Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

King Outlines Immigration Plans for 2011

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:47 PM
Original message
King Outlines Immigration Plans for 2011
Source: NYT

The Republican who is expected to lead the main subcommittee on immigration in the House of Representatives in the new congress next year said on Monday that he will push for a bill that would cancel employers tax deductions for wages of workers who are illegal immigrants.

In an interview, Representative Steve King of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration in the current congress, said his priority as chairman would be to pass a bill he introduced last year that would also require the Internal Revenue Service to share information with the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration about the immigration status of workers.

Mr. King said his measure would increase pressure on employers to fire unauthorized immigrant workers by increasing their cost. He estimated that if employers were not able to claim tax deductions for those workers wages and benefits, an unauthorized immigrant making $10 an hour would cost the employer the equivalent of $16 an hour.

Mr. King said his measure would be a velvet glove that would leave it up to employers to fire unauthorized workers. That opens up lots of jobs for Americans, he said.



Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/king-outl...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. He is going to try a National ID n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I don't have a problem with national ID
It would make it much easier to determine who can work legally and would eliminate redundant bureaucracies in the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. A flat tax system would eliminate redundant bureaucracies in the states
that could be another option
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. So do you oppose military IDs and passports? Those are national. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Do we need a passport to move around in the city? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. No, and you wouldn't need a national ID to do so either.
You'd need it to get a job in the U.S. Are you opposed to establishing legal status to work here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. No, but who has to show a national ID to get a job?
everybody
minorities
people of color
all of the above
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Everyone
You get a national ID upon working age or legal emigration. You present it to anyone who hires you.

I get the sense that you don't want there to be any immigration laws whatsoever. And I think you're using paranoia over "National IDs!" as a cover for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
36. I'm worry about Arizona style racial profiling n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
27. We have one of those; it's called a "social security number".
Which is generally required of employees; if employers aren't checking, then requiring another form of ID they won't check either clearly isn't the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. Voting as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. We can get a coalition to oppose that
Not only do liberals hate it, the far-right despises it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. What is wrong with it? You do realize we already have forms of national ID.
Passports, SS cards, military ID. What's so ominous about a national ID to work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I don't trust the government
And certainly want as little public tracking as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. What's so ominous about a national ID to work?
If they can give it, they can take it away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Yet somehow passports, SS cards, and military ID haven't led to Nazism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Which of those three are required to work as an independent contractor?
As a piece-work employee? As a babysitter? As a kid who mows lawns in the summer for spare cash?

Answer: NONE.

You only need a passport if you want to jump between countries, you only need a SS number if you want to pay into (or get money out of) the federal plan, and you only need a military ID if you decided to volunteer.

Yes, we don't have Nazi-ism here....
1. We haven't made a huge military a cornerstone of our economy.
2. We haven't invaded nations under false pretenses.
3. Our police and military don't shoot unarmed people.
4. People aren't racially profiled.
5. Our government doesn't attempt to arrest and imprison people for speech which damages the government.
6. Americans aren't unwittingly experimented upon.
7. We don't have a huge amount of money and resources spent on surveillance of our citizens.
8. We don't glorify military service.
9. We don't torture or kill people to extract information from them.
10. We don't exempt government authorities from being held accountable for crimes.

Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

Yes, we aren't 1945 Nazi's, we're closer to the "kinder, gentler", 1936 Nazis.

Yay, US!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. So you're arguing against ID because you want cheap child care and landscaping.
Got it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Way to gloss over ongoing massive state abuse.
Care to argue any of the ten points I proffered?

Considering your screen name indicates sympathies with a historic US enemy, perhaps you don't know how it feels when a government casts a wide net and abuses all within it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Way to gloss over exploitation.
Realize that you're using Nazi tropes to defend ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS.

Realize that they are allowing RAPE to happen in their workplaces. http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/internati...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. We're in a Nazi state, arguing about levels of Nazi-ism.
Yes, we, as a state, turn a blind eye to the rape/murder of jews/mexicans.

Yes, we, as a state, argue about whether or not the person was here under legal circumstances, rather than whether rape/murder is wrong.

