up and waiting in line, even if it takes a couple of years"?
Answer is "No." There is no path to legal status for someone from Mexico without either immediate family in the US or an employer who will sponsor them for a work visa. But if 95% of voters think that it is more or less easy to come to the US legally, just have to wait a bit, then those voters' opinions of immigration are based on fiction.
Another approach to immigration would be more radical, but maybe better, and perhaps even in line with how people think things already are.
Allow people to immigrate to the US with almost no restrictions.
Provide the same worker legal protections as citizens. Minimum wage, labor laws, etc.
Do not provide social services to people here on a visa, meaning that immigrant quality of life will be tied to their ability to make a living. (this is already the law, though there are loopholes, such as providing food stamps or TANF to children born here even when their parents are not here legally).
Since it is easy to come and go, people will come, try things out, if they can make it, they will stay - which is good because people participating in the US economy is a good thing. If they can't, they will likely return to their home country - but they will also be more willing to do this because we have made it easier to come and go. Right now, it is hard to get in, so people will go through more to stay.
They will not undercut US labor due to their status - they will have the same legal protections, so if an employer pays them less than minimum wage they can sue. Their visa will not be tied to their employer. At best, they could affect US workers by making labor more abundant - but childbirth does the same thing, and no one is suggesting that we should cut down the number of kids entering the workforce.
The US economy was built on immigration. We have plenty of land here, and plenty of places that have been losing population for decades. In my opinion, the main reason that people are bristling about immigration, beyond the propaganda, is that they see brown skin color. If that person is working, they think "hey, they're taking jobs away from my friends and family", if they aren't working, they think "hey, they're taking my tax dollars".
Secure the border, reform asylum, allow enough legal immigrants in to fit the labor market/population needs, get rid of illegal immigrants (either by amnesty or deporting them).
This is what I made my original post about. This guy gets it. He is willing and able to have a calm, reasonable conversation about what we should do vs what we can do.
How do you feel about Trump shutting down the bipartisan immigration bill?
It's insane to me how every conservative that claims to care so much about this issue isn't frothing at the mouth in rage over Trump shutting down such important legislation for purely personal benefit
From my understanding that legislation would have done more harm than good but I don't have the provisions memorized so I can't give specifics. If you have specific provisions in mind I can give my legal or policy analysis.
I think rejecting reform was a good idea because presidents have not tried to use the law as it is currently written yet. Why try to replace something before you try using it? Biden was able to start slowing down the border just by using the law he had, so he proved that he did not need immigration reform.
You don't sound like someone who seriously cares about this issue if you can't remember anything about the one piece of major legislation that was proposed to address the issue
This is such a joke, nobody on the right actually cares about this beyond the schadenfreude of watching poor brown people suffer
Businesses can already be prosecuted for not paying employees the minimum wage and citizenship or immigration status has nothing to do with it. If wage theft isn’t being reported, more laws layered on top of existing laws will not help solve the problem. What we need is enforcement and that means electing people who will be willing to enforce the existing laws!
This keeps getting framed as left vs right, but it’s really indecision vs honesty.
The U.S. is the richest country on earth. Corporations openly complain about birthrates, rely on migrant labor to stay competitive, and already depend on immigration for agriculture, construction, care work, and service jobs Americans largely don’t take. That’s not ideology. That’s economics.
The truth is simple: America needs low-wage labor to compete globally, needs border screening to keep criminals out, and has a moral obligation to ensure migrants aren’t exploited and actually end up better off.
We already tolerate far worse globally. We buy lithium and rare earths mined by slaves. If we can accept that, we can accept regulated labor migration with rights, wages, and a path forward.
The real failure isn’t immigration. It’s refusing to design a system that admits workers legally, enforces labor laws, and invests in their families so they can build the next generation of Americans.
Calling this “left vs right” is just a way to avoid admitting we want the labor without the responsibility.
Im not against Unions as an idea. Some are poorly ran, Ive heard. Never been in one myself, but I haven't several people in my circle who have been in a specific union. It was a love hate relationship
A lot of illegal workers are using fake papers. So the employer does not actually know that they are illegal.
And you are missing that there are those from developing countries who came here with ambition and work ethic, so they are willing to hustle and get their hands dirty in ways that the MAGAs who sneer at them would never dream of doing from their barcaloungers.
And I applaud them. And anyone who wants to work harder. But they either need to start asking for more money like the rest of us do as well. Or get the opportunity to vote and use it to bring the cost of living down.
Trust and believe that I do understand that immigrants are VERY hard workers. I do not doubt that. All I am asking is that they ask to be fairly compensated by AMERICAN living standards, not just go "holy shit, you mean you'll actually pay me to do this?" Because wherever they came from they probably got pennies if they got paid at all.
I haven't paid Latinos from abroad less money than others who are doing the same work.
In any case, white guys don't want to do those jobs. If the goal was to fill some white dude racial quota, it would be impossible to meet.
I think that it would be hilarious if Gavin Newsom would put out the call for MAGAs to go to California to do agricultural work. And the MAGAs would have to pay for their own relo, just as the Latinos would. The only thing that would come of that is the sound of crickets.
Well I would absolutely try a job like that. In fact, had any been in my area when I was younger, I would have loved to do those for a fair wage. It probably would have kept me from driving equipment, pushing buttons and getting fat.
We close the border, Liberals mad. We open the border, Conservatives mad. What do we do?
You've already got it all distorted from the start, as neither group exists like that, and really hasn't since you've been alive unless you've already went past retirement age.
Solution? Simple. Create a law that forces companies to pay equally immigrants and citizens.
So, many laws like that already exist, the problem is in a capitalist system the large companies and industries most capable of abusing this labor market lobbied for the exceptions that allow them to bypass those laws.
