To: kumar who wrote (86578 ) 6/28/2012 11:37:35 PM From: Oeconomicus 1 Recommendation Respond to of 90947 Again, easy to say, hard and expensive to do. Like any other illegal activity, enforcement is important, but it's not going to eliminate the activity. Especially when the economic incentives for violating the law are large. Enforcement and penalties would have to be much more draconian than they are now and, ironically, DMaA was just complaining about having to "jump through hoops" in the hiring process now, in a system you both say is inadequate. Penalties on employers and workers that are draconian enough to offset the economic incentives will inevitably also ensnare innocents, and everyone else will gripe about the red tape and enforcement bureaucracy. Hell, look at the "war on drugs". You can't even buy a pack of Advil Cold & Sinus without showing a photo ID and filling out a form for the feds. Guess what. Dealers can still get meth to sell. People respond to incentives. That doesn't mean you give up. You still enforce the laws, but you have to weigh the costs and benefits, consider alternative strategies, and decide what is achievable and how best to get there. Enforcement is not free and it is not foolproof. As some of us often argue in other contexts, throwing more money at doing the same old things is not necessarily the best way to solve a problem. Is it really so hard to consider that there might be other things we can or should do? Things like having a guest worker program so that farmers can get workers to pick their lettuce without breaking the law? Do we really have to build thousands of miles of high voltage fences (or whatever non-draconian yet foolproof border security strategy you have in mind) between us and our third biggest trading partner?