Colbert! Congress!

[OMGturt1es]

So why are you posting in this thread?

Are you kidding me? This almost seems to suggest that unsolved issues aren't worthy of discussion.

Then maybe Mexico should produce jars of olives, and US farmers should produce something else. Consumers get lower prices which leaves more money to spend elsewhere in the economy, taxpayers don't have to support hundreds of thousands of poor farm laborers with housing assistance, welfare payments, food stamps, and health care.

What's the problem?

1. National security. We should have some amount of domestic food production. How much? I'm sure that's up for debate.

2. Taxpayers would be left supporting the legal farm laborers who were unable to find work. The illegal laborers would likely try to find work at the nearest Home Depot.

Here you go again, saying we need to have a permanent impoverished underclass doing dangerous work for minimum wage and no benefits.

I thought you cared about these people?

Ok, I'm done wasting my time with you. I have no use for those who insist on waging a pointless war of straw. I mean, really Wildcat, look at what I've written in my responses to you:

I don't have any magic solutions.

I didn't even advocate any policies. I don't even know what policy I could advocate.

I can't offer you any answers. I don't have any.

I don't support any proposed solutions because I either don't understand the problem well enough to understand how the solutions would work, or because the solutions won't work.

I HAVE NO SOLUTIONS.

I have made it clear that I have no solutions. I have made it clear that I'm trying to discuss the problem. And yet you've continued to purposely put words in my mouth. It's useless. It's annoying. It's rude.

Welcome to my ignore list. Population: You.

 

[WildCat]

Are you kidding me? This almost seems to suggest that unsolved issues aren't worthy of discussion.

How can you discuss something you claim to have no opinion on?

1. National security. We should have some amount of domestic food production. How much? I'm sure that's up for debate.

You seriously think we're in danger of famine here? Or not producing enough food to feed ourselves? You think Mexico is capable of feeding the US? China can just barely feed itself, likewise India. I don't think they'll be major food exporters in our lifetimes.

2. Taxpayers would be left supporting the legal farm laborers who were unable to find work.

Or maybe they go back to their country of origin, as many have done since the recession started.

The illegal laborers would likely try to find work at the nearest Home Depot.

So?

Ok, I'm done wasting my time with you. I have no use for those who insist on waging a pointless war of straw. I mean, really Wildcat, look at what I've written in my responses to you:







I have made it clear that I have no solutions. I have made it clear that I'm trying to discuss the problem. And yet you've continued to purposely put words in my mouth. It's useless. It's annoying. It's rude.

Welcome to my ignore list. Population: You.

Perhaps this woulod have gone better if you didn't trry to pretend you didn't have an opinion, while spouting off your opinion.

 

[WildCat]

BTW, I'm still waiting for TraneWreck to explain how UFW workers are living in poverty with no benefits and dangerous working conditions.

Wasn't union representation supposed to fix that?

 

[FSM]

So why are you posting in this thread?

...

Speaking as the great and powerful OP, this thread is about Colbert! Congress!

The subject matter of Colbert's testimony is certainly on topic, but I didn't call the thread: "Post All the Answers to Immgration Issues HERE."

You are obviously passionate and educated about this issue and you have a precise idea about what you think will work and what you believe will not. That doesn't mean that people who don't have the same level of certainty are not welcome to post in this thread.

I've appreciated OMGturtles' experience and opinions, just as I've appreciated your opinion and Augustine's.

 

[FSM]

You don't have the stature to call out Mr. Wackylaugh like that. He'll let you know if and when he's ready to talk.

Oh, and I forgot to do this earlier:

 

[TraneWreck]

BTW, I'm still waiting for TraneWreck to explain how UFW workers are living in poverty with no benefits and dangerous working conditions.

Wasn't union representation supposed to fix that?

I don't know what you're asking me.

Are unions infallible? Do they automatically achieve all of their goals?

Unions have been under assault for quite a while, but anti-union intensity picked up in the 80's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illegal_Union_Firing_1952_-_2007.svg

They've been demonized and undercut at every opportunity, and, to be fair, high-profile union corruption has aided opponents in their goal of demonization.

Farm unions tend to be among the most difficult to sustain because of the easy availability of illegal labor. Though illegal labor has a negligible effect on wages of native workers (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/the-wages-of-immigration/), it serves as a very easy way to 1) undercut unions 2) supress membership with the threat of dismissal and 3) extort more labor at less of a cost.

Eliminating the category of easily exploited people would eliminate the primary means of weakening the UFW.

 

[WildCat]

Farm unions tend to be among the most difficult to sustain because of the easy availability of illegal labor. Though illegal labor has a negligible effect on wages of native workers (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/the-wages-of-immigration/), it serves as a very easy way to 1) undercut unions 2) supress membership with the threat of dismissal and 3) extort more labor at less of a cost.

Eliminating the category of easily exploited people would eliminate the primary means of weakening the UFW.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along TW. If you flood the marketplace with workers, illegal or otherwise, it drives down the price of labor to the legal minimum. There will always be more desperately poor people just across the border willing to work for less.

Eliminating the category of "illegal" doesn't solve that issue, it exacerbates it.

We have tens of millions of unemployed able-bodied low-skill poor people in this country, and we've driven down the price of their labor by importing tens of millions of low-skilled workers from other countries. It's been driven so low, in fact, that not working and collecting different forms of welfare is not only more attractive to them, it's the rational choice.

It's crazy.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is exactly what I've been saying all along TW. If you flood the marketplace with workers, illegal or otherwise, it drives down the price of labor to the legal minimum. There will always be more desperately poor people just across the border willing to work for less.

Eliminating the category of "illegal" doesn't solve that issue, it exacerbates it.

We have tens of millions of unemployed able-bodied low-skill poor people in this country, and we've driven down the price of their labor by importing tens of millions of low-skilled workers from other countries. It's been driven so low, in fact, that not working and collecting different forms of welfare is not only more attractive to them, it's the rational choice.

It's crazy.

Numerical availability is not the only dynamic affecting wages. It just isn't a simple supply-demand dynamic.

It's also worth repeating that illegal immigration does not, in fact, drive down wages of native born workers. I linked a study on that before. It's just not true.

What drives down the wages of illegal workers is their fear and general inability to defend their interests for fear of deportation. No matter how many of these workers there happens to be, if everyone of them is able to, for example, challenge a breach of contract in court, the ability to extort labor for lower wages decreases.

The combination of policies that quickly move workers into the system along with enforcement focused on employers would improve standards for illegal workers immediately.

 

[bit_pattern]

Legislate a mandatory minimum wage for that industry and enforce it rigorously. Easy.

 

[Elind]

They do understand that he's a comedian, right?

Of course. Why else would they have invited him?

 

[WildCat]

Numerical availability is not the only dynamic affecting wages. It just isn't a simple supply-demand dynamic.

Maybe not the only one, but easily the most dominant one. In fact, the only one that matters until you hit the minimum legal wage floor.

It's also worth repeating that illegal immigration does not, in fact, drive down wages of native born workers. I linked a study on that before. It's just not true.

Can't possibly be true, and I missed the study. Wages in any given sector are determined by supply and demand (excepting collective bargaining agreements which have their own dynamic), and especially in low-skill positions where perfromance between workers varies much less. And when you have a group willing to work for less because they come from a country where they are used to less it lowers the wage rate for all.

What drives down the wages of illegal workers is their fear and general inability to defend their interests for fear of deportation. No matter how many of these workers there happens to be, if everyone of them is able to, for example, challenge a breach of contract in court, the ability to extort labor for lower wages decreases.

The combination of policies that quickly move workers into the system along with enforcement focused on employers would improve standards for illegal workers immediately.

You keep saying that, but you are refuted by the real-world example of the UFW and its complete inability to secure better wages, benefits, and working conditions for its members.

 

[Augustine]

Again, you asked why someone would support a law despite a lack of popularity. I answered that question. You then shifted into a different argument.

It seems pedestrian to simply say people support “A” because they think it’s the right thing to do. By that token, people who support amnesty think it’s the right thing to do. People who support enforcing existing laws think that that is the right thing to do. I assumed you were making a little more substantial of a case other than simply stating that everyone on all sides think that their course of action is the right thing to do. So you can’t support your assertion that amnesty is the “right thing to do” as an objective fact, it is simply something that people in favor of amnesty believe. Noted.

The workers are coming whether or not this program exists. The goal of the program is to provide legal protection for those that do come.

Wrong. More workers are coming if this program exists. If existing illegal workers do not have adequate legal protection now, the ones that come following this act will consequently have inadequate legal protection as well. The ones who apparently do not understand their legal protections now do not get any magical understanding of their protections solely because they are granted amnesty. What aspect of the AgJobs bill addresses this?

