Obama's Amnesty Will Offer U.S. Firms $3,000 To Hire Illegals Over Native Born Citizens

[edthecynic]

"then you have to pay a fine and face sanctions for hiring" illegals is absolutely false. Since illegals cannot be covered under ACA by law, the businesses who hire them under the EO get the break.

What part of "it is still illegal to hire illegals" do you not understand?

If you hire an illegal, you face fines and sanctions.

What is with the word games? The OP's point is that, under the EO, formerly "illegal" aliens can now be hired by employers without the requirement to offer health insurance or pay a fine. Do you dispute this assertion?

It is currently illegal for a potential employer to ask about a person’s immigration status when he or she applies for a job. An employer can only ask if an applicant is authorized to work in the United States. As the EEOC notes: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status.”
Documents concerning an employee’s immigration status can only be viewed after a person is hired.

 

[chikenwing]

Washington Times?

Have a credible source?

Actually, he's exactly correct. In a way

Why do you morons refuse to read links you don't like?

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won't have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

Kind of a Catch 22 isn't it?

Republicans demand Obamacare not be available to non-citizens then bitch because employers don't have to pay insurance for them

Which is it? Do you want non-citizens covered or not?

You answered your own question there sparky!!

 

[American Horse]

The Obama has not explicitly offered any subsidy but it amounts to the same thing when people who hire them are not prosecuted for same but enjoy the benefit of not having to pay the penalty which as I read it is $2000.

That in practical terms actually does subsidize hiring illegals over legitimate US citizens and would seem to harm the least skilled or minorities the most.

Your argument collapses on the lie you built into it. The Obama Administration does prosecute companies for hiring illegals. In fact, they have prosecuted way more I-9 violations than the Bush Administration. I even provided an example of one such case, and yet you still chose to lie anyway.

Interesting.

I go with Jake on this; BTW g5000 you are a tool, a fool, and a blackguard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup.

 

[American Horse]

The Obama has not explicitly offered any subsidy but it amounts to the same thing when people who hire them are not prosecuted for same but enjoy the benefit of not having to pay the penalty which as I read it is $2000.

That in practical terms actually does subsidize hiring illegals over legitimate US citizens and would seem to harm the least skilled or minorities the most.

Again, this is just the recycled Cruz lie from the Summer of 2013 the Right used to attack the Rubio immigration reform bill, only Cruz jacked it up to $5,000 then. You know it's a lie when each of the GOP liars gives a different amount!!!!

I don't keep up with Cruz or any other of the commentariot on this subject. I simply go with logic and the law on the penalty for employers who fail - or advantageously elect - to ensure full time employees as of 2014.

" - Large employers that do not offer health insurance coverage will pay an annual penalty of $2,000 for every full-time employee beyond the first 30, as long as the employer has at least one employee who receives subsidized coverage in the local health insurance exchange. This requirement becomes effective in 2014. The penalty amount will be adjusted annually after 2014 to reflect the national increase in insurance premium costs. No penalty applies to part-time workers (those working less than 30 hours a week) who are not offered coverage. - "

Employer Responsibility in Health Reform mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That explains how I arrived at $2000 versus any other figures being repeated

 

[TooTall]

Kind of a Catch 22 isn't it?

Republicans demand Obamacare not be available to non-citizens then bitch because employers don't have to pay insurance for them

Which is it? Do you want non-citizens covered or not?

Then want them escorted to the Rio Grande and drowned.

Nah, give them a boat, a compass and a paddle.

 

[edthecynic]

The Obama has not explicitly offered any subsidy but it amounts to the same thing when people who hire them are not prosecuted for same but enjoy the benefit of not having to pay the penalty which as I read it is $2000.

That in practical terms actually does subsidize hiring illegals over legitimate US citizens and would seem to harm the least skilled or minorities the most.

Again, this is just the recycled Cruz lie from the Summer of 2013 the Right used to attack the Rubio immigration reform bill, only Cruz jacked it up to $5,000 then. You know it's a lie when each of the GOP liars gives a different amount!!!!

I don't keep up with Cruz or any other of the commentariot on this subject. I simply go with logic and the law on the penalty for employers who fail - or advantageously elect - to ensure full time employees as of 2014.

