Leslie

I wouldn't give much credence to the nastiness of his tone. He's ranting in so many threads he can't keep it straight who he's pissed at.

Leslie

SanBernardino

Too funny. It's flagrant, isn't it? Thanks!

Leslie

What's really bad is that I had a typo when I was making fun of you guys. LOL.

Leslie

Andrew Defaria

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000404010600060405030209
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SanBernardino wrote:

    >Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >
    >>However the immigrant does not have any such obligation?!? Thankfully the law disagrees with you.
    >>
    >Speak for yourself; I said no such thing.
Which is why I asked it as a question. An outrageous question as your
statement gives about the impression that there is no such obligation on
immigrants, which is why I asked it in the manner that I did.

    >Why are you so rude?
I don't know. Why are you so rude?

    >First you cast aspersions on my intentions,
I asked questions about your (and others) intentions. Sorry that upset you.

    >but refuse to answer about your own.
I did answer really, if you bothered to think about it at all. You
stated that employers have an obligation. I asked (unbelievingly I might
add) if you thought that immigrants do not have similar obligations. It
doesn't take a lot to realize that I believe that both have an
obligation under the law.

    >Then you put words in my mouth.
I did not.

    >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.
Sorry you don't like the treatment (actually unlike talk radio, this
forum (Usenet) has always been know to be even tougher!)

    >In my opinion, every resident of this country is obligated to follow our laws.
I agree. And even the guests too.

    >Simply by living and working here, illegals are clearly breaking the law.
Agreed.

    >After their trial and damages are settled, the illegal immigrants sueing Wal-mart should be sent home.
But, as I've heard, Wal-mart did not commit the offense. I'm OK with
allowing the courts to determine this though.

    >But as long as employers and industries continue to support them, more will come.
"Support them" conjers up thoughts of willfully encouraging such
behavior. I don't think that Wal-Mart willfully encourages the hiring of
illegal aliens.

    >If these companies paid fair, living wages, the jobs would be filled by citizens and the majority of illegal workers be gone.
I don't think we have data that says that one way or the other. Surely
the illegal alien who works at below minimum wage would be even happier
to work at a "living wage" (I always cringe when I hear that phrase). In
fact one might argue that they'd be more inclined to break the law to do
so. So forcing companies to pay a "living wage" may make the problem worse.

    >Wal-mart would not be in this position if it hired citizens to fill its jobs.
For all we know Wal-Mart may have fully thought that it was hiring
citizens (or LPR) all the while. Quite simply you do not have the facts
that they were aware that they were hiring illegals. Nor do I. As they
say, the jury's still out on that one.

    >Companies like Wal-mart are responsible for providing illegal jobs and denying livable wages to our citizens.
Broad generalization with little to no proof.

    >No illegal jobs = no illegal workers.
Well this tautalogy merely echos the current laws. However reality is
different.

    >Living wages = fewer poor Americans.
Interesting. So where's all this money gonna come from?

    >Me either. Fragrant disregard for American workers never struck me as a good thing either.
I'm unconvinced that there is any fragrant disregard for American
workers going on.

    >>...You make an assertion here. Kindly provide proof of this assertion, otherwise we should just dismiss it.
    >>
    >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.
Still don't see any facts here, just wild assertions.

    >Why be so quick to dismiss the likelihood that Wal-mart relies upon these illegal workers?
Because 'round here people (including corporations) are innocent until
proven guilty. They have not been proven guilty yet.

It is impossible that Wal-Mart and other companies knowingly hire
illegal? I'd say not - it's definitely possible and perhaps quite
likely. However given the facts as we know them at this time we cannot
say for certain one way or another.

    >At BEST, they are turning a blind eye.
I'm not of the opinion that they should be required to become "private
eyes" as it were.

    >At worst, their business stratagies depend upon the supply of cheap foreign labor.
Or cheap domestic labor. Let's just say cheap labor. But did you ever
think, given Wal-Mart's profit margins, that they have ever operated
thinking that they could afford expensive labor? I never had. Look at
their products, profit margins and business model. They quite simple
exist to provide cheap and/or affordable products to the masses. If they
were "compelled" to provide "living wages" for each and every employee
(I assume "living wages" means substantially more than their employees
are currently being paid) then they would have two choices - go out of
business because they'd be losing way too much money (And who would
benefit from that? Millions of people would no longer be able to buy
such products cheaply) or substantially raise their prices (having about
the same effect).

    >It just so happens in the other Walmart thread that a former Wal-mart employee testifies to the same.
Don't see the other Walmart thread and I'm not sure what you mean by
"the same".
--
Headline: Bear takes over Disneyland in Pooh D'Etat!

