SENATE BILL: No Contracts for Illegals Act (Law'd)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:03:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: No Contracts for Illegals Act (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: No Contracts for Illegals Act (Law'd)  (Read 4662 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 10, 2011, 11:37:42 PM »
« edited: May 03, 2011, 09:17:42 PM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: HappyWarrior
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2011, 04:28:38 AM »

I can't oppose this, even though I have some moral issues with causing illegal immigrants to get fired and don't offer them any path to regularization.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2011, 08:57:20 AM »

There's also an issue of size, scope and intent. Would one illegal hired as a janitor by the maintenance supervisor and a Boeing regional office deprive entire company from producing planes for the government? Under this bill's current language the answer is "yes". The USAF would no doubt love to hear that updating their 30+ year old line of refueling planes will be delayed a year because it turns out Raul the janitor didn't have his green card. Tongue

Also, this bill doesn't have any distinction between companies that knowingly hire illegals and those acting in good faith but fooled by forged documents and the like.

MUCH amending needed here, IMHO.
Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2011, 09:14:20 AM »

There's also an issue of size, scope and intent. Would one illegal hired as a janitor by the maintenance supervisor and a Boeing regional office deprive entire company from producing planes for the government? Under this bill's current language the answer is "yes". The USAF would no doubt love to hear that updating their 30+ year old line of refueling planes will be delayed a year because it turns out Raul the janitor didn't have his green card. Tongue

Also, this bill doesn't have any distinction between companies that knowingly hire illegals and those acting in good faith but fooled by forged documents and the like.

MUCH amending needed here, IMHO.

I would be happy to discuss amendments with my fellow Senators.  Smiley
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2011, 09:27:14 AM »

I'd love to propose an amendment, HappyWarrior Smiley



No Contracts for Illegals Act

1)  Any organization with federal Atlasian government contracts which is found to knowingly employee illegal immigrants will lose their contracts promptly following the discovery of these immigrants.

2)  These organizations shall be added to a list of companies which shall not be given any sort of government contracts for one year.

3)  Any government money paid for these contracts shall be returned in fines.

4) The bill is not affecting contracts for companies, that employed illegal immigrants without knowing their legal status. Said companies are required to remove any illegal employees within a period of two months instead.
Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2011, 10:13:59 AM »

I'd love to propose an amendment, HappyWarrior Smiley



No Contracts for Illegals Act

1)  Any organization with federal Atlasian government contracts which is found to knowingly employee illegal immigrants will lose their contracts promptly following the discovery of these immigrants.

2)  These organizations shall be added to a list of companies which shall not be given any sort of government contracts for one year.

3)  Any government money paid for these contracts shall be returned in fines.

4) The bill is not affecting contracts for companies, that employed illegal immigrants without knowing their legal status. Said companies are required to remove any illegal employees within a period of two months instead.

I'm not sure I do think I'd like to have some mechanism whereby those looking for federal contracts should actually have to pay attention to who they're hiring,  I don't like the idea of them just being able to say, "I didn't know!
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2011, 10:41:47 AM »

I'd love to propose an amendment, HappyWarrior Smiley



No Contracts for Illegals Act

1)  Any organization with federal Atlasian government contracts which is found to knowingly employee illegal immigrants will lose their contracts promptly following the discovery of these immigrants.

2)  These organizations shall be added to a list of companies which shall not be given any sort of government contracts for one year.

3)  Any government money paid for these contracts shall be returned in fines.

4) The bill is not affecting contracts for companies, that employed illegal immigrants without knowing their legal status. Said companies are required to remove any illegal employees within a period of two months instead.

I'm not sure I do think I'd like to have some mechanism whereby those looking for federal contracts should actually have to pay attention to who they're hiring,  I don't like the idea of them just being able to say, "I didn't know!
Agreed. I'm not sure how we can really judge whether or not an employer actually knew they were hiring illegal immigrants.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2011, 12:21:36 PM »

I'd love to propose an amendment, HappyWarrior Smiley



No Contracts for Illegals Act

1)  Any organization with federal Atlasian government contracts which is found to knowingly employee illegal immigrants will lose their contracts promptly following the discovery of these immigrants.

2)  These organizations shall be added to a list of companies which shall not be given any sort of government contracts for one year.

3)  Any government money paid for these contracts shall be returned in fines.

4) The bill is not affecting contracts for companies, that employed illegal immigrants without knowing their legal status. Said companies are required to remove any illegal employees within a period of two months instead.

I'm not sure I do think I'd like to have some mechanism whereby those looking for federal contracts should actually have to pay attention to who they're hiring,  I don't like the idea of them just being able to say, "I didn't know!
Agreed. I'm not sure how we can really judge whether or not an employer actually knew they were hiring illegal immigrants.

And again, there's a total lack of scope here with a one size fits all levels of violations punishment. There's no distinction given between some small business subcontractor that commits large scale violations of hiring illegals for much of their workforce vs a huge company with thousands of employees across multiple states whose regional office manager hires an illegal as janitor despite fishy documentation. While the level of wrongdoing is much greater in the first instance, the penalty is the same regardless: both companies lose all federal contracts.

