17 replies to this topic

[Warriors]

I like looking for weird news and once again the GOP did not disappoint.

A proposed immigration bill in the Texas state House would make hiring an "unauthorized alien" a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine, unless that is...


... they are hired to do household chores.

According to, Reuters, "House Bill 2012 introduced by a Tea Party member state Rep. Debbie Riddle wants Texas to institute an Arizona-style immigration law -- hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law. "It is so common it is overlooked."

She also, made headlines last year when she claimed unnamed FBI officials had told her that pregnant women from the Middle East were traveling to America's as tourists to give birth and then raising their children to be terrorists who could later enter the U.S. freely as citizens -- so-called "terror babies," a devious offshoot of "anchor babies."

Spoiler

Terror Babies

Hmm...I mean really? Are politics getting that bad?

[jcrdude]

I have a had time remembering the last time any politics made any sense anywhere.

[WharfRat]

Haha... you don't live here in Texas.

I understand how you could see how this would appear hypocritical, but the statement is essentially true... I think the provision is there to protect private citizens who hire out people to do these household chores... Nearly all the upper middle class people I know hire someone to do their landscaping.

What this law is attempting to do is to make penalties harsher for employers who knowingly choose to hire illegal immigrants. The provision to exclude housework is to protect the average citizen who isn't required to ask to see a social security card/fill out a W-4 for people who cut their lawn... Hell, for decades people would hire neighborhood children who came to their door to cut the lawn... It's just a form of employment that people don't have to check for documentation on.

So although it seems hypocritical, it's really intended to protect citizens without the means to check for citizenship because they aren't a large employer.

[jcrdude]

So although it seems hypocritical, it's really intended to protect citizens without the means to check for citizenship because they aren't a large employer.

I can see how you could interpret it that way, but there's clearly a difference between

"Hey, Mister. I live up the street... can I cut your grass?"

and driving to the Home Depot, picking up some brown people and driving them to your house to do yard work.

I know the stipulation was built in as a protection against simple cash-basis workers, but maids? Really?

If you're hiring someone to come into your house, even on a semi-frequent basis, you should have some idea of their credentials.

[WharfRat]

I can see how you could interpret it that way, but there's clearly a difference between

"Hey, Mister. I live up the street... can I cut your grass?"

and driving to the Home Depot, picking up some brown people and driving them to your house to do yard work.

I know the stipulation was built in as a protection against simple cash-basis workers, but maids? Really?

If you're hiring someone to come into your house, even on a semi-frequent basis, you should have some idea of their credentials.

Why would you need an entire truck load of mexicans to do your yard...? Mexicans do come to your front door all the time down here asking if you need your lawn cut, etc. I don't know the specifications on hiring maids and reporting it for tax purposes... but I imagine there is a difference between having someone work 7 days a week in your home and someone who comes by once a week or two.

The congressman above is correct that probably half of the state would be in prison if it didn't include a provision excluding housework....

[Warriors]

Like JCR stated, I can understand that, but maids and butlers and what not are also essentially allowed under this provision...Since these middle-wealthy class don't want to do the work and hire immigrants to do it for them is not at all relatable to kids doing work such as mowing the lawn, or delivering the paper. Its a systematic abuse of their rights, to say that we don't want you in our country, county, or state, but hell we'll make you do our laundry for substandard pay.

[jcrdude]

The congressman above is correct that probably half of the state would be in prison if it didn't include a provision excluding housework....

At the same time, he's building an unnecessary loophole into a bill because there are big differences between what is technically illegal and what is enforced.

I find this to be of the same nature as the difference basic possession charges on small quantities and possession with intent to distribute... Technically they fall under the same umbrella of "possession of a banned substance," but the findings are obviously going to be more severe for a distributor.

I think that if someone is going to pass a bill making it illegal to hire illegals, they should go ahead and do it instead of leaving a loophole for abuse.

Will people still break the law and hire a Mexican to cut their grass? Sure, but the odds of getting caught would be slim and their penalty, if any, should be light.

Meanwhile, the people who hire maids 7 days a week, the people who have a verbal contract with someone to care for their yard, the people who hire workers to build an addition onto their house... these are the people who would qualify as a mid-level offender and are people that are clearly circumventing the system.

You know as well as I do that making something illegal does not necessarily mean that every offender is going to end up jailed.

--Sidenote, this may be evolving into a debate. I may consider moving it there if things keep going down this route.

[Warriors]

Yea, didn't expect a debate, just more of a fun poking fun of discussion, but if it turns into a debate moving it would be better.

