Redstate

any reference to tatooing numbers will immediately invoke scenes of Jews with numbers tatooed to their arms. You may not have meant it that way, but certainly was the FIRST thing that came to my mind when I read it. I'd think that after WFB got flamed so badly for suggesting a discreetly placed tatoo on AIDS carriers you would have gotten the point.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

"But a person walking up to the employees of companies they hire and asking about their immigration status is something completely different."

Unless I'm mistaken, companies are already responsible for the immigration status of the employees of their subcontractors on a project. As I recall, Walmart got into a lot of trouble because a cleaning firm they contracted with used illegals. They got into another scandal when a construction company they used got caught using illegals. It's also routine for even very small businesses to ask for and receive proof of "legal to work" status from each and every prospective employee.

In other words, Romney did screw up here. As a businessman, he also should have known the drill; he wasn't some guy who had managed to skate through life without confronting the red tape inherent in contracting and hiring in today's world.

All the same, by itself, this is not all that big a deal. To me, it acquires significance only because it fits into a general pattern of hypocrisy and flip-flopping. Given that Romney surely knew what should have been done and what CYA documents should be in the files, it feels like Romney wanted to keep costs down, and so didn't press too hard to make sure he was hiring legal workers. To come out strongly on immigration as a candidate feels a bit hypocritical given that background.

Compared to being for abortion before he was against it, or being for gay marriage before he was against it, this is still small potatoes.

I am no immigration law expert, but there is one problem in your argument.

To say companies are responible for companies they contract out to now makes Romney responsible is a stretch. Romney is not a company, and his hiring of these workers was as a private citizen hiring lawn care buisness. Should the same be said when he needs an electrical contractor, an auto mechanic or construction crew.

One problem is these companies have a high turnover rate and rotate there crews depending on the days needs. How could anyone keep track of that? If you hired a lawn company who checked out but one day brought some illegals to work on your house would you willingly accept a fine?

It's one thing to say Walmart (a major corporation who's employment practices are already challenged on many levels) should do a more thorough check in to the employment status of those they subcontract out to, it's another thing to say an individual who hires a company to provide a home service needs to now go through all the possible workers who might show up on any given day and make sure they are legal.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

I don't think I actually said Romney was responsible. I just said that it wasn't end of story that it happened through a contractor. I think the money question is whether he knew there were illegals doing the work (although I'm willing to be corrected if there are actual specialists in this area here).

Romney did check out the principal, he says, but didn't follow up on each employee who showed up. In other words, he's saying that he did some due diligence, that showed that the original guy was legal, and that he was not actually aware that anyone else was illegal.

Those are actually better facts than you had in the cleaning contractor case involving Walmart, where it was alleged that Walmart execs actually knew that illegals were doing the work. There also were a lot more dollars involved there.

I agree that it's not a big deal. All the same, if you have political ambitions and are hiring contractors, the takeaway lesson might be to get something written in the record - maybe a clause in the contract - requiring that all immigration laws be complied with.

I think I agree with everything you said.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

An employer asking an employee for his papers is no more or less "profiling and discriminatory" than a government doing so. The employer would be attempting to obey the law by hiring only people in this country legally and the government agent would be trying to check to see that the law is obeyed.

It's the same difference; the debate seems to be whom one would have do the checking.

An employer asking an employee for his papers is no more or less "profiling and discriminatory" than a government doing so. The employer would be attempting to obey the law by hiring only people in this country legally and the government agent would be trying to check to see that the law is obeyed.

It's the same difference; the debate seems to be whom one would have do the checking.

Why is it hard to see the glaring difference between the 3 categories you lump together into one thing?

When a police officer ascertains the immigration status of someone charged with murder, he's appropriately enforcing the law (and it boggles the mind that it takes an initiative like Romney's to empower state policemen to do this).

When an employer checks the immigration status of a prospective employee, he's enforcing the law (and Romney's proposing to set of a system that would make this process work better).

But when the CUSTOMER of a landscaping company, or a restaurant, or a construction company, starts asking questions about the COMPANY'S employees (picture barging into the kitchen of a restaurant and asking to see the busboy's papers), that's not law enforcement!

