All he wants to do his promote the rule of (some) law, and, as “always” happens, someone pulls the race card. The race card! In an immigration discussion of all things.
Cracking down on illegal immigration in Indiana will turn employers into racial profilers and lead to a mass exodus of much-needed workers, opponents predicted Wednesday.
“I think you are opening the door for prejudice directed at minorities who are not white,” state Rep. Vanessa Summers, D-Indianapolis, told Delph during one heated exchange.
“Maybe it’s the color of my skin. I look at it differently,” said Summers, who is black.“I think,” Delph responded, “people are sick and tired of people playing the race card every time they stand up for the law.”
I think Sen. Delph raises some valid concerns with his immigration bill. Making sure employers don’t break the law by hiring illegals so they can reduce wages is an entirely legitimate goal. But getting indignant over people bringing up race in an immigration discussion makes him look silly. It’s like getting upset when people talk about cars in a discussion over speed limits.
Bull OConnor was tired of all those schoolkids playing the race card with him. He sure showed them!
I assume Wilson, you meant Bull Connor?
“The bill, authored by Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, has passed the Senate, and makes it a misdemeanor for transporting, shielding from detection, concealing or harboring an illegal alien for commercial or financial gain.”
Now let’s think about this.
Hotels, motel owners, apartment managers, real estate agents, rental property owners, and bed and breakfasts could be prosecuted under this law.
Taxi, car rental, truck leasing companies, Amtrak, Greyhound bus, IndyGo, and other public transit systems could be prosecuted under this law.
Public schools, universities, hospitals, and public and private social service agencies could be prosecuted under this law.
The State of Indiana could be prosecuted under this law.
This would require every person in the transportation, real estate, or hospitality industry to check the immigration papers of every customer or be subject to breaking this new state law.
Not only is this impractical , it also subjects organizations trying to comply to breaking the complex anti-discrimination laws concerning the workplace, housing, education, health-care, and public assistance.
This pretty much sums it up.
THE PRIVATIZATION OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT
Huyen Pham
Associate Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law; A.B., 1992 Harvard College; J.D.,1996 Harvard Law School.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=huyen_pham
Human Resource Management Council Opposes Illegal Immigration Bill
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=27787
Yup … I guess what with St. Patricks Day approaching and all…
Illegal is the keyword. Legal Immigrants are wanted. It’s the numbers that are the problem. We need control of how many are here. This is not a race issue! Employers only need to verify status. All illegal immigrants have papers and ssns. Many have more than one. Verification is essential. Employers must be forced to verify the papers! The majority are not real!!!!!! Their fake!!!!!! Wake up people!!! We are not as dumb as we pretend!!!!We know you are going to claim that you thought they were legal. They had papers! Yeah right!!
I suspect Senator Delph would have a complete melt down when how Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish got there name was brought up or the old “Indiana Help Wanted NINA” signs were displayed at committee.
NINA = No Irish Need Apply
I would pay to see that!
While your exclamation points are very persuasive, it’s ridiculous to pretend this issue is race neutral. If an employer sees a white guy named “Smith” applying for a job, the employer is not going to hesitate about hiring him. If Mr. Smith is competing with a brown skinned Mr. Gonzalez, a citizen with an accent, there is an excellent chance that the employer is just going to hire Mr. Smith to avoid any potential hassle or being subjected to a closer look by the Proper Authorities.
What on Earth is wrong with asking a brown-skinned applicant with an accent named Gonzalez if he is a legal U.S. citizen before you hire him?
It’s not offensive, it’s a simple question that would be asked of anyone in 99% of the rest of the world applying for a job or benefits or a drivers license etc. There is a huge difference between being tolerant and being just plain stupid.
You missed my point. There is an excellent chance that the employer is simply going to avoid hiring Mr. Gonzalez if Mr. Smith is immediately available. Gonzalez automatically means more paper work and a greater potential for being hassled by the government.
You’re right about that. The employer may be extremely tolerant and not have any animus toward Latinos. But it’d be a stupid business decision to take on extra paperwork and extra risk of investigation for no additional profit.
