RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:12:18 AM)

All my tips are recorded. My credit card tips are paid through my pay check. And i also worked in California as a server. Its no different here when i work. Some businesses, mostly corporate, do tax on credit card tips alone. Its hard for them all to track cash tips. But those are becoming the exception.




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:40:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

OK, I will wade into this once again. I posted on another thread (which I can't find now) that we have no problem with a globalized economy, where capital and property flow effortlessly across borders, but somehow labor cannot.

Let look at an example-
Suppose I own a cabinet shop, making kitchen cabinets for houses. If I hire Mexican craftsmen to build them, I am a criminal. The craftsmen live in Los Angeles, spend their paychecks in LA, pay SS taxes (paying into other peoples accounts!) and in general, act just like any American citizen living and working in LA.

If I move the shop to Mexico and have those very same craftsmen build them, I am a clever businessman, entitled to enjoy my profits. The craftsmen live in Mexico, pay Mexican taxes, spend all their money in Mexico.

So which scenario is preferable?

Neither.
How bout we have citizens work in your cabinet shop. How bout those products which are made outside of this country which compete with products made in this country be taxed to the point that they are not cheaper than domestically produced product..


Oh, and by the way- with a globalized economy, using American craftsmen is NOT an option. sorry, the cabinet marketplace demands low-wage labors.

No the cabinet marketplace demands highly skilled workers. That is why cabinet makers are paid more than framers.

My point, is that the marketplace in America demands low wage labor for certain things like low skilled labor. We could attract Americans to these fields by increasing the minimum wage, but that seems politically unpopular.

The abolition of slavery and womans sufferage were politically unpopular also

So we settle for an unworkable solution, which is to set immigration quotas artificially low, yet patronize businesses that use undocumented workers, all with a wink and a nod.

Only the ethically challanged do so.





thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:41:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

From the article cited it seems unlikely that his business will be forfiet. If they had targeted tyson foods,cargil,adm,wallmart or any major employer of illegal aliens then confiscation becomes a real possibility.


I too want to go after major corporations. It is my contention and belief that a series of coordinated, simultaneous raids targeting businesses from major corporations to three-man lawn crews should be staged, each with only one objective in mind: the arrest and subsequent perpwalk of the owner, human resources manager, and/or CEO. The perpwalks should take place with an eye towards maximum exposure on the 6 o'clock news.

Confiscation of businesses would be counterproductive to legal workers and should not be pursued. Instead, the gov could offer plea bargains of minimum fines (1K per illegal maybe?)

The illegal alien commits a misdemeanor and gets a $5,000 fine and ten years wait till he can get at the back of a 25 year long waiting line and the felon gets a $1,000 fine...somehow in your bigoted mind that is ok?


and one night in the county jail per illegal (up to, say 2 weeks). Give them three days to take it or face allout fullbore prosecution.

Can you imagine the CEOs of Citi, ADM, and a dozen other major corporations ordered by their boards to take the plea?
Can you imagine 10 million pink slips within 48 hours?
And the two-month southbound traffic jam at the Mexican border?





thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:44:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

The first law made in this country by a European was made to confront just such a situation and was something like: "Those who would eat the ships stores would do the ships work".

I.E. "work or go hungry". Not a bad law at all imo.



I do not know what country you are refering to but the first law made in the United States of America was the U.S. Constitution which replaced the articles of confederation which governed the colonies in rebellion against the crown.




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:47:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

That does make sense, but I guess they're using him as an example and I really can't be too upset over him going to jail...yeah I think 60 years is pretty crazy but a year or two not so much, if it is true that he was told that his workers SSN's were bad and didn't do anything about it.


Ain't you just the little blond haired blue eyed bigot.
You have no problem chucking an illegal alien back across the boarder and making him wait ten years to get in a 25 year long waiting line to apply for legal entry but you think a slaver should not be punished more severly.
You are a real piece of work girl.




I want to slow legal immigration to a damned trickle of people with needed skills and/or wealth, eliminate illegal immigration, chuck many of the illegals here back across the border (exceptions based upon sterling character/conduct/productivity, family members who are citizens, needed skills). Those we allow to stay should face some kind of fine and extended or perhaps even permanent resident status.

Here you are talking about rewarding an illegal act.

Never again, in my opinion, should we reward an illegal act with (a pathway to) US citizenship.

Here you are contradicting yourself....please make up your mind

I just wanted to see what names you'd call me, since I'm neither blond, nor little, nor blue-eyed, but am of thoroughly mixed racial make-up (including, I believe, more African but less Arab ancestry than Ear Leader).

I think you qualify for ignorant,ethically challanged and logically impaired all of which you validate with this post.




















pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:52:46 AM)

U.S. Constitution which replaced the articles of confederation which governed the colonies in rebellion against the crown./snip

too bad the crown won.
/




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:54:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

That does make sense, but I guess they're using him as an example and I really can't be too upset over him going to jail...yeah I think 60 years is pretty crazy but a year or two not so much, if it is true that he was told that his workers SSN's were bad and didn't do anything about it.


