Temporary Amnesty and the ACA

[Naxere]

Oh boy. Someone really didn't think this through did they?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ses-have-3000/

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

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.

[Deleted]

Bigger push for congress to actually pass a bill.

[ArmoredDragoon]

Milton Friedman once said that illegal immigration is good so long as it remains illegal. What he meant by that is that it's fine so long as they don't receive public benefits (and thus being an economic burden.) So this is at least a step in the right direction (denying benefits) as immigrants otherwise increase the size and scale of the economy rather than simply "take jobs away."

Though on the downside what we need are skilled workers. Illegal immigration tends to not be that.

[Naxere]

It begs the question, if you have the option to a) hire someone here illegally but granted temporary amnesty, or b) hire a citizen for the same low-skilled job, why would you hire the citizen? Saving $3,000 on someone you're paying minimum wage to is a roughly 20% cost savings per employee per year.

[Felya]

Does amnesty apply to employers of illegal immigrants?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Milton Friedman once said that illegal immigration is good so long as it remains illegal. What he meant by that is that it's fine so long as they don't receive public benefits (and thus being an economic burden.) So this is at least a step in the right direction (denying benefits) as immigrants otherwise increase the size and scale of the economy rather than simply "take jobs away."

Though on the downside what we need are skilled workers. Illegal immigration tends to not be that.

All of these arguments against immigration are incredibly one sided. They never factor in the increase in aggregate demand or production.

[Endus]

Oh boy. Someone really didn't think this through did they?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ses-have-3000/

The article's a mess, and the argument they make is internally contradictory.

If these people have been given amnesty, then they are legally in the country, and can get work permits, meaning they are not in any way, shape, or form "illegal immigrants".

Plus, there's nothing magical or special about "native-born workers". An immigrant who became a citizen last Tuesday is just as much an American as someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower. The only time there is a difference is if they want to become President of the United States. For literally every other purpose, the newly-minted citizen is as American as anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

It begs the question, if you have the option to a) hire someone here illegally but granted temporary amnesty, or b) hire a citizen for the same low-skilled job, why would you hire the citizen? Saving $3,000 on someone you're paying minimum wage to is a roughly 20% cost savings per employee per year.

Option a) is hiring someone who's here legally.
And really, this boils down to capitalism. You're describing market forces in the labor market. I would be totally there if you wanted to talk about how poorly the labor market functions as a market, for the benefit of the people, but usually, you're on the other side of that discussion, IIRC. Which would make your stance here a bit hypocritical.

If, however, you're in favor of controls and management of the labor market to ensure the welfare of working citizens, as I am, and I'm wrong about your usual stance, then I apologize for mistaking you for someone else. But it's one or the other, really.

[jordonus]

The article's a mess, and the argument they make is internally contradictory.

If these people have been given amnesty, then they are legally in the country, and can get work permits, meaning they are not in any way, shape, or form "illegal immigrants".

You're joking right? The article is talking about the amnesty, and its interaction with the ACA. These people would otherwise be illegal immigrants and that's the point of the article. Trying to use this imagined error to support an attempted discrediting via. calling it "internally contradictory" is just grasping at straws, not surprising though.

[Endus]

You're joking right? The article is talking about the amnesty, and its interaction with the ACA.

Yes. That doesn't actually affect anything I said.

These people would otherwise be illegal immigrants and that's the point of the article.

Yes, and it's an internally contradictory point because they are not illegal immigrants. They are, explicitly, in the USA legally. That's what this amnesty means.

[Kapadons]

So wait, they actually did "take our jerbs"?

[jordonus]

Yes. That doesn't actually affect anything I said.

Yes, and it's an internally contradictory point because they are not illegal immigrants. They are, explicitly, in the USA legally. That's what this amnesty means.

The whole point of the article is that they would otherwise still be illegal immigrants. With the amnesty they can now be employed, legally, by businesses and, as a result of its interaction with the ACA (not eligible), they are more attractive than everyone else in a lot of circumstances. There is absolutely nothing internally contradictory about that.

[Endus]

The whole point of the article is that they would otherwise still be illegal immigrants.

But they aren't. What they would have been in an alternative universe under completely different circumstances is completely and utterly irrelevant. They are not illegal immigrants.

With the amnesty they can now be employed, legally, by businesses and, as a result of its interaction with the ACA (not eligible), they are more attractive than everyone else in a lot of circumstances. There is absolutely nothing internally contradictory about that.

No, but this isn't hiring illegal immigrants to do anything, either. That is the internal contradiction. These people are not illegal immigrants.

[jordonus]

But they aren't. What they would have been in an alternative universe under completely different circumstances is completely and utterly irrelevant. They are not illegal immigrants.



No, but this isn't hiring illegal immigrants to do anything, either. That is the internal contradiction. These people are not illegal immigrants.