--------------000404010600060405030209
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]">
<pre wrap="">Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However the immigrant does not have any such obligation?!? Thankfully the law disagrees with you.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Speak for yourself; I said no such thing. </pre>
</blockquote>
Which is why I asked it as a question. An outrageous question as your
statement gives about the impression that there is no such obligation
on immigrants, which is why I asked it in the manner that I did.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Why are you so rude? </pre>
</blockquote>
I don't know. Why are you so rude?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">First you cast aspersions on my intentions, </pre>
</blockquote>
I asked questions about your (and others) intentions. Sorry that upset
you.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">but refuse to answer about your own.</pre>
</blockquote>
I did answer really, if you bothered to think about it at all. You
stated that employers have an obligation. I asked (unbelievingly I
might add) if you thought that immigrants do not have similar
obligations. It doesn't take a lot to realize that I believe that both
have an obligation under the law.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Then you put words in my mouth. </pre>
</blockquote>
I did not.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
Sorry you don't like the treatment (actually unlike talk radio, this
forum (Usenet) has always been know to be even tougher!)<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">In my opinion, every resident of this country is obligated to follow our laws. </pre>
</blockquote>
I agree. And even the guests too.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Simply by living and working here, illegals are clearly breaking the law. </pre>
</blockquote>
Agreed.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">After their trial and damages are settled, the illegal immigrants sueing Wal-mart should be sent home.</pre>
</blockquote>
But, as I've heard, Wal-mart did not commit the offense. I'm OK with
allowing the courts to determine this though.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">But as long as employers and industries continue to support them, more will come. </pre>
</blockquote>
"Support them" conjers up thoughts of willfully encouraging such
behavior. I don't think that Wal-Mart willfully encourages the hiring
of illegal aliens.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">If these companies paid fair, living wages, the jobs would be filled by citizens and the majority of illegal workers be gone. </pre>
</blockquote>
I don't think we have data that says that one way or the other. Surely
the illegal alien who works at below minimum wage would be even happier
to work at a "living wage" (I always cringe when I hear that phrase).
In fact one might argue that they'd be more inclined to break the law
to do so. So forcing companies to pay a "living wage" may make the
problem worse.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Wal-mart would not be in this position if it hired citizens to fill its jobs. </pre>
</blockquote>
For all we know Wal-Mart may have fully thought that it was hiring
citizens (or LPR) all the while. Quite simply you do not have the facts
that they were aware that they were hiring illegals. Nor do I. As they
say, the jury's still out on that one.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Companies like Wal-mart are responsible for providing illegal jobs and denying livable wages to our citizens.</pre>
</blockquote>
Broad generalization with little to no proof.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">No illegal jobs = no illegal workers.</pre>
</blockquote>
Well this tautalogy merely echos the current laws. However reality is
different.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Living wages = fewer poor Americans.</pre>
</blockquote>
Interesting. So where's all this money gonna come from?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Me either. Fragrant disregard for American workers never struck me as a good thing either.</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm unconvinced that there is any fragrant disregard for American
workers going on.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">...You make an assertion here. Kindly provide proof of this assertion, otherwise we should just dismiss it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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. </pre>
</blockquote>
Still don't see any facts here, just wild assertions.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Why be so quick to dismiss the likelihood that Wal-mart relies upon these illegal workers?</pre>
</blockquote>
Because 'round here people (including corporations) are innocent until
proven guilty. They have not been proven guilty yet.<br>
<br>
It is impossible that Wal-Mart and other companies knowingly hire
illegal? I'd say not - it's definitely possible and perhaps quite
likely. However given the facts as we know them at this time we cannot
say for certain one way or another.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">At BEST, they are turning a blind eye. </pre>
</blockquote>
I'm not of the opinion that they should be required to become "private
eyes" as it were.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">At worst, their business stratagies depend upon the supply of cheap foreign labor. </pre>
</blockquote>
Or cheap domestic labor. Let's just say cheap labor. But did you ever
think, given Wal-Mart's profit margins, that they have ever operated
thinking that they could afford expensive labor? I never had. Look at
their products, profit margins and business model. They quite simple
exist to provide cheap and/or affordable products to the masses. If
they were "compelled" to provide "living wages" for each and every
employee (I assume "living wages" means substantially more than their
employees are currently being paid) then they would have two choices -
go out of business because they'd be losing way too much money (And who
would benefit from that? Millions of people would no longer be able to
buy such products cheaply) or substantially raise their prices (having
about the same effect).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">It just so happens in the other Walmart thread that a former Wal-mart employee testifies to the same.</pre>
</blockquote>
Don't see the other Walmart thread and I'm not sure what you mean by
"the same".<br>
-- <br>
Headline: Bear takes over Disneyland in Pooh D'Etat!<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------000404010600060405030209--

SanBernardino

The other thread is here:
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...hreadid=189956

It was also give you some information about Wal-mart's profitability. You acknowledge that Wal-mart makes its money on cheap labor, but refuse to acknowledge that is labor is necessarily foreign. Do you believe that Americans want to fill these night shifts at those wages? Why do you think they or any other company hires illegal workers? I think it is because they can get away with paying less $$ with fewer benefits.

Andrew Defaria

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050502020005010101050502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SanBernardino wrote:

    > The other thread is here:
    > ]http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...=&threadid=18-
    > 9956[/url]

Well I don't do web based newsgroups but I figured I'd do it this time
for you. (Think you can get a news client that doesn't break URLs).

In any event, reading the former Wal-Mart employee's posting just gave
me the feeling that he's merely a have-not disguntled with this former
employer and, in general, anybody who has money. His whole "proof" that
Wal-Mart knowingly employees illegals can be summed up in one sentence
"He knows it therefore it must be true". Might I suggest that if he
indeed has evidence to that assertion that he offer such evidence to the
prosecutor?

    > It was also give you some information about Wal-mart's profitability.

Is profitability bad?

    > You acknowledge that Wal-mart makes its money on cheap labor,

I said no such thing sir. Wal-Mart makes its money providing goods and
services to people. Labor is an expense. Given small profit margins one
seeks to minimize expenses.

    > but refuse to acknowledge that is labor is necessarily foreign.

I have seen no evidence of this.

    > Do you believe that Americans want to fill these night shifts at those
    > wages?

I'm sure a large portion of Wal-Mart's labor force are indeed Americans.

    > Why do you think they or any other company hires illegal workers?

Sometimes they hire illegal workers unknowingly. Other times knowingly.
The question is which happened in this case.

    > I think it is because they can get away with paying less $$ with fewer
    > benefits.

Perhaps however you have not shown that to be the case yet.
--
If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?

--------------050502020005010101050502
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]">The
other thread is here:<br>
<br>
]<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...s=&threadid=18">http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...mp;threadid=18</a>-<br>
9956[/url]</blockquote>
Well I don't <b>do</b> web based newsgroups but I figured I'd do it
this time for you. (Think you can get a news client that doesn't break
URLs).<br>
<br>
In any event, reading the former Wal-Mart employee's posting just gave
me the feeling that he's merely a have-not disguntled with this former
employer and, in general, anybody who has money. His whole "proof" that
Wal-Mart knowingly employees illegals can be summed up in one sentence
"He knows it therefore it must be true". Might I suggest that if he
indeed has evidence to that assertion that he offer such evidence to
the prosecutor?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">It
was also give you some information about Wal-mart's profitability.</blockquote>
Is profitability bad?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">You
acknowledge that Wal-mart makes its money on cheap labor, </blockquote>
I said no such thing sir. Wal-Mart makes its money providing goods and
services to people. Labor is an expense. Given small profit margins one
seeks to minimize expenses.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">but
refuse to acknowledge that is labor is necessarily foreign. </blockquote>
I have seen no evidence of this.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Do
you believe that Americans want to fill these night shifts at those
wages? </blockquote>
I'm sure a large portion of Wal-Mart's labor force are indeed Americans.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">Why
do you think they or any other company hires illegal workers? </blockquote>
Sometimes they hire illegal workers unknowingly. Other times knowingly.
The question is which happened in this case.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">I
think it is because they can get away with paying less $$ with fewer
benefits.</blockquote>
Perhaps however you have not shown that to be the case yet.<br>
-- <br>
If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------050502020005010101050502--

SanBernardino

Thanks, that was nice of you. Sorry about the URL breaking, but I am using that web based forum to post, not a news client. I like the forum interface. They also have some extras, like signatures of other people using the forum, which you don't see on usenet. In their signatures, people put info about their processing times so that they don't have to type it each time. There are also other features like private messaging. It is a nice community.