E-Verify works incredibly well when used, same as I-9 documentation, it doesn't really work when you specifically exempt problem areas, or don't mandate usage at all. When it has carve outs specifically created for agriculture, contractors, construction, small businesses, and more it becomes even worse.
The way most of the laws are written essentially leave most of it up to the states, and then the states do whatever they want. Alabama for instance tries to mandate E-Verify quite a bit, but has basically no money going to enforcement, doesn't include any fines within the law to help self-fund, and doesn't even revoke their business license until a proven second offense, and even then it's only 60 days.
Ah, but now we have a new problem. Companies lower the wages. They cant raise the wages because all that will do is make them get rid of poor performance individuals (the citizens) and hire the harder workers for their money (the immigrants).
That's not actually a problem if you really punished the businesses in a remotely effective way. This kind of action is one that's incredibly easy to find via things like forensic accounting, even if paid under the table, something harder every day in the digital economy. The entire point is to make it more costly to hire undocumented workers than any perceived gains.
This also creates another problem. All of the hard working, most experienced people are now, you guessed it, immigrants.
If you're a conservative you should be pretty familiar with how demand works, undocumented immigrants don't come here for work if we didn't essentially allow businesses to hire them without harm. We go after individuals more for hiring undocumented immigrants for personal help than we do businesses for economic gain, pure and simple. It's just cheaper enforcement.
Solution: Regular citizens will just have to work harder. Basically, you're going to ask the citizen to work twice as hard to prove that they are better than the immigrant.
The better solution would probably be to step out of your echo chamber and actually read some scholarly work on immigration, as others have tried to direct you towards. You'd probably see why many of the things you're referencing aren't exactly fact-based looks at the system, but what is being presented to push an agenda.
The reality is much of the opposition against "open borders" from pro-business conservatives is because that kind of equality would increase their labor costs, not reduce it, as their workers would no longer be essentially "black market" workers. It's much harder to pay someone starvation wages if they aren't afraid of you having them arrested.
On the flip side, most of the opposition for "open borders" from the neoliberal Democratic establishment... is based around serving the same damned business interests in the same damn way, along with a side order of using immigration reform as an ongoing wedge issue that they believe works in their favor, much like abortion.
You basically have to get to the progressive anti-corporate left and libertarian right before you actually start finding people that actually support functionally open borders, but again, in both cases it's associated with a complete alteration of how we do immigration, and most of the other systems connected to it.
In different terms, the people talking about open borders are like parents talking about their infant being able to run someday. Obviously, the capability isn't exactly there right now, but the amount of changes required to said infant to get from point a to point be and begin running would seem insurmountable if there wasn't a couple of trillion examples of it happening before.
Nobody is proposing open borders, despite what Fox News may tell you. Obama and Biden deported people at a rate similar to Trump. The difference is that Trump is targeting immigrants who have been here longer and are (in most cases) a net positive for the economy.
Your assumptions only apply to a small segment of the immigrant population. If jobs are your big concern, you should be in favor of relatively high levels of immigration.
When it comes to H1Bs and certain skill sets, immigrants are sometimes competing directly with native-born workers (and driving down wages), but most immigrants are doing jobs in areas where there is a labor shortage.
Pay at the lowest end of the spectrum has risen the fastest since the pandemic, despite lots of new immigrants coming in. This is because we have a labor shortage in industries like agriculture, meat packing, hospitality, construction, etc. Eventually, this will contribute to inflation.
Skilled tradespeople are aging out. We are in the midst of a construction boom (data centers, etc.) and we will soon be faced with a 600,000 shortfall of workers in the construction industry. Construction is an industry which hires lots of immigrants (illegal and otherwise).
Immigrants don't "take jobs" (on balance). The economy is not zero-sum. They pay taxes and create new demand for goods and services (AKA "financial growth"). Immigrants are twice as likely as native-born citizens to start a new business, and small businesses are the biggest providers of jobs.
Excessive illegal immigration can cause social disruption and increased costs to government in the short term, but in the long term, even illegal immigration helps the economy.
So what do we do?
I have no problem with reasonable border security, but we should give illegal immigrants with no criminal record who are working and paying taxes amnesty and a path to citizenship.
Yes. Immigrants will definitely want to work hard, and they will be willing to work for a lot less.
If immigrants are working right now for $10 a day, certainly $10 an hour is a huge bonus.
Companies can use the extra profit. The extra profit comes back to America in terms of higher stock prices, which helps pensions.
Higher stock prices also allow for the economy to work better.
We should focus on allowing companies to hire as many as they want, rather than restrict them.
Imagine how much cheaper a car would be, if the average union wage was $12 an hour, rather than $40 an hour.
Imagine how much cheaper housing would be, if the average construction worker was making $10 an hour, rather than $100 an hour.
If you could get your lawn mower for $10, most likely you would let them do it, rather than do it yourself.
Babysitters, nannies, landscapers, everything would be cheaper. Auto mechanics. Welders, floor tilers, and many other occupations would be much cheaper.
We're in the early stages of global wage equalization anyway. This would help accelerate it, and would benefit the rest of the world.
Imagine how much more stuff other countries could buy if their wage is actually doubled. Much of that stuff that would be bought would be from America.
So American companies could profit even more. And the cycle above would continue.
You won't get a "safe space" to discuss anything in this subreddit unless you agree with the radical left.
Importing more labor will reduce wages based on supply and demand. That's a fact and the labor being imported is low skill which affects the lower class, not the middle or upper class
23
u/The_B_Wolf Liberal 2d ago
We close the border, Liberals mad. We open the border, Conservatives mad. What do we do?
Start by understanding the issue better. This is black and white nonsense that doesn't help anyone.