Sweeping and cracking down

Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Over at Polipundit the Roundup Advocates are thrilled to see that the Great State of Georgia has passed what Reuters describes as Sweeping Immigration Law and Jayson of Polipundit describes as a Sweeping Crackdown.

Here's the full text of Georgia's Senate Bill 529.

I gave the full text a quick gander. Some of the things it seems to require are:

  • public employers, contractors, or subcontractors of 500 or more employees to comply (on or after July 1, 2007) with the federal statutes regarding the employment of non-citizens. Fortunately they'll be able to find some guidance about that here.

A year after that it will apply to employers with more than 100 employees and a year after that all employees.

I suppose that is all reasonable enough but, umm, why weren't contractor to the Georgia state government always required to meet federal law? Oh, well, nevermind.

  • outlaws trafficking in humans for labor or sexual servitude

Maybe I've been away or living under a rock or whatever but didn't we have some little tiff about that sorta thing a while back?

  • establish some rules and such for local law enforcement to interface with federal immigration officials and train some folks to do all that

Umm.... nevermind.

  • if they arrest an illegal for a felony or DUI they'll notify federal authorities

of course, Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to deny a person bond or from being released from confinement when such person is otherwise eligible for release

and some other minor stuff but legislation is B-O-R-I-N-G to read.

21 comments:

terrye said...

polipundit has gone so far off the deep end on this subject that a couple of the regular contributers like DJ and Andrew have made it plain they do not always see eye to eye with poli when it comes to immigration.. I would say that many of the commenters are likewise fixated and I have stopped reading a lot of the comments. We are veing invaded, hispanics want to rule us Bush is bad because he likes Mexcians more than he likes us.... blah blah blah.

What I find amazing is that these people seem to think there are no laws out there right now pertaining to illegals. There are, that is why they call them illegals. The point is the laws need to be enforced.

BTW, if the states can deal with this without the US government why don't border states do that more often?

David Thomson said...

We must have some sort of national ID card. Is that too much to ask for? The technology is already in existence. What am I missing? Wouldn’t that take care of much of the problem virtually overnight? Some libertarians assert that this option might violate our rights. What in hell are they talking about? I worship at the altars of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. I do not perceive any such threat to my civil liberties. Am I a unwitting totalitarian?

terrye said...

david:

I do know people who say they "just don't like the idea" of a national ID card. In fact one man I know swears this is what the whole immigration business is really about...a way to get ID cards.

Knucklehead said...

Terrye,

Polipundit (and some of the others there) is apparently among the "Make it so, Number 1!", "Beam 'em outta here, Scotty" crowd.

What I find so darned consternating is that they want no part of any thought about what such a thing would require. The legislation passed in GA is, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing new. It seems to me a reiteration of existing law, pretty much "This time we're really gonna do it!"

Fine. Enforced laws are way better than unenforced ones. But notice the devils in the details. Three years out compliance with the federal non-citizen hiring laws (and the laws have existed for quite some time) will be expected from all employers doing business with the state. Not IN the state but WITH the state. Now why do you suppose they aren't yapping about enforcing this on ALL employers? My guess is that they have no idea where the heck they'd get the resources to accomplish that or what effect it would have but they have a strong suspicion that it would be really, really expensive, a whole heck of a lot of work, and in short order would bring the wrath of John Q. "Bubba" Voter down on their heads due to the unintended, ugly consequences.

As for the ID card stuff... I can't fathom it either. Everyone (except illegals) has an national ID number (SSN) and some sort of goverment issued ID (typically a state drivers license). You can't function in the above ground economy without those things. Why we can't have a solid national ID is beyond my comprehension.

For the life of me I can't fathom how we have any hope of controlling immigration unless and until we establish reasonable control of the borders and have the ability to reliably determine who is and isn't a legal residence.

But heh, no doubt it's all a whole lot easier than that. Just establish a 100,000 man "legal residency police" swarming the nation with their illegal alien detectors and handheld transporters and when each fills his quota of 100-200 (I guess somehow we'll just have to actually figure out or settle on a number since we apparently don't actually have any good clue just how many illegals there are in the US) he gets a permanent pension and condo in FL.

Doug said...

"BTW, if the states can deal with this without the US government why don't border states do that more often? "
---
Terrye,
In Arizona, the problem is that it is a waste of time:
When they pick them up and give them to INS, they usually are released forthwith.

In Nebraska the INS head lost his job when CHUCK HAGEL among others did the bidding of Hormel, and stopped them from interfering with their practice of replacing US Citizens with "less demanding" (illegal) employees.

That was after the INS was run out of Georgia by some other Senator looking out for the interests of the Onion lobby in that state.
---
National ID is a disaster waiting to happen, according to some.
Something about sign of the beast, 666, and etc.
I'm willing to take the risk, myself.

Doug said...

And, just like when Simpson/Mazzoli passed in the 80's, traffic on the border has increased sharply at the mere talk of a two year residence requirement to get on the path to the highway of socialist comforts.

terrye said...

doug:

I was being more than a little facetious.

