you sell bread, hire an illegal, report them at the end of the year. Your company made more money than the exact same company that didn't hire an illegal

@Grenade123 Why would you want to deport more illegals when you could simply remove the incentives for people to illegally enter the country in the first place? It's kind of redundant if you are willing to bring them in just to report them and have them removed.

bingo

and PAY "incentives" to the ones that report them

he's just making it even more profitable

the only reason i suggested pay is because i didn't think the "waiver to avoid being fined to death in exchange for all the illegals you employ" would provide a strong enough inventive. although would be my preferred route as it removes the inventive to hide from the government by just going "hey, if you get caught, we'll let you off the hook in exchange for all the illegals". Then he just goes down to the home depot and picks up new ones until there are not enough left, then it will be most likely cheaper to start raising wages to attract non-illegals than to have them "imported".

and you seem to think a "avoid fine in exchange for your illegal workers" is the same as "paying for illegal workers"

because apparently they were going to get fined at the end of hte year anyway through some force of magic so they are not getting more money by not being fined

what's stopping you from robbing a bank? is it not the punishment? isn't that the only thing that would make you think twice?

If a company hires an illegal, they will have to run the calculations on the risk. If you increase the punishment, when the risk becomes too big, they stop doing it

in this case, the company is also incentivized to report a compatitor if they hire illegals

because the competition will go bankrupt

see, the risk only becomes too big for small companies, and the large ones lobby for the punishment in our current system.

the big ones pay the punishment in cash

it's not a problem

...

so you are fine with large companies bribing the government to remove their competition while they keep using the same practice?

the big companies can't hire illegals

if they do, they pay

but they can afford to pay

not a problem

they pay, the illegals get deported

and their competition goes out of business, leaving them the only game in town.

they won't go out of business if they dont use illegals

allowing them to increase profit margins, making the risk for hiring illegals lower, so they keep doing it and just dodge the government for long enouhg

but the big guy is using illegals

his labor costs are lower

therefore to undercut him, you need to get your labor costs down

mate, illegals are a risk. If you increase the punishment

you increase the risk

^

let them pay billions

they will only do it if it's worth it

the higher the risk, the cheaper it becomes to play off the corruption in our system

if it's still worth it, increase the punishment

You turn the punishment into blackmail when it gets that high.

"you could pay out billions to the government... or just pay my audit department a few million under the table"

this is how our system works.

you really are using the typical "too big to fail" arguments

maybe where you are from, big business don't run the place. But in the US, they do.

and making the government even more a tool for corporations doesn't fix that problem.

this isn't a new trend. the 2016 election cycle should have showed you that.