Good suggestion! Maybe he has some, but most of the time the presence of illegal workers is implied not explicitly spelled out. You just know not to ask certain questions or are not given the opportunity to interact. I have worked in areas where a lot of people are illegal; where you do not talk about social security cards, health insurance, or legal matters. It is sort of "don't ask, don't tell" when you are working in these areas. You just know it, the same way you know what not to wear or who not to invite to some country clubs. Nobody tells you what to do, but if you don't play by the unstated rules then you risk disapproval.

No, profitability is good. Greed and lack of social responsibility are bad. I was pointing out that Wal-mart's profits are not so small that they could not afford to pay a wage that Americans could afford live on. Why would a company have a dozen or more illegal employees if Americans were willing to fill those jobs at those wages? I agree with you that a few might get hired by having fake documents, but not on the scale that happens now.

Indeed, that is the question. But who is to provide the answer? Neither the media nor the goverment actively investigate illegal labor. Why is it that no agency of law enforcement, systematically conducts investigations or raids to make sure businesses are abiding the laws?

Truth be told there are probably some industries in which it is probably in the better interest of society to use cheaper paid immigrant workers. I doubt that retailing (Wal-mart) is one of those industries. The reason no-one deports the illegal workers is not because they are hard to find. I suspect it is because some sectors of our economy run on their backs and a lot of money rides on them. I doubt we could have had the construction boom we have had in California without immigrant labor. People would have to pay a lot more for their houses or settle for smaller homes. Produce would be a lot more expensive. The cost of living would go up.

It ought to a matter of public policy to decide whether it is beneficial to our economy to have some cheap immigrant labor. If so, these workers ought to be given some legal status. Illegal workers contribute to other social problems and drive down wages. That would enable us to deport the ones who truly are hurting our society. Companies who hire them under the table ought to be severely fined.

Personally, I think the burden of proof shoul be on the company to show that they took appropriate steps to verify documents for their workers. The larger the number of illegal workers discovered, the higher the burden of proof.

I don't have the proof, and I don't think it should be up to me to provide it. I also don't think I have to suspend common-sense for lack of proof.

Mrtravel

SanBernardino wrote:

    >
    > Good suggestion! Maybe he has some, but most of the time the presence of
    > illegal workers is implied not explicitly spelled out. You just know not
    > to ask certain questions or are not given the opportunity to interact. I
    > have worked in areas where a lot of people are illegal; where you do not
    > talk about social security cards, health insurance, or legal matters. It
    > is sort of "don't ask, don't tell" when you are working in these areas.
    > You just know it, the same way you know what not to wear or who not to
    > invite to some country clubs. Nobody tells you what to do, but if you
    > don't play by the unstated rules then you risk disapproval.

I am quite sure that all of my fellow employees are legal, and I have
NEVER heard a discussion about social security cards where I work.

SanBernardino

Glad to hear that!

Andrew Defaria

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020807070904080803030902
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SanBernardino wrote:

    >Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >
    >>Well I don't do web based newsgroups but I figured I'd do it this time for you. (Think you can get a news client that doesn't break URLs).
    >>
    >Thanks, that was nice of you. Sorry about the URL breaking, but I am using that web based forum to post, not a news client.
One of the many reasons why I don't like web based forums...

    >I like the forum interface.
Another reason is that everybody's web based forum can and often is,
different.

    >They also have some extras, like signatures of other people using the forum, which you don't see on usenet.
Signatures are easy to do, and often done, on usenet.

    >In their signatures, people put info about their processing times so that they don't have to type it each time.
Easily doable with signatures on usenet too.

    >There are also other features like private messaging. It is a nice community.
They call it email! ;-)

Additionally, most web based forums don't (often - some do, others don't
- to various degrees):

* offer spell checkers
* easily allow insertion of say an image
* have access to your address book so you can post and cc a friend
or another email address of yours
* do quoting or do quoting right
* have ASCII based interfaces
* etc

    >>Might I suggest that if he indeed has evidence to that assertion that he offer such evidence to the prosecutor?
    >>
    >Good suggestion! Maybe he has some, but most of the time the presence of illegal workers is implied not explicitly spelled out.
Which can be mistook for assumed but not really there.

    >You just know not to ask certain questions or are not given the opportunity to interact.
Well I've always been known to ask those questions that others seem
afraid to ask.

    >I have worked in areas where a lot of people are illegal; where you do not talk about social security cards, health insurance, or legal matters. It is sort of "don't ask, don't tell" when you are working in these areas.
Again, I do not let others dictate what questions I will ask or subjects
I will bring up.

    >You just know it, the same way you know what not to wear or who not to invite to some country clubs. Nobody tells you what to do, but if you don't play by the unstated rules then you risk disapproval.
Big deal. As I said, I do not let others dictate my behavior, especially
when I feel such behavior is wrong or illegal. Risk disapproval? This
attitude has served me very well over the years (and I can always sleep
at night) YMMV.

    >>Is profitability bad?
    >>
    >>No, profitability is good. Greed and lack of social responsibility are bad. I was pointing out that Wal-mart's profits are not so small that they could not afford to pay a wage that Americans could afford live on. Why would a company have a dozen or more illegal employees if Americans were willing to fill those jobs at those wages? I agree with you that a few might get hired by having fake documents, but not on the scale that happens now.
^ - incorrect quoting. Must be that web forum! :-)

Couple of points. You seem to equate profitability with greed. I do not
bind companies with the "they must be socially responsible" stigma.

If you are convinced that Wal-mart's profitability can support "living
wages" for 100% Amecian (or legal immigrant) employees then kindly show
me the math. I don't believe that they can. Of course this would require
defining things like living wage, # employees, profits, revenues, cost
of goods sold, etc, etc (many Wal-mart employees are indeed US citizens
of LPRs. It is demonstrable that they are getting a "living wage"
because they are getting the wage and they are living on it! One man's
living wage is another man's definition of poverty and yet another man's
definition of wealth, so we must be careful with terms here).

I beg to differ that faking documents is a small activity. There are a
lot of places and people using such faked documents all the time. I
believe that the true scale of faked documents is a lot hirer then you
think. Of course if the laws aren't enforced and the documents are
requested then there's less need for illegal aliens to get false documents.

