Bodza Bodza

[email protected] (James Donovan) wrote in message
    > We do not need to be dealing with other countries' problems.

No, you just create problems for other countries.

    > OF course citizens commit more crime

There you have it.

    > Your guess is wrong. Most are paid in cash. Tell me, how can someone work on the
    > books for $2 per hour? That does not make sense.

What does not make sense is your screwed up logic. How can someone living in the US,
legally or illegally work for $2 per hour and manage to pay the rent. You name me
somewhere in the US where you can rent for $80/week and still have money left over
for food/transport/etc. You are talking out of your ass. I *know* people who are
working under the table. They make the same money as everyone else.

    > Illegal aliens are paid far less than what US citizens are paid, so that notion is
    > irrelevant.

Bullshit.

    > The whole reason employers like illegal aliens is because they can pay them next to
    > nothing.

No, it isn't. The reason employers like undocumented workers is because they can make
them work like dogs 16 hours a day seven days a week and be able to fire them at a
moments notice.

    > It's illegal for a US citizen to work for $2 an hour.

And it's impossible for an undocumented worker to live in the country on $2 an hour
also. Idiot.

Bodza Bodza

[email protected] (James Donovan) wrote in message
    > Many illegal aliens break the law *much* more than just one time

But *not* as many as citizens. I will reiterate my point: most undocumented workers
are law-abiding.

    > You ****ing idiot. You cannot deport CITIZENS of a country.

I do believe the irony was lost on you you thick shit.

    > No, I am not a hypocritical SOB.

Yes you are. And a racist asshole to boot.

    > That is the LAW, and they must obey it.

In the 1930's Hitler made a law that jews should be gassed in gas chambers.

    > There is no sympathy for them because they broke the law in MY country.

I take it you are a German-American?

    > It is not THEIR country.

Most "illegal" immigrants as you call them have a lot of aztec blood in their
veins. That means their ancestors have been in North America a *lot* longer than
your Bog-Irish-Mick/German ancestors therefore SHUT THE **** UP about it not being
"their country".

    > > What do you think sales tax is then?
    >
    > It is not income tax and it is far less than what we citizens and permanent legal
    > residents pay in income and property and other taxes.

OK then, there is a simple answer to that. If your problem is simply that they don't
pay enough taxes then do this: Increase sales tax to 40% and give citizens and legal
residents a rebate check every month. Then the undocumented workers can pay for your
trailer-park-ass's welfare check every month.

    > Only because it will mean an automatic ticket to stay in the country. Illegal
    > aliens will do anything to stay in the country. We cannot have our country
    > overpopulated with the overpopulation of every part of the world.

Ah so you're showing your true colors now you racist twat? Did you know that the USA
has 5% of the world's population but uses 30% of its resources, did you know that? So
WHERE THE **** DO YOU GET OFF saying no-one can come to your god-forsaken country
when you are ripping off the rest of the world? **** YOU.

