Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals. Progressives are underhanded

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!

No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

As discussed on our Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:

Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No

Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.

_____ Yes _____ No


The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.

An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."

It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.

Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.

Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States


DUMBFUK

Hey dummy what year is it right now?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Can't refute it huh? lol

 

[thanatos144]

Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals. Progressives are underhanded

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!

No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

As discussed on our Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:

Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No

Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.

_____ Yes _____ No


The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.

An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."

It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.

Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.

Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States


DUMBFUK

Hey dummy what year is it right now?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Can't refute it huh? lol

That it is not 2012? Do I really need to? Are you so fucking stupid you don't know the year? Or that the laws of hiring changed this year?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Dad2three]

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals. Progressives are underhanded

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!

No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

As discussed on our Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:

Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No

Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.

_____ Yes _____ No


The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.

An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."

It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.

Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.

Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States


DUMBFUK

Hey dummy what year is it right now?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Jan 30, 2015


The Immigration Reform and Control Act requires all employees to provide proof to employers that they can legally work in the U.S. Employers are required to verify the eligibility status of all employees, even those they know are U.S. citizens. It is against the law to knowingly hire someone who is not authorized to work in the United States.

Even so, the Immigration Reform and Control Act generally forbids you from asking a person to prove his or her citizenship during a job interview or at any time before you offer employment.

Verifying a person’s eligibility is something you do only after you’ve hired the candidate. You can, however, inform the candidate that you plan on verifying the employment status of any potential new hire. In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recommends adding the following statement to your employment applications to ensure compliance:


“In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification document form upon hire.”



When Can You Ask a Worker About Citizenship Status?

AGAIN YOU DUMBFUK

 

[Dad2three]

BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!

No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

As discussed on our Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:

Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No

Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.

_____ Yes _____ No


The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.

An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."

It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.

Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.

Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States


DUMBFUK

Hey dummy what year is it right now?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Can't refute it huh? lol

That it is not 2012? Do I really need to? Are you so fucking stupid you don't know the year? Or that the laws of hiring changed this year?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Give me the law dummy? lol

 

[sealybobo]

What part of "mandatory" didn't you understand?

Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!

You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?



This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again


For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.

This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com

Lol you are stupid. The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Sure Bubba, sure

The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.

 

[Dad2three]

BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK IF THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US!!!

No dumb fuck you are not do you reading comprehension problems?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

As discussed on our Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog on March 12, 2012, it is a best practice to ask job applicants about their ability to work legally in the United States. While asking "are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States" is necessary, that question may not generate sufficient information. Some employers may not wish to commence ("sponsor") an employment-based immigration case in order to fill the open position. Such employers may be frustrated when they learn only after hiring a candidate that he requires an H-1B case or other employment-based immigration case in order to work lawfully.Employers may avoid this surprise by asking a follow up question:

Are you authorized to work lawfully in the United States for [insert company name]? _____ Yes _____ No

Will you now or in the future require [insert company name] to commence ("sponsor") an immigration case in order to employ you (for example, H-1B or other employment-based immigration case)? This is sometimes called "sponsorship" for an employment-based visa status.

_____ Yes _____ No


The Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC) enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the I-9 employment eligibility verification law, and the OSC has confirmed that employers may ask questions similar to the two stated above. See OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2 (confirming that a company "may ask candidates for the position whether they will require sponsorship for a visa") . If, however, an employer asks the second question, it should do so for all job applicants.

An employer has no legal obligation to commence an immigration case. Therefore, if the job applicant answers "yes" to the second question, the employer need not consider the applicant further. The employer may lawfully reject the job applicant because, if hired, that individual will ask the employer to take steps before the federal government to obtain authorization to employ him (an employment-based immigration case). This situation differs from one in which a job applicant has temporary work authorization that is independent of the employer and the applicant does not ask the employer to take on the legal obligation of an immigration case in order to employ him. The employer should not reject the job applicant simply because he has temporary work authorization. As stated on the Form I-9 instructions, "refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may . . . constitute illegal discrimination."

It is important to understand the reason behind a lawful rejection of the job applicant. Otherwise, the employer may violate the antidiscrimination provisions of immigration and other federal laws.

Finally, if an employer does not wish to commence any employment-based immigration cases, the employer may make that announcement in its recruitment. The OSC has confirmed that an "employer may state in its job postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas." OSC Technical Assistance Letter (Sept. 27, 2010), at pg. 2.

Employment Authorization: Ask, But Ask Carefully (Part 2) - Immigration - United States


DUMBFUK

Hey dummy what year is it right now?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Can't refute it huh? lol

That it is not 2012? Do I really need to? Are you so fucking stupid you don't know the year? Or that the laws of hiring changed this year?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

SO YOU DECIDE TO RUN HUH? Can't provide a link to ANY law that stopped allowing you to ask IF THEY ARE LEGALLY ABLE TO WORK IN THE US HUH? lol

 

[RKMBrown]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

We already have 20,000 border patrol getting over $65k each as illegals walk by. That's 4 patrols per mile. One guy can easily patrol a 2 mile section with binoculars & radio. Do you want to grow government & pay more to jerk us off?