    >>Sometimes they hire illegal workers unknowingly. Other times knowingly. The question is which happened in this case.
    >>
    >>Indeed, that is the question. But who is to provide the answer?
Law enforcement and the courts.

    >>Neither the media nor the goverment actively investigate illegal labor.
Sure they do. I've seen INS web pages related to numbers of alien
workers deported, etc. That's only what's public. I'm sure the
internally they have way more data.

    >>Why is it that no agency of law enforcement, systematically conducts investigations or raids to make sure businesses are abiding the laws?
They sure don't seem to do it that often and in essense that's exactly
why I've been posting in this thread (except I would add, or subsitute
"immigrants" for "businesses" above). The almost violent reaction of
some of the people here serves to give a particle answer - many
Americans (or would be Americans I'd bet) are very vocally opposed to
enforcing the laws as they stand WRT illegal aliens. Why is that I'm not
sure. When engaging such people they constantly seem to change the
subject to whatever axe they wish to grind this week...

    >>Truth be told there are probably some industries in which it is probably in the better interest of society to use cheaper paid immigrant workers.
Or just cheaper works, regardless of whether or not they are alien.

    >>I doubt that retailing (Wal-mart) is one of those industries. The reason no-one deports the illegal workers is not because they are hard to find.
Bull. You can't go claiming they are hard to find then claiming that you
worked with them in a hush-hush environment where everybody knew.
Besides they are easy to find. Hell cameras at the Mexican borders are
snapping pictures of them everyday whilst they are violating the law!

I drove to Mexico a few times and I recall them running in packs right
through a large border crossing south of San Diego! Hell I could have
caught 'em if I merely stuck my foot out to trip them! (What to do with
them then is another story).

    >>I suspect it is because some sectors of our economy run on their backs and a lot of money rides on them. I doubt we could have had the construction boom we have had in California without immigrant labor. People would have to pay a lot more for their houses or settle for smaller homes. Produce would be a lot more expensive. The cost of living would go up.
Hell in California the cost of living is amoungst the highest in the
nation already! What you pay for a 3 bedroom house would buy you a
neighborhood in most other places in the country. In fact, if you are in
another place in the country you'd think that there is no way you could
afford to live here. Yet people do. I'd say that if, let's say, rural
Kanas suddenly expelled all illegal aliens who build houses they'd think
"Gosh the housing industry will never survive" but in the end it would
and the houses would still be cheaper than in California. IOW people say
it'd never sustain itself but the mere fact that California has
sustained such a high cost of living proves that it is indeed doable and
sustainable (unfortunately).

    >>It ought to a matter of public policy to decide whether it is beneficial to our economy to have some cheap immigrant labor. If so, these workers ought to be given some legal status. Illegal workers contribute to other social problems and drive down wages. That would enable us to deport the ones who truly are hurting our society. Companies who hire them under the table ought to be severely fined.
    >>
    >>Personally, I think the burden of proof shoul be on the company to show that they took appropriate steps to verify documents for their workers. The larger the number of illegal workers discovered, the higher the burden of proof.
Luckily the Constitution disagrees with you. Guilty until proven
innocent is not in keeping with the American way as it were (and
shouldn't be).

    >>I don't have the proof, and I don't think it should be up to me to provide it. I also don't think I have to suspend common-sense for lack of proof.
Common-sense is really not that common and it is often wrong, very
wrong, especially when people fail to check the facts.
--
I need someone real bad... Are you real bad?

