Did you miss the line where I wrote "That said, I am against jail time. The laws we have in place are good enough. We just need to enforce them."

Look up how many companies are fined for hiring illegal immigrants. 

Yeah, you're kind of misunderstanding the logic there.

Hiring an employee or selling alcohol to a customer both are similar in that you must make sure the receivers are legaly eligable. You migh not card some grey haired old looking guy when you sell alcohol, as chances are very slim he is under 21.

 When I hinted at a desire for jail time, I'm not talking in "years". Threaten someone with 30 days jail, and I bet they'll be checking work eligability very carefuly. Lots of minor offences allow for jail time, but judges discretion rarely puts people there. 30 days jail, 30 days suspended is a "stern judical warning" where you serve no jail time as long as you keep you nose clean those 30 days.

How ever I feel much more severe penalties are needed to prevent the hiring of illegals in some cases, because of the sheer scope of the problem some places.

The problem is those laws are un-enforceable.

Inspection means inspectors and burocratic personnel supporting them. Enforcing these rules would require increasingly large budgets the various governments cannot afford. Additionally, the use of illegal immigrants increases profits and in some cases it might be the only reason certain business can still operate in the states.

For various reasons, government cannot afford enforcing these laws. Read my previous post.

Nice logic. If i sold drugs out of my house, it would be illegal, but the only way I could be profitable at it is breaking the law, so I should be allowed to break the law?

Come on man, if the only way they can stay in business is by breaking the law, they shouldn't be in business.

Also, you just contradicted yourself. 

First you say:

There are already such fines: up to 2k per illegal immigrant employed. If it's the second time they catch them, it's up to 5k. For the third and any additional event, the employer can get fined up to 10k per illegal immigrant. On top of that, they also get fined up to 1k per illegal immigrant employed.

Then you say:

The problem is those laws are un-enforceable.

Which one is it?

How can laws that are un-enforceable have an economic impact on a business that breaks them?

And herein lies the heart of the issue: fines, jail, etc won't do jack as these kind of laws are essencially unenforceable without a public spending commitment the governments can't afford. 

You either invest on their countries so they don't need to come to your country or legalise everyone. There's no other way.

First off, I really do agree with you that government shouldn't spend money on commitments we can't afford. Glad we are both against the US having a National Healthcare program, and that Social Security needs massive reform.

But anyway, back to the topic.

I love the way you give two options, and say there is no other way.

In 2003, the number of companies fined for hiring illegal aliens, was 4. Yes, 4. The amount of revenue collected from those fines was 212 thousand. in 1999, we fined 182 companied for 1.6 million.

Hire me for 100k a year with a travel budget of 100k, and I promise you I will collect far more in fines then I cost. It's not an issue of expense. It's an issue of lobbyists.

It is not that bad. It could be worse. I would like to see how many govt jobs were added. Side note on this. Obama claims that he added 150,000 new jobs but this data just destroys his statement. You don't say that you have created so many jobs that people aren't laid off while at the same time the guy next to you is handing out pink slips.

Ah, it looks easy, doesn't it? But it isn't easy. Think past that.

If the pressure is high, the risk increases so business stop doing it. So the fines go down yet the costs of supporting inspectors is high. If the pressure is low, the risk diminishes so business employ illegal immigrants.

It's a no-win situation. Either the government spends huge amounts of money on it without return or the business break the law. That's why any politian brandishing this flag is yanking your chain: he/she knows it won't do jack.

Ah, nice attempt using the naitonal healthcare and social security. Speaking about commitments the government can't afford, what about one fifth of the budget spent on military? You surely should recognize it as an abusive expenditure the government can't afford - these latest years of massive deficits and increased debt are surely a proof of that.

You’re preaching to the choir. I am all for leaving Iraq and letting the UN deal with it. I am also for removing our bases from almost all the countries we are in. We have an amazing global surveillance system, and bombers that can take off from the US and be anywhere in 10 hours. Protect ourselves, and let the rest of the world deal with the rest of the world.

I am the smaller government guy.

As for the topic at hand, your argument is if we can’t stop it all; don’t do what we can to protect the laws. The same argument can be made for speeding. It’s way too costly to come up with a system that keeps every driver from speeding. This does not mean we should stop trying to keep anyone from speeding. Also, it’s a huge revenue generator.

Same could be said for enforcing immigration laws. Thousands of companies break them. We could employ 20 people who could generate millions of dollars for this country by enforcing the laws we have, and yet we don’t.

Why do you think that is?