Within 10 years following the passage of IRCA, the approximately 3 million illegal aliens who got LPR status had been replaced by new illegal aliens and the illegal immigrant population was right back at over 5 million.

Here is a little chart to help you:
No amnesty, enforcement ---> less illegal workers come
Do nothing, status quo ---> same numbers come (or fluctuate based on economy)
Amnesty, open borders ---> more workers come

This should be fairly obvious unless you discard previous experience.

Sure, the vast majority of agricultural workers don't spend their whole lives in that profession.

An epic fail in understanding. The vast majority of illegal agricultural workers do not stay in agriculture once they achieve LPR status.

Where did I say there was a shortage?

As for the standards, one way to ensure that native workers cannot be undercut like that is to enforce labor standards for all workers. Employers have a strong icentive to use illegal labor because they can pay them almost nothing and generally yank them around without fear of being reported. Eliminate the ability to extort labor hours and native workers may look more attractive.

You seem to think wages, benefits, and working conditions will improve because employers will be compelled to raise them. This will only happen if there is a relative shortage of workers for a position.

What aspect of the AgJobs bill enforces labor standards? Why can we magically enforce labor standards following the passage of the AgJobs bill or some other amnesty bill when we cannot enforce labor standards prior?

There are already millions of illegal workers over here. Providing a means for those workers to move into the system doesn't radically alter the number of workers, it alters the condition of their employment.

Wrong. See above, see previous. You are exactly wrong. The numbers of the workers are increased, the conditions of employment are little-changed.

You said nothing there. What information would you be looking for? A criminal record already makes people ineligible for the program, so absent that, what do you think will be discovered through a job application that would affect national security?

Additionally, if someone's name does come up pursuant to a criminal investigation, that procedure is separate from the employment application and won't be bound by the same constraints.

This is a means by which currently illegal workers can be brought into the system. If an application will result in deportation, why would any of them enroll?

AgJobs bill provides amnesty for identity theft crimes. The confidentiality clause prohibits the exchange of this information with other agencies or the use of the information for any purpose other than evaluating the application. So if you are unknowingly the victim of identity theft by an illegal immigrant (Texas for example had some 800,000 cases in one year), the AgJobs bill provisions will ensure that even if the identity theft is discovered (and amnesty given to the perpetrator), you, or any other government agency, will still not receive the information so that you can begin to reclaim your stolen identity. Is that the "right thing to do"?

"amnesty and open borders do nothing to solve the real causes of exploitation and horrible treatment"

The bolded part.

You have done nothing to prove that amnesty and open borders will accomplish anything. You continue to be ignorant as to the root causes of worker exploitation. I would suggest you research the Hamlet chicken plant fire, for example, and tell me whether you think those workers were exploited and why.

Wages are only one aspect of improving conditions. You're battling a straw man here. Obviously migrant agriculture jobs are not going to be high paying. It's a matter of ending abuse and affording enough wages and benefits to provide a minimum standard of living.

OK. You have provided nothing to counter the point that abuse will continue, and wages and benefits will continue to be low, because they are poor, uneducated, low-skilled, illiterate, and have poor English-language skills. What magical mechanism changes things?

What are the goals of immigration policy? Keep illegals out? How's that going?

Provide a reasonable process for someone to become a citizen? Ask anyone who's gone through that lately to tell you how well that works.

I don't know which specific policies you're talking about, so it's hard for me to comment.

Let me walk you through the discussion thus far:

You said:

Enforcing failed policies is not a good idea.

I said:

So current immigration laws are a mess? So the conclusion is we simply give up, and do away with them altogether?

You said:

Haha, what? Opposing stricter enforcement of failed policies="giving up?"

Hystrionics.

I said:

What proof do you have that the policies have failed? Because they weren't enforced?

Do you mean histrionics? What immigration laws do you propose to keep?

And now you say you don't know what specific policies I'm talking about??

Here's a newsflash for you: you apparently don't know what policies you're talking about, which is why I asked which ones you kept referring to as "failed policies"!!

Alone? Probably wouldn't.

Amnesty alone doesn't work. So what does amnesty need in order for it to work, in your opinion, and where are those provisions in the AgJobs bill?

Reality.

Look, maybe you're adopting this position ad hoc, but there's no possible way you actually believe that.

The case has been made for evolution, why do fewer than 2 out of 5 Americans think its right?

Public opinion is mercurial and rarely based on solid factual reasoning. We live in a represenative republic, not a direct democracy, and things that were initially very unpopular often become hugely popular once people have seen them work (social security and medicaid, for example).

