Thread: Suing employers who hire illegal immigrants

We have anti-discrimination laws on the books, which allow a person who is denied employment on the basis of race...etc... to sue the employer over it. Why not have a law that allows people who are denied employment in favor of hiring an illegal immigrant to do the same?

Technically, it would be a pro-discrimination law. (Requiring discrimination against undocumented illegal aliens.)

The current laws we have on the books just don't seem to be cutting it. Sure it's illegal to hire someone without proper paperwork, but if you do, it's not like anything is going to happen. You only have to make a very superficial effort at verifying their documents and it becomes very hard for the state to prove intent. If a few of these employers get sued by private citizens, on the other hand, and had to pay out some settlements.... I think they'd start shaping up their act pretty quick.

And the point of suing them is...?

You don't need a law that allows a person to sue a company for harm caused by illegal acts. Anyone is free to do that.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

You don't need a law that allows a person to sue a company for harm caused by illegal acts. Anyone is free to do that.

Hmm..... maybe someone should try filing a suit under the existing laws then? Sure it's over a minimum wage job (usually), but if you get enough people together, maybe you could target a big company with a group suit. This could become a real gold mind for an attorney with the right ambitions.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

And the point of suing them is...?

It's a very strong deterrent. That, and the difference in burdens of evidence makes a civil suit easier to win than a criminal prosecution.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4246517-1.html
http://www.wsmv.com/video/18796504/index.html
http://foodinamerica.wordpress.com/2...legal-workers/
http://www.hop-law.com/news/article-...ges-121906.asp
http://open.salon.com/blog/suomi/201...aliens_and_win

Those are rad examples! They keep going after the depressed wage angle, though.

What I'd like to see is somebody apply for a job at McDonalds, get declined, find out who was hired in their place, do a simple background check to discover that person's ID information was clearly fraudulent, then.... sue over it.

The argument would be that it was easily determined that the other applicant wasn't who they said they were with a simple background check.

We need economic boarder security for sure...the fence idea is rather stupid.

1.) Stiff penalties for hiring illegals - when I need a hand with a construction project, I go get a high school kid, and pay them a fair wage. If a company is caught hiring illegals, they are fined big time.

2.) No more "free-be's" - Can't prove citizenship? No more food stamps, WIC, discounted housing, preferential emloyment, public education, in-state tuition, and you go to the back of the line in the ER, unless you're about to die...it's not a primary care physician. We'll stabilize you and send you back.

3.) No more anchor-babies. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can sneak into the country illegally, pop out a kid, and everyone can stay. Deny citizenship to illegal babies.

4.) If you are caught here illegally, you are to pay for your own trip back. Can't pay? Then you work it off, then get sent back.

5.) If you are here illegally, and commit a felony or gang related crime, you're executed within 6 months of being found guilty...PUBLICLY.

They will deport themselves. I have friends who came here legally from 4 different continents that support this.

Originally Posted by LunchBox

We need economic boarder security for sure...the fence idea is rather stupid.

1.) Stiff penalties for hiring illegals - when I need a hand with a construction project, I go get a high school kid, and pay them a fair wage. If a company is caught hiring illegals, they are fined big time.

Instead of paying that fine to the state, they should have to pay it to their legal employees. That gives their employees an incentive to rat them out.

2.) No more "free-be's" - Can't prove citizenship? No more food stamps, WIC, discounted housing, preferential emloyment, public education, in-state tuition, and you go to the back of the line in the ER, unless you're about to die...it's not a primary care physician. We'll stabilize you and send you back.

No problem there. What should the penalty be for drawing those things on a false ID? Maybe fraud charges against the illegal?

3.) No more anchor-babies. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can sneak into the country illegally, pop out a kid, and everyone can stay. Deny citizenship to illegal babies.

Actually it does say so in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, to be precise:

Originally Posted by Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All persons born on American soil are citizens.

4.) If you are caught here illegally, you are to pay for your own trip back. Can't pay? Then you work it off, then get sent back.

That would be rad. Of course, they'd still be displacing American workers.

5.) If you are here illegally, and commit a felony or gang related crime, you're executed within 6 months of being found guilty...PUBLICLY.

Maybe a bit extreme to kill them, but it might be a bad idea to put an "illegal status" increase on felonies, so you automatically do extra time if you commit a felony and aren't a citizen.

My point 3 - you are correct, I was incorrect...that shat has got to change.

Point 5...the point of execution for a felony is that I don't want to pay for their lifestyle...be it free, or prison.

Originally Posted by LunchBox

My point 3 - you are correct, I was incorrect...that shat has got to change.

Point 5...the point of execution for a felony is that I don't want to pay for their lifestyle...be it free, or prison.

The need for their to be a clear cut establishment of citizenship for all people born within the borders is an obvious, and necessary, fail-safe to protect the population from a government deciding who is and isn't a citizen on subjective basis.

As to your 6 months execution thing, that is just obscene and ridiculous. Stealing a car is a felony, you think people should be executed for theft? Extra punishment for people who aren't citizens is equally ridiculous, it violates the neutrality of the law and opens up grounds for further jerry-rigging of the legal system to validate whatever pet scape goat is popular at any given time.

All this stuff about forcing people to prove citizenship also makes me worried. Do you really want to be carrying papers to prove your citizenship? I don't think any government needs extra power to puts its foot into the private lives of individuals.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

All this stuff about forcing people to prove citizenship also makes me worried. Do you really want to be carrying papers to prove your citizenship? I don't think any government needs extra power to puts its foot into the private lives of individuals.

As much as it makes me happy to see some measures being taken, I have to admit it's a little worrisome. If I had a darker skin tone, I'd definitely be feeling a little bit edgy.

On the other hand, the law could be re-written to be very workable. Requiring that anyone who can't speak fluent English present paperwork would only have a small chance of affecting most citizens. I think inability to speak the language is a fair basis for "probable cause".

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Stealing a car is a felony, you think people should be executed for theft?

Well, yes...if they show a pattern of other crimes as well. And, I would have no problem shooting someone hanging out of my car door with a screwdriver clutched between the their teeth, and my car stereo under their arm.

It's a hell of a deterrent to future generations of theives...to know they may lose their pathetic life for stealing someone's property.

In Britain the authorities fine massively any company that hire workers that do not have a UK Citizenship or UK residency. Do they not have something similar in the states?
A large fish factory near my town went out of business due to its involvement in hiring illegal immigrants. Seems like a pretty basic check to me.

Also whats all this "Undocumented illegal Alien" rubbish? You Americans come out with stranger and stranger ways of describing foreigners.

Lunchbox your readiness to use a gun explains a lot of what we see happening in the news every day in your country. Saying someone deserves to die because they stole your car radio is so disproportionate its ridiculous.

Originally Posted by harvestein

Lunchbox your readiness to use a gun explains a lot of what we see happening in the news every day in your country. Saying someone deserves to die because they stole your car radio is so disproportionate its ridiculous.

Harvestein, be assured there are millions of us who do not share Lunchbox's perverted attitude.

Originally Posted by harvestein

In Britain the authorities fine massively any company that hire workers that do not have a UK Citizenship or UK residency. Do they not have something similar in the states?
A large fish factory near my town went out of business due to its involvement in hiring illegal immigrants. Seems like a pretty basic check to me.

In the US it's really hard to get these laws enforced, and even when they are the fines are reasonable. I think a lot of American leaders are too corrupt, in the sense that they receive too many large campaign contributions from too many businesses that benefit too much from the laxness.

That's actually why I'm suggesting the change I'm suggesting. If, instead of a fine payed to the government, the penalty is a settlement paid to individual citizens, then decisions about enforcement are not being made by the government. They're being made by private individuals through the court system.

Also whats all this "Undocumented illegal Alien" rubbish? You Americans come out with stranger and stranger ways of describing foreigners.