" - Large employers that do not offer health insurance coverage will pay an annual penalty of $2,000 for every full-time employee beyond the first 30, as long as the employer has at least one employee who receives subsidized coverage in the local health insurance exchange. This requirement becomes effective in 2014. The penalty amount will be adjusted annually after 2014 to reflect the national increase in insurance premium costs. No penalty applies to part-time workers (those working less than 30 hours a week) who are not offered coverage. - "

Employer Responsibility in Health Reform mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That explains how I arrived at $2000 versus any other figures being repeated

Again, the employer is not allowed to ask immigration status before the person is hired, so it is hardly any incentive to hire a RPI. The business has to employ 50 or more, not offer insurance and pay so little the employee is eligible for a subsidy.

 

[jwoodie]

"then you have to pay a fine and face sanctions for hiring" illegals is absolutely false. Since illegals cannot be covered under ACA by law, the businesses who hire them under the EO get the break.

What part of "it is still illegal to hire illegals" do you not understand?

If you hire an illegal, you face fines and sanctions.

What is with the word games? The OP's point is that, under the EO, formerly "illegal" aliens can now be hired by employers without the requirement to offer health insurance or pay a fine. Do you dispute this assertion?

It is currently illegal for a potential employer to ask about a person’s immigration status when he or she applies for a job. An employer can only ask if an applicant is authorized to work in the United States. As the EEOC notes: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status.”
Documents concerning an employee’s immigration status can only be viewed after a person is hired.

What is with the word games? The OP's point is that, under the EO, formerly "illegal" aliens can now be hired by employers without the requirement to offer health insurance or pay a fine. Do you dispute this assertion? THIS IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. COMPRENDE?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP has been blown up and can't be resuscitated.

Let's close the thread, please.

 

[jwoodie]

The OP has been blown up and can't be resuscitated.

Let's close the thread, please.

You sound like Obama wanting to close the IRS investigation. I wonder why?

 

[edthecynic]

"then you have to pay a fine and face sanctions for hiring" illegals is absolutely false. Since illegals cannot be covered under ACA by law, the businesses who hire them under the EO get the break.

What part of "it is still illegal to hire illegals" do you not understand?

If you hire an illegal, you face fines and sanctions.

What is with the word games? The OP's point is that, under the EO, formerly "illegal" aliens can now be hired by employers without the requirement to offer health insurance or pay a fine. Do you dispute this assertion?

It is currently illegal for a potential employer to ask about a person’s immigration status when he or she applies for a job. An employer can only ask if an applicant is authorized to work in the United States. As the EEOC notes: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status.”
Documents concerning an employee’s immigration status can only be viewed after a person is hired.

What is with the word games? The OP's point is that, under the EO, formerly "illegal" aliens can now be hired by employers without the requirement to offer health insurance or pay a fine. Do you dispute this assertion? THIS IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. COMPRENDE?

No, the claim is the $3,000 is a hiring incentive, but to be such an incentive requires knowledge prior to hiring that is illegal to have prior to hiring.

 

[rightwinger]

"then you have to pay a fine and face sanctions for hiring" illegals is absolutely false. Since illegals cannot be covered under ACA by law, the businesses who hire them under the EO get the break.

What part of "it is still illegal to hire illegals" do you not understand?

If you hire an illegal, you face fines and sanctions.

What is with the word games? The OP's point is that, under the EO, formerly "illegal" aliens can now be hired by employers without the requirement to offer health insurance or pay a fine. Do you dispute this assertion?

Do you support expanding Obamacare to cover guest workers?

Yes or no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is false.

No hiring incentive was offered to firms.

Firms don't have to hire illegals.

 

[paulitician]

Slave Labor and Votes. That's what it's always been about. So once again, the American Worker gets screwed. This current President does not represent American Citizens' best interests. He represents foreign interests and his own. I don't consider him my President.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whatever, Pauli. You live in our world where he is the president constitutionally, electorally, and legally.

 

[Desperado]

Washington Times?

Have a credible source?

Actually, he's exactly correct. In a way

Why do you morons refuse to read links you don't like?

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won't have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

Another one of those unintended consequences....so prevalent in Washington lately

 

[bripat9643]

"Obama's Amnesty Will Offer U.S. Firms $3,000 To Hire Illegals Over Native Born Citizens"

Clearly a lie given the fact the president's order is not 'amnesty.'

All immigration laws remain in effect and will continue to be enforced, all immigrants will remain subject to those laws, documented and undocumented.

Yep, and the 4 million illegals Obama supposedly "pardoned" are still subject to deportation the minute we get a president with some testicles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will have an immigration bill before then, bripat.