Should we all just agree global warming is a myth and do nothing about it because of poll numbers?

So much wrong here.

First, provide a citation that social security was initially unpopular. I am not aware of any polling data from the 1930s.

Second, Medicare and Medicaid had a plurality of Americans in favor of them throughout the 60s, and I believe Gallup had support above 60% at the time of passage.

Third, evolution in fact would win the plurality of votes in an election. Last figures I saw were 39% belief, 36% don't know/don't care, 25% disbelief. So evolution wins by plurality, disbelief in evolution loses solidly.

Finally, you are still not addressing the central issue of why you continue to set yourself up as the arbiter of all that is right or good. I realize that you have a very high opinion of yourself, but that does not mean that everything that you think is morally "right" or a "good idea" necessarily is so, in an objective sense. That is not "reality". That may be your particular reality, but it is by no means a shared one.

 

[Augustine]

It's also worth repeating that illegal immigration does not, in fact, drive down wages of native born workers. I linked a study on that before. It's just not true.

There have been a number of class action lawsuits against employers alleging wage depression based on hiring illegal workers. Zirkle Fruit, Maples, Mohawk, Perdue - all have lost or settled for millions in damages based on a court's finding (or their unwillingness to contest) that hiring illegal workers does in fact result in wage depression for native, low-skilled workers. Perhaps you should send those employers your study.

 

[Augustine]

With respect to original issue of Colbert's testimony, at least one effect may be seen here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42929.html

"Congress cools on Colbert"

 

[TraneWreck]

Wrong. More workers are coming if this program exists. If existing illegal workers do not have adequate legal protection now, the ones that come following this act will consequently have inadequate legal protection as well. The ones who apparently do not understand their legal protections now do not get any magical understanding of their protections solely because they are granted amnesty. What aspect of the AgJobs bill addresses this?

[...]

This should be fairly obvious unless you discard previous experience.

Substantiate those claims. My argument is that a program that decriminalizes people who want to exchange labor for wages will not radically alter the number of available workers. I would love to see some sort of citation indicating the opposite. You have done nothing to isolate amnesty as the reason for increased immigration.

And once again, the entire premise of my argument is that by eliminating the category of criminal workers, the ability to extort and abuse laborers decreases dramatically. THus, each subsequent wave would access to the same rights as those already present in the country.

THe Reagan amnesty failed because it applied to individuals. THose individuals were replaced. That's why the rights and protections have to be extended to all people.

An epic fail in understanding. The vast majority of illegal agricultural workers do not stay in agriculture once they achieve LPR status.

How does that contradict what I said? We were discussing illegal immigrants, are you upset because I didn't specify that even though it was obvious in context? I don't follow.

You seem to think wages, benefits, and working conditions will improve because employers will be compelled to raise them. This will only happen if there is a relative shortage of workers for a position.

This is just a false claim. It's based on the assumption that the only dynamic affecting wages and conditions is supply-demand. This is absurdly simple and very much untrue.

For example, Lochner era changes to labor laws improved conditions during a period of massive unemployment. There were literally millions of desperate people willing to work for nothing, yet new standards improved wages and conditions in the midst of that period.

What aspect of the AgJobs bill enforces labor standards? Why can we magically enforce labor standards following the passage of the AgJobs bill or some other amnesty bill when we cannot enforce labor standards prior?

Because right now it's difficult, if not impossible, to defend the rights of illegal laborers. They're terrified of deportation and other ill treatment so they rarely defend themselves legally. This leaves them vulnerable to abuse and that abuse isn't reported very often.

Changing the laws to allow those laborers access to the courts without fear of deportation is necessary to improve those conditions.

AgJobs bill provides amnesty for identity theft crimes. The confidentiality clause prohibits the exchange of this information with other agencies or the use of the information for any purpose other than evaluating the application. So if you are unknowingly the victim of identity theft by an illegal immigrant (Texas for example had some 800,000 cases in one year), the AgJobs bill provisions will ensure that even if the identity theft is discovered (and amnesty given to the perpetrator), you, or any other government agency, will still not receive the information so that you can begin to reclaim your stolen identity. Is that the "right thing to do"?