Lol. So true!

Originally Posted by kojax

5.) If you are here illegally, and commit a felony or gang related crime, you're executed within 6 months of being found guilty...PUBLICLY.

Maybe a bit extreme to kill them, but it might be a bad idea to put an "illegal status" increase on felonies, so you automatically do extra time if you commit a felony and aren't a citizen.

Looking back, this was wrong of me to say. If there were an "illegal status" increase, then it should be applied only to non-citizens who aren't here legally, rather than non-citizens in general. I definitely misspoke.

If a foreign person is here legally, they should enjoy all the protections a citizen enjoys, because they're our guest. If we did otherwise, we would not be a polite host.

Originally Posted by harvestein

Lunchbox your readiness to use a gun explains a lot of what we see happening in the news every day in your country. Saying someone deserves to die because they stole your car radio is so disproportionate its ridiculous.

Yes...not many people will admit to feeling this way, but it's more common than some might think. Look, people that show a pattern of crimes need to be taken out. I have only pulled a gun on someone once, and that was to protect my property. It was immediately undrstood that his trespass was not allowed, and he left without a scene. I'm not looking for conflict, but I will vigorously defend my family, my friends, my neighbors, and our property.

When I was in law enforcement, the number one thing burglars, rapists, stalkers, and kidnappers, etc. were afraid of, was encountering an armed (would be) victim. If we are to truely move forward as a society, then career criminals need to be removed from circulation.

Now, to relate this back to the OP, shall we discuss the increasingly violent gangs that activley recruit illegal aliens?

Originally Posted by kojax

On the other hand, the law could be re-written to be very workable. Requiring that anyone who can't speak fluent English present paperwork would only have a small chance of affecting most citizens. I think inability to speak the language is a fair basis for "probable cause".

With this in mind, I wonder.....What happens to US citizens from Puerto Rico, for instance if they don`t speak one word in english ?, as many friends I have from back there that only speak spanish. Are you going to deny them their citizenship ?. I`m not sure, but some friends of mine from the USA once told me that there are also lots of people at the Bayou, who only speak French that would probably have the same problem. Think about it a little, before answering anything about it.

Originally Posted by LunchBox

......Look, people that show a pattern of crimes need to be taken out. I have only pulled a gun on someone once, and that was to protect my property. It was immediately undrstood that his trespass was not allowed, and he left without a scene. I'm not looking for conflict, but I will vigorously defend my family, my friends, my neighbors, and our property.

Here, back in Chile, unfortunately during Pinochet´s dictatorship, many chileans specially from the armed forces, thought the same way as you do now, in relation of how to deal with criminals and thieves in their civilian life. At first, it was an asset and crime diminished, but after a relative time, crime once again appeared at the same levels as it was before, only that now, even if they try to steal you a pencil, they are carrying guns and knives with them and at the minimum alarm or suspect of self defence, they are willing to use them against anybody. Crime rates are not higher than before, but they are much more lethal now, than ever. Maybe you should think about our sad experience, before you intend to carry it out yourself.

French is practically a dead language in Louisiana, the only significant populations who speak French as a native language in North America are in Canada.

Originally Posted by Rickdog

Originally Posted by kojax

On the other hand, the law could be re-written to be very workable. Requiring that anyone who can't speak fluent English present paperwork would only have a small chance of affecting most citizens. I think inability to speak the language is a fair basis for "probable cause".

With this in mind, I wonder.....What happens to US citizens from Puerto Rico, for instance if they don`t speak one word in english ?, as many friends I have from back there that only speak spanish. Are you going to deny them their citizenship ?. I`m not sure, but some friends of mine from the USA once told me that there are also lots of people at the Bayou, who only speak French that would probably have the same problem. Think about it a little, before answering anything about it.

Last person I spoke with who had lived there said most Puerto Ricans she met were adamantly against remaining part of the USA's territories. Maybe we should give that country what it wants, and cut them lose. I'm really not too sad about the idea of Puerto Ricans having to show ID. Besides, it's not like they don't have ID. Even if they're not carrying it when they get picked up, it's only 1 or 2 phone calls away.

