alt.politics.economics

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:21:32 +0000, royls wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:03:42 -0400, "sinister"
> wrote:
>
>>It's clear that a crackdown on employers would be far more
>>effective---cracking down on immigrants will, if anything, _lower_ their
>>wages (and make them that much more competitive against other workers),
>>because they'll be that much more beholden to the good faith of their
>>employers. And employers have much more to lose. (Imagine what would
>>happen in a strict enforcement regime where hiring an illegal immigrant was
>>a felony punishable by a minimum of 6 months in jail.)
>
> I imagine they'd just hire patsies to serve the hard time. Make it
> punishable by a _mandatory_ fine of six months' _revenue_, and you'll
> have something.

I would at least attempt to PAY for the cost of enforcement through the
collections of the fines. That includes all discovery, serving, and
prosecutorial costs. More can be added if the costs to the employers seem
insufficient to fund the program. This is, to me, the real point of fines
as compared to jail time. It costs _ME_ money to put someone in jail.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson