Duran

Nine illegal immigrants - part of the large group of 250+ that were arrested
during a federal raid of wal-mart's in 20+ states - are suing wal-mart for
unfair pay (claiming they were paid less then legal workers).

Funny, because if I ever got caught doing this, I would be counting my lucky
stars that I actually got to keep what I made and didn't have to pay back
every illegal cent I earned.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...031109/ap_on_b
i_ge/wal_mart_arrests_3

Michael D. Young

Duran wrote:

    > Nine illegal immigrants - part of the large group of 250+ that were arrested
    > during a federal raid of wal-mart's in 20+ states - are suing wal-mart for
    > unfair pay (claiming they were paid less then legal workers).
    > Funny, because if I ever got caught doing this, I would be counting my lucky
    > stars that I actually got to keep what I made and didn't have to pay back
    > every illegal cent I earned.

Well give them their money in the form of a one way ticket back to where they
came from. Put one of those Walmart yellow smiley face stickers on the ticket
envelope. LOL

SanBernardino

All this griping about illegal immigrants totally misses the point about corporate responsibility. If companies such as Walmart were required to pay living wages, then they wouldn't be hiring illegals, because citizens would be glad to fill the jobs.

Rete

That is their right under the constitution. Just read that in the test questions for naturalization this weekend.

As for living wages, who the hell can live on the minimum federal wage? I know that I couldn't. Could you? So why should Wal-Mart or any other company pay a living wage if the government tells them what the minimum wage should be and that is not livable.

Rete

Andrew Defaria

SanBernardino wrote:

    > All this griping about illegal immigrants totally misses the point
    > about corporate responsibility.

Because the point is that the immigrants are here illegally!

    > If companies such as Walmart were required to pay living wages, then
    > they wouldn't be hiring illegals, because citizens would be glad to
    > fill the jobs.

Actually it was a contracting firm that was paying the illegals - not
Wal-Mart.
--
Sex on television can't hurt you unless you fall off.

SanBernardino

Maybe if I shopped at Walmart I could. Still be living from paycheck to paycheck though in poor neighborhood, I suppose.

Mrtravel

Duran wrote:

    > Nine illegal immigrants - part of the large group of 250+ that were arrested
    > during a federal raid of wal-mart's in 20+ states - are suing wal-mart for
    > unfair pay (claiming they were paid less then legal workers).

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that they were
working for contract agencies that paid everyone poorly, and these jobs
were not the same jobs as done by Wal Mart employees in those stores.
Are they comparing their pay to what Wal-Mart employees in other jobs
were making for the same store?

SanBernardino

Could be so. I have no idea or interest in the merits of their lawsuit. That is for the judge/jury to decide.

What I find objectionable is that whenever these issues come up, many folks are ready to denounce the illegal workers but not the companies who illegally give them work.

Andrew Defaria

SanBernardino wrote:

    > Could be so. I have no idea or interest in the merits of their
    > lawsuit. That is for the judge/jury to decide.
    > What I find objectionable is that whenever these issues come up, many
    > folks are ready to denounce the illegal workers but not the companies
    > who illegally give them work.

Seems to me that before they are hired they are already illegal, no? We
wouldn't want to blame the original perpetrators of the crime because
they have no money. It be far better to blame the second perpetrators of
the crime because we can get more out of them, right? Where do your true
intentions lie?

That aside I have no problem going after the companies who illegally
hired them however I do have a problem with blaming Wal-Mart, if indeed
Wal-Mart didn't hire them rather hired a contracting agency. Often a big
company will contract through a smaller company to precisely avoid
having to do all of that regulartory background checking. IOW they
assume that the contractor is already operating within the confines of
the law and/or that as part of the contract the contrator is responsible
for screening such people.. Going after Wal-Mart just shows that the
people pushing for the law to go after the big company is not really
interested in the poor immigrants rather they are just interested in
getting bigger $$$. Disingenuous at best.
--
RAM disk is *not* an installation procedure.

SanBernardino

Yes. They are here illegally. But it takes an employer for them to work illegally. Without employment, I doubt they could stay nor would they encourage others to come.

Why is the worker the first perpertrator of the crime and the employer the second? It takes two to Tango. Moreover, I hold the company and its management to their obligation as Americans to follow the laws and interests of our country.