Originally Posted by LunchBox

......Look, people that show a pattern of crimes need to be taken out. I have only pulled a gun on someone once, and that was to protect my property. It was immediately undrstood that his trespass was not allowed, and he left without a scene. I'm not looking for conflict, but I will vigorously defend my family, my friends, my neighbors, and our property.

Here, back in Chile, unfortunately during Pinochet´s dictatorship, many chileans specially from the armed forces, thought the same way as you do now, in relation of how to deal with criminals and thieves in their civilian life. At first, it was an asset and crime diminished, but after a relative time, crime once again appeared at the same levels as it was before, only that now, even if they try to steal you a pencil, they are carrying guns and knives with them and at the minimum alarm or suspect of self defence, they are willing to use them against anybody. Crime rates are not higher than before, but they are much more lethal now, than ever. Maybe you should think about our sad experience, before you intend to carry it out yourself.

I guess this validates a lot of the points Pong is always trying to make on this issue. Of course, in the USA, nobody needs to steal in order to eat, so maybe people would never become desperate enough to take it that far?

Xenophobia makes a lot of sense as institution when you've got to manage groups of people who suffer from extreme poverty. With an "us and them" mentality, you don't need to wait for your enemy to identify themselves by showing up fully armed and ambushing you. You know who the people who can't afford food are and you know where they live.

Your choices are:

1) - Go over there and put them out of their misery now.
2) - Surround them and kill them slowly by forcing them to endure their circumstances (those circumstances being starvation.)
3) - Put up with a high crime rate.

Of course, one wonders how the economy ever got so bad in the first place that you have droves of people with no way to eat. I can understand a person committing brutal acts out of desperation. I just.... don't get why they're in that state to begin with.

(As an added note: I hope people can see the irony in what I'm trying to say. I don't really think you should kill someone just because they're poor. I think that a lot of the solutions we talk about amount to us doing that. )

Originally Posted by kojax

Last person I spoke with who had lived there said most Puerto Ricans she met were adamantly against remaining part of the USA's territories. Maybe we should give that country what it wants, and cut them lose. I'm really not too sad about the idea of Puerto Ricans having to show ID. Besides, it's not like they don't have ID. Even if they're not carrying it when they get picked up, it's only 1 or 2 phone calls away.

Well this you show us, maybe is a matter of another thread. But in general, I agree with you as many people from Puerto Rico do, since as years go by, the people back there, each time they feel less bonded to the USA and feel that the country to which they belong to, doesn`t represents them at all and maybe they shouldn`t be considered as anything diferent than an independent nation. But the fact remains, they are US citizens now.

Originally Posted by kojax

..... in the USA, nobody needs to steal in order to eat, so maybe people would never become desperate enough to take it that far?

Xenophobia makes a lot of sense as institution when you've got to manage groups of people who suffer from extreme poverty. With an "us and them" mentality, you don't need to wait for your enemy to identify themselves by showing up fully armed and ambushing you. You know who the people who can't afford food are and you know where they live.......

.....Of course, one wonders how the economy ever got so bad in the first place that you have droves of people with no way to eat. I can understand a person committing brutal acts out of desperation. I just.... don't get why they're in that state to begin with.

(As an added note: I hope people can see the irony in what I'm trying to say. I don't really think you should kill someone just because they're poor. I think that a lot of the solutions we talk about amount to us doing that. )