--------------020807070904080803030902
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]">
<pre wrap="">Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well I don't do web based newsgroups but I figured I'd do it this time for you. (Think you can get a news client that doesn't break URLs).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Thanks, that was nice of you. Sorry about the URL breaking, but I am using that web based forum to post, not a news client. </pre>
</blockquote>
One of the many reasons why I don't like web based forums...<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">I like the forum interface.</pre>
</blockquote>
Another reason is that everybody's web based forum can and often is,
different.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">They also have some extras, like signatures of other people using the forum, which you don't see on usenet. </pre>
</blockquote>
Signatures are easy to do, and often done, on usenet.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">In their signatures, people put info about their processing times so that they don't have to type it each time.</pre>
</blockquote>
Easily doable with signatures on usenet too.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">There are also other features like private messaging. It is a nice community.</pre>
</blockquote>
They call it email! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span><br>
<br>
Additionally, most web based forums don't (often - some do, others
don't - to various degrees):<br>
<ul>
<li>offer spell checkers</li>
<li>easily allow insertion of say an image</li>
<li>have access to your address book so you can post and cc a friend
or another email address of yours</li>
<li>do quoting or do quoting right</li>
<li>have ASCII based interfaces</li>
<li>etc<br>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Might I suggest that if he indeed has evidence to that assertion that he offer such evidence to the prosecutor?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Good suggestion! Maybe he has some, but most of the time the presence of illegal workers is implied not explicitly spelled out. </pre>
</blockquote>
Which can be mistook for assumed but not really there.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">You just know not to ask certain questions or are not given the opportunity to interact.</pre>
</blockquote>
Well I've always been known to ask those questions that others seem
afraid to ask.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">I have worked in areas where a lot of people are illegal; where you do not talk about social security cards, health insurance, or legal matters. It is sort of "don't ask, don't tell" when you are working in these areas.</pre>
</blockquote>
Again, I do not let others dictate what questions I will ask or
subjects I will bring up.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">You just know it, the same way you know what not to wear or who not to invite to some country clubs. Nobody tells you what to do, but if you don't play by the unstated rules then you risk disapproval.</pre>
</blockquote>
Big deal. As I said, I do not let others dictate my behavior,
especially when I feel such behavior is wrong or illegal. Risk
disapproval? This attitude has served me very well over the years (and
I can always sleep at night) YMMV.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is profitability bad?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No, profitability is good. Greed and lack of social responsibility are bad. I was pointing out that Wal-mart's profits are not so small that they could not afford to pay a wage that Americans could afford live on. Why would a company have a dozen or more illegal employees if Americans were willing to fill those jobs at those wages? I agree with you that a few might get hired by having fake documents, but not on the scale that happens now.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
^ - incorrect quoting. Must be that web forum! <span
class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<br>
Couple of points. You seem to equate profitability with greed. I do not
bind companies with the "they must be socially responsible" stigma. <br>
<br>
If you are convinced that Wal-mart's profitability can support "living
wages" for 100% Amecian (or legal immigrant) employees then kindly show
me the math. I don't believe that they can. Of course this would
require defining things like living wage, # employees, profits,
revenues, cost of goods sold, etc, etc (many Wal-mart employees are
indeed US citizens of LPRs. It is demonstrable that they are getting a
"living wage" because they are getting the wage and they are living on
it! One man's living wage is another man's definition of poverty and
yet another man's definition of wealth, so we must be careful with
terms here). <br>
<br>
I beg to differ that faking documents is a small activity. There are a
lot of places and people using such faked documents all the time. I
believe that the true scale of faked documents is a lot hirer then you
think. Of course if the laws aren't enforced and the documents are
requested then there's less need for illegal aliens to get false
documents.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sometimes they hire illegal workers unknowingly. Other times knowingly. The question is which happened in this case.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Indeed, that is the question. But who is to provide the answer?</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Law enforcement and the courts.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Neither the media nor the goverment actively investigate illegal labor.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Sure they do. I've seen INS web pages related to numbers of alien
workers deported, etc. That's only what's public. I'm sure the
internally they have way more data.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why is it that no agency of law enforcement, systematically conducts investigations or raids to make sure businesses are abiding the laws?</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
They sure don't seem to do it that often and in essense that's exactly
why I've been posting in this thread (except I would add, or subsitute
"immigrants" for "businesses" above). The almost violent reaction of
some of the people here serves to give a particle answer - many
Americans (or would be Americans I'd bet) are very vocally opposed to
enforcing the laws as they stand WRT illegal aliens. Why is that I'm
not sure. When engaging such people they constantly seem to change the
subject to whatever axe they wish to grind this week...<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Truth be told there are probably some industries in which it is probably in the better interest of society to use cheaper paid immigrant workers. </pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Or just cheaper works, regardless of whether or not they are alien.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I doubt that retailing (Wal-mart) is one of those industries. The reason no-one deports the illegal workers is not because they are hard to find. </pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Bull. You can't go claiming they are hard to find then claiming that
you worked with them in a hush-hush environment where everybody knew.
Besides they are easy to find. Hell cameras at the Mexican borders are
snapping pictures of them everyday whilst they are violating the law!<br>
<br>
I drove to Mexico a few times and I recall them running in packs right
through a large border crossing south of San Diego! Hell I could have
caught 'em if I merely stuck my foot out to trip them! (What to do with
them then is another story).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I suspect it is because some sectors of our economy run on their backs and a lot of money rides on them. I doubt we could have had the construction boom we have had in California without immigrant labor. People would have to pay a lot more for their houses or settle for smaller homes. Produce would be a lot more expensive. The cost of living would go up.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Hell in California the cost of living is amoungst the highest in the
nation already! What you pay for a 3 bedroom house would buy you a
neighborhood in most other places in the country. In fact, if you are
in another place in the country you'd think that there is no way you
could afford to live here. Yet people do. I'd say that if, let's say,
rural Kanas suddenly expelled all illegal aliens who build houses
they'd think "Gosh the housing industry will never survive" but in the
end it would and the houses would still be cheaper than in California.
IOW people say it'd never sustain itself but the mere fact that
California has sustained such a high cost of living proves that it is
indeed doable and sustainable (unfortunately).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It ought to a matter of public policy to decide whether it is beneficial to our economy to have some cheap immigrant labor. If so, these workers ought to be given some legal status. Illegal workers contribute to other social problems and drive down wages. That would enable us to deport the ones who truly are hurting our society. Companies who hire them under the table ought to be severely fined.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Personally, I think the burden of proof shoul be on the company to show that they took appropriate steps to verify documents for their workers. The larger the number of illegal workers discovered, the higher the burden of proof.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Luckily the Constitution disagrees with you. Guilty until proven
innocent is not in keeping with the American way as it were (and
shouldn't be).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't have the proof, and I don't think it should be up to me to provide it. I also don't think I have to suspend common-sense for lack of proof.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Common-sense is really not that common and it is often wrong, very
wrong, especially when people fail to check the facts.<br>
-- <br>
I need someone real bad... Are you real bad?<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------020807070904080803030902--

SanBernardino

I think you are right about the greater flexibility of using a news reader, except for one thing; with a web based forum, you can pick up from where you left off on any machine without needing any software except for a web browser. Most of the time, I use one machine though. Maybe someday I will give another news reader a try. The spell checker is definitely a sore point for me. You want to suggest a good one?

So are you saying that they DO depend on illegal labor?

Ha ha, until a family member gets ill or another one of life's hardships come along and they wind up needing Medicare, WIC and other forms of welfare.

Maybe so. I still think that if more Americans were applying for these jobs that fewer illegals would be hired. When you've got an applicant who speaks fluent English, why hire someone who speaks broken English?

Calm down, go back, and read what I said: "The reason no-one deports the illegal workers is **NOT** because they are hard to find." I agree they are easy to find. So why aren't they deported? Perhaps because they support the profit margins of businesses, bring down consumer costs, and provide cheap services?

Like others, I don't see the point in increasing our efforts to deport illegals UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS, but I do see the point of changing our laws and improving our law enforcement to address the problems illegal immigration causes ALONG with the benefits of immigrant labor. Like you, illegal immigration bother me. However, I am not hostile toward these people. I think workers who are necessary for our economy should be given some legal status. Once necessary workers have a legal status, THEN create policies to deport illegals, prosecute companies who hire them, and funds to follow through.

[QUOTE]Guilty until proven innocent is not in keeping with the American way as it were (and shouldn't be).[QUOTE]

There are many laws which companies already have to prove they are in accordance with -- safety, pollution, etc. It is not a question of guilt. The guilt of employing illegal immigrants is proven when it is shown they had illegal workers. The question is whether it was deliberate or foreseeable and that is what standards of proof and prevention are for.

Andrew Defaria

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060006000604090002070306
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SanBernardino wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> They call it email! ;-)
    > I think you are right about the greater flexibility of using a news
    > :reader, except for one thing; with a web based forum, you can pick up
    > :from where you left off on any machine without needing any software
    > :except for a web browser. Most of the time, I use one machine though.
    > :Maybe someday I will give another news reader a try. The spell
    > checker :is definitely a sore point for me. You want to suggest a good
    > one?

I read news from both work and home. True the sequences get off but it
doesn't take much to get back in sync. Having a requirement of having a
browser installed IMHO is about as much as having a requirement of
having a news reader installed. I use Netscape. It comes with the news
reader built in. It also has a spell checker built in however there are
somethings I don't like about the spell checker (notably that it checks
quoted text too and many people are very bad spellers and I don't want
to spent time correcting their mistakes! I hear that Thunderbird has
finally fixed this long standing deffiency but I have not switched over
yet).

