First we have to give employers the tools to verify employment eligibility and then require it’s usage. I.e. an enhanced E-verify and with negative results it’s illegal to hire the applicant.
The fines should be equal to 1-years wages or wages paid during the term of employment (if employment is 5-years, then fines equal to 5-years wages).
.>>>>
I said border wall of the type Trump wants (Trump’s desired border wall).
Read more carefully…or argue less disingenuously.
So tired of the “it’s either Trump’s wall or open borders” false dichotomies.
As for the rest, I don’t need much evidence to point out your tremendous misunderstanding of what remittances are and their effect on the average taxpayer.
Please reread the title of the thread: “. . .Mexico would indirectly fund improved border security. . .”
There is nothing about the government of Mexico paying the government of the US. The funds for border security are coming from reduced federal and state payments to Mexican citizen who are in the US illegally.
Mexico (not its government) is also losing the remittances that its citizens send back from the US. A reasonable argument is that at least a portion of reduction in remittances would end up being paid as higher wages to US citizens and other who are here legally. This is a net benefit to the US even if it does not directly fund government improvements to border security.
One way or another Mexico will pay for the wall . . .– Donald Trump August 2017
Saying that a reduction in remittances is indirectly paying for the wall is not reasonable. It is quite silly actually.
But if one needs a roundabout pretzel logic path to avoid the dissonance of an impossible political position… then who am I to stop it?
Mexico still isn’t paying for anything. Not directly. Not indirectly. American taxpayers will be paying for it. What is so hard for you to understand about this concept?
.>
.
.
Just got back from running errands, stopped at Kohl’s and my wife bought a sweater on sale and saving $40.
Thank you Kohl’s for paying part of my mortgage.
.
.
.
.>>>>
There is nothing at all reasonable in believing this portion in reduction of remittances “would end up as a het benefit to the US via higher wages”.
None whatsoever.
Courts have said otherwise. Farm workers in Washington state got a $1.3 million settlement from Zirkle Fruit after courts ruled that they could sue for lost wage related to illegal employment of undocumented workers:
Judge Van Sickle granted in part and denied in part Selective Employment’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Zirkle Fruit Companies’ motion for summary judgment by order dated January 18, 2005. Settlement negotiations followed. Plaintiffs and Zirkle Fruit moved for approval of the proposed settlement, which was conditionally approved at a fairness hearing on January 20, 2006. As part of the settlement, Zirkle Fruit agreed to pay $1.3 million towards the class settlement fund.
That has nothing to do with remittances.
If he really believes the nonsensical argument in the OP, then I don’t see how anyone can convince him otherwise.
I’m loving the funny analogies, though.
You repeat this over and over but the same problem still exists. As long as they have the required documents to work legally you can’t do anything to the employers.
So many work for cash there’s no way to even begin to trace them.
I never believed that they would. I just want the wall built. I don’t care who pays for it.
I’m all for E-verify expansion but not even that would work without biometric ID verification.
There’s a multi billion dollar industry operating on both sides of the border providing them god documents allowing them to work legally.
Explain why? The tighter the labor market gets the higher wages and better benefits get as employers have to compete for workers.
Remove 10-20 million people from the job force and employers would have no other choice.
Remove the illegals and you cut off the remittances to their families.
Doesn’t matter if they work for cash.
Shore up e-verify, make it necessary to hire day labor, and throw people who knowingly employ illegal labor into jail and seize their property.
Cut off the flow of money to illegals then the illegals have no reason to be here.
Remove 10-20 million proper from the job force and industries that rely on that labor collapses.
This is something I support. We need a better federal ID system. Everything we have is so ad hoc. Prone to error and easy to defraud. We need a massive project to modernize the system.
It’s a pretty simple equation. Dollars removed from the US economy aren’t taxed, and don’t generate any new tax revenues by being circulated through the economy.
Remove those illegals sending them and they will be replaced by someone who can work legally in the US and pays taxes. Those workers then spend their wages and earnings in the US fueling the US economy, where even more jobs are created and taxes paid.