My friend, I don`t think that poverty or famine is the main reason for crime. Maybe some crimes are due to this reason, but after what I`m going to say, you`ll probably cataloguize me as a communist ( , hey no problem, you wouldn`t be the first to do so, during Pinochet, many people back here thought the same. In those days, anybody who oposed the "President or Captain General" was considered a commy, being this the main reason of why so many people "disappeared" and some are still missing, but this too, maybe could be an issue for another topic), but, I think that the main issue that promotes crime is and always has been capitalism. It`s always easyer and simple to get richer, by taking things away from others, than having to work your ass up in order to have a better style of life. I think that most of the illegals in your country, belong to this second group, the hard working ones, who don`t want to get involved in crimes but only seek for better opportunities in order to give their families a better standard of life. While the first group, the "criminals", are most likely not the illegal ones, but the legal ones, who make their lifestyle and wealthiness by abusing specially on the illegals by forcing them to do things that aren`t according to the US laws and whenever they get in problems, they simply attack their own workers in order to expell them from the USA and maybe in the act, not even paying the accorded salary to them, allowing them to get richer in expense of their own "workers".
Maybe this whole thread should get back to its original topic, that is to pursue the ones who hire illegals and deal with how you are going to stop this from happening. In other words, seek at the base of the piramid and not to the top part of it. which is what most of you are doing here with this thread.

Originally Posted by Rickdog

Originally Posted by kojax

..... in the USA, nobody needs to steal in order to eat, so maybe people would never become desperate enough to take it that far?

Xenophobia makes a lot of sense as institution when you've got to manage groups of people who suffer from extreme poverty. With an "us and them" mentality, you don't need to wait for your enemy to identify themselves by showing up fully armed and ambushing you. You know who the people who can't afford food are and you know where they live.......

.....Of course, one wonders how the economy ever got so bad in the first place that you have droves of people with no way to eat. I can understand a person committing brutal acts out of desperation. I just.... don't get why they're in that state to begin with.

(As an added note: I hope people can see the irony in what I'm trying to say. I don't really think you should kill someone just because they're poor. I think that a lot of the solutions we talk about amount to us doing that. )

My friend, I don`t think that poverty or famine is the main reason for crime. Maybe some crimes are due to this reason, but after what I`m going to say, you`ll probably cataloguize me as a communist ( , hey no problem, you wouldn`t be the first to do so, during Pinochet, many people back here thought the same. In those days, anybody who oposed the "President or Captain General" was considered a commy, being this the main reason of why so many people "disappeared" and some are still missing, but this too, maybe could be an issue for another topic), but, I think that the main issue that promotes crime is and always has been capitalism.

I always see the problem with capitalism as being the possibility that a person will fail so badly in their career that they don't have food or shelter. I could understand a person turning to thuggery under those circumstances.

It`s always easyer and simple to get richer, by taking things away from others, than having to work your ass up in order to have a better style of life. I think that most of the illegals in your country, belong to this second group, the hard working ones, who don`t want to get involved in crimes but only seek for better opportunities in order to give their families a better standard of life.

I'm happy to see those people shot then, even if they take a few of us decent folk with them along the way.

Outside of that, though, the idea of having a good set of laws is to ensure that crime is not an easier way to wealth, but rather a good way to end up in prison most of your life. Of course, with longer prison terms, you end up with higher percentage incarceration rates, so you have to be willing to pay for a lot of inmates to stay in prison.

While the first group, the "criminals", are most likely not the illegal ones, but the legal ones, who make their lifestyle and wealthiness by abusing specially on the illegals by forcing them to do things that aren`t according to the US laws and whenever they get in problems, they simply attack their own workers in order to expell them from the USA and maybe in the act, not even paying the accorded salary to them, allowing them to get richer in expense of their own "workers".
Maybe this whole thread should get back to its original topic, that is to pursue the ones who hire illegals and deal with how you are going to stop this from happening. In other words, seek at the base of the piramid and not to the top part of it. which is what most of you are doing here with this thread.

Yeah. Ease of exploiting immigrants is probably a large part of why the laws are so lax, and why a lot of businesses fight so hard to keep them that way. An illegal immigrant will have a very hard time filing a law suit if they get injured due to unsafe conditions.

Come to think of it: a business's competitors should have the right to sue any rival who is found hiring illegals for unfair competition. That might also help with enforcement. I'd love to see Tyson get sued by another chicken producer for lost market share. That would be awesome!