    >> If you are convinced that Wal-mart's profitability can support
    >> "living wages" for 100% Amecian (or legal immigrant) employees then
    >> kindly show me the math. I don't believe that they can.
    >> So are you saying that they DO depend on illegal labor?
I've said nothing of the sort. I don't have the data to say one way or
another.

    >> It is demonstrable that they are getting a "living wage" because they
    >> are getting the wage and they are living on it!
    > Ha ha, until a family member gets ill or another one of life's
    > hardships come along and they wind up needing Medicare, WIC and other
    > forms of welfare.

How is this radically different from just about anybody here in the US,
citizen or not?!? Even a US citizen making say $80K/year can have a
family member get ill needing some sort of medical procedure that is
either not covered by insurance or hardly covered by insurance or they
may not even have insurance (there are a lot of people who have been out
of work for months) that can drain or eliminate their resources. This
happens all the time. It's called life.

    >> I beg to differ that faking documents is a small activity.
    >> Maybe so. I still think that if more Americans were applying for
    >> these jobs that fewer illegals would be hired. When you've got an
    >> applicant who speaks fluent English, why hire someone who speaks
    >> broken English?
Depends on your customer base I guess :-) .

In any event I've been to a Wal-mart or 20 in my life, as well as many
similar stores and I see lots of Americans working there. Don't you?

    >> Bull. You can't go claiming they are hard to find then claiming that
    >> you worked with them in a hush-hush environment where everybody knew.
    >> Besides they are easy to find.
    >> Calm down, go back, and read what I said: "The reason no-one deports
    >> the illegal workers is **NOT** because they are hard to find." I
    >> agree they are easy to find. So why aren't they deported? Perhaps
    >> because they support the profit margins of businesses, bring down
    >> consumer
    >> costs, and provide cheap services?
The reasons I can think of are

1. the same attitude that people have exhibited here that
1. they haven't committed any "crimes"
2. they are all hard working and need a break
3. they pay their fare share of taxes and don't abuse the system
4. etc
2. the government is horrible inefficient at tracking these people
down (hell just look at how long they take to approve valid, good
petitions!)
3. the government does not properly fund such ventures
4. the government is too busy trying to address (or at least give the
illusion that they are addressing) the "terrorist threat"

None of this, however, makes it right to allow aliens to illegal enter,
work and live in this country.

    >> Like others, I don't see the point in increasing our efforts to
    >> deport illegals UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS, but I do see the point of
    >> changing our laws and improving our law enforcement to address the
    >> problems illegal immigration causes ALONG with the benefits of
    >> immigrant labor.
There is little need to change the laws. I'm constantly amazed at the
time government wastes implementing new laws to cover things that are
already addressed and not being enforced in the first place.

    >> Like you, illegal immigration bother me. However, I am not hostile
    >> toward these people.
Nor am I. We can say nicely "I hope you enjoyed your time here" as we
remove them. However remove them we should because that's what the law
says. If you don't then what you are really saying is that our laws
don't matter. It's one thing for laws to be disregarded by foriegners.
It's quite another to have citizens and the government also ignoring the
laws.

    >> I think workers who are necessary for our economy should be given
    >> some legal status.
I believe that all of the "required" foriegn labor that we need can and
should be fulfilled by foreigners who obey our laws! Look at it this way
- I'd be willing to bet that for every 1 illegal alien (a slimeball type
of illegal alien, you know the kind that hops the border, forges
documents, abuses the system, commits crimes) there are probably 10
aliens standing behind him who would be glad to immigrant here, legally.
These probably equally deserving people are being penalized by those who
abuse the system.

    >> Once necessary workers have a legal status, THEN create policies to
    >> deport illegals, prosecute companies who hire them, and funds to
    >> follow through.
This has been tried, time and time again, to utter failure everytime -
amnesty programs to legalize those who have abused the system are
forgiven and allowed to stay. Still it does not stop the flow. Why not?
Because they think they will not get caught or be forgiven just like the
last bunch.

    >> Guilty until proven innocent is not in keeping with the American way
    >> as it were (and shouldn't be).
    >> There are many laws which companies already have to prove they are in
    >> accordance with -- safety, pollution, etc. It is not a question of
    >> guilt. The guilt of employing illegal immigrants is proven when it is
    >> shown they had illegal workers. The question is whether it was
    >> deliberate or foreseeable and that is what standards of proof and
    >> prevention are for.
I said it many times already - you should prosecute violators the law.
Be they illegal aliens or companies who knowingly hire them. That's the
law. It should be followed and enforced. But it should be followed and
enforced on both sides - both the hiring company and the alien.
--
Error reading FAT record: Try the SKINNY one? (Y/N)