[WharfRat]

At the same time, he's building an unnecessary loophole into a bill because there are big differences between what is technically illegal and what is enforced.

I find this to be of the same nature as the difference basic possession charges on small quantities and possession with intent to distribute... Technically they fall under the same umbrella of "possession of a banned substance," but the findings are obviously going to be more severe for a distributor.

I think that if someone is going to pass a bill making it illegal to hire illegals, they should go ahead and do it instead of leaving a loophole for abuse.

Will people still break the law and hire a Mexican to cut their grass? Sure, but the odds of getting caught would be slim and their penalty, if any, should be light.

Meanwhile, the people who hire maids 7 days a week, the people who have a verbal contract with someone to care for their yard, the people who hire workers to build an addition onto their house... these are the people who would qualify as a mid-level offender and are people that are clearly circumventing the system.

You know as well as I do that making something illegal does not necessarily mean that every offender is going to end up jailed.

--Sidenote, this may be evolving into a debate. I may consider moving it there if things keep going down this route.

The problem with this is it is already illegal to hire an illegal worker. This is simply to stiffen the penalties for those employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

@Warriors
You're making this a moral issue when it is a legal issue. The matter at hand is what I said above, making the penalties for knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant stiffer. That provision is simply to shield people who hire workers to do menial household labor from getting stuck in prison for two years because they aren't REQUIRED BY LAW to check the citizenship status like these other employers are.

I also think it's funny that you label the entire GOP based upon what members of the TEXAS state legislature are proposing...

[jcrdude]

The problem with this is it is already illegal to hire an illegal worker. This is simply to stiffen the penalties for those employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

This is actually worse than what I was implying, but my point remains valid.

If we interpret it from the new viewpoint that it's already legal... he's actually performing a bizarre disservice to the original law by stiffening the punishment in some cases and allowing a perfect loophole in others.

I maintain my opinion on keeping the sweeping illegality. I have no qualms with stiffening the penalties on a particular offense, but I draw the line at delineating loopholes that can and will be taken advantage of. I would much rather have things clearly delineated in the law, and let the gray areas be handled in the enforcement.

If the loophole remains uncreated, I highly doubt that suburban sting operations will spring up in an attempt to crack down on yard workers, so it's better off left uncreated.

Keep in mind that I haven't seen the specific wording of the bill because it does not apply to me, but I can almost guarantee that if someone were to pick through it with some legal knowledge, they could find their loophole and take advantage of it.

[WharfRat]

The problem I have with your argument is that you are insinuating that there is a loophole that can be taken advantage of... The people this is targeting are farmers and industries whom have a large percentage of their workforce working for them illegally. These factories can't claim that these people are doing housework like lawn care... they are working in a factory! The people who currently hire random people to do their lawn won't be prosecuted currently even though it is illegal... That DOESN'T change. The exclusionary clause is in place in order to get the bill passed without people shouting about how every day citizens could be arrested for getting their lawn cut.

No, there may not be suburban sting operations, but there may be a legitimate fear that somebody may keep a log of themselves working for average Joe's illegally without their knowledge and when the guy gets deported, these other citizens would then have to be imprisoned for 2 years as well.

The policy changing would have absolutely no effect on average people who may hire someone to do their lawn work, but will have a major impact on deterring industrial and agricultural employers from hiring illegals.

[jcrdude]

The problem I have with your argument is that you are insinuating that there is a loophole that can be taken advantage of...

If you have a problem with my deductions, then I will gladly address them.

I decided to pull the specific wording of the bill (or at least the closest I could find with a cursory search)... and here's the wording of the loophole per CNN:

(The protection extends to hiring illegals) for the purpose of obtaining labor or other work to be performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence.

If you can't find a way to abuse that wording, then you're clearly not trying hard enough. I'll give you three ways I could abuse the system if I were so inclined.

--I'm a construction contractor. I need extra hands on a job, so I hire some illegals. The job I'm doing is only on one single-family residence, so I'm within the loophole

--I'm a caterer doing a big job for a wedding that's being performed on someone's estate. If all I need is some help cooking, followed by having some workers come along to handle keeping the food out, heated, and served, I can hire illegal laborers because most of the time spent on the job WILL be at a single-family residence

--I'm running a yard work business. I can circumvent the system by only charging a finder's fee. Technically, none of the workers will work directly for me, but I can take a cut because of this loophole because I never formally hire the workers and they are legally working for the homeowner

It's easily abused loopholes like this that make a strong point for a blanket decision with delineation in enforcement in my book.

