But I think you are giving yourself airs by calling the hiring of an illegal ‘civil disobedience’. Here is a swell post from Volokh from couple of weeks ago: [Todd Zywicki, July 11, 2005 at 11:43am] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
One More Oral Argument Meltdown:

Since I’m in the mood, one more good oral argument exchange in a different case. The case is on appeal because the plaintiff’s case was dismissed because his lawyer failed to file his expert witness list by the deadline set by the court. As a result, the court refused to admit expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff and dismissed the case.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court’s deadline was unreasonable. But more than that, he claimed in his brief and oral argument that his failure to file the pleading in time was and act of civil disobedience against the high-handed practices of the district court judge, “like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and the brave Americans who stood up to the tyranny of King George.” (Coincidentally, the district court judge’s first name was “George”).

Which led to the following exchange:

JUDGE: Counsel, you say that your failure to meet the deadline was an act of civil disobedience, designed to demonstrate the injustice of the court’s approach in this case? And that as a result, we should reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the case and remand?

COUNSEL: Yes, your honor.

JUDGE: Now counsel, you do understand how “civil disobedience” works, don’t you?

COUNSEL: I don’t understand the question, your honor.

JUDGE: Well, the way that civil disobedience works is that you believe the law to be unjust, and so you are willing to be punished for violating it in order to demonstrate the injustice of the law. For this to be a true act of civil disobedience, therefore, you would have to be willing to accept the punishment, and through that willingness to accept the punishment, you demonstrate the injustice of the law. So, for instance, Martin Luther King’s act of civil disobedience was his willingness to be arrested and go to jail in order to demonstrate the injustice of the laws. So, if this was a true act of civil disobedience on your part, aren’t we obliged to affirm the ruling of the district court dismissing the case?

COUNSEL (after long pause): Um, your honor, I would like to amend my argument…

I think hiring an illegal is more like going 50 in a 45 zone after deciding that the street is really safe at that speed. Unless you are going to announce to La Migra that this is what you are going to do - and that exposes the poor schmoe you have hired to being picked up and deported from your front lawn.

That said, I don’t have much criticism of hiring these guys: the authorities clearly don’t care very much, or they would be doing sweeps at the Home Depot and putting people on waiting planes to Tegucigalpa. The ‘Render Unto Caesar’ argument works a lot better when Caesar REALLY wants something.

That said, paying well and treating the guys decently - let’s call it the Lady Bountiful school of hiring illegals - goes only so far. You have the power. They know it. So you have to look carefully into your own heart to know whether you are behaving well.

Couple of anecdotes, from the newspapers: a guy from Mexico who is quadriplegic in a nursing home here in Virginia, fell off a roof, has no insurance for his family, never will see them again because there is no way they can travel to see him or he to see them. And two Polish immigrants who died of cyanide poisoning when a factory owner in Chicago sent them into a tank to clean it out. I think there is no way you can duplicate what there is in place for bonded insured legal employees for hazardous work, and what is in place for bonded insured employees is the minimum for right action as an employers, so you should not offer hazardous work to illegals. How to set the boundaries? Nothing over ten feet up a ladder? Nothing involving a chain saw? Not sure, but you should think about it.

A while ago Hugo posted on the ethics of hiring undocumented workers. I found it a fascinating discussion since we live in a predominately Latino neighborhood and many of our Kids Club kids’ parents are undocumented. Nance commented on the lar…

If my guilt keeps me from hiring someone, then I have put my emotional balance ahead of the opportunity to do justice in the lives of others by offering them work at a more-than-fair wage.

On the one hand, I want to give work to someone who truly needs it, regardless of ethnicity or legal status. On the other hand, I don’t want to be the wealthy person from the dominant culture who is patronizing those who are “less fortunate” by giving them a job. I am in a privileged place if I am looking to hire someone to do my housework. Am I just contributing to the gross structural injustice of our dominant culture by hiring a Mexican woman to do work for me around the house? Or am I using my wealth in a helpful, biblical way? Perhaps both!

Thoughts?

As opposed to them spending half of the larger paycheck on a crummier insurance policy, or going thousands of dollars into debt with a medical emergency?

I used to have a neighbor from El Salvador. I paid her to watch my kiddo while I went to work. I greatly preferred this arrangement to a commercial day care center. She was a good person, and raised her own two boys so well. That money gave her enough to buy a car and get medicine for her kids when they needed it. If she had been documented, and still been my neighbor, it would have been the same deal. It was a case of doing what was best for everyone, and I am going to look after my own child and my neighbor before worrying about domestic policy, frankly. It was what was at my doorstep. Perhaps it was selfish, but was I to ignore the situation and farm my child out to Kindercare or hire a total, but documented, stranger?

I recently gave running a maid service a go. It was small–only myself and two other people, both of who were documented. I couldn’t afford to pay for insurance for either one of them–not and employ them. The choice was them having a job or not having one. It is tough for small employers to pay for health insurance. Does anyone think it is better when people work for half the money and get some crummy policy with a $500 deductable per person? Some of the discussion on here is not only relevant to undocumented workers. Nickled and Dimed addresses this problem eloquently.

True, mythago, but in Christianese, “Caesar’s decision” often translates into “within the domain of what the civil government gets to decide, rather than the domain where Christians are morally bound to disobey” rather than to “we have no say in this at all.” I think John’s simply disagreeing with Hugo about whether this is one of those cases where civil disobedience is appropriate.