Kind of messed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. No problem with national ID.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Why not tie it to the passport for U.S. citizens?
When you come of age to work, you apply for your passport. You prove your citizenship for the purposes of getting a job AND you get to travel to other countries! Win-win. Immigrants could get an enhanced green card (with a photo ID) to prove their eligibility to work here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. Really?
Tell me, what is the cost of living like in La La Land? I've been thinking about moving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. It appears it gives illegal employers the ability to retain illegal employees by paying a tax
penalty. Does it give any legal status to the employees or do they stay "illegal" so that they have no rights? Sounds like a right wing wet dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fuck you, King you bigot.
He is the worst of the worst. A racist, hateful repuke with a big mouth. Well, that actually describes all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Be that as it may, since it is illegal to employ illegal immigrants, I don't see how this is bad.
If it opens up jobs for Americans and improves wages, that's a good thing, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Yeah, Steve King is a giant dick but I'm not opposed to what he's proposing here.
This is something Dems should be championing, not Republicans. Immigration reform will not happen until cheater employers feel the pain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
14. sounds like a lot of 'rules' for a 'free markety' GOP'er... where's DE-regulation???

oh, that's right... it's a drunken song they sing, but don't know the words to

As in everything the Republicans do, 'Do as I say, not as I hypocritically do.'



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chuck97 Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
22. Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Let's all agree: King is a virulent, unrepentant racist.
Having gotten that out of the way, we can focus on a possible
significant consequence of his intended actions. King's
approach, as described above, might further split the
democrats. They are already suffering heartburns over Don't
Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, Cap and Trade, lack
of a public option in health care reform, tax extension for
the wealthy, Afghanistan, etc. Adding another issue to the
lot, would further tear apart the democratic base and the
democratic coalition.  

To win the White House in 2012 and to maintain majority in
the Senate, democrats must safeguard their coalition. If I
remember correctly, there are far fewer registered
hyper-liberal voters than there are registered conservative
voters. To win a nationwide election, liberals must retain
their coalition of voters. Based on issues of interest,
today's democratic/liberal coalition seems to consist of
gays, environmentalists, immigration reform proponents,
abortion supporters, some independents, and the long-term
unemployed. I suspect that there are a few others, but you
get the picture. 

If one or two coalition members secede, or is driven out, the
democratic party will significantly reduce its chances of
keeping the Senate and the White House. Add to that, the
democrats reputed lack of discipline and party loyalty--at
least, relative to that of conservatives--and you could have
the outlines of a strategy to split the democratic party
before the 2012 elections. I make this point, only to caution
my DU denizens to be wary of supporting any policy that will
have the outcome of vilifying or otherwise adversely
affecting immigrants. They are an important part of the
democratic coalition. If they go, the democratic party will
not be far behind, and republicans will happily welcome them
to the fold--even if they profess that they will not. 

Even if one thinks that there is personal benefit to be had
in the form of a job, it might very well cause the party to
lose competition for control of every other major issue for
the next 20-30 years. The issues will persist, but there will
not be enough democratic votes to move on these issues. In
exchange for moving against comprehensive immigration, you
will receive cold comfort in the form of abstract
expectations that you will win some job that is currently
assumed to be held by one or more immigrants. If that is your
hope, you might be bitterly disappointed. Again, I caution,
beware! 

I want to leave you with two thoughts: Willie Brown, former
Mayor of San Francisco, and former Speaker of the California
Legislative Assembly, pointed out that in the California
Attorney General's race, Kamala Harris, the SF City Attorney,
won 200,000 more votes in Southern California, than did Steve
Cooley, the Los Angeles City Attorney. Brown thinks that
Steve Cooley paid a price for angering Southern California's
Latino voters. Meg Whitman, gubernatorial candidate, lost to
Democrat Jerry Brown, by about 10 points, even after spending
$140 million of her own money. The Latino vote might also have
had a significant impact on the gubernatorial election,
specifically because of the thorny issue of immigration.
(Brown also swiped at the reputed disloyalty of liberals.
Effectively, he said that liberals support a particular
candidate, but only until the next shiny thing comes along.
But this post is already long enough, so let's chat about
liberal disloyalty some other time.) 