I tried to research this, but the only sites discussing the confidentiality clause and identity theft were right wing sources. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

I read the bill's summary, no mention of anything like amnesty for identity theft:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1639&tab=summary

I scanned the full version and found this:

‘‘(10) LIMITATION ON USE OF THE EMPLOY
MENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION SYSTEM.—Not withstanding any other provision of law, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit or allow any department, bureau, or other agency of the United States Government to utilize any information, database, or other records assembled under this subsection for any purpose other than for the enforcement and administration of the immigration laws, anti-terrorism laws, or for enforcement of Federal criminal law related to the functions of the EEVS, including prohibitions on forgery, fraud and identity theft.

It's on page 247 of the pdf if you select full version here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1639

Reading that statute it seems to me that they're specifically allowing the information received through the EEVS to be used for the criminal investigation of identity theft.

You'll also notice that beginning on page 284, there's quite a bit of legislation directed at stopping identity theft.

So, if I'm reading the wrong part of the bill, direct me to the correct one, but so far this histeria about the confidentiality clause appears indistinguishable from the similarly misguided concern over death panels.

And let me be clear, if they're actually offering amnesty to identity theives, I would disagree with that clause.

You have done nothing to prove that amnesty and open borders will accomplish anything. You continue to be ignorant as to the root causes of worker exploitation. I would suggest you research the Hamlet chicken plant fire, for example, and tell me whether you think those workers were exploited and why.

So there can only be one reason for exploitation. Damn, I've been thinking the world was more complex this whole time.

OK. You have provided nothing to counter the point that abuse will continue, and wages and benefits will continue to be low, because they are poor, uneducated, low-skilled, illiterate, and have poor English-language skills. What magical mechanism changes things?

Illegals are abused and mistreated more than legal workers. Giving them the same rights and unfettered access to the courts will equalize those divergent standards.

Amnesty alone doesn't work. So what does amnesty need in order for it to work, in your opinion, and where are those provisions in the AgJobs bill?

I don't know why you seem to think that I'm defending the AgJobs bill as perfect legislation.

Legal protections need to be given to ALL workers, regardless of whether they're given amnesty. If that doesn't happen, more illegals will flood in and undercut the people just given amnesty.

Second, Medicare and Medicaid had a plurality of Americans in favor of them throughout the 60s, and I believe Gallup had support above 60% at the time of passage.

First of all, clever slide from "popular" to "plurality."

...numbers from 1962 that showed a public deeply divided on the Medicare proposal, with 28% in favor, 24% against

28% support is not popular, even if fewer are in direct opposition, but a majority did view it negatively:

a year after its passage, only 46% supported the policy.

http://www.newser.com/story/83545/dems-public-was-divided-on-medicare-too.html

Now, unless we want to decend into a stupid semantic debate about what "popular" means, support for medicare is now over 60%. It went from 28% when it was proposed to 60% years later. Should they have just given up when only a quarter of the county approved?

It wasn't a bad idea when 28% supported it.

Third, evolution in fact would win the plurality of votes in an election. Last figures I saw were 39% belief, 36% don't know/don't care, 25% disbelief. So evolution wins by plurality, disbelief in evolution loses solidly.

This is just more frivolous nonsense. Again you're relying on some conflation of "popular" with "plurality."

Are you arguing that if the disbelievers pass the believers evolution ceases to be true?

Was evolution false in 1920?

Look at the results in the first graph:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

From this I learned that evolution was barely true in July of 1982 then true in June of 1993.

The other alternative, of course, is that public opinion has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the Theory of Evolution.

You really want to argue against this? I'm baffled.

Finally, you are still not addressing the central issue of why you continue to set yourself up as the arbiter of all that is right or good. I realize that you have a very high opinion of yourself, but that does not mean that everything that you think is morally "right" or a "good idea" necessarily is so, in an objective sense. That is not "reality". That may be your particular reality, but it is by no means a shared one.

Uh, ok, that's why arguments are provided. This is an startlingly childish way to end your post. Obviously I think I'm right, obviously you think you're right, are we supposed to pretend like we're arguing in favor of things we don't understand?

Surely you don't just choose what to believe based on public opinion polls? Is there nothing you think you're right about that the American public disagrees with you on, like, say, this:

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-yo...s-midterms-approach?ref=politics#document/p22

54% of Americans think the US should not be involved in Afghanistan, from that I can conclude you support immediate withdrawal.

Even for you, this was a weak conclusion.

 

[TraneWreck]

There have been a number of class action lawsuits against employers alleging wage depression based on hiring illegal workers. Zirkle Fruit, Maples, Mohawk, Perdue - all have lost or settled for millions in damages based on a court's finding (or their unwillingness to contest) that hiring illegal workers does in fact result in wage depression for native, low-skilled workers. Perhaps you should send those employers your study.