Ain't you just the little blond haired blue eyed bigot.
You have no problem chucking an illegal alien back across the boarder and making him wait ten years to get in a 25 year long waiting line to apply for legal entry but you think a slaver should not be punished more severly.
You are a real piece of work girl.



I have no problem kicking an illegal alien in their behind with a pointy-toed boot until they are back across the border where they belong and shooting them dead if/when I catch them coming back across.
How's that for a piece of work?



In my country that would make you a murderer.
As for a piece of work...my observation would be shoddy manufacture.
It is pretty obvious that your folks taught you well.





thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 9:57:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

The overwhelming majority of illegals are paid less than minimum wage


I'm fairly certain that was much closer to the truth in the past than it is now.

Enough of the non-criminal illegals now work construction, for just one example, to call the word "overwhelmingly" into question. And, as we are so often told by apologists for the illegals,

Where have you ever seen me post that I was in favor of illegal immigration.
Where have you ever seen me post as an apologist for illegal immigration.
What I have posted consistantly is that the laws against hiring them should be enforced which would put money in the treasury and remove all illegals from my country.
You on the other hand seem more interested in putting your boot in the illegals ass or murdering them.
Your bigotry is not disguised. You are not interested in removing the illegal aliens from my country you are only interested in persuing your bigoted agenda.





many of those here have in fact been here for some time. Many of those have indeed moved up the emploment ladder.





pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:00:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Its hard for them all to track cash tips. But those are becoming the exception.


AHA!    Seeeeeeeeeeeee.




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:01:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Does anyone else think that it's a bit much to take the guy's property because it was "used in a crime"? I mean I'm all for the fine and I don't have an issue with him serving time in jail even, but that last step just seems destructive. I doubt the federal government is going to keep the business open and hire legal workers.


Yes, and I even have an issue with the jail time.  Asset seizure laws have been used by the federal, state and local governments more as a source of revenue than their intended purpose.  Here's an interesting instance of overreach.  A local government attempted to seize a car because the driver had an expired license.

Illinois: Federal Court Strikes Down Car Seizure Law

As far as the jail time I believe that is an overreach also

I think this is the right approach by targeting the owners but give them probation or home confinement for a first offense along with a large fine.  Jail time for a second offense.

Did you feel this way about bernie madoff?
Why do you wish to see more lenient treatment for felons than those who commit a misdemeanor?...ahhh the felons are white and the others are brown.


We already have a larger prison population than any country in the world, and we pay to feed and house those prisoners.  Do we need yet another non-violent crime to increase the burden on already overcrowded prisons?

You were aware that 70% of the prison population are in for drug related crimes.







urineme -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:02:00 AM)

Prosecuting the employers of illegal immigrants to the maximum extent allowed by law is absolutely warranted. Do this, and do it with maximum publicity, ""Pour les encourager les autres", and you will see a dwindling in employment opportunities for illegals, which will serve to reduce the flow. It won't stop it, that much is certain, but  this has to be a part of the overall plan. Prosecute the employers, deport the illegals. sounds fair to ME!

William




tazzygirl -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:03:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Its hard for them all to track cash tips. But those are becoming the exception.


AHA!    Seeeeeeeeeeeee.



See what pa? explaining your comments would certainly be helpful.




pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:11:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Its hard for them all to track cash tips. But those are becoming the exception.


AHA!    Seeeeeeeeeeeee.



See what pa? explaining your comments would certainly be helpful.


We live in a CASHLESS world.  Your words- not mine.  




tazzygirl -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:12:38 AM)

I never said it was a cashless world, pa. Credit is easier and takes less sting out of the wallet. Being able to spread your expences over a few months instead of immediately helps many.




pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:13:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I never said it was a cashless world, pa. Credit is easier and takes less sting out of the wallet. Being able to spread your expences over a few months instead of immediately helps many.


These people are a hair trigger away from being chipped.




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:14:37 AM)

quote:

Republicans have made a serious study of Alinski's methods simply so as to know their enemy's tactics and therefore be better able to countermand same rather than employ same, like General Patton did vis-a-vis Field Marshall Rommel.


Rommel wrote on infantry tactics. I believe you may be refering to the book written by guderian which patton commented on, "achtung panzer".




pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:15:13 AM)

And Pittsburgh IS a New World Order G20 city.




tazzygirl -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:18:22 AM)

LOL

put your tin hat away, pa.




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:25:40 AM)

quote:

By the way, it's obvious free trade isn't the answer, but unions driving up wages are not the answer either.


Why are you against unions negotiating for higher wages for their employers?
Are you also against management being paid the high wages they make?




thompsonx -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 10:26:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: urineme

Prosecuting the employers of illegal immigrants to the maximum extent allowed by law is absolutely warranted. Do this, and do it with maximum publicity, ""Pour les encourager les autres", and you will see a dwindling in employment opportunities for illegals, which will serve to reduce the flow. It won't stop it, that much is certain, but  this has to be a part of the overall plan. Prosecute the employers, deport the illegals. sounds fair to ME!

William


If you prosecute the employers there will be no need for the expense of deporting the illegals...they will leave when there is no work.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.199646E-02