When an employer checks the immigration status of a prospective employee, he's enforcing the law

complying with the law

But when the CUSTOMER of a landscaping company, or a restaurant, or a construction company, starts asking questions ... that's not law enforcement!

No, it isn't. And as the immigration issue gets more heated it should come as no surprise that more and more customers start asking these questions, particularly those who have the most to lose by being (perhaps unfairly) criticized for not threshing out the status of each employee from the business they've contracted with to perform labor on their property or for their interests.

Someone else pointed out that employment verification and indemnification are common elements of contracts, but those are usually only present in large efforts. Whereas your local lawn care outfits that I'm aware of typically do not present their customers with a multipage T&C prior to commencing work.

BTW what I'm missing is how we don't essentially already have a (meta)database of persons legally able to work in this country, between state DMV driver registrations, social security, (legal) immigration records held at the federal level, and so on. Isn't there already sufficient data available to test a person's citizenship and/or legal right to work? Isn't the issue that some illegal immigrants are using forged and otherwise fraudulent documents to pass those checks, implying that establishing another big federal database will simply be a waste of time and effort?

The biggest issue with Romney that I can see here is his ignorance (or mine, if the above isn't accurate), and his snap to judgement proposal of yet another big federal program that actually wont be able to solve the real problem.

Yes, that is part of the problem. The information is there in the complex of state and federal reporting requirements, but not in one easily accessible database, and the (I believe intentional) mishmash of documents you can present to verify employment eligibility make it easy for those who don't care about whether or not their worker are legal to claim they have abided by them. It's not that it isn't possible, but if you are in a place where MALDEF or other open doors adovate type organizations are, it's easier to go through the motions and hire illegals than to actually try to keep them out.

Of course the flip side is that if it is all in one easily accessible database, it's easier for the bad people to find out a lot about you, so there are some valid concerns there.

...ask the guys at McDonald's for their papers before I order my Big Mac, in case I want to run for office someday. Please.

I don't get what it is with certain RedStaters and Romney. He gets the full Dem treatment around here, and for no good reason. This is at least the second front page diary this month with no grounds for the tone that is set. (The other was about indexing minimum wage.)

What happened to being the party of personal responsibility? In our society, the onus is put on the employer to make sure their employees are legal. If Romney walked around his property asking people for their papers, it would be the worst kind of racism.

As far as designing a system to check the status of employees, we have one now that doesn't work very well. To improve that system would go a long way towards disincentivizing illegal immigration. What's wrong with that?

I would add the front page story about Romney not meeting the timeline for an ISG comment.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

That is about the silliest thing I've ever heard. It's the responsibility of THE EMPLOYER not the customer to verify the legal status of the employee. Not only did Romney not interview the guy, he had absolutely no reason or right to.

Do you "interview" every employee of every company you hire to work around your home? How about the electric company or the gas company or the telephone company, hey let's not just pick on the little guys. Next time somebody does work at your house, ask about their immigration status. And don't forget to ask about whether they're a convicted felon. Better get their fingerprints and run them through NCIC too.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Here in Los Angeles, it's nearly impossible to avoid having, at some point, an illegal immigrant doing work for you, no matter what you do. Really, there's almost nothing you can do unless you want to dedicate lots of time and energy vetting everyone you either directly or indirectly hire, and are willing to exclude many people who merely seem that they could be illegal.

Even if you look at everybody's "papers" they mean little, since it just takes a few bucks to get ones that look just like the real thing.

1) Require from each and every employee of your own company proof that they are either citizens or have the requisite legal papers to work. You don't do it based on ethnicity; you do it to everyone. Every business I've been associated with has been doing this already for a decade or more.

2) Include in every contract with every contractor a clause providing that they will comply fully will all employement laws relating to immigration status, and indemnifying you if they don't. Again, you don't tie it to ethnicity; it's a requirement of every contractor.

3) Act like you are serious about it. Don't do anything that could be portrayed later as a wink-nudge kind of thing where you knowingly tolerate illegal immigrants.

Is all this a hassle? You bet. Is all this yet another example of how government burdens businesses to enforce laws the government doesn't bother to enforce itself? You bet.

To the extent Romney's proposal takes some of the investigation burden away from small businesses and puts it back on the government, it's a proposal worth thinking about.

Here in Los Angeles, it's nearly impossible to avoid having, at some point, an illegal immigrant doing work for you, no matter what you do.

