Illegal immigration has been a long-debated theme in both the Texas House and the Senate, but a recent bill proposed by Republican state Rep. Debbie Riddle has become highly controversial. This bill would make hiring an “unauthorized alien” a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The controversial aspect of this bill is its exceptions: those who hire a maid, a lawn caretaker or another type of domestic worker. This proposed law is written for a limited few.
Texas Republican state Rep. Aaron Pena told CNN that without the exemption, “a large segment of the Texas population” would end up in prison if the bill became a law. My question is, “Who are these large segments of the population?” House workers are a luxury that not everyone can afford. In fact, it is not unusual to pay $75 to $80 for half a day’s work in an average three-bedroom home of about 2,000 square feet. The average household in the United States cannot afford to pay a maid or any other type of house worker. In other words, to afford a maid in this country you need to have a higher-than-average income.
Notably, there is a coincidence in this exemption; candidates collect millions in campaign donations. The Federal Election Commission released on Feb. 28 all donations that took place during the 2009-2010 cycle. Based on contributions of $200 or more, the Republican Party received a total of $575.5 million. Democrats received $583.7 million. These numbers do not take into consideration money given from donors who gave to both parties. People who have money to donate are the ones who have political power and are being exempted from the bill.
Moreover, the organization Fair Vote reported that approximately 86 percent of people with incomes above $75,000 voted in the presidential elections, compared to only 25 percent of people with an income of $15,000 or less. Considering these facts, it is important to examine the results of this disparity. Fair Vote reports that a study of roll call voters in the 107th and 108th Congresses showed that legislators were three times more responsive to high-income constituents than middle-income constituents and even less responsive to low-income constituents.
Laws should be applied equally and it is clear that the proposed House bill was created with a certain segment of people in mind – people with money.
