Wage Theft After Hurricane Harvey

Nope, corporations can get around anything.......jail those responsible.

 

You said you wanted to jail employers for employing someone ineligible to work. Think about the mechanics involved to do this.

In order for an employer to be held accountable for hiring someone ineligible to work, the worker must have some sort of qualifying document to present to the employer. A license. Absent that document, or absent an affirmative query reply from a government database, the person is ineligible for employment.

To penalize an employer with criminal sanctions, perhaps loss of liberty, a government system must be in place that establishes a workers eligibility to legally work that can be accessed by the employer. That's a license to work.

Let's say I'm the employer and you're the aspiring employee. Me: "Fox do you have an ID, or work eligibility card?" You: "Well I have my driver's licenses but I don't have my work eligibility card." Me: "No problem, let me just enter your name into the government worker eligibility database and it will confirm your status." You: "That's cool."

10 minutes later. Me: "Fox, it seems you aren't showing up as eligible to work, the screen, see here, says you missed a court mandated meeting with your psychiatrist. It's says it's the second time and your probation officer suspended all of your licenses." You: "Well that's crazy, that's not me, somethings wrong." Me: "Well I can't hire you with this status showing. You'll need to go down to the Social Security and Work Permit office and straighten out the problem. Good luck."

I'm opposed.

 

If no E-Verify how is an employer supposed to definitively determine if an employee is eligible to work?

 

The illegals don't seem to mind exploiting our lax immigration enforcement to their advantage, do they? The forfeited their ability to complain when they circumvented our immigration system and probably not paying their fair share, and we know how big the left is on paying one's fair share. So these illegals don't contribute the way legal Americans contribute yet someone wants them to be treated the same.

And this article is probably bogus. A guy could have written that piece on his laptop while sitting in his tub. All he did was cite some study without linking to it, why would he do that? I'll tell you why, because the numbers are probably bogus. Better yet, many of the people who hired and stiffed these illegals are probably Mexicans themselves. In fact, I can make up anything I want because it certainly appears the author of this article probably did the same thing.

 

I'm not likely to get EITHER of what I want. I simply said I'd be happy with both.

 

And those below as well of which there are many.......acceptance will be you first step to salvation .

 

Oh , yes, I'm so sure corporations/business will comply....especially since they've been so good at it so far that, Gee Whiz, illegals don't get jobs here.

(Heavy sarcasm alert)

 

Then why is there a problem with illegals having jobs....if they couldn't get jobs they wouldn't be here.

 

Houston is a Democrat run city. Of course they won't hire Americans and pay legal wages. The view of the Democratic Party has always been that Mexicans are just suited to be cheap work animals, nothing else.

 

So, corporations (businesses) have the right to exploit one simply because that person is here illegally? Should we then forget that the employer is also violating the law?

 

No. But there was a thread here a while about about a dairy farmed who went to jail for hiring illegals and liberals criticized it because they said he was compassionate and had a heart.

 

Y'know, Labour spelled out a likely mechanism for doing what you asked of corporations. Before you can haul some Imperial Poobah off to the pokey, you must come up with some kind of mechanism to verify that said person applying for a job is indeed a legal citizen in order to meet the burden of proof required in a court of law. In fact, something else to consider is that this would undoubtedly involve a photo ID. If the illegal was hired without said proof, the corporation could be held liable, but you have to have a legal mechanism in place so that businesses CAN verify that said applicant is indeed a legal citizen.

 

You're joking right, we're talking about the Government the left believes is infallible. If they're not, we're spending WAY to much money funding losers.....so which is it?

 

What wage theft, if your working under the table for cash, the only wage you get is what your offered and take. I'm a disabled white man and worked for cash a lot and they regularly paid me sixty-percent of the minimum wage and if lucky and it if a restaurant adding in a good meal and sometimes they added in bus fare money or a ride to and from work. If that is all I could get I took it this was better than the 'Separate Shops' legal under the law. Disabled workers are as vulnerable as illegal workers we work as hard and with the way people see us we have to take sometimes work for under the table terms.

 

You make it sound like there are NO illegal workers.....no illegal worker problem at all !!! Uh, there is, companies DO hire illegals and they KNOW it...c'mon, how damn naïve do you think businesses are?

 

A good question.....I see you are still waiting for an answer.

 

We need a license to use the public resource that is air.

 

Food! Make it illegal to sell food to illegal immigrants, those without a license to eat cannot be fed.

Let's jail those illegal enabling restaurant owners and soup kitchen workers.

No food without citizenship papers! Deputize waitresses to enforce immigration law!

"No papers, no pie!"

 

Since I know you well enough to say you understand Labour's point but you're just being obtuse for the sake of a cheap shot, I'll make it obvious: In order to send some corporation head honcho to the pokey, you have to prove in a court of law (as opposed to just FEELING that way) that they knowingly hired someone who was illegal, otherwise he could say look, the guy didn't TELL us he was an illegal alien or he lied to us that he was an illegal alien. In order to do that, you'd need some kind of identification on the part of said potential applicant to a job proving that they are in fact legal citizens. That way, if there is a trial, the first thing a lawyer will ask is "Regarding Hire X who is an illegal alien, when you hired him, did you or your office see his citizens papers and if so, can you produce a copy of it for the court?" Well, at that point if this guy couldn't, now you know he/his company knowingly hired an illegal and the government has a solid case. Without that paper trail in place, what you're asking to do is legally magnitudes harder.

To do what you're asking to do - which I am in favor of BTW, anyone who breaks the law should be punished whether above or below - you have to create a formal system by which guilt or innocence CAN be proven. And in order to do this specific thing, you'd need some kind of government database which includes a photo ID, SSN, birth certificate and suchlike, and a place where a potential employer can go to check if this info is on the level or forged. This is what would have to be done to start a system to prove that employers are knowingly breaking the law so that you can fine or imprison them.

So Labour's point ultimately was: Are you comfortable with this happening? Because to do what you want, it's going to be a necessity.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You make it sound like there are NO illegal workers.....no illegal worker problem at all !!! Uh, there is, companies DO hire illegals and they KNOW it...c'mon, how damn naïve do you think businesses are?

You didn't refute one word of my post and hiring illegals is ALREADY a crime. And if company owners or CEOs were REALLY interested in stopping the hiring of CHEAP labor then they would vet those people on their own.

 

And get mexihole to pay for the bullets?

 

Have they paid for that wall yet?

 

Is this thread about the wall?

 

Is it about Mehico paying for bullets when they still have not paid for the wall as tRUmp said?

 

And what does one have to do with the other?