There are 12 million illegals in the US -- the vast majority of them work. Nearly every American -- not only those who live in Los Angeles -- has surely "done business" with illegals (at least to the extent that they are customers of businesses who knowingly or unknowingly employ illegal immigrants). I certainly wouldn't want to bet my last dollar that the dude who served me my last burrito (here in Boston) held a valid green card.

They paid $11 million to settle a case where a contractor used illegals when they came in and cleaned Walmart stores at night.

It's not as simple legally as establishing who the direct employer is.

Wal-Mart is 'evil', therefore they get hit no matter what.

Mitt Romney is a Republican, and therefore 'evil', so the press will say what it takes to bring him down.
--
Run like Reagan!

Walmart hiring and employment practices have been continually questioned, that is a main part of their business. To say a home owner (albeit a politician) and an individual are now under the same standards as one the largest retail chains is a big stretch.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

Romney hasn't done anything wrong. What next...

Romney eats at McDonalds, which is suspected to emply THOUSANDS of illegal aliens nationwide!

Romney rents car from Avis, which had some cars repaired at a firm in Albequerque that hired two illegals to sweep the floor!

Romney buys pickles from Wal-Mart, which once hired a firm which hired illegal aliens!

Yes, Wal-Mart is questioned a lot about its EVERYTHING practices. So is President Bush. That doesn't make EITHER of them suspect. It all depends on who the questioner is, and what his agenda is.
--
Run like Reagan!

I'm not. I love WalMArt actually. It's were we are doing all of our Kids Christmas shopping.

I just think when we make the jump from one of the largest Employers in the world to the individual, we might be headed in a bad direction for immigration policy. I would feel this way regardless of who the politician being focused on.

I think it's enough for any individual to check out the credentials of the company and then let the company be reponsible for who they contract. Someone like walmart with more resources than the average individual is a different story, imo.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

Part of Romney's appeal is that he is a sophisticated, successful businessman who knows about creating and building businesses. The cost of that to Romney, however, is that he can't act like he's some suburban househusband who just didn't realize that the government had all these silly laws they expect businesses to follow. If he's that clueless about the burdens government puts on small businesses when it comes to hiring employees or even contractors, he's a lot less attuned to small business issues than I originally thought.

Whether Romney is at fault here or not, there's nothing "silly" about laws requiring businesses to make serious efforts to ensure they're not employing illegal aliens. These people have no right to be in our country in the first place, so they certainly have no right to work here.

Yes, the federal government should make this task easier for employers by doing its own job: secure our borders by whatever means are necessary so most illegals don't get here to begin with.

But it's not just a legal issue to make sure you don't hire illegals; it's a moral issue. Without wishing ill on anyone anywhere in the world - Mexico or elsewhere - an American ought to care more about the welfare of a fellow American than a non-American. That's a very basic thing that even some "conservatives" have forgotten, or at least they've become afraid to say it.

An American employer ought to care about his MORAL duty not to give a job to an illegal alien at the expense of an American.

And let's not fall back on the canard that illegals "do jobs that Americans won't do." First, it's no excuse for hiring illegals.

Second, Americans will do any job if the pay is enough of an incentive. Employers should be willing to offer a sufficient wage for Americans to do these jobs, and we consumers ought to be willing to pay higher prices if necessary.

Against the higher prices that may result from really cracking down on employment of illegals, consider the savings:

- health care provided to illegals, including Medicaid provided to their "birthright citizen" children who are born here (your federal and state taxes at work)

- public schooling provided to illegals' "American" children (your property taxes at work)

- incarcerating illegals (or their children) who commit crimes here, at tens of thousands of dollars per year

- providing welfare, Medicaid, or private charity to Americans (native-born or LEGAL immigrant) who are unemployed or underemployed partly as a result of illegals

- the loss of tax revenue from illegals who work off the books (income tax, FICA tax, Medicaid tax), which the rest of us make up for. Etc.

I live in one of the most agricultural productve areas in the country where the crops are strawberries, celery, fancy lettuce, raspberries, avocados, lemons, etc. that require hand harvesting, weeding and pruning. Typical unskilled "Americans" will not work these jobs regardless of the pay. It is hot, hard, dirty work.

