RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers

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

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

Message

RacerJim -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:27:05 AM)
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?

Louve00 -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:29:15 AM)
I with you, hunky.

truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:35:21 AM)
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, many of those here have in fact been here for some time. Many of those have indeed moved up the emploment ladder.

rulemylife -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:39:45 AM)
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. 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?

thishereboi -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:39:59 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, many of those here have in fact been here for some time. Many of those have indeed moved up the emploment ladder. So all those illegal migrant workers out picking fruit in CA are getting better pay now? Are they getting better benefits also? What about education for their kids so they are not forced into the same cycle of poverty their parents are in?

RacerJim -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy The College Republicans and other young Republicans have made a serious study of Alinski's methods also. It's not unique to either party. quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy At least I could sleep at night under Reagan. The country was fun back then. Now it is a nut show. Exactly. Actually, I could still sleep at night if all this country is now is a nut show but the "nuts" running the "show" in this country now aren't "nuts" at all but, rather, they are elitist progressives who know exactly what they are doing...employing Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" to implement the "Cloward-Pevin Strategy" in order to fundamentally transform the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America. I didn't mean to imply that Alinski's methods are unique to the Democratic party, I was simply saying that the Democrats currently running this country are employing same. Perhaps college and other young 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.

truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:44:00 AM)
Too late. Again.

KYsissy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:45:24 AM)
quote: 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. Very well stated. From my experience the vast majority of those coming here illegally are some of the hardest working motherf'res I have seen. They do drywall, roofing, dig trenches and a host of other menial jobs that people born here just won't do. If the issue is that these people live here and don't pay taxes but yet benefit from taxpayer funded services, there is a very simple solution. It is so simple that it will NEVER be done because it will eliminate a huge bureaucracy. The IRS. Eliminate the income tax and go with a sales tax. That way everyone pays their fair share. The illegals will pay taxes on their clothes, gas and oil, beer and such. And the drug dealers and pimps will have to pay taxes on their bling. No one can avoid it. And the more you buy the more you pay, the rich will pay their fair share on the Range Rovers and yachts and their expensive toys and clothes. But this will never happen.

pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:49:09 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. 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? I feel faint. Some one fan me. I agree with this.

Louve00 -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:52:27 AM)
Actually, I read either on this link, or one of the other illegal immigration links that while they may actually be paid monetarily close to an american worker working side by side them on the same job, they are not being paid taxes, his pay is under the table, and no benefits are involved. Its not the illegal that suffers in take home pay, but its the company saves in the benefits he denies them and the taxes he doesn't pay to the gov't (and the wages or money that illegal immigrant earned for him). So, if an illegal is still making less than an american employee, hes making less all across the board. And the businesses save the tax rates at the expense of the taxes the rest of us all contribute to this society.

truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:55:14 AM)
quote: 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. My idea here is to make the punishment fit not the crime so much as the (class of) offender. A man with a lawn service might fear hefty fines more than a week, or a month, in jail. Any more time than that in jail, and imo we're doing more than we have to do to deter future crime, destroying the jobs of innocent workers, and costing ourselves a lot of incarceration dough, not to mention the money wasted possibly throwing the mans wife and kids on the public dole while he sits in jail. But the blue-blood CEOs do NOT, imo, want their handcuffed perpwalk photo on the front page of the Slimes, and they do NOT want a fortnight of greasy slop and greasier, er, advances. I think it's a cost-effective solution. Get their attention, from top to bottom, and the illegal employers will come to Jesus, and quick.

pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 5:57:12 AM)
-- Ok- While I view asset seizure as a slippery slope- over reach- I do think there should be punishment. -- I am surprised that welfare checks go to these folks. Seems like that would be an easy fix. PA I think you have to be a citizen. Or is it resident??

truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:01:26 AM)
I think it is shameful the way we do farm workers. I can be found here (or a highly similar forum/venue) as saying that if we truly cannot pay Americans enough to do our harvests then we deserve to starve. I questioned the use of the word "overwhelmingly". Like all good stereotypes, there is at least some truth in the picture of the illegal Mexican immigrant stooped over picking strawberries. But it is a stereotype; the reality is that they and ATMs do amny other things, and a good number make more than minimum wage.

pahunkboy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:05:37 AM)
What if legalization shored up Soc Sec, would you support it? ??

catfightservice -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:08:44 AM)
Right on Animusrex!!!!!Like my point about walmart. They dont use migrant labor. They just buy EVERYTHING from China. Now they are a legit super corporation. As they bleed American industry untill its dead. I mean I called a supportline for a computer printer I bought from walmart that had problems, and I was talking to people from india. Imagine that ? it is cheaper for them to hire people from india to answer the phone, and pay long distance, than it is to pay an american minnimum wage here.

truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:20:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy What if legalization shored up Soc Sec, would you support it? ?? Legalization of what, illegals? I've already said that I favor long/permanent resident status for law-abiding, productive, longterm illegals. There are many here such that it would be both immoral and counterproductive thoughtlessly to send them back to wherever.

eyesopened -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:22:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Actually, I read either on this link, or one of the other illegal immigration links that while they may actually be paid monetarily close to an american worker working side by side them on the same job, they are not being paid taxes, his pay is under the table, and no benefits are involved. Its not the illegal that suffers in take home pay, but its the company saves in the benefits he denies them and the taxes he doesn't pay to the gov't (and the wages or money that illegal immigrant earned for him). So, if an illegal is still making less than an american employee, hes making less all across the board. And the businesses save the tax rates at the expense of the taxes the rest of us all contribute to this society. That's the point. The business saves even if he pays the same wage. It's not worth breaking the law for the payroll savings, it makes breaking the law worth it in tax savings and the biggest is Worker's Comp premiums. In addition, there is the appeal of maintaining small business status in order to be favorably considered in bid situation which is why there are so many offenders in the construction industry.

thishereboi -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:41:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catfightservice Right on Animusrex!!!!!Like my point about walmart. They dont use migrant labor. They just buy EVERYTHING from China. Now they are a legit super corporation. As they bleed American industry untill its dead. I mean I called a supportline for a computer printer I bought from walmart that had problems, and I was talking to people from india. Imagine that ? it is cheaper for them to hire people from india to answer the phone, and pay long distance, than it is to pay an american minnimum wage here. If you feel that way, why did you buy the printer there to begin with?

truckinslave -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 6:49:05 AM)
I can't speak for CFS, but I have wound up dealing with Indian customer service for a variety of reasons, I suppose, but overwhelmingly because, since I am sane, I don't ask 531 questions everytime I buy somedamnthing; one of the Qs I don't ask is: are your customer service people in India. I am convinced, however, that there are major business successes to be had by firms who advertise that you, the customer, will never have to deal with anyone on the phone who did not learn American as his first language (and didn't learn it in NJ, either )

domiguy -> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers (5/28/2010 7:28:50 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? It just makes you look like the cunt that you are.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375