--------------060006000604090002070306
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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">They call it email! ;-)<br>
</blockquote>
<!----> I think you are right about the greater flexibility of using
a news :reader, except for one thing; with a web based forum, you can
pick up :from where you left off on any machine without needing any
software :except for a web browser. Most of the time, I use one machine
though. :Maybe someday I will give another news reader a try. The spell
checker :is definitely a sore point for me. You want to suggest a good
one?</blockquote>
I read news from both work and home. True the sequences get off but it
doesn't take much to get back in sync. Having a requirement of having a
browser installed IMHO is about as much as having a requirement of
having a news reader installed. I use Netscape. It comes with the news
reader built in. It also has a spell checker built in however there are
somethings I don't like about the spell checker (notably that it checks
quoted text too and many people are very bad spellers and I don't want
to spent time correcting their mistakes! I hear that Thunderbird has
finally fixed this long standing deffiency but I have not switched over
yet).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">If you are convinced that Wal-mart's
profitability can support "living wages" for 100% Amecian (or legal
immigrant) employees then kindly show me the math. I don't believe that
they can. <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">So are you saying that they DO depend on
illegal labor? </blockquote>
</blockquote>
I've said nothing of the sort. I don't have the data to say one way or
another.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">It is demonstrable that they are getting a
"living wage" because they are getting the wage and they are living on
it! <br>
</blockquote>
Ha ha, until a family member gets ill or another one of life's
hardships come along and they wind up needing Medicare, WIC and other
forms of welfare.</blockquote>
How is this radically different from just about anybody here in the US,
citizen or not?!? Even a US citizen making say $80K/year can have a
family member get ill needing some sort of medical procedure that is
either not covered by insurance or hardly covered by insurance or they
may not even have insurance (there are a lot of people who have been
out of work for months) that can drain or eliminate their resources.
This happens all the time. It's called life.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">I beg to differ that faking documents is a
small activity.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Maybe so. I still think that if more
Americans were applying for these jobs that fewer illegals would be
hired. When you've got an applicant who speaks fluent English, why hire
someone who speaks broken English?</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Depends on your customer base I guess <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>
    :-) </span></span>.<br>
<br>
In any event I've been to a Wal-mart or 20 in my life, as well as many
similar stores and I see lots of Americans working there. Don't you?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">Bull. You can't go claiming they are hard to
find then claiming that you worked with them in a hush-hush environment
where everybody knew. Besides they are easy to find. <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Calm down, go back, and read what I said:
"The reason no-one deports the illegal workers is **NOT** because they
are hard to find." I agree they are easy to find. So why aren't they
deported? Perhaps because they support the profit margins of
businesses, bring down consumer<br>
costs, and provide cheap services?</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The reasons I can think of are <br>
<ol>
<li>the same attitude that people have exhibited here that <br>
</li>
<ol>
<li>they haven't committed any "crimes"</li>
<li>they are all hard working and need a break<br>
</li>
<li>they pay their fare share of taxes and don't abuse the system</li>
<li>etc</li>
</ol>
<li>the government is horrible inefficient at tracking these people
down (hell just look at how long they take to approve valid, good
petitions!)<br>
</li>
<li>the government does not properly fund such ventures</li>
<li>the government is too busy trying to address (or at least give
the illusion that they are addressing) the "terrorist threat"</li>
</ol>
None of this, however, makes it right to allow aliens to illegal enter,
work and live in this country.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">Like others, I don't see the point in
increasing our efforts to deport illegals UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS, but I
do see the point of changing our laws and improving our law enforcement
to address the problems illegal immigration causes ALONG with the
benefits of immigrant labor.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
There is little need to change the laws. I'm constantly amazed at the
time government wastes implementing new laws to cover things that are
already addressed and not being enforced in the first place.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">Like you, illegal immigration bother me.
However, I am not hostile toward these people. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
Nor am I. We can say nicely "I hope you enjoyed your time here" as we
remove them. However remove them we should because that's what the law
says. If you don't then what you are really saying is that our laws
don't matter. It's one thing for laws to be disregarded by foriegners.
It's quite another to have citizens and the government also ignoring
the laws.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">I think workers who are necessary for our
economy should be given some legal status. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
I believe that all of the "required" foriegn labor that we need can and
should be fulfilled by foreigners who obey our laws! Look at it this
way - I'd be willing to bet that for every 1 illegal alien (a slimeball
type of illegal alien, you know the kind that hops the border, forges
documents, abuses the system, commits crimes) there are probably 10
aliens standing behind him who would be glad to immigrant here,
legally. These probably equally deserving people are being penalized by
those who abuse the system.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">Once necessary workers have a legal status,
THEN create policies to deport illegals, prosecute companies who hire
them, and funds to follow through.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
This has been tried, time and time again, to utter failure everytime -
amnesty programs to legalize those who have abused the system are
forgiven and allowed to stay. Still it does not stop the flow. Why not?
Because they think they will not get caught or be forgiven just like
the last bunch.<!----><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">Guilty until proven innocent is not in
keeping with the American way as it were (and shouldn't be).<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">There are many laws which companies already
have to prove they are in accordance with -- safety, pollution, etc. It
is not a question of guilt. The guilt of employing illegal immigrants
is proven when it is shown they had illegal workers. The question is
whether it was deliberate or foreseeable and that is what standards of
proof and prevention are for.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I said it many times already - you should prosecute violators the law.
Be they illegal aliens or companies who knowingly hire them. That's the
law. It should be followed and enforced. But it should be followed and
enforced on both sides - both the hiring company and the alien.<br>
-- <br>
Error reading FAT record: Try the SKINNY one? (Y/N)<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------060006000604090002070306--

SanBernardino

Personally, I think in a developed country we should have fewer of these calamities in people's lives than we do. Sure, some are unavoidable but many would be avoided by basic insurance provided to full-time workers (but so few service jobs are full-time these days) and a wage sufficient to live on and get through life's smaller rainy days.

I agreed with your reasons why we tolerate illegal labor, although I think economic motivations are also there. I also agree the existing laws may be fine for dealing with illegals and that the issue is in the enforcement. But perhaps we don't enforce because we want some of these people here. And if so, then laws should be made giving the people we want here the status they deserve as contributors to our economy. If we honestly recognized the benefits we get from immigrant labor, then we could more honestly discuss the detriments too and do something about both. I'm not sure what you meant about the 10 people waiting to get here legally for every illegal immigrant. There is no status for people at the lowest wages to work here legally. That's why they come and employers hire them illegally. I am not necessarily talking about an Amnesty program, but rather an actual visa class for temporary workers, perhaps with the option of eventually becoming residents. Something that employers would have to prove the need/benefit of immigrant labor and aliens would have to prove that they are suitable employees. I don't think this would fly for service industries, but agriculture and perhaps construction might be two industries to start with. It would have to depend on the local economies obviously.

This was exactly my point about prosecuting the companies and management responsible for hiring illegals. They are Americans and should be held to the highest standards as such.

I agree, but I think their are good reasons why we lack the political will to do this at present.

Andrew Defaria

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030304090709090504070505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SanBernardino wrote:

    >Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >
    >>This happens all the time. It's called life.
    >>
    >Personally, I think in a developed country we should have fewer of these calamities in people's lives than we do. Sure, some are unavoidable but many would be avoided by basic insurance provided to full-time workers (but so few service jobs are full-time these days) and a wage sufficient to live on and get through life's smaller rainy days.
Ah it's easy to think of these things and say "there oughta be
[insurance|wages|aid packages] to help out" but you quickly, and
conveniently leave out the "who's gonna pay for it" part of the
equation. Maybe it's just not doable because the equation you wish does
not balance. Hey I'm all for helping out people when they need it but I
quickly tag on the "if possible" and ask "at who's expense" because if
you don't balance that equation it quite frankly will just not work.