Take California's electoral experience and extrapolate it to
other states with a sufficiently sizable Latino population,
and where the election might be won or lost by, let's say,
1-3 points. States like California, Colorado, Nevada, and
Florida comes up for possible consideration. So folks, if you
want gay marriage, DADT, Cap and Trade, etc., you better get
used to the idea of comprehensive immigration. When it comes
to the matter of immigration, I am not talking about
tolerance or acceptance; I am talking about embracing a
political reality and an economic necessity. Remember that
not long ago, George Bush, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain, all
wanted comprehensive immigration. Conservatives like Cokie
Roberts and Condoleeza Rice still give their full-throated
endorsements. Ted Kennedy is no longer with us. George Bush
blames Harry Reid for the failure of Bush's efforts at
comprehensive immigration. BTW, Jeb Bush blames the democrats
for failing to enact comprehensive immigration. John McCain
now conditionally supports comprehensive immigration.
Implication: Given the opportunity, Republicans will pass
comprehensive immigration. If they do, they will own a
substantial portion of Latino votes for the indefinite
future, and Democrats will find themselves in the political
wilderness. I say woe to you, the plural you, if you allow it
to happen, in any way, shape, or form. 

As to keeping the coalition together, it must be one for all
and all for one. Noticed how the Republicans coalesced and
moved in lock-step to win big this past election cycle? Some
days you will be battered and bruised. Some days your
interest will not be at the top of the list. If you give up,
or become petulant, and you take your marbles and run home,
your name might be placed in the loss column for the next 30
years. That's such a long time; it could feel like a
lifetime. To put a little salt in the wound, you might have a
President Steve King, or Sarah Palin, and the permanent
Republican majority that Karl Rove tried so hard to engineer.
 How 'bout it? I encourage you to compartmentalize the
emotionalism, and rationally assess what you can and should
do. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. That is a long post but worth reading
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
38. Great post. Indeed King hopes to split the "Democratic coalition" by pretending to be "tough on
illegal employers" (though his proposal actually gives these employers the ability to retain illegal employees even after they are discovered).

If he (and other conservatives) can split the "pro-enforcement" (attrition-through-enforcement) Democrats off from the "pro-legalization" (path-to-citizenship) Democrats, he will have done his job. Perhaps some of the former will vote repub (or just stay home) or some of the latter will go "third party" (or just stay home).

King hopes this will be an effective wedge in the Democratic coalition, while simultaneously giving illegal employers the ability to keep known illegal employees. These employers, under King's plan, would have the choice of firing newly discovered illegal employees or keeping them and suffering a tax consequence. A nice new choice for employers and something that can hold over the heads of labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
28. So King would let illegal employees keep working, just eliminate illegal employers' tax deductions.
Under King's proposal, once an employee was proven to be here illegally "it up to employers to fire unauthorized workers" which sounds like the employer could decide to retain the employee if desired. Employers have no such discretion now.

Undoubtedly King's real goal is to derail the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform and break off enough support from the left by using the wedge issue of "going after employers". In reality the right (of which King is a genuine member) would love to give illegal employers the option of keeping their illegal employees. It sounds like King would be willing to give illegal employers a pass, but I didn't read how he would propose doing for the "illegal" employees who could continue to work if their employer so chose. Could they apply to become "legal" or would they keep working "illegally" indefinitely? Sounds like a guest worker program without any legal status for the workers.

Under Obama's I-9 audit program, more illegal employees have been fired than ever occurred under Bush's showcase workplace raids. Deportations are running way ahead of the pace under Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Why is "going after employers" a wedge issue?
I happen to be against exploitive employers who take advantage of the undocumented status of their workers to abuse them.

Why are so many "immigrant rights activists" so tolerant of abusive employers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Because the repugs aren't really going after employers
But they draft legislation making it sound as though they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Oh I know that. I live in AZ.
Where we not only passed the odious SB1070 but 3 years ago they passed the supposedly "toughest employer sanctions law in the country". There has been one employer prosecuted under the law since its inception. The law has been used to go against workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC