The new proposed immigration bill does not allow amnestied illegals to receive benefits (think health care) from employers for 13 years. The question to Senator Max Baucus was “would the bill create a financial incentive for some employers to hire amenestied immigrants instead of American citizens?” Baucus didn’t know the answer to the question. He voted to cut off further discussion about immigration reform, S. 744.
“Under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead.” Source: Weekly Standard
Baucus isn’t the only purposefully clueless supporter of S. 744 who doesn’t have an answer to the question of whether or not businesses with over 50 employees, choosing not to provide health care, can avoid the unconstitutional penalty of a $3000.00 fine per employee by hiring illegals. If you employee 60, will 11 legals lose their jobs to newly legalized Americans? The Weekly Standard says they asked five Democrat Senators the same question (four Senators not identified) and none had an answer.
Let’s be clear about something. In a free market, if a new immigrant worker can do a job better than an American worker for a cheaper price, there shouldn’t be a problem with a business hiring the immigrant.
But when the immigration bill interacts with Obamacare’s employer mandate, it functions as a reverse tariff against hiring American citizens. It would be like subjecting Americans to a $3,000 tax on purchasing American cars, while allowing them to avoid that tax by purchasing cars from Germany, Japan, or any other country other than America. That’s not free trade. That’s government rigging the game against American citizens. Source: Washington Examiner, Philip Klein
Klein spoke with Senator Marco Rubio’s spokesman, Alex Conant. As Klein said, Rubio is losing more and more credibility by the day among conservatives “and has shown absolutely no leadership on trying to resolve this problem.”
When I contacted Conant for an update on Monday, he said that Rubio’s position is that “the problem is Obamacare, and it’s an argument for repealing Obamacare.” But that’s just a nonsense position. However unlikely it is that Obamacare ever gets fully repealed, there’s zero chance it gets repealed while Obama is president. And if the immigration bill passes, immigrants would be granted legal status before January 20, 2017 (and that date assumes that a Republican president and Senate could magically zap out Obamacare in one day). So, immigration law has to be crafted assuming that Obamacare will remain the law of the land. –
…there’s another problem with Rubio’s position. If this is such a good argument for repealing Obamacare, then why isn’t he making it? Specifically, why isn’t he making the argument that because of Obamacare, it’s difficult to reform immigration without creating the unintended consequences of slapping a massive tariff on hiring American citizens? The reality is that Rubio has become so invested in immigration reform that he doesn’t want to seriously grapple with a complex issue like this that could blow the whole thing up. Source: Philip Klein, Washington Examiner
The official title of S. 744 is the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The economic opportunity seems to be weighted heavily toward the newly legalized.
“It is a myth that immigrants only take those jobs that Americans no longer want and therefore do not compete with American workers,” Californians for Population Stabilization executive director Jo Wideman pointed out earlier in the year.
“Excessive immigration is responsible for unemployment, underemployment and depressed wages and working conditions, not just for the working class (e.g., janitors, dry-wall hangers, gardeners and construction workers) but increasingly, for high-tech professions, such as IT and engineering, as well.”
“There is a common misperception that immigration laws exist to facilitate the orderly admission of foreign nationals who would like to live in the U.S.,” Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, explained last summer. “In reality, immigration laws exist to protect the vital interests of the people of the United States and, only then, to ensure the orderly admission of people we choose to open our doors to.” Source: Americans for Legal Immigration
Legalizing illegals through law doesn’t wipe out the fact that they will forever remain lawbreakers in the eyes of a majority of Americans.