With a better world for the people of this country and with decency. I have no personal gain or involvement in this issue. Living in California, I have known people who are illegal and people who employ illegals, but no-one near or dear to me. How about your intentions?

Convenient assumption when it is an open secret that these contractors hire illegal workers for night shifts at Wal-marts and in other industries across the country.

Andrew Defaria

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050700050606020608050700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SanBernardino wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> Seems to me that before they are hired they are already illegal, no?
    > Yes. They are here illegally. But it takes an employer for them to
    > work illegally. Without employment, I doubt they could stay nor would
    > they encourage others to come.

Perhaps yes, but perhaps not.

    >> We wouldn't want to blame the original perpetrators of the crime
    >> because they have no money. It be far better to blame the second
    >> perpetrators of the crime
    > Why is the worker the first perpertrator of the crime and the employer
    > the second?

Simple. In many cases the worker (well actually he's not a worker yet)
entered illegaly thus violating the law. Other cases they entered
legally, say on another visa, then determined that they wished to be
employed, which they are not supposed to do, thus violating the law by
the very act of seeking employment.

    > It takes two to Tango.

Not always. While it may take two to Tango or dance as you say, crashing
the party is also illegal.

    > Moreover, I hold the company and its management to their obligation as
    > Americans to follow the laws and interests of our country.

However the immigrant does not have any such obligation?!? Thankfully
the law disagrees with you.

    >> Where do your true intentions lie?
    > With a better world for the people of this country and with decency.

A better world first starts with cooperation and obedience of the laws
of the land. A decent person is one who obeys the law. When you start
with lawbreakers you will not end up with a better world (incidently,
illegal aliens are, by defintion, not people of this country) nor will
you end up with decency.

    > I have no personal gain or involvement in this issue.

Actually you do as illegal immigration effects us all.

    > Living in California, I have known people who are illegal and people
    > who employ illegals, but no-one near or dear to me. How about your
    > intentions?

No intentions really however I do have an interest in seeing that the
laws of the US are respected and that violators pay their penalities.
Fragrant disregard of the law never stuck me as a good thing.

    >> Often a big company will contract through a smaller company to
    >> precisely avoid having to do all of that regulartory background
    >> checking. IOW they assume that the contractor is already operating
    >> within the confines of the law
    > Convenient assumption when it is an open secret that these contractors
    > hire illegal workers for night shifts at Wal-marts and in other
    > industries across the country.

You make an assertion here. Kindly provide proof of this assertion,
otherwise we should just dismiss it.
--
Taxation with representation isn't so hot, either!

--------------050700050606020608050700
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
SanBernardino wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Ori ginally
posted by Andrew Defaria <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Seems to me that before they are hired they
are already illegal, no?<br>
</blockquote>
Yes. They are here illegally. But it takes an employer for them to work
illegally. Without employment, I doubt they could stay nor would they
encourage others to come.</blockquote>
Perhaps yes, but perhaps not. <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">We wouldn't want to blame the original
perpetrators of the crime because they have no money. It be far better
to blame the second perpetrators of the crime</blockquote>
Why is the worker the first perpertrator of the crime and the employer
the second? </blockquote>
Simple. In many cases the worker (well actually he's not a worker yet)
entered illegaly thus violating the law. Other cases they entered
legally, say on another visa, then determined that they wished to be
employed, which they are not supposed to do, thus violating the law by
the very act of seeking employment.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">It
takes two to Tango. </blockquote>
Not always. While it may take two to Tango or dance as you say,
crashing the party is also illegal.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Mor eover,
I hold the company and its management to their obligation as Americans
to follow the laws and interests of our country.</blockquote>
However the immigrant does not have any such obligation?!? Thankfully
the law disagrees with you.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite"> Where do your true intentions lie?<br>
</blockquote>
<!---->With a better world for the people of this country and with
decency. </blockquote>
A better world first starts with cooperation and obedience of the laws
of the land. A decent person is one who obeys the law. When you start
with lawbreakers you will not end up with a better world (incidently,
illegal aliens are, by defintion, <b>not</b> people of this country)
nor will you end up with decency.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">I
have no personal gain or involvement in this issue. </blockquote>
Actually you do as illegal immigration effects us all.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Liv ing
in California, I have known people who are illegal and people who
employ illegals, but no-one near or dear to me. How about your
intentions?</blockquote>
No intentions really however I do have an interest in seeing that the
laws of the US are respected and that violators pay their penalities.
Fragrant disregard of the law never stuck me as a good thing.<!----><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">Often a big company will contract through a
smaller company to precisely avoid having to do all of that regulartory
background checking. IOW they assume that the contractor is already
operating within the confines of the law<br>
</blockquote>
<!---->Convenient assumption when it is an open secret that these
contractors hire illegal workers for night shifts at Wal-marts and in
other industries across the country.</blockquote>
You make an assertion here. Kindly provide proof of this assertion,
otherwise we should just dismiss it.<br>
-- <br>
Taxation with representation isn't so hot, either!<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------050700050606020608050700--

Booger

"Duran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Nine illegal immigrants - part of the large group of 250+ that were
arrested
    > during a federal raid of wal-mart's in 20+ states - are suing wal-mart for
    > unfair pay (claiming they were paid less then legal workers).

These people are not "immigrants" so please don't label them as such.
Immigration is a legal process and one who runs across a border or overstays
a visa is not immigrating and does not belong here, hence the term "alien."

They should have no rights to sue anyone here and no access to our courts.

Personally I like the term "Criminal Aliens" myself.


--
Me (Ohio USA)
Her (Davao, RP)
1st NOA April 3
2nd NOA... Oct 22!
203 Days in the NSC Prison
NVC Notice Oct. 30
Packet Received Nov 6
Interview Date Jan 9

Andy Platt

Immigration law differs from your opinion since it treats all aliens as
immigrants until shown otherwise. That's why you can be banned from the US
for trying to enter the US with a valid non-immigrant visa simply because
the inspector doesn't believe you are really a non-immigrant. The specific
denial says that you are an immigrant without the appropriate documents. So,
they are illegal immigrants whether or not you choose to accept that term.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

"Booger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:470ec24b1cd76ecdff5b0ede21066e3...eganetnews.com...
    > "Duran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Nine illegal immigrants - part of the large group of 250+ that were
    > arrested
    > > during a federal raid of wal-mart's in 20+ states - are suing wal-mart
for
    > > unfair pay (claiming they were paid less then legal workers).
    > >
    > These people are not "immigrants" so please don't label them as such.
    > Immigration is a legal process and one who runs across a border or
overstays
    > a visa is not immigrating and does not belong here, hence the term
"alien."
    > They should have no rights to sue anyone here and no access to our courts.
    > Personally I like the term "Criminal Aliens" myself.
    > --
    > Me (Ohio USA)
    > Her (Davao, RP)
    > 1st NOA April 3
    > 2nd NOA... Oct 22!
    > 203 Days in the NSC Prison
    > NVC Notice Oct. 30
    > Packet Received Nov 6
    > Interview Date Jan 9

SanBernardino

Speak for yourself; I said no such thing. Why are you so rude? First you cast aspersions on my intentions, but refuse to answer about your own. Then you put words in my mouth. I expect your mother taught you better manners than that. This is a discussion forum. I am not a talk show guest or in a political campaign, so please don't treat me like that.

In my opinion, every resident of this country is obligated to follow our laws. Simply by living and working here, illegals are clearly breaking the law. After their trial and damages are settled, the illegal immigrants sueing Wal-mart should be sent home. But as long as employers and industries continue to support them, more will come. If these companies paid fair, living wages, the jobs would be filled by citizens and the majority of illegal workers be gone. Wal-mart would not be in this position if it hired citizens to fill its jobs. Companies like Wal-mart are responsible for providing illegal jobs and denying livable wages to our citizens.
No illegal jobs = no illegal workers.
Living wages = fewer poor Americans.

Me either. Fragrant disregard for American workers never struck me as a good thing either.

I have met someone who was illegally employed on the night-shift at Wal-mart, but I can't prove it. To anyone with eyes to see, it is apparent that Wal-mart is farming out jobs to illegal workers. Why be so quick to dismiss the likelihood that Wal-mart relies upon these illegal workers? At BEST, they are turning a blind eye. At worst, their business stratagies depend upon the supply of cheap foreign labor. It just so happens in the other Walmart thread that a former Wal-mart employee testifies to the same.

Leslie

Fragrant disregard is ALWAYS better than foul smelling disregard.

Leslie