No change to no match
The last time the Department of Homeland Security tried to crack down on employers by sending them "no match" letters, a court stopped the plan in its tracks, saying it would end up hurting legal workers. What's changed six months later? Pretty much nothing.
DHS promised last fall it would review its plan, which would send employers a warning if they had enough employees with social security numbers that didn't match their names. Last week the agency released its proposed revisions (pdf) for public comment, offering only the smallest technical tweaks. The Washington Post reported that lawyers familiar with the original case against the plan anticipated ongoing court battles over the rule.
The editorial board has weighed in against masochistic efforts like these, which put the hurt on the American economy to underscore the need for comprehensive immigration reform. DHS has put out numbers on what it'll cost employers to comply: $3,000 to $7,500 for small businesses, and $13,000 to $34,000 for larger ones. As the Post notes, that doesn't include the cost of replacing workers.
That's not the only hurt employers will be feeling if the Bush administration continues its piecemeal immigration reform — on Thursday, higher fees go into effect for employers who violate immigration laws. Controversial immigration raids continue, including a major one last month in Van Nuys. And Congress is getting in on the game, examining enforcement-only legislation once again.
*Photo courtesy AFP.
Subscribe to this Blog What is RSS?
Swati,
Out of curiosity do you live in a neighborhood with large number of illegal immigrants -- i.e. a neighborhood where multiple families live in the same house and where you day laborers standing on the corner? If you don't, it seems awfully hypocritical of you to oppose measures against illegal immigration.
You also criticize these policies as "enforcement only". Do you understand that we are already allowing in over 2 million immigrants a year (over 1.2 million green cards and over a million temporary work visas)? We are talking about enforcement only as regards to illegal immigration. I assume the Times has an "enforcement only" policy when it comes to keeping out trespassers from its property. Exactly how many more immigrants do you want to allow in legally every year? And do seriously not believe that giving preference to illegal immgrants just becuase they are here illegally will not encourage some of the billions of poor people in other countries to enter illegally?
Posted by: RK | March 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
We need comprehensive Immigration reform now! BOYCOTT LOU DOBBS!
http://www.boycottdobbs.us/cms
Posted by: Law_Enforcer | March 26, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Businesses face all sorts of costs of regulation, from complying with OSHA standards to meeting AQMD requirements, to having adequate insurance and bonding. I don't recall the times whining about that. Our maybe it has; a corporatist-libertarian axis seems to have developed at this publication seems to be demanding that businesses are free to reap the rewards of whatever they can get away with, while native-born taxpayers can foot a disproportionate amount of the bill for more schools, more freeways, more emergency rooms for made necessary by businesses demand for cheap labor.
Look, 'the economy' is really measured by GDP or even per capita GDP. It is measured by the well being of its citizens. There is an easy test of this, do more citizens more into a heavily immigrant impacted area or move out. The answer is that, since about 2000, and including many years in the 1990s, natives are moving out of California. It isn't because of the lousy whether, or the wildfires, or the earthquakes. We've always had those things. It is because mass immigration is reducing the quality of life in California. From schools to freeways to the ability of a young native-born couple to find a house they can afford, I don't see how the LAT can ignore the effect of mass immigration. Obviously businesses that have been employing large numbers of illegals are going to hurt. So may go out of business. That's good, in the long run the masses of ill-paid illegal immigrants won't be attracted to the place. Some will actually head back to Mexico, Brazil, China, etc from whence they came.
What happens then. Schools, unburdened of massive influx of non-English speakers, will work their way back up the charts to were California once was. Roads will become less crowded, meaning less time commuting and more time with family. Eventually housing prices will decline -- we are seeing that already. All of this can and would happen if we had a rational immigration policy, one that we enforced. DHS's halting steps are a small move in the right direction.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | March 27, 2008 at 02:31 PM