Bullshit. Those 20k are being used to bring illegals in, process them, feed them, give them money and a ride to sanctuary cities.

 

[RKMBrown]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build. Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.

 

[Dad2three]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

We already have 20,000 border patrol getting over $65k each as illegals walk by. That's 4 patrols per mile. One guy can easily patrol a 2 mile section with binoculars & radio. Do you want to grow government & pay more to jerk us off?

Bullshit. Those 20k are being used to bring illegals in, process them, feed them, give them money and a ride to sanctuary cities.

 

[bripat9643]

..........So you won't answer my question?

How are we to draw up policies if we don't define these variables going in? If we are going to punish employers for not knowing someone is illegal, which I don't agree with by the way, we need to at least define what lengths they can go to in determining such a thing on the basis of their judgement and assumptions. Because, if we can't establish this beforehand, it leaves the employer subject to all sorts of lawsuits for violating rights to privacy or just plain racial discrimination.

From what you posted, it sounds like you're saying it would be okay to profile people on the basis of whether they speak English. Is THAT what you want to do?

I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Well I am not any kind of a -tarian but I do know what I support and what I don't.

Yep... asking for papers is totally unnecessary if we can simply apply the newly-PC liberal language test... those who can't speak English are illegals... right?

Hey... I am ALL FOR mandatory e-verify! Let's do it! ...Oh wait, California tried and their liberal Supreme Court ruled they couldn't make it mandatory! Ooops! ...We have a problem here!

ONCE MORE:


I get it Bubba, you being the typical dishonest right wing liar, can't recognize the EMPLOYERS CHOOSE NOT TO USE THINGS LIKE EVERIFY, SO THEY CAN HIRE PEOPLE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE USA, AND YOU SUPPORT THEM BREAKING THE LAW, BECAUSE THEY ARE "JOB CREATORS" lol

As has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY in these topics, "job creators" CONTINUALLY use Gov't policy to evade the law "legally" by capturing Gov't and their policy makers!

You are a batshit crazy losertarin who will NEVER be honest on anything Bubba, why would the Chamber of Commerce oppose making sure the Corps they represent, are here in the US legally (Everify)?

AND YOU RIGHT WINGERS HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN ARIZONA ABOUT ASKING FOR THEIR GAWDDAM PAPERS THERE, WHEN THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT!!!

Actually, you don't get it. But I understand, you're not a very bright bulb.

I have no problem with E-verify! I've told you repeatedly in the past 5-6 posts that I am all FOR mandatory E-verify! I don't have any problem with punishing "job creators" for illegal aliens! If you are knowingly hiring illegal aliens you need to be punished harshly and severely... and in such a manner that is a clear deterrent. We're at a crucial sticking point on this knowing and unknowing thing... and I am trying to get some clarification from you but you keep indicating one thing then dodging a direct answer to my questions.

If we are going to hold employers accountable for unknowingly hiring illegals then we need to define the parameters by which they can use personal judgement in making an informed decision. You seem to think they can actively discriminate on the basis of whether someone can speak English and I am asking you to clarify if that's what you think the policy should be? So... if we passed a law that you must be able to speak English to be hired in America... you'd be okay with that?

Then, I have some further questions about your policy idea... If we can apply this to employers, can we also apply this to law enforcement? If the cops encounter a Mexican who can't speak English, can they assume he is an illegal alien and deport him?

Federal law prohibits asking the question are you a legal citizen in interviewing a prospective emloyee. I know this because I am hiring at my store and they don't allow us to ask. This is how they get around thier big money backers being able to hire more illegals. Progressives are underhanded

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's funny, because I had to provide documents that proved I was a legal citizen. All you have to do is require that they fill out an I-9, which needs to be accompanied by two forms of documentation, bot of which prove you are a citizen.

 

[bripat9643]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build. Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.

You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?

 

[bripat9643]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.

Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?

Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!

Government welfare does not increase wages. We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.

Sure Bubba, sure



1890–1928
The Progressive Era


In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.

In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today's dollars). The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields.

Digital History





In 1900, only 6 in 10 school-aged children in New York were enrolled in school. By 1920, 9 out of every 10 school age children were registered.


The Gordons' Story

March 12, 1907 — West 28th St. Storm water poured from the ceiling of the basement apartment and down its plaster walls, soaking the family’s meager bed, dresser, and table before coming to rest in deep, dirty puddles on the floor. Maria Gordon’s family—her nine-year-old niece, Edith, and six month-old foster child, Perry—had nowhere to sleep, and the workspace where Maria laundered clothes for her clients was unusable.

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC




From the mid-1800s into the 1900s, reformers pushed for a ban on child labor, arguing that working was bad for child development and that it decreased the wages of working adults. This campaign was successful on the state level—New York created restrictions on child labor in 1903—but there would be no successful national ban on child labor until 1938.