[WharfRat]

If you have a problem with my deductions, then I will gladly address them.

I decided to pull the specific wording of the bill (or at least the closest I could find with a cursory search)... and here's the wording of the loophole per CNN:



If you can't find a way to abuse that wording, then you're clearly not trying hard enough. I'll give you three ways I could abuse the system if I were so inclined.

--I'm a construction contractor. I need extra hands on a job, so I hire some illegals. The job I'm doing is only on one single-family residence, so I'm within the loophole

--I'm a caterer doing a big job for a wedding that's being performed on someone's estate. If all I need is some help cooking, followed by having some workers come along to handle keeping the food out, heated, and served, I can hire illegal laborers because most of the time spent on the job WILL be at a single-family residence

--I'm running a yard work business. I can circumvent the system by only charging a finder's fee. Technically, none of the workers will work directly for me, but I can take a cut because of this loophole because I never formally hire the workers and they are legally working for the homeowner

It's easily abused loopholes like this that make a strong point for a blanket decision with delineation in enforcement in my book.

I could argue that those workers are not working exclusively for a single family residence. They would be working for a company who is contracted by various households. In your last example, you aren't really a business in my opinion... but regardless, it is completely irrelevant to this piece of legislation. You could do the same thing in that example with or without this bill.

The exclusion in this bill is intended solely to apply to citizens who unknowingly hire an illegal immigrant to do work for them (like lawn care.) Most importantly, this is the first draft of this bill! It's not like it is up to vote yet! That's the legislative process... they introduce a bill and discuss its flaws so they can correct it and vote on it.

Frankly, I still don't even see the problem with this exclusionary clause. (Once the language is tightened up a bit) With your proposed policy of a blanket law, people who don't mind helping a guy out who shows up at your door looking for a lawn to cut would end up in prison! How are you going to delineate this? Based upon fluctuating appeals to the morality of 12 jury members? That seems wildly unreasonable and unsustainable.

Just to add to the hypocrisy of this thread, Aaron Pena is a DEMOCRAT. One from Hidalgo county (very very southern Texas, actually bordering Mexico along the Rio Grande) and whom consistently votes for immigrant rights. So this story about how the GOP is hypocritical is biased beyond belief. Just an easy attempt at a cheap shot to an opposing political party.

[jcrdude]

I could argue that those workers are not working exclusively for a single family residence. They would be working for a company who is contracted by various households. In your last example, you aren't really a business in my opinion... but regardless, it is completely irrelevant to this piece of legislation. You could do the same thing in that example with or without this bill.

The exclusion in this bill is intended solely to apply to citizens who unknowingly hire an illegal immigrant to do work for them (like lawn care.) Most importantly, this is the first draft of this bill! It's not like it is up to vote yet! That's the legislative process... they introduce a bill and discuss its flaws so they can correct it and vote on it.

If they can manage to tighten up the wording of the bill, then maybe I can at least not disagree vehemently... because there is a large chasm between intent and end result, especially when there's a buck to be made.

As it's worded now, though, it is clearly distinguishable that all three are a breach of the intent while still falling soundly within the proposed wording. It's just a risk that is taken when a loophole is put directly into a law: someone will find a way to exploit it.

Frankly, I still don't even see the problem with this exclusionary clause. (Once the language is tightened up a bit) With your proposed policy of a blanket law, people who don't mind helping a guy out who shows up at your door looking for a lawn to cut would end up in prison! How are you going to delineate this? Based upon fluctuating appeals to the morality of 12 jury members? That seems wildly unreasonable and unsustainable.

To carry on, this is a weak argument that bypasses my original point. If it is a minor offense that does no harm, it shouldn't be in front of a jury in the first place. The ones enforcing the laws (aka police and prosecuting attorneys) are allowed discretion for a reason. That would be why people are still getting warnings on traffic citations and charges are being dropped before they come to trial. As I said before and will now elaborate, increasing the max penalty for an offense will mean that big offenders can get hit harder, but it does not necessarily equate to a rise in laymen getting jail time... especially because there is likely no minimum sentence on such an offense.

I would imagine that if the sentence stiffening goes into place, a simple homeowner that hired an illegal to mow their grass would face the same end result in the future as they would now should the police and prosecutors not do their job and prevent this from even coming to trial: At worst, a slap on the wrist and a fine to discourage them from doing it again.

