All you said was that other evidence could be used to prove the crime and
wouldn't be needed from the person accused. Well of course that gets around the 5th
Amendment issue. What the hell is your point?
Almost -- I said that if other evidence proves the employer's guilt of hiring illegally,
then the employer's evidence would serve only to exonerate them of charges of paying
below minimum wage. ("[...] allow them to provide that evidence after their guilt
[...] is determined from others' evidence as a way to reduce the consequences," I said.)
My point being that, by avoiding the potential for 5th amendment problems in this way,
it looks like the idea still has merit: illegal immigrants could cry foul when they are
being paid less than minimum wage because they wouldn't have to fear losing that income
as part of being deported if the burden of proof of wages is
on the employer and the
burden of proof of employment is on the worker. And thanks to the clarification, the
employer's burden of proof shouldn't incriminate them more than they already are.
I don't doubt
that there are other problems with the idea, but I think, with this clarification or
adjustment, it can at least avoid the 5th amendment concerns you raised.
My reasons for continuing the conversation are not just about "winning" but about
coming to an understanding, I can't do that without questioning your reasoning. I don't
mean to sound adversarial, but that's very difficult when reacting to such agressive
replies. I didn't immediately understand why you thought the employer providing evidence
of wages
was a 5th amendment issue, but with further discussion I came to an understanding that
you thought the evidence provided by the employer would also incriminate them on their
illegal employment. So that understanding helped the idea evolve.
Normally I would be up for working out other issues, but I think our styles of discourse
clash violently and I don't think I'm up for much more of this, if you'll excuse me :).