    >I agreed with your reasons why we tolerate illegal labor, although I think economic motivations are also there. I also agree the existing laws may be fine for dealing with illegals and that the issue is in the
    >enforcement. But perhaps we don't enforce because we want some of these people here. And if so, then laws should be made giving the people we want here the status they deserve as contributors to our economy.
I think we already have and that that is codified in the existing laws -
"if you come here legally and are going to be a productive and
contributing member of our society we'll let you in" - however what we
are speaking of are people by the very definition are not here legally
and/or are not productive and contributing members of the society.

    >If we honestly recognized the benefits we get from immigrant labor, then we could more honestly discuss the detriments too and do something about both. I'm not sure what you meant about the 10 people waiting to get here legally for every illegal immigrant.
I mean that there are many people attempting to get into America, eager
to work and to succeed and to do so in a legal manner who are being held
up by the fact that resources are drained to deal with those who come
here in an illegal fashion. IOW we could expell the illegal aliens and
"import" (for lack of a better term) those who wish to come here and
obey and respect our laws, with little to no loss of workers.

    >There is no status for people at the lowest wages to work here legally.
?!?. There is a status - question is what do you mean by status.

    >That's why they come and employers hire them illegally.
Because they have no status?!? If you mean legal status there are two
kinds - legal and illegal. Surely they could enter legally, no? If not
then why not?

    >I am not necessarily talking about an Amnesty program, but rather an actual visa class for temporary workers, perhaps with the option of eventually becoming residents.
Do such classes not already exist? Yes they do.

    >Something that employers would have to prove the need/benefit of immigrant labor and aliens would have to prove that they are suitable employees. I don't think this would fly for service industries, but agriculture and perhaps construction might be two industries to start with. It would have to depend on the local economies obviously.
Such things are already in place. There are millions who legally come
here either on temporary work visas and/or who immigrate here already.

    >>It's one thing for laws to be disregarded by foriegners. It's quite another to have citizens and the government also ignoring the laws.
    >This was exactly my point about prosecuting the companies and management responsible for hiring illegals. They are Americans and should be held to the highest standards as such.
I said so before and I will repeat it here again: If the company is
found to be in violation of the law then yes indeed they should be
prosecuted. This, however, in no way removes the liability of the
foreigner who has also violated the law.

    >>It should be followed and enforced on both sides - both the hiring company and the alien.
    >>
    >>I agree, but I think their are good reasons why we lack the political
    >>will to do this at present.
I agree except to that I do not view those reasons as "good".
--
Go ahead and take risks....just be sure that everything will turn out OK.

--------------030304090709090504070505
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]">
<pre wrap="">Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This happens all the time. It's called life.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Personally, I think in a developed country we should have fewer of these calamities in people's lives than we do. Sure, some are unavoidable but many would be avoided by basic insurance provided to full-time workers (but so few service jobs are full-time these days) and a wage sufficient to live on and get through life's smaller rainy days.</pre>
</blockquote>
Ah it's easy to think of these things and say "there oughta be
[insurance|wages|aid packages] to help out" but you quickly, and
conveniently leave out the "who's gonna pay for it" part of the
equation. Maybe it's just not doable because the equation you wish does
not balance. Hey I'm all for helping out people when they need it but I
quickly tag on the "if possible" and ask "at who's expense" because if
you don't balance that equation it quite frankly will just not work.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">I agreed with your reasons why we tolerate illegal labor, although I think economic motivations are also there. I also agree the existing laws may be fine for dealing with illegals and that the issue is in the
enforcement. But perhaps we don't enforce because we want some of these people here. And if so, then laws should be made giving the people we want here the status they deserve as contributors to our economy. </pre>
</blockquote>
I think we already have and that that is codified in the existing laws
- "if you come here legally and are going to be a productive and
contributing member of our society we'll let you in" - however what we
are speaking of are people by the very definition are not here legally&nbsp;
and/or are not productive and contributing members of the society.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">If we honestly recognized the benefits we get from immigrant labor, then we could more honestly discuss the detriments too and do something about both. I'm not sure what you meant about the 10 people waiting to get here legally for every illegal immigrant. </pre>
</blockquote>
I mean that there are many people attempting to get into America, eager
to work and to succeed and to do so in a <b>legal</b> manner who are
being held up by the fact that resources are drained to deal with those
who come here in an <b>illegal</b> fashion. IOW we could expell the
illegal aliens and "import" (for lack of a better term) those who wish
to come here and obey and respect our laws, with little to no loss of
workers.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">There is no status for people at the lowest wages to work here legally. </pre>
</blockquote>
?!?. There is a status - question is what do you mean by status.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">That's why they come and employers hire them illegally. </pre>
</blockquote>
Because they have no status?!? If you mean legal status there are two
kinds - legal and illegal. Surely they could enter legally, no? If not
then why not?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">I am not necessarily talking about an Amnesty program, but rather an actual visa class for temporary workers, perhaps with the option of eventually becoming residents. </pre>
</blockquote>
Do such classes not already exist? Yes they do. <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Something that employers would have to prove the need/benefit of immigrant labor and aliens would have to prove that they are suitable employees. I don't think this would fly for service industries, but agriculture and perhaps construction might be two industries to start with. It would have to depend on the local economies obviously.</pre>
</blockquote>
Such things are already in place. There are millions who legally come
here either on temporary work visas and/or who immigrate here already.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's one thing for laws to be disregarded by foriegners. It's quite another to have citizens and the government also ignoring the laws.</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This was exactly my point about prosecuting the companies and management responsible for hiring illegals. They are Americans and should be held to the highest standards as such.</pre>
</blockquote>
I said so before and I will repeat it here again: If the company is
found to be in violation of the law then yes indeed they should be
prosecuted. This, however, in no way removes the liability of the
foreigner who has also violated the law.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It should be followed and enforced on both sides - both the hiring company and the alien.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree, but I think their are good reasons why we lack the political
will to do this at present.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I agree except to that I do not view those reasons as "good".<br>
-- <br>
Go ahead and take risks....just be sure that everything will turn out
OK.<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------030304090709090504070505--

SanBernardino

Yes, but these people come here for jobs which companies prove they cannot find and qualified American for AND that they are paying at or above the prevailing wage.

In some industries, such as agriculture, the companies could find qualified Americans if they were willing to pay better wages and benefits. But that would mean losing their competitive edge and raising prices for the consumer. So, instead they hire illegal workers. I think we should either give these workers a legal status or we should crack down on the companies that hire them and send them home. The latter solution may not be in the public interest and is definitely not in the corporate interest. The best solution for the corporations is the current one, where they get a cheap and scared labor force which has no rights and the labor force takes all the blame.