And, even if they would, the consumer would not pay $10.00 for a basket of strawberries and $5.00 for a bunch of celery. So, welcome to the real world. Don't believe me? You come to Ventura County, CA and pick lemons for a week and tell me pickers should make $30.00 per hour. Then go down to the high unemployment area of South Central LA and recruit a truck load of "Americans" to work with you. Right.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I find your lack of faith in the market "disturbing". We don't have to break the law to make the market work. You would be surprised how well our economy would adjust without the need to bring in people illegally and pay them an illegal wage.

This is a moral as well as a legal issue.

We don't have to break the law to make the market work. You would be surprised how well our economy would adjust without the need to bring in people illegally and pay them an illegal wage.

Well, there's another alternative as well, namely, providing a legal means for workers to come here and do the work. This could be accomplished by a 60's-style Bracero program (not my first choice) or, better yet (in my view) by an honest, upfront increase in legal immigration along the lines of the Pence plan (ideally accompanied by a general reform of our immigration laws, including a deemphasis of family reunification).

Alternatively, we could force farmers who can't turn a profit for lack of workers out of business. Just like we could force tech companies who can't get enough workers to outsource their operations to India (by shutting down the H1 program). Personally, I'd prefer a system that allows for a reasonable inflow of both skilled workers for Silicon Valley, and unskilled workers for the Central Valley.

The market would force these guys to automate or put them out of business. I don't have a problem with either outcome. If a business cannot make it on it's own, without government support (absolutely not the case with agribusiness), while following the law (again, not the case with much of agribusiness), it shouldn't exist. These people should find more productive things to do with their time and capital. If they can't figure out how to pick an avocado with a machine and it's too expensive to have the work done here, we can simply import our avocados from Mexico, instead of illegally importing the labor to pick them from Mexico.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

DOJ went after them because they are the ultimate politically correct target to go after, and Wal-Mart paid them off to make it go away, as companies do every single day. There was no merit to the action. There was no justice there, just as there wasn't in the Microsoft case. Both of those companies learned their lesson and have ramped up their political contributions in recent years. I think you would call that "protection money."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

as I recall there was some evidence against WalMart.

And please don't try to start a threadjack by bringing MS into this. They were guilty as original sin, and at the end of the day the only truth that saved them was that Clinton was more interested in controlling them then enforcing the law.

Let me tell you this: your whole second paragraph is waving a red cape in front of me right now...
--
Run like Reagan!

in the Walmart case there was some evidence that the contracting officers of Walmart were aware that some of the people cleaning the floors were illegal and did nothing about it. So far as I know, that isn't the case for Romney.

Look, I might eventually decide Mitt is another Massachuesettes flake and we'd be better off without him, but frankly this article and the attempts to smear him with this allegation sort of endear the guy to me, and I'm one of them thar conservative evangelical bigot types that are supposed to relfexively vote against him.

I didn't mean you. I meant the Globe, whose headline you clearly were working from.

Their editor was the liar here.
--
Run like Reagan!

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The difference is that while the Globe lied, Mark was misinformed.
--
Run like Reagan!

That seems to be overly charitable to me. This article has been around for weeks and discussed much in that time and Mark seems to be a pretty clued in guy. If he was simply misinformed, he should revise the story.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I try to be as charitable to the Republican regulars as I am unforgiving to the Democratic invaders.
--
Run like Reagan!

n/t

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

I know some people get a kick out of it, but I hate mowing the lawn and I use a 40hp diesel tractor with a 6 foot mower. I hated it even more when I used a lawn tractor. A push mower would be unthinkable. I'd be willing to pay someone else to do it but I'm far too cheap for that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

in a 50-story building without a lawn. then i went to graduate school in iowa, where lawn-mowing is almost a state hobby. hence my affection.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

I don't even bother with anything the Boston Globe prints about Romney anymore.

They have launched a crusade to try and sabatoge Romney by any means necessary, and their favorite tactics seems to be targeting conservatives and convicing them that Romney is a closet liberal.

Now I might listen if say, the Wall Street Journal, or National Review was arguing such a thing- but the Boston Globe? owned by the New York Times, right?

Hmm... I have the feeling that they are no friend of mine, and if they want me to hate Romney than I'm just gonna tune them out and make up my own mind.