I didn’t miss your point, I just think it’s not a valid argument. What extra paperwork? The applicant must provide valid documentation, the employer just has to verify it (database? phone?). Not a big deal, and a far better idea than just ignoring illegal aliens so as to be more “sensitive” to peoples feelings.
And what about the fear that if you have more brown people working for you you increase your risks of being investigated by the government?
“And what about the fear that if you have more brown people working for you you increase your risks of being investigated by the government?”
I’d say it’s an unfounded fear and just a fuzz on the paranoid side. Seriously, you’re grasping at pretty far-fetched “straws”. Do you seriously see no problem with the influx of illegals?
Re: problem with the influx of illegals. I said that I did:
Why should anyone be asked for legal papers because of being brown-skinned? Whatever set of legal papers anyone carries should be universal. I personally see no solution to the illegal/legal immigrant issue short of new high technology national ID cards for every american.Asking a select few ( by looks or race) to show IDs appears to me to be a much more scary solution than having everyone have the same national ID available.If we have to have a system of personal ID, national or not,because we want to ID only certain people,let’s not base it on who might be a problem based on ‘looks’.
We could always tattoo a bar code on the arm of every citizen.
It’s amusing how quickly the (usually all-enompassing) conservative/”libertarian” fear of government intrusion, bureaucracy, and incompetence evaporates when the issue is illegal immigration or capital punishment.
In those cases, the government can do wrong. Or if it does do wrong, as when someone on death row is exonerated by modern forensics, the reaction barely rates a “meh” on the Outrage-O-Meter.
But propose raising the capital gains tax a quarter-percent, and oh my God, the moral indignation of a million mothers of a million Natalie Holloways getting sodomized by a million Carribean middle linebackers–each toting a bong the size of a Buick Regal–pales in comparison.
Never let it be said that conservatives and their right-libertarian bedfollows are doctrinaire and inflexible. They’ll relax their sphincters quite a bit for the latex-gloved hand of government if they’re promised the entertainment of brown people being loaded into box cars and shipped back across the Mexican border. (If said immigrants aren’t actually from Mexico in the first place–well, that’s not our problem, is it?)
Setting aside the particulars of the proposed legislation, aren’t most employers already required to ask that all job applicants provide proof of citizenship? I do agree with both Doug and Branden (minus the colorful language) somewhat, however.
Anyone here an employer? As Pila mentioned, we all have to present ID and give Soc Sec no. From what I’ve read, the employer is to take some (unidentified) additional steps to verify that the info is accurate. I’m not sure it *is* as simple as “a phone call or database” as Tim Zank suggests – otherwise, they could just do that for all applicants. I get the impression employers are just supposed to “take steps” and that they are on the block if those steps are insufficient and someone illegal slips through. Anyone know for a fact?
A quick look suggests that there is a safe harbor for employers from criminal prosecution if an employer verified the employee’s status through the employment verification pilot program administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, or the successor of that program.
There is also a provision in the statute that provides for civil action against an employer who knowingly employs an illegal alien. Using the SSA’s verification program doesn’t appear to be a defense to a civil action.
Without taking up a lot of space, the following press release identifies several problems with the Federal E-Verify system which Senator Delph wants to mandate on employers.
Additionally the Federal Governments recent evaluation of the E-Verify system indicates it still does not meet the accuracy standards set by Congress and that it is particularly bad at flagging LEGAL naturalized citizens and LEGAL foreign workers as ILLEGAL.
That is a huge problem for employers trying to comply with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, Immigration and Nationality Act,and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All of which have federal preemption over any state law.
Human Resource Management Council Opposes Illegal Immigration Bill
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=27787
Report: E-verify database fails standard test
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/31868-1.html?topic=
Thanks for the information, Doug and Rule of Law.
Rule of Law,
You wrote:
In the software development circles I run in, we have a saying:
“That’s a feature, not a bug.”
…and I’m sure that’s the perspective held by Senator Delph and the other authoritarian crypto-racists who back this bullshit.