You have an odd method of determining they way things work.

Public opinion polls and class action decisions are now better than studies. Interesting.

I also note this means you have nothing to say about the research.

 

[TraneWreck]

Maybe not the only one, but easily the most dominant one. In fact, the only one that matters until you hit the minimum legal wage floor.

Proof?

Can't possibly be true, and I missed the study. Wages in any given sector are determined by supply and demand (excepting collective bargaining agreements which have their own dynamic), and especially in low-skill positions where perfromance between workers varies much less. And when you have a group willing to work for less because they come from a country where they are used to less it lowers the wage rate for all.

Incredulity is not a strong argumentative techinique. The link is above. Here are two more:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/factcheck-on-immigration-and-wages/

http://factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

If you're bold, you can read the studies linked in the second offering.

You keep saying that, but you are refuted by the real-world example of the UFW and its complete inability to secure better wages, benefits, and working conditions for its members.

Proof?

 

[Augustine]

I tried to research this, but the only sites discussing the confidentiality clause and identity theft were right wing sources. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

I read the bill's summary, no mention of anything like amnesty for identity theft:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1639&tab=summary

I scanned the full version and found this:



It's on page 247 of the pdf if you select full version here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1639

Reading that statute it seems to me that they're specifically allowing the information received through the EEVS to be used for the criminal investigation of identity theft.

You'll also notice that beginning on page 284, there's quite a bit of legislation directed at stopping identity theft.

So, if I'm reading the wrong part of the bill, direct me to the correct one, but so far this histeria about the confidentiality clause appears indistinguishable from the similarly misguided concern over death panels.

And let me be clear, if they're actually offering amnesty to identity theives, I would disagree with that clause.

Why are you quoting a Senate bill if we are discussing a hearing in front of a House subcommittee? I have already told you that the relevant bill is HR 2414, try to keep up. The portion granting amnesty is section 111 of HR 2414. (BTW, it is also section 620 of the Senate bill you mistakenly refer to.)

Again, it seems we both disagree with the AgJobs bill and agree that it should be voted down, or die in committee.

 

[TraneWreck]

Why are you quoting a Senate bill if we are discussing a hearing in front of a House subcommittee? I have already told you that the relevant bill is HR 2414, try to keep up. The portion granting amnesty is section 111 of HR 2414. (BTW, it is also section 620 of the Senate bill you mistakenly refer to.)

Again, it seems we both disagree with the AgJobs bill and agree that it should be voted down, or die in committee.

The bill can be amended and it will have to be merged with the senate bill anyway, but I'm still not convinced about your interpretation.

Here's the relevant portion:

...by striking ‘‘1990.’’ and inserting ‘‘1990, or in the case of an alien described in subparagraph (D), if such conduct is alleged to have occurred before the date on which the alien was granted blue card status.’’.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2414

It refers back to 42 U.S.C. 408(e)(1), the Social Security Act, this is the section to be modified:

...(C) who is granted special immigrant status under section1101(a)(27)(I) of title 8, shall not be subject to prosecution for any alleged conduct described in paragraph (6) or (7) of subsection (a) of this section if such conduct is alleged to have occurred prior to 60 days after November 5, 1990.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/7/II/408

Basically, AFTER someone is approved for a blue card, they will receive immunity for violating these sections of the social security act:

(6) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive the
Commissioner of Social Security as to his true identity (or the
true identity of any other person) furnishes or causes to be
furnished false information to the Commissioner of Social
Security with respect to any information required by the
Commissioner of Social Security in connection with the
establishment and maintenance of the records provided for in
section 405(c)(2) of this title; or
(7) for the purpose of causing an increase in any payment
authorized under this subchapter (or any other program financed
in whole or in part from Federal funds), or for the purpose of
causing a payment under this subchapter (or any such other
program) to be made when no payment is authorized thereunder, or
for the purpose of obtaining (for himself or any other person)
any payment or any other benefit to which he (or such other
person) is not entitled, or for the purpose of obtaining anything
of value from any person, or for any other purpose -

That's not amnesty for identity thefts. They can deny such people blue cards in the application phase. Basically this will allow officials to separate people who engaged in some level of fraud necessitated by their illegal status from actual identity thefts.

There are degrees of Social Security fraud, and they don't want to treat someone who signed a false number to keep working the same as someone using social security numbers to set up credit cards and take identities.

It's really not a big deal and perfectly logical given the population this bill is aimed at.