Illegal Alien Employment Bill

[Ebowed]

[1] Err, are you suggesting a bill that keeps the illegals illegal but pays them full wages? How would that work? You have not mentioned anything like a guest-worker program (which in some form I support) so I'm not sure if you are referring to that.

[2] Lewis has a good point, although it would be nice to hear just what the "other immigration reform" you all have in mind is.

[1] To some extent, yes.  If the Senate is unwilling to consider other illegal immigration reforms (such as making the legal immigration process easier, amnesty in some form, etc.), making it illegal to pay the illegals below minimum wage while keeping them illegal would be a temporary stop-gap measure.  I don't believe it would be nearly as bad for both the economy and the illegals as the current bill.

[2] Personally, I support amnesty for all current illegals (assuming they haven't committed any violent crimes or a threat to national security, of course).  Then loosening up the immigration process, combined with requiring companies to pay regular wages to employees regardless of race, ethnicity, or recent immigration status (i.e. no assuming that a Mexican is an "illegal" or former illegal and therefore give him $4.50 an hour), with harsh crackdowns, would be my preferred solution.

[WMS]

[1] Err, are you suggesting a bill that keeps the illegals illegal but pays them full wages? How would that work? You have not mentioned anything like a guest-worker program (which in some form I support) so I'm not sure if you are referring to that.

[2] Lewis has a good point, although it would be nice to hear just what the "other immigration reform" you all have in mind is.

[1] To some extent, yes.  If the Senate is unwilling to consider other illegal immigration reforms (such as making the legal immigration process easier, amnesty in some form, etc.), making it illegal to pay the illegals below minimum wage while keeping them illegal would be a temporary stop-gap measure.  I don't believe it would be nearly as bad for both the economy and the illegals as the current bill.

[2] Personally, I support amnesty for all current illegals (assuming they haven't committed any violent crimes or a threat to national security, of course).  Then loosening up the immigration process, combined with requiring companies to pay regular wages to employees regardless of race, ethnicity, or recent immigration status (i.e. no assuming that a Mexican is an "illegal" or former illegal and therefore give him $4.50 an hour), with harsh crackdowns, would be my preferred solution.

[1] Well, I'm willing to consider additional reforms - I've been very consistent on this issue. I'm not sure it would be that bad for the economy - yes, I know the importance of the work the illegals do, although I'd rather it not be at the cost of treating them like, let's see, drawing from the historical analogy bag, serfs.

[2] That's not a bad stance...

I'm really getting the impression this issue needs a rather comprehensive solution...

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain:

1) A proof of residency is to be required to gain employment in Atlasia.
2) Employers who knowingly employee illegal aliens are liable to pay a fine of $5000 on first occurance and $10,000 for all subsequent occurances.
3) Employers that knowingly accept stolen social security numbers and/or other fraudulent documentation are to be charged with fraud and are liable to be fined $10,000 per occurance.

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[Dr. Cynic]

I think Senator Jas' proposal of a fine over imprisonment is a fairer punishment.

Aye.

[MasterJedi]

Abstain

[Virginian87]

Aye.

[jerusalemcar5]

Aye.

[Jake]

Aye

[Speed of Sound]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

With 6 'Ayes', 0 'Nays' and 1 Abstention, this amendment has passed

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

4) Immigration visas shall only be denied to a prosprective immigrant if this person

a.  has a criminal record

     i. the act of illegal immigration prior to the passage of this bill shall not be deemed a criminal act

b.  is deemed a credible threat to national security

5) Any person on any immigration visa that is convicted of one felony or two misdemeanors shall have their visa immediately revoked and must be deported

6) After two years in Atlasia any immigrant who is not employed and paying taxes shall be deported

'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

The debate for another amendment starts as soon as a vote for another ends so that means there has to be 24 hours before that amendment can be voted on.

[Јas]

FTR, Aye to my own amendment.

