> spell out for me how that makes it ok to use undocumented labor

The same way it is ok to go 1-5 mph over the speed limit on the freeway. Both are illegal on paper, but in practice, law enforcement turns a blind eye and actual enforcement would entangle a lot of people and interfere with the status quo. The juice is probably not worth the squeeze, as Arizona and Florida found out.

This happened in Alabama.

Arrest the wrong German executive as part of your "immigration crackdown" and suddenly Mercedes is pulling out of your economy.

Alabama has gone down this road, and I'm not seeing how it will be any better for anyone this time around. People tentatively agreeing with it or not.

If there are so many undocumented laborers we need, then the issue is documentation. Trump is [not exactly endearing himself with SK](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-china...).

Aren't we supposed to be encouraging American manufacturing? Or is the plan to run out Hyundai and make Fords?

> The juice is probably not worth the squeeze, as Arizona and Florida found out.

What is this referring to and where can I read more about this? I may have missed the news.

Because it's necessary for the plant to function and the government has never seen fit to provide a different arrangement for the work to happen and tacitly approved it as a way for this sort of short-term work to happen. They have quotas to meet, these workers helped them fit the quota, so who cares what effects it has.

It probably requires a lot of work and effort to lay it out explicitly, so they don't. It would be better for workers to figure it out, but that's not the administration's style either.

Hopefully the plant doesn't have to shutdown because of this.

Because the documentation is intentionally obtuse and difficult, meaning that it is nearly impossible to get approval for these kinds of things even though they benefit the US immensely.

It's like if a neighbor fixes your fence without asking you first. Wrong? Maybe. Harmful? Definitely not.

No excuse! The neighbor clearly should have paid to train a local worker in fence-fixing for a year or two, and then paid the local worker's wages while fixing the fence, and then let the worker go as they don't need to fix a fence again for some time. Granted that would take two years and tens of thousands of dollars more than the neighbor fixing it themselves, but that's the neighbor's problem. (well, and now the problem of the homeowner with the fence that has to wait 2 more years to get their fence fixed)

Weird analogy, but I don't want my neighbor fixing my fence -- let alone stepping onto my property to do anything else for that matter.