Comprehension 10/10, as usual. It doesn't matter what they are called in this context, even using the term illegal immigrants is completely justifiable when discussing the amnesty because that's what they are: illegal immigrants being granted something via. the amnesty. The point of the article is to shed some light on the fact that the policies come together to create a situation in which this group of people, regardless of what you wish to call them, is more attractive to employers, than everyone else, for a variety of situations. You can keep grasping at straws all you want, but the reality is that the article is not internally contradictory.

[Endus]

Comprehension 10/10, as usual. It doesn't matter what they are called in this context, even using the term illegal immigrants is completely justifiable when discussing the amnesty because that's what they are: illegal immigrants being granted something via. the amnesty.

The moment they're granted the amnesty, they cease to be illegal immigrants. That's the entire point of the amnesty, in the first place.

So yes. It does matter what they're called. Calling them "illegal immigrants" when they are no in any way illegal immigrants is prejudicial.

[jordonus]

The moment they're granted the amnesty, they cease to be illegal immigrants. That's the entire point of the amnesty, in the first place.

So yes. It does matter what they're called. Calling them "illegal immigrants" when they are no in any way illegal immigrants is prejudicial.

Amazing. You can repeat yourself like a broken record until the end of time, it won't change the fact that you were wrong. Next time try to set aside the bias and actually read an article first. Learn from the mistake and move on.

[Endus]

Amazing. You can repeat yourself like a broken record until the end of time, it won't change the fact that you were wrong. Next time try to set aside the bias and actually read an article first. Learn from the mistake and move on.

You haven't actually explained any way that I was wrong.

They aren't illegal immigrants. They were granted amnesty, and thus they are in the USA legally. That's plain fact. It doesn't in any way matter that they were undocumented, they're covered by the amnesty law now.

They aren't illegal immigrants. Describing them as such is factually wrong.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The whole point of the article is that they would otherwise still be illegal immigrants. With the amnesty they can now be employed, legally, by businesses and, as a result of its interaction with the ACA (not eligible), they are more attractive than everyone else in a lot of circumstances. There is absolutely nothing internally contradictory about that.

If they're still illegal then the business would still get into trouble for employing them. Also, you don't generally get to ignore laws regarding illegal immigrants except when you can leverage their illegal status against them. People get away with paying illegals less than minimum wage because the illegals don't have a choice, but if they're given a pass, then they can't leverage that against them.

[jordonus]

You haven't actually explained any way that I was wrong.

They aren't illegal immigrants. They were granted amnesty, and thus they are in the USA legally. That's plain fact. It doesn't in any way matter that they were undocumented, they're covered by the amnesty law now.

They aren't illegal immigrants. Describing them as such is factually wrong.

You made a claim that the article is internally contradictory because it used the term illegal immigrants to describe people covered by the amnesty law.

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

Under the new amnesty businesses will have an incentive to employ these illegal immigrants. They are discussing the amnesty, and its interaction with the ACA, and they are referring to the group of people as what they are prior to the amnesty being implemented... because that's the way they identify them as a group, that is the common factor there: they are all illegal immigrants prior to this law being implemented. This sets up the context for the article.

You are either being extremely dishonest at this point or seriously need to demand a refund from whatever institution taught you basic reading comprehension.

- - - Updated - - -

If they're still illegal then the business would still get into trouble for employing them. Also, you don't generally get to ignore laws regarding illegal immigrants except when you can leverage their illegal status against them. People get away with paying illegals less than minimum wage because the illegals don't have a choice, but if they're given a pass, then they can't leverage that against them.

I am not taking a stance on this, I am simply pointing out the dishonesty in this thread in which there is an attempt to discredit the article by declaring it, falsely, internally contradictory.

[Endus]

You made a claim that the article is internally contradictory because it used the term illegal immigrants to describe people covered by the amnesty law.

Yes. Because that's an internal contradiction. Because they aren't illegal immigrants, due to the fact that they're covered by the amnesty law.

Under the new amnesty

businesses will have an incentive to employ these illegal immigrants. They are discussing the amnesty, and its interaction with the ACA, and they are referring to the group of people as what they are prior to the amnesty being implemented... because that's the way they identify them as a group, that is the common factor there: they are all illegal immigrants prior to this law being implemented. This sets up the context for the article.

Prior to the amnesty, they can't be hired, and it isn't a factor.

Post-amnesty, they aren't illegal immigrants at all.

At no point can you hire illegal immigrants legally to save money on ACA payments.

[Felya]

When did buying insurance from exchanges and ineligibility to access it, have anything to do with a penalty employers pay for not providing insurance? Them being ineligible to receive subsidies through exchanges, does in no way excuse their employees from providing insurance. People go to exchanges when the employer does not provide insurance, not the other way around.

Also, them no longer being illegal, would mean they get recorded on the books just like any other employee and would result in employer accruing the same penalty, as for any other legal employee. It is only without amnisty, would these employees be paid under the table and thus do not accrue a penalty for not providing insurance.

- - - Updated - - -

At no point can you hire illegal immigrants legally to save money on ACA payments.

Unlawfully paying 'under the table' to avoid documentation. The way to avoid ACA payments, is to hire undocumented workers... the opposite of amnesty...