I've decided to try and add another amendment. Comments have been made suggesting that the immediate introduction of the bill's sanctions would have severe detrimental effects on many Atlasian businesses. I am inclined to agree, and so suggest that the imposition of sanctions be suspended for a year giving affected businesses some time to get tehir houses in order. I suggest a grace period of one year in this regard.

Thus I put forward the following amendment to be added whereever deemed appropriate by the PPT to the text of the bill if successful:

Sections 2 & 3 of this Act shall not become operative until 30 September 2007.

[True Democrat]

I would urge the Senate to vote against this amendment in its current form.  This excludes any immigrant with a criminal record.  What if they are a political prisoner from Cuba, but officially have a criminal record?  Should we exclude them?

[Speed of Sound]

I would urge the Senate to vote against this amendment in its current form.  This excludes any immigrant with a criminal record.  What if they are a political prisoner from Cuba, but officially have a criminal record?  Should we exclude them?

I must agree. Not to mention, it means the senate would be defining a prison as one who cannot ever change his ways; a ridiculous notion.

[WMS]

Aye on Jas' amendment FTR.

[jerusalemcar5]

I would urge the Senate to vote against this amendment in its current form.  This excludes any immigrant with a criminal record.  What if they are a political prisoner from Cuba, but officially have a criminal record?  Should we exclude them?

It does not mandate that a criminal record mean rejection.  It allows immigration officials to use a criminal record as criteria to reject someone.  Obviously no official would count political dissent as a crime.

[Speed of Sound]

I would urge the Senate to vote against this amendment in its current form.  This excludes any immigrant with a criminal record.  What if they are a political prisoner from Cuba, but officially have a criminal record?  Should we exclude them?

It does not mandate that a criminal record mean rejection.  It allows immigration officials to use a criminal record as criteria to reject someone.  Obviously no official would count political dissent as a crime.

Depends on who youre hiring. If you hire a horrendeously racist person, they will certainly twist the words of the system. Im afraid this isnt "Happy Idealistic World".

[Democratic Hawk]

The debate for another amendment starts as soon as a vote for another ends so that means there has to be 24 hours before that amendment can be voted on.

I think I may have misinterpreted the term concurrent in the context of the Section 2: Rules on the Introduction of Amendment(s), Clause 2 of the OSPR:

2. If two (2) or more amendments are contained within a single post by any Senator, the debate time for such a proposal shall be the same as it would be for a single Amendment. If two (2) or more Amendments are contained within two or more separate posts, each post shall be treated as a separate Amendment, with debate time allocated for each single post being concurrent with the provisions for each single Amendment in Section 3 of this Article

Section 3: Rules on the Senate Debate of Amendment(s)

1. After an Amendment is proposed, it shall be debated for no less than twenty-four (24) hours and for no more than seventy-two hours.

2. If debate on the Amendment under consideration has halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours during the timeframe specified by Clause 1, any senator may call for a vote on said amendment.

Basically, I've misinterpreted the term 'concurrent' and assumed the debate runs concurrently from the time that they were introduced, rather than from the time the vote on the previous amendment ends

My apologies, debate continues on Senator Jerusalemcar5's amendment

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

4) Immigration visas shall only be denied to a prosprective immigrant if this person

a.  has a criminal record

     i. the act of illegal immigration prior to the passage of this bill shall not be deemed a criminal act

b.  is deemed a credible threat to national security

5) Any person on any immigration visa that is convicted of one felony or two misdemeanors shall have their visa immediately revoked and must be deported

6) After two years in Atlasia any immigrant who is not employed and paying taxes shall be deported

'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

Nay

I like everything clause 4, it makes it sound like everybody can come in if they don 'th ave a criminal record.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would wonder if this country would grant escapees from dicatorial regimes political asylum? Until I see assurances that we would protect those from their opressive governments, especially if they are political criminals, then I would vote aye, until then though:

ABSTAIN.

[WMS]

Abstain.

[Democratic Hawk]

Nay . This Bill addresses the issue of illegal alien employment. I think the wider issues of who should and should not be allowed to immigrate should be addressed separately

'Hawk'