But in truth I did hear that the feds are doing more retaining now and less turning loose. But nothing happens quickly when dealing with government. I also heard they are taking some of those folks back in deeper so they are not so close to the border.

But they need to control the border better in the first place.

Doug said...

Terrye, yeah, I figured!

As to "improvements" tho, they pale in comparison to the increase in flow in Clinton years, and even GREATER increase in Bush years, simply because it is well known that we have a Wink and Nod POLICY on actual enforcement, and ever more free incentives for those that break our laws.
---
As to the often raised issue of the "impossibility" of enforcement:

With a National ID, if local police were again allowed to do their jobs, and the INS was allowed a policy other than Catch and Release,
there are 7.5 MILLION Enforcement officers already employed across the country!

Knucklehead said...

Doug,

I'd be interested to know where the 7.5 million number came from. I'm not disputing it but I made a cursory effort to find out how many law-enforcement, judicial, and penal workers it takes to manage our roughly 7 million people either incarcerated or on probation or parole while keeping track of the general criminal population and I didn't have any luck.

I presume that we don't have some enormous excess of law-enforcement, judicial, and penal workers. I further presume that using those we do have as "INS" enforcers tasked with finding illegals who don't enter the criminal justice system through some commission of crime other than the one of crossing the border in the first place would require that the our current law enforcers pay less attention to what they do today or that we add some significant number of them to handle the extra burden.

Doug said...

Knucklehead,
Opps, added a zero!
Was thinking of Session's idea below.
My complaint is with all the (liberal) policies that PREVENT cops from asking a person's status in the course of their regular work.
ie, lots of illegals are stopped or come in contact police in one way or the other, but they can't ask, nor can schools divulge that information, etc.

Kind of like the Gorelick Wall syndrome:
We blind ourselves with needless restrictions on gaining free information.
---
"In Florida and Alabama, state police have reached agreements with ICE that go one step further. A handful of officers in both states have gone through training with ICE and have become certified to enforce federal immigration laws, meaning they can arrest undocumented immigrants simply for being here illegally.

Officials said those officers aren't conducting raids on agricultural fields or labor camps, trying to root out anyone and everyone here illegally. They're mostly taking illegal immigrants encountered during the course of criminal investigations into custody themselves, instead of calling ICE and waiting for federal agents to respond, said E.J. Picolo of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Calling the program a success in his state, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican, wants to expand it throughout the country, because ICE's limited enforcement personnel can't patrol all of the United States.

"There is no way those 2,000 officers can ever adequately patrol our streets for immigration violators and do a good job of handling these problems," Sessions said on the Senate floor this summer.
"But we have 750,000 state and local law-enforcement officers who are on our streets and in our communities every single day."

Doug said...

Immigration laws largely unenforced in nation's interior

Knucklehead said...

Got it, Doug, thanks.

This sort of thing helps to demonstrate how difficult the illegal immigrant problem is to "solve". Bits and pieces of it work in all sorts of different people's favor or to something they perceive as their advantage. And some bits and pieces of any solution are going to cause some people difficulty or mere consternation. Which all means that any attempts to do the things that need doing are going to meet with resistance.

What are some of the "drivers" that lead to acceptance of the PC types of things that cause the "don't ask, don't tell" behavior wrt illegals who enter the "system" by criminal and non-criminal activity.

Stuff like the state troopers mentioned in your post getting the training needed to effectively deal with illegals is telling. Not all, but surely a good portion, of local law enforcement are not particularly keen on the idea of taking on additional responsibilities and burdens without the funding necessary. I have no doubt that for every whacko community we hear about where the town council says they will not participate in enforcement of immigration laws due to some Leftish silliness there are probably another three or more towns who would, if queried, admit that in their little localized case illegals do not represent a sufficient "problem" to justify the added expense of dealing with them - the net of this is, essentially, "if somebody wants to give us the funds necessary we'll do it but we'll be damned if we're going to have the local taxpayers carry the cost of porous national borders." The costs involved aren't just in training law enforcement people. There's added burden to the entire judicial and containment systems that local taxpayers, despite screaming about illegals, have no interest in picking up.

But that's not the only driver. A hint of another driver is, IMO, carried in a little local "scandal" that happened in my neck of the woods about a year or so ago. The largest local town,the county seat, had a rather large Head Start (pretty sure it was Head Start IIRC) program. Somehow, someway, it hit the local media that something approaching 100% of the kids in the program were illegals or the children of illegals. Budget got yanked and the program was all but shut down. Everyone involved apparently knew what was going on. They weren't interested in asking or telling because without the illegals they were all out of work. No doubt some had their altruistic motives for helping these poor and dispossed kids but even without that how many people are really willing to disappear their own jobs? Not all that many. People in the social-services and welfare business need poor people head count and there's a lotta poor people in that illegal population.