The impact of this penalty can also be quite disparate and out of proportion to the level of wrongdoing as well. In the first instance the small business might (justifiably) lose a $100k annual contract for landscaping at a federal building, but in the second instance the one time malfeasance of a single regional HR chief could cost a large company (e.g. Boeing) litterally billions in contracts. That's simply not fair or equitable.

There's also a real issue about breach of contract for services performed. Again think about a company like Boeing would suddenly owe billions for planes constructed and delivered for any violation of a corporate underling. Frankly, would it be that hard to envision a government agency under financial pressure (i.e. all of them) trying to catch a contractor on any illegal hiring at any level by calling in contacts at INS in order to skate out of the contract after services have mostly been provided?

There's no provision for allowing contracts the government absolutely needs filled. Again, think of Boeing and the tanker deal. Yes, the Skybus consortium could pick it up eventually, but that would require MAJOR restructuring of a contract that already took years to negotiate and award. On top of that, how many companies would want to engage in large contracts with the government knowing a single violation of immigration laws could bankrupt them?

While well intended, this punishment system needs to be scraped. A system of fines and/or criminal prosecution for case by case individual violations would work much better. However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.
Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2011, 01:22:52 PM »

I'd love to propose an amendment, HappyWarrior Smiley



No Contracts for Illegals Act

1)  Any organization with federal Atlasian government contracts which is found to knowingly employee illegal immigrants will lose their contracts promptly following the discovery of these immigrants.

2)  These organizations shall be added to a list of companies which shall not be given any sort of government contracts for one year.

3)  Any government money paid for these contracts shall be returned in fines.

4) The bill is not affecting contracts for companies, that employed illegal immigrants without knowing their legal status. Said companies are required to remove any illegal employees within a period of two months instead.

I'm not sure I do think I'd like to have some mechanism whereby those looking for federal contracts should actually have to pay attention to who they're hiring,  I don't like the idea of them just being able to say, "I didn't know!
Agreed. I'm not sure how we can really judge whether or not an employer actually knew they were hiring illegal immigrants.

And again, there's a total lack of scope here with a one size fits all levels of violations punishment. There's no distinction given between some small business subcontractor that commits large scale violations of hiring illegals for much of their workforce vs a huge company with thousands of employees across multiple states whose regional office manager hires an illegal as janitor despite fishy documentation. While the level of wrongdoing is much greater in the first instance, the penalty is the same regardless: both companies lose all federal contracts.

The impact of this penalty can also be quite disparate and out of proportion to the level of wrongdoing as well. In the first instance the small business might (justifiably) lose a $100k annual contract for landscaping at a federal building, but in the second instance the one time malfeasance of a single regional HR chief could cost a large company (e.g. Boeing) litterally billions in contracts. That's simply not fair or equitable.

There's also a real issue about breach of contract for services performed. Again think about a company like Boeing would suddenly owe billions for planes constructed and delivered for any violation of a corporate underling. Frankly, would it be that hard to envision a government agency under financial pressure (i.e. all of them) trying to catch a contractor on any illegal hiring at any level by calling in contacts at INS in order to skate out of the contract after services have mostly been provided?

There's no provision for allowing contracts the government absolutely needs filled. Again, think of Boeing and the tanker deal. Yes, the Skybus consortium could pick it up eventually, but that would require MAJOR restructuring of a contract that already took years to negotiate and award. On top of that, how many companies would want to engage in large contracts with the government knowing a single violation of immigration laws could bankrupt them?

While well intended, this punishment system needs to be scraped. A system of fines and/or criminal prosecution for case by case individual violations would work much better. However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.

Happy to see you are so involved in this debate Mr. GM.  What sort of system would you suggest?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2011, 04:54:37 PM »

Hm, how to clarify that companies which were proved to be aware of hiring illegals, are to be denied any contracts, while those, who are proved to hire by honest mistake, receive other treatment?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2011, 05:37:05 PM »

Happy to see you are so involved in this debate Mr. GM.  What sort of system would you suggest?

While well intended, this punishment system needs to be scraped. A system of fines and/or criminal prosecution for case by case individual violations would work much better. However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should also work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.

Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2011, 09:09:21 AM »

Happy to see you are so involved in this debate Mr. GM.  What sort of system would you suggest?

While well intended, this punishment system needs to be scraped. A system of fines and/or criminal prosecution for case by case individual violations would work much better. However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should also work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.



I saw that you had posted that, I meant in terms of specifics.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2011, 06:57:38 PM »

Also, the question of verification. How are companies to know someone is illegal or not? I mean if you establish a procedure (and one that works hopefully Tongue)and say "Do this to find out if your employees/prospective employees are legal or not". Then you got standards to prove knowingly hiring an illegal, because if they run it through and it comes back as being illegal and then they hire them anyway, you have a paper trail of some sort proving guilt. Also you can penalize the failure to use the process in whatever way with whatever designation is most fitting such a crime of neglecting to check.

Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2011, 08:13:24 PM »

This is very tricky issue. I'd love to hear opinion of someone with actual legal experience, like current or former AG.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2011, 05:20:06 PM »

Happy to see you are so involved in this debate Mr. GM.  What sort of system would you suggest?

While well intended, this punishment system needs to be scraped. A system of fines and/or criminal prosecution for case by case individual violations would work much better. However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should also work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.



I saw that you had posted that, I meant in terms of specifics.

Uh-uh. Since leaving the Senate I'm more a "broad ideas/nitpick other people's specifics" kind of guy. Wink
Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2011, 06:36:29 PM »

Happy to see you are so involved in this debate Mr. GM.  What sort of system would you suggest?

While well intended, this punishment system needs to be scraped. A system of fines and/or criminal prosecution for case by case individual violations would work much better. However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should also work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.



I saw that you had posted that, I meant in terms of specifics.

Uh-uh. Since leaving the Senate I'm more a "broad ideas/nitpick other people's specifics" kind of guy. Wink

Sheesh.  Guess I'll have to work on those specifics.....
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2011, 07:56:27 PM »

Can we get a time frame on whne those specifics will be coming?
Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2011, 09:42:12 PM »

Can we get a time frame on whne those specifics will be coming?

Its gonna take me some times, probably a few days.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2011, 05:38:45 PM »

What would be the general reaction if "E-verify" were to be quietly included at the 11th hour, late at night, behind closed doors? Grin
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2011, 06:28:46 PM »

What would be the general reaction if "E-verify" were to be quietly included at the 11th hour, late at night, behind closed doors? Grin

It would be applauded.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2011, 07:15:15 PM »

However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should also work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.


I like this idea. I would be very reluctant to support criminal penalties.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2011, 09:50:32 PM »

However, statutorily requiring a company's record of violations of hiring laws be a factor for consideration in the awarding of government contracts should also work fine. It encourages businesses to follow laws to stay competitive in the bidding process, yet allows the government to factor in the extent of violations and any need for specialized services it can't do without for national security and the like.


I like this idea. I would be very reluctant to support criminal penalties.


Such an exception for critical national security items could be included in practically any bill dealing with this and definately wouldn't preclude a tougher hand be taken, which I am definately in favor of. I plan to offer more on my thoughts tomorrow when I have more time.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2011, 10:31:25 PM »

Any serious bill would have to include the following five things in some way.
1. An effective verification mechanism.

2. Penalties and standards (incorporating the "rap sheet idea" preposed by ...)

3. Phase-in period to allow companies to become compliant.

4. A further exemption lasting several months on top of #3 for critical for defense/security industries to become compliant.

5. Protections against abuse and racial discrimination (this is meant to get rid of illegals not persecute people based on skin color). No one should be fired based on how they look but based on the feed back of the verification system. "The color blind provision".

Denying them the contract would be a part of a penalty. You would also use the case by case basis thing and the use of past history ideas suggested by Badger and co. Above all though, you need a concrete, effective system by which companies can check (makes the task much easier on their end while simultaneously removing the excuse "we didn't know".  A win-win situation, for someone truly interested in seeing this work and seeing a "crackdown on employers" rather than just lip service to the idea which is basically what the RL Democrats are doing).  You of course have a phase in periods and exceptions for certain situations. And very important atleast acknowledgind current laws regarding discrimination and referencing existing penalities or creating new ones if necessary for those who try to use this to discriminate.

Logged
HappyWarrior
hannibal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,058


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.35

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2011, 10:16:20 AM »

Any serious bill would have to include the following five things in some way.
1. An effective verification mechanism.

2. Penalties and standards (incorporating the "rap sheet idea" preposed by ...)

3. Phase-in period to allow companies to become compliant.

4. A further exemption lasting several months on top of #3 for critical for defense/security industries to become compliant.

5. Protections against abuse and racial discrimination (this is meant to get rid of illegals not persecute people based on skin color). No one should be fired based on how they look but based on the feed back of the verification system. "The color blind provision".

Denying them the contract would be a part of a penalty. You would also use the case by case basis thing and the use of past history ideas suggested by Badger and co. Above all though, you need a concrete, effective system by which companies can check (makes the task much easier on their end while simultaneously removing the excuse "we didn't know".  A win-win situation, for someone truly interested in seeing this work and seeing a "crackdown on employers" rather than just lip service to the idea which is basically what the RL Democrats are doing).  You of course have a phase in periods and exceptions for certain situations. And very important atleast acknowledgind current laws regarding discrimination and referencing existing penalities or creating new ones if necessary for those who try to use this to discriminate.



This is going to take a lot of amendments lol.  I'm still trying to think of the most effective way to do this.  Anybody who wants to help on the actual amendments I certainly wouldn't turn it away.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2011, 05:04:28 PM »

1 and 5 are the hardest and most important.


3 could look something like this.

The provisions of this bill will come into effect on ______.


or


No penalties will be issued prior to _________.



4. Any company that receives gov't contracts and produces vital and important supplies critical to National Security as determined by (Insert agency), will recieve an extra (insert number) (insert unit of time such as weeks, months or years) to become compliant with the provisions of this bill.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.