Joe Thomas

Sorry for those repeat posts, my outlook express acts a little goofy sometime

"JOE THOMAS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > I sort of got in on this thread from the beginning., Ingo has some good points,
    > but I side with James. But is illegal period, ok maybe we need them to pick our
    > fruit, but why
is
    > it illegal, change the law then. We need to know who is crossing our borders, after
    > 9/11 its a natl
security
    > issue, simple as that. If the people who pick our fruit can cross so
easily
    > undetected so can terrorist, Its just natl security, we have to have controlled and
    > " legal : immigration.
    >
    > Argue that
    >
    > JoeAlpha
    >
    >
    > "James Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Ingo Pakleppa <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:53:27 -0700, James Donovan wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Ingo Pakleppa <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > > > >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:04:43 -0700, James Donovan wrote:
    > > > >>
    > > > >> > Ingo Pakleppa <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > >> > news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> >> I have the feeling that working for DSS may have left you with a biased
    > > > >> >> sample. Nobody is arguing that such people exist. But
there
    > > > >> >> is a second category of illegal alien - and a much larger: those
    > who
    > > > >> >> sweep the streets, vacuum our offices, harvest our vegetables,
    > etc.
    > > > >> >
    > > > >> > There is a third category of illegal alien too. Those who kill,
    > rob,
    > > > >> > rape, steal, fly planes into buildings etc.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> And then there is Charles Manson. Jeffrey Dahmer. Timothy McVeigh.
    > > > >
    > > > > Who all went to jail, with the exception of McVeigh who was
executed.
    > > > > McVeigh was deported all
    > > >
    > > > Are you saying an illegal alien wouldn't go to jail (actually, that indeed
    > > > happens. There have been several cases where INS was so quick
to
    > > > deport somebody that he could not return to the US for his own trial!)
    > >
    > > Indeed they would go to jail, but in many cases they are deported.
    > >
    > > > > That's only because USC's outnumber illegal aliens. Stop trying to
    > twist
    > > > > the facts.
    > > >
    > > > OK, let me restate that: of 1000 USCs, you will find more criminals
than
    > > > among 1000 illegal aliens.
    > >
    > > That's not true and you know it.
    > >
    > > > > You are apparently living under a rock. US citizens have been out
of
    > > > > work for over a year in this economy.
    > > >
    > > > Yes, there are long-term unemployed people, I am not arguing that.
There
    > > > are few of them, though, and often with good reason. The only one (a
US
    > > > citizen) I know of actually decided to remain out of work for a year
and
    > > > a half - and he did that with the explicit blessing of the State,
    > because
    > > > he is being retrained for a different profession. Which means that he
is
    > > > not exactly a candidate for working in the harvest!
    > >
    > > Ah, but what about US citizens who can't work for the farm because they won't
    > > accept the salary of $2 per hour which is well below the minimum wage?
    > >
    > > > >
    > > > > But it does help a harvest helper who demands a fair wage.
    > > >
    > > > Wage isn't usually the big problem. You just can't FIND US Citizens.
    > >
    > >
    > > No, wage is the problem. No US citizen can work for less than minimum wage, which
    > > is what illegals are paid.
    > >
    > > > >> > Ahhh... Companies would be opposed to such a visa because they
    > would
    > > > >> > have to pay minimum wage, which the currently do not do to
illegal
    > > > >> > aliens. Incidentally, I believe there is a seasonal farm labor
    > visa
    > > > >> > (H-2A I think it is) but it is hardly used because employers can still
    > > > >> > import illegal aliens for so much cheaper and pay them next
    > to
    > > > >> > nothing.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> The problem with the H-2A is that the red tape makes it near
    > impossible
    > > > >> to use.
    > > > >
    > > > > Excuses.
    > > > >
    > > > >> By the time an H-2A is approved, the crop has long rotted on the fields!
    > > > >
    > > > > More excuses.
    > > >
    > > > You can't just deny facts you don't like by claiming they are
"excuses".
    > >
    > > No, I am not denying anything. The INS and DOL would demand that whoever is hired
    > > be paid the prevailing wages. This simply isn't the case, which is why the
    > > farmers simply do not use the visas and hire illegal aliens for cheap.
    > >
    > > > If you have ever interacted with INS or Department of Labor, you know that
    > > > neither agency is working at a blazing speed. Specifically, in
    > order
    > > > to get an H-2A, the farmer first needs to get a Labor Certification.
    > This
    > > > is a special kind of Labor Certification - not the one for
    > highly-skilled
    > > > immigrants (that Labor Certification took me three years to get!) but rather
    > > > for non-immigrants. Once you have the Labor Certification, you then need to
    > > > file a petition with the INS. Once the petition is
    > approved,
    > > > it is sent to the US consulate in the worker's home country, where he then can
    > > > pick up the visa.
    > >
    > > I know all of this. I hired quite a few H-1B's.
    > > >
    > > > Then the applicant goes to the consulate. Depending on his nationality and
    > > > other factors, he will get his visa in anything from one or two
days
    > > > to six weeks. For Mexicans - a large group of candidates - it is typically just
    > > > a day or two.
    > > >
    > > > Add up all the numbers, and you see that a farmer who wants to have a farmhand
    > > > in August or September must file the paperwork in December of the previous year
    > > > - and at that point already know exactly whom they
are
    > > > going to hire nine months later!
    > >
    > >
    > > AAnd you failed to mention pay the prevailing wage, which farmers simply do not
    > > want to do.
    > >
    > > > >> > But nothing stops those who were not on welfare before from going
    > on
    > > > >> > welfare later on.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Actually, something does: an alien who holds a Green Card can
become
    > > > >> deportable if he draws welfare and cannot show that the reason
arose
    > > > >> after he got his Green Card.
    > > > >
    > > > > A green card holder who naturalizes cannot be deported like that.
This
    > > > > is why so many naturalization applications are being made in Texas,
    > > > > California and Arizona.
    > > >
    > > > Once he naturalizes, he is a US citizen, too. And, incidentally, he
    > can't
    > > > naturalize for five years (three years in some cases).
    > >
    > > They can have USC kids and claim welfare for them. There are all sorts of ways
    > > around the system.
    > >
    > > > > Which 245(i) does. Those who aren't qualified for green cards find
    > some
    > > > > way to fraudulently qualify themselves.
    > > >
    > > > Thanks for making my point! Anybody who isn't alreayd eligibile for a Green
    > > > Card still isn't eligible. "fraudulently qualifying themselves"
is
    > > > just another way of saying "they don't qualify".
    > >
    > > INS doesn't detect 80-90% of the fraud that is committed.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > >> Basically, it allows illegal aliens to have their slate wiped clean
    > and
    > > > >> get a Green Card.
    > > > >
    > > > > Which is still wrong. They need to all be deported.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >> 245(i) does not do that. It does not authorize a single Green Card
    > for
    > > > >> anybody who wouldn't already be eligible anyway.
    > > > >
    > > > > Then why all the rush to get married before April 30, 2001?
    > > >
    > > > Much has been made of this rush. For the most part, it was just a
matter
    > > > of somebody who already had a relationship formalizing it.
    > >
    > >
    > > Nope. Much of this had money and a green card involved.
    > >
    > >
    > > > Once again, you are confirming that in order to get a Green Card, you have to
    > > > qualify (or commit fraud - but it doesn't take 245(i) to do
    > that!)
    > >
    > > 245(i) therefore also encourages fraud.
    > >
    > >
    > > > You may want to read up on the legislative history of 245(i) rather
than
    > > > deny facts you don't like.
    > >
    > > I know the history of 245(i) and I can tell you that it does not matter. What
    > > does matter is that we are accepting more and more people who do nothing good for
    > > our country and the USA is becoming overpopulated in several developed areas. It
    > > is time we plugged up the hole and start reclaiming our country.
    > >
    > > > > We are going to be facing a serious overpopulation problem pretty
soon
    > > > > if we do not do something about the immigration problem.
    > > >
    > > > Earlier, you explicitly spoke out in favor of legal immigration -
saying
    > > > something like those who abide by immgration laws are not a problem.
    > >
    > > Yes I did, because we can control the number of those coming in legally. We
    > > cannot control the number of those coming illegally.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Let me point out that the US is one of the least densely populated countries in
    > > > the world.
    > >
    > > That's because we have places in the midwest where there are no people for miles.
    > > We have some of the most denseley populated cities in the world, like NY and LA.
    >

Mmm

With all due respect to origional poster. If I guess , you are thirld worlder like
me, How do I know ? All third worlder, they know one thing very well that is "How to
have Babies" ?

My friend, no matter if you managed to have your baby in USA, they will have the same
problem as we do.

Just by haveing more babies and so called working for their better future is not
solution to the problem. The solution to the problem is to act and act today. Worry
about present situation and worry about yourself than to worry about what will happen
to baby. If we left some legacy not only your baby but baby's baby will have better
future, automatically .

Ingo Pakleppa

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:04:43 -0700, James Donovan wrote:

    > Ingo Pakleppa wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I have the feeling that working for DSS may have left you with a biased
    >> sample. Nobody is arguing that such people exist. But there is a second
    >> category of illegal alien - and a much larger: those who sweep the
    >> streets, vacuum our offices, harvest our vegetables, etc.
    > There is a third category of illegal alien too. Those who kill, rob,
    > rape, steal, fly planes into buildings etc.

No. There is a third category of human beings. Timothy McVeigh was a US
citizen (and a decorated war veteran!) So is Robert Padilla and -
assuming he even is guilty of anything - John Walker Lindth. Not to
forget such pleasant people as Charles Manson.

    >> There is a
    >> reason the employer community is lobbying so strongly against
    >> enforcement of immigration laws (although - don't misunderstand me here
    >> - I do think this is wrong).
    > I would understand it too, but so many US citizens are now out of work,
    > therefore there should be plenty people to fill those jobs. This is
    > provided of course that employers want to pay minimum wage. You will
    > find that the only reason they hire illegals is because they can get
    > them cheap, and they are virtually slaves. They can't leave because
    > their "employer" constantly threatens to report them to INS.

I wish that was the case, but you really cannot find people to do the
jobs. First, unemployment still is not all that high in the US. And
second, those who are unemployment usually are not available for such
jobs - with good reason.

For instance, we currently have a number of unemployed software
developers in Silicon Valley. Sure, we could put them into jobs such as
short-order cooks - but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. A
software developer who is out of a job will find a new job, usually in
the software industry, within a few weeks or months. These are not
long-term unemployable people. So if we did push them into minimum-wage
harvest jobs, we would at the same time destroy our own brain capital -
and when we need software engineers again, we'd have to import them from
other countries.

For long-term unemployment, you are right - but few people are long-term
unemployed because of the economy; they are long-term unemployed for
other reasons, such as disabilities that restrict the jobs they can take.


    >> Basically, there are two main arguments used against illegal
    >> immigration: "we pay their welfare" and "they take our jobs" - but few
    >> people realize that these two arguments are actually contradictory.
    >> Personally, I'd be in favor of an essential worker visa in order to
    >> allow such workers to come to the US legally and be protected by the
    >> same labor laws as US citizens.
    > Ahhh... Companies would be opposed to such a visa because they would
    > have to pay minimum wage, which the currently do not do to illegal
    > aliens. Incidentally, I believe there is a seasonal farm labor visa
    > (H-2A I think it is) but it is hardly used because employers can still
    > import illegal aliens for so much cheaper and pay them next to nothing.

H-2A is indeed way underused, because it is so fraught with bureaucracy
that it is virtually unuseable. By the time an H-2A is approved, the
harvest would have rotted on the plants. Remember that farm labor is
extremely time sensitive (and don't say that farmers should apply for the
H-2A earlier. They can't apply until they know the names of who will work
there, which is usually only shortly before the farmer needs the worker!)

    >> > Now most people wonder why welfare is so screwed up and why municipal
    >> > Governments are so tightly strapped for cash. There is your answer.
    >> > A hell of alot is being wasted on welfare for people who simply
    >> > refuse to get up and work (not only on illegal aliens, I must admit).
    >> Thanks for making that clear. I'd like to go one step further and say
    >> that, if anything, illegal immigrants are *less* likely to seek such
    >> benefits than US citizens and legal residents.
    > I can assure you that alot do when they have USC kids or gain amnesty
    > and become USC's later on.

What does a US Citizen kid have to do with it? A US citizen kid does not
give the parent any right to reside in the US *at all* until the child is
21 years old.

And what amnesty are you talking about? There has only been one amnesty
in history that I know of, and that was in 1986. I don't expect another
amnesty happening for quite a long time.

    >> > Imagine when they can take this amount while being illegal, imagine
    >> > when they are given amnesty and eventually become citizens.
    >> Don't worry, as a general rule, even if there was an amnesty, illegal
    >> aliens who received welfare would be barred from using the amnesty
    >> (based on the "public charge" ground of inadmissibility).
    > But nothing stops those who were not on welfare before from going on
    > welfare later on.

Actually, that's not true. A Green Card can be revoked if somebody later
becomes a public charge and he cannot show that the reason arose after he
got his Green Card (that is, if somebody has an accident after getting
his GC and can no longer work, then he can legitimately go on welfare,
but he can't just quit his job and expect welfare to pay his way!)

    >> In any case, such an amnesty is exceedingly rare. To my knowledge,
    >> there only ever was one, and that is almost two decades ago (1986).
    > 245(i) is a de-facto amnesty.

Are you familiar with what 245(i) is about? It is strictly procedural,
and does not allow even one single person more to get a Green Card than
without 245(i).

It merely allows somebody to file an application in a different place
than he otherwise would have to! In other words, in order to apply under
245(i), he must be eligible immigrate legally in the US in the first
place. All 245(i) does is allow him to do that without travelling out
of the country.

Without 245(i), this person could get the exact same Green Card through a
US consulate (there are some interactions with an unrelated law).

Ingo

Crisinha

This is sooo funny.. Ok, you can come to the Us and have your kid here. But don't you think you'll get the us chitzenship. It will only happen after 21 years, and only if your kid want to.. be careful...

Rob S

"The only good point about US health care is that it also is the highest quality in
the world."

Actually it isn't. Certainly it is very good but the top quality care is restricted to the top hospitals in a few major cities. The same can be said for virtually all developed nations. In the UK the best hospitals were traditionally centred in London, although that is less and less the case now.

The WHO rates France as having the best health care in the world. (Germany was in the top 5, Britiain was aboutt 5th and the US didin't make the top 10 - from memory it was 39th). France is also amongst the most expensive but because of their system more of the money is directed to the actual health provison. In the US considerably more than 50% of the health care costs go on administration and the profits of insurers and HMOs.

48% of US residents have no or inadequate health cover; a FURTHER 1.4 million have no health cover since Bush came into office, this reflects the dependance of most Americans upon receiving health coverage through their employers. However in these poor economic times many employers are cutting back on coverage.

In addition medicaid is also being cut in many states, dental care and eye care are typically unavailable and many seniors have had prescription coverage reduced significantly.
By comparison with the UK: number of people with no health care - NIL; prescriptions are free to all people over 65 years.

Insurance premiums in the US for health care are now upwards of $1000 and you have to wait for an enrolment period before you canjoin. Also, even when you have joined you may not actually be able to obtain coverage for the first two months.

Finally to the guy who whines about the great US economy and the mighty Dollar. The Dollar has LOST value against the Euro in the past year and is considerably weaker than the UK Pound ( the rate has gone from 1.39Pounds to the US$ last fall to 1.56 today). Also unemployment is lower and declining in the UK whilst it is increacing in the US.

The original poster wants to have a kid in the US - this is an issue in many western countries - including both France and Britain. Partly it it is due to concerns about the quality of healthcare in many developing countries and the cost of that healthcare. Partly it is due to people wanting a better life for their children - historically that is why many people of european descent moved to the US and as such nothing new or immoral.

Perhaps instead of villification they should be complimented for their foresight and ambition for their family - I can think of many people in the west who might learn something.

Rich Wales

"Crisinha" wrote:

> Ok, you can come to the US and have your kid here.
> But don't you think you'll get US citizenship. It
> will only happen after 21 years . . . .

It sounds like you're confusing citizenship with immigration.
A US citizen can sponsor his/her parents for =immigration=
(i.e., "green cards") once he/she reaches age 21.

Rich Wales [email protected]
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Kamal R. Prasad

I don't know if the original poster has already delivered her baby by
now (but looking at some & not all of the posts on this thread), here
are my 2 cents:-

1. when you post such (inflamatory) comments, pl. give some info about
how long you were in the U.S and why you would want to come all the
way to the U.S to deliver your baby.
2. if your pregnancy is apparent and you have worked in the U.S
before, the amt. of money you & ur hubby contributed to medicare
indicates to the immigration officer [and I don't how know they check
it] whether you should be allowed in your (critical) condition.
irrespective of whether your child wants to opt for U.S citizenship 21
yrs from the date of birth, the immediate concern for the immigration
authorities would be the medicare costs.
3. there is a proposed bill that would disallow children born to
non-citizens from becoming citizens solely based on their being born
in the U.S.
4. most insurance agencies would refuse you coverage if you try to buy
it on the eve of your delivery. that makes it quite costly for you to
go through this -unless the intent is solely immigrant status for your
child.
regards
-kamal

Crisinha wrote in message news:...
    > This is sooo funny.. Ok, you can come to the Us and have your kid here.
    > But don't you think you'll get the us chitzenship. It will only happen
    > after 21 years, and only if your kid want to.. be careful...

Joachim Feise

Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
    > 3. there is a proposed bill that would disallow children born to
    > non-citizens from becoming citizens solely based on their being born
    > in the U.S.

A simple bill wouldn't change this. The 14th amendment to the US constitution
guarantees that a child born in the US is a US citizen. To change that, another
amendment to the constitution would be required, and a simple majority in
Congress is not enough for that. So the chance of changing it is practically 0.

-Joe

Rich Wales

Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

> 3. there is a proposed bill that would disallow children
> born to non-citizens from becoming citizens solely based
> on their being born in the U.S.

If you're referring to H.R. 190 (Stump, R-AZ), this bill has been
languishing in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee ever
since its introduction in early 2001. And for good reason, since
its attempt to do an end run around the 14th Amendment (by defining
a US-born child of non-PR foreigners as not being subject to US
jurisdiction) was very poorly thought out and, if enacted into law,
would almost certainly be struck down by the courts.

There was an attempt in the current Congress -- H.J.Res. 59 (Foley,
R-FL) to amend the Constitution to deny citizenship by birth to
US-born children of illegal aliens -- but this bill has also been
playing dead in committee ever since its introduction, and it's
probably safe to say that its chances of seeing the light of day
are nil.

The mere fact that "there is a proposed bill" does NOT mean that
the proposed change is sure to happen.

More info on citizenship-related bills in the current Congress can
be found at: http://www.richw-
.org/dualcit/law.html#Proposed

Rich Wales [email protected]
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.