Just to add to the hypocrisy of this thread, Aaron Pena is a DEMOCRAT. One from Hidalgo county (very very southern Texas, actually bordering Mexico along the Rio Grande) and whom consistently votes for immigrant rights. So this story about how the GOP is hypocritical is biased beyond belief. Just an easy attempt at a cheap shot to an opposing political party.

P.S.
I'm not arguing about GOP hypocrisy. My argument covers no political lines and is strictly built on legal interpretation and its repercussions, but this is a good point to make to OP

[WharfRat]

If they can manage to tighten up the wording of the bill, then maybe I can at least not disagree vehemently... because there is a large chasm between intent and end result, especially when there's a buck to be made.

As it's worded now, though, it is clearly distinguishable that all three are a breach of the intent while still falling soundly within the proposed wording. It's just a risk that is taken when a loophole is put directly into a law: someone will find a way to exploit it.



To carry on, this is a weak argument that bypasses my original point. If it is a minor offense that does no harm, it shouldn't be in front of a jury in the first place. The ones enforcing the laws (aka police and prosecuting attorneys) are allowed discretion for a reason. That would be why people are still getting warnings on traffic citations and charges are being dropped before they come to trial. As I said before and will now elaborate, increasing the max penalty for an offense will mean that big offenders can get hit harder, but it does not necessarily equate to a rise in laymen getting jail time... especially because there is likely no minimum sentence on such an offense.

I would imagine that if the sentence stiffening goes into place, a simple homeowner that hired an illegal to mow their grass would face the same end result in the future as they would now should the police and prosecutors not do their job and prevent this from even coming to trial: At worst, a slap on the wrist and a fine to discourage them from doing it again.



P.S.
I'm not arguing about GOP hypocrisy. My argument covers no political lines and is strictly built on legal interpretation and its repercussions, but this is a good point to make to OP

Yeah, I know you weren't making a political point, but I thought I'd bring that to the attention of Warriors.

I still don't agree that your examples count. Directly in the bill it says that you have to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. If you run any of the above businesses, you are required to verify their citizenship status.

The author of this bill stated that this is just a draft and is intended to be discussed further, but the intent realistically has NOTHING to do with housework by illegals. This bill is intended to levy heavy penalties to these companies who do knowingly hire illegals.

Lastly, JCR, the point of this thread was the hypocrisy of the GOP in their political motivations... So although we may disagree on the legal advantages of such an exclusionary rule, this isn't hypocritical. It's a realistic appraisal of the situation in Texas and the thought of attempting to imprison such a high number of people. We simply can't do it.

[jcrdude]

I still don't agree that your examples count. Directly in the bill it says that you have to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant. If you run any of the above businesses, you are required to verify their citizenship status.

I do? I couldn't learn some basic Spanish, pick some up some Mexicans on my way to the site, ask them to help on a job, then pay them cash at the end of the day?

The examples I provided were specifically designed to be the epitome of temporary employment, therefore the theoretical me would have no reason to obtain identification... this approach was specifically designed to use the loophole to save costs.

The author of this bill stated that this is just a draft and is intended to be discussed further, but the intent realistically has NOTHING to do with housework by illegals. This bill is intended to levy heavy penalties to these companies who do knowingly hire illegals.

Again, I have no issue with this if worded correctly.

Lastly, JCR, the point of this thread was the hypocrisy of the GOP in their political motivations... So although we may disagree on the legal advantages of such an exclusionary rule, this isn't hypocritical. It's a realistic appraisal of the situation in Texas and the thought of attempting to imprison such a high number of people. We simply can't do it.

But we've managed to take the proposed topic and make it something more important and relevant. Just like the "Do you believe in god" thread is based off of an opinion question that leaves no option for debate, it's still become a valid topic to debate over.

[WharfRat]

I did more reading on this and it looks like all of our argument was largely irrelevant. The entire law is only applicable to knowingly hiring illegals except in the case of something like lawn care.

The only reason it is excluded is because so many people would end up imprisoned that it would be unsustainable. They are looking to punish large companies for knowingly hiring illegals. (Something that can easily be proven as they ARE required to verify citizenship)

I think that regardless of that small clause, anyone who uses illegals for those purposes could claim it was unknown to them and would be let off.

[jcrdude]

I think that regardless of that small clause, anyone who uses illegals for those purposes could claim it was unknown to them and would be let off.

Precisely. Which is the reason that the clause is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Small offenders should never end up in the realm of trouble, and if they do, they should promptly be out of it with a warning from the police, prosecuting attorney, or judge.