On the one hand it sounds as if it would be ridiculously simple to round up trainloads of illegals. Raid the local day laborer gathering points. Stop by the local hotels and motels in the morning and pick up the cleaning ladies. Follow the sounds of the lawn mowers and blowers in the mid-morning and rake up the landscapers. Drop by the office parks in the evening and grab up the cleaning crews.

But whattaya do with all these people once you've got them? And how long does it take to adjust - and how much screaming and political arm twisting - happens while the hotel and motel rooms and office parks go uncleaned and the lawns uncut?

We need to start with closing the borders and a national ID, IMHO. Then we need some way to convert whatever portion of th illegals who are "decent and hard working" into legal, taxpaying status. Then we need to spend some years draining the, ummm..., less desirable elements out via the law enforcement system.

There's no quick and easy, universally agreeable, and painless solution. The border with Mexico has historically been porous. The US economy has a need for low-skilled, reliable, and inexpensive laborers that is NOT being met. That is what is drawing so many to cross the border. It's been going on for years and it will take years to deal with it. And that presumes we really have any will to define, implement, and sustain the efforts required to deal with it.

Doug said...

"We need to start with closing the borders and a national ID, IMHO."
---
Agreed, and even there they come up with objections:
I read last nite it "would cost $18 billion/year" to implement a national I.D.
I guess, at Dept of Motor Vehicles, or US Post Office levels of efficiency, maybe it would.
That still would be cheap compared to another serious terrorist attack.
Some 150,000 "Other Than Mexicans" enter each year at present levels.
---
What about legalizing them all (except criminals, etc) as temporary workers, totally separate from a citizenship path?
(ie some would later earn citizenship through another process, some would never qualify.)
Won't happen, just curious for your thoughts on that, and all the things I'm missing.
---
Your local "scandal" is repeated across the nation wherever Federal Tax dollars are doled out.
Back in the 70's my girlfriends mother was involved in the early days of head-start type programs and others for blacks and then got into "prison reform" where I REALLY got to see the Con Artists!

Knucklehead said...

Why on earth should it cost $18B/yr to implement an national ID? Clickety clacking the numbers in my head that sounds like $50/yr/card!?!?

What about legalizing them all (except criminals, etc) as temporary workers, totally separate from a citizenship path?

I'm for legalizing some large portion. There's no need to grant citizenship. If I were emporer I'd make it a 7 year temporary resident alien program (expirable green card). Upon expiration they could reapply for permanent status. Once they had permanent status they would be subject to the same citizenship opportunities as all other permanent resident aliens. The temporary thingie would carry a fine and fee and, essentially, be the "penalty" for the original crime of crossing the border illegally. But I'm not hung up on the T&Cs provided whatever they are includes fine, fee, and temporary parts.

I have no idea why people seem to think an amnesty needs to include conversion to citizenship. Legal aliens aren't citizens. They are non-citizens with legal status. Under some set of conditions they are allowed to apply for citizenship.

Has anyone, other than the lunatic fringe, suggested direct conversion to citizenship?

Doug said...

Man I love those North Easterners:

"New Hampshire House Passes Anti-REAL ID Bill. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has just passed HB 1582, an act "prohibiting New Hampshire from participating in a national identification card system." If the measure passes the state Senate, New Hampshire will be the first state to reject the REAL ID Act, which sets federal standards for state driver's licenses, essentially making them national ID cards. According to a recent survey (pdf) of state motor vehicle administrators, the costs of implementation have been vastly underestimated by the federal government, which initially put the total price at $100 million. Pennsylvania alone would spend $85 million on REAL ID, the survey found. (Apr. 17) "

Doug said...

ONLY 12 Billion, Sorry!:

In any case, says the Government Accountability Office, the new system will also cost nearly $12 billion a year. Given the record of DHS so far, it may be prone to errors, causing countless headaches for businesses and workers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/the_missing_part_of_the_immigr.html

LomaAlta said...

It would be simple to solve the illegal immmigration problem:1) Close the border, 2) Apply RICO to illegal aliens and those who hire them (this eliminates the demand and they will go home if they face no work and possible jail time; they got here on their own they can leave the same way), and 3) Enforce existing laws.

Knucklehead said...

You want to apply the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act to millions of people? The lawyers will love it! Great idea.

As Doug pointed out we're unlikely to get 50 states to agree to common standards for freakin' drivers licenses. But using RICO to get rid of illegal immigrants will make it all easy. They'll just drop their feather dusters and staple guns and start the long march back home.

Doug said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Doug said...

6:24,
It would be, but it never will be.
We have a harvest to reap from years of lawbreaking and socialist/welfare state corruption and decadence.
Sad.

Doug said...

"Has anyone, other than the lunatic fringe, suggested direct conversion to citizenship?"
---
Some say some Senate Proposals really say that with a verneer covering of some delay and the token "fine" that would readily be paid by the employers.
Based on who's involved and their past performance, I'm afraid that's probably right.