"Civil Rights Act of 2008" admits illegal aliens "undermine the living standards and working conditions of all Americans" (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama)

From our "Isn't it Ironic" file comes the "Civil Rights Act of 2008", brainchild of Senator Ted Kennedy (S.2554, link). Among no doubt many other things, it seeks to close a defense that employers can use when an illegal alien is fired and sues for back pay.

In so doing, the bill admits that employers being able to hire illegal aliens "undermine[s] the living standards and working conditions of all Americans", a somewhat shocking admission considering that almost every leader of the Democratic Party constantly bends over backwards to support and enable illegal immigration. The bill also admits that being able to hire illegal aliens gives those employers an unfair advantage. However, as yet another example of the Dems' inabilities to understand the impacts of their policies, there's nothing in there about enforcing our immigration laws as a way of avoiding problems in the first place. Could their plan be used as a form of attrition? Yes, it might actually reduce illegal immigration by reducing the incentive and thus causing some to go home and others to decide not to come here. However, not so in practice, since with the other hand the Dems would be waving people across our borders.

Nevertheless, a question based on this plan might be a good thing to ask one of the candidates. Since they support something that - absent amnesty - would have an attrition-like effect, why not support attrition through enforcement? And, of course, since they admit the downsides of illegal immigration, Obama and Clinton should be asked exactly how many instances of enforcement of our immigration laws they've supported.

Co-sponsors include:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama (press release here)
Dick Durbin
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumber
Bob Menendez
...and several more.

After a bit of a warm-up and a to-be-expected concern about racial profiling, here's the relevant bits:

...(5) ...In the wake of the Hoffman decision [Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)], defendant employers will now argue that backpay awards to unlawfully discharged undocumented workers are barred under Federal employment statutes and even under State employment statutes.

(6) Because the Hoffman decision prevents the imposition of sanctions on employers who discriminate against undocumented immigrant workers, employers are encouraged to employ such workers for low-paying and dangerous jobs because they have no legal redress for violations of the law. This creates an economic incentive for employers to hire and exploit undocumented workers, which in turn tends to undermine the living standards and working conditions of all Americans, citizens and noncitizens alike.

(7) The Hoffman decision disadvantages many employers as well. Employers who are forced to compete with firms that hire and exploit undocumented immigrant workers are saddled with an economic disadvantage in the labor marketplace. The unintended creation of an economic inducement for employers to exploit undocumented immigrant workers gives those employers an unfair competitive advantage over employers that treat workers lawfully and fairly.

Immigration2008a · Fri, 03/07/2008 - 20:09 · · Importance: 1