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC


The Tenement House Act of 1901 was the third in a series of tenement-reform laws passed by the New York State legislature. Like the laws passed in 1867 and 1879, it aimed to improve conditions in the city’s tenements—particularly in terms of ventilation, waste removal, and fire safety. Unlike previous laws, it provided a mechanism for enforcing its regulations.

Although the Tenement House Act of 1879 required a window in each bedroom, in practice most windows still opened onto dark interior airshafts. In an attempt to bring light and fresh air to bedrooms, the 1901 law set a minimum amount of space outside each window and required that the window be accessible for cleaning. As a result, landlords constructed buildings with courtyards rather than airshafts. To add to the increased illumination of tenement interiors that these modifications provided, the law also required all public spaces inside the buildings to be lit by either natural light (through windows and skylights) or artificial light (powered by gas or electricity).

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC

So government legislation is the reason houses all have indoor plumbing now and childhood diseases were ended?

You're a fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

That would work if you believe in charity, but government shouldn't be treated as a charity organization. The greater role and responsibility of the less fortunate should be left to private organizations like the Salvation Army and various faith based groups or shelters. Government having to force others to give, and pick and choose who best should be coerced into that role is not so much from the fact the rich are selfish. When you begin to believe it's the role of government to take on the role of providing for the poor rather than the individual, and society becomes numb and acclimated to accepting that view, it speaks to the nation as a whole being very self centered. In other words "Let someone else do it, they can spare to give something and the government can see to it they do." - kind of mentality. However, the government of freebies and checks hasn't shown an improvement in helping the poor achieve a better way of life, in fact Billions of unanswered dollars hasn't been shown to put a dent in reducing poverty. Rather it appears to have created more an accustomed "acclimated" mentality without much accountability or self sustained improvement to seek a better way of life, where government soon becomes the enabler rather than the help the poor really need.

Yes, better to have "work" no matter how low a wage (3rd world nations CONServative policy creates!), than be dependent on Gov't like EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION right?

Without the myths and fetishes of the Randian cultist, you Klowns MIGHT have something!

Government welfare does not increase wages. We had high wages in this country before we ever had welfare or Social Security.

What the fuck? Wages were horrible before organized labor/state interference, that's a fact.

Yeah, that's right. That's how Ford Motor Company sold 20 million model T's, because wages were so horrible then. The United States had more cars in 1930 than the rest of the world put together, because our wages were so horrible.

Are socialists all so totally fucking ignorant of history? Are you all really so brainwashed?

FORTY YEARS AFTER THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD IN THE US STARTED? lol

The Progressive Era | History of Poverty & Homelessness in NYC

Progressives invented the automobile, the telephone and the assembly line? Did they build any housing for anyone?

Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is?

 

[bripat9643]

Better talk to the GOP Plutocrats Bubba, including the Chamber who say you are nuts!

You mean the rich people who own all the democrats and a bunch of Republicans? Now why ever would they want cheap slave labour?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?



This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again


For now, the party still seems glued to the Movement Conservative idea, rooted in a long-standing ideology that business can do little or nothing wrong, that promoting the economic well-being of a few wealthy men will advance American society as a whole. Those few leaders are the “makers,” Paul Ryan explained in 2010; the majority of Americans are “takers.” The more it becomes evident that the “trickle down” theory of wealth has not worked– that rather than trickling down, wealth has rushed upward since 1980– the more leading Republicans insist that the problem is not their theory. The problem, they say, is that it has not been adopted fully enough.

This is how the right wing dies: The GOP has rigged the game for the rich, again - Salon.com

Lol you are stupid. The richest are progressive scum bags that use morons like you to remain rich

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Sure Bubba, sure

The middle classes wages have been stagnant while the riches have gotten richer. The people who got hurt the most are uneducated workers. Back in the day they went to work for the big 3 or supplier to the big three. That's why the middle class shrunk. You send high paying low education union jobs overseas the middle class goes away and the rich get richer. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging the other way now though. Wages are going up. The economy is getting better. Thanks Obama.

Wages are stagnate because people have to compete with law wage workers from third world countries. You can blame Democrats for that.

 

[RKMBrown]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build. Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.

You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?

ROFL you're a worthless piece of shit. We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.

 

[bripat9643]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build. Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.

You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?

ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole. We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.

So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?

Talk about dumbasses.

 

[RKMBrown]

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build. Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.

You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?

ROFL you're a piece of shit ass hole. We're not israel and the mexican's coming here for jobs are not gun toting terrorists you dumb ass.

So walls that work in Israel wouldn't work here because the laws of physics are different here?

Talk about dumbasses.

The thing stopping people from going over the wall in Israel is the guns in the towers. In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border. We give them money.

 

[Boss]

A border fence is cheaper than increasing patrols. Fence will cost under $20 billion & should last many decades. Increasing the number of agents by 20,000, as is proposed in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, would cost over $3.4 billion a year. Over the next decade, this increase would amount to over $34 billion.

The fence will do nothing. Any 5 year old child can circumvent a fence. What is needed is to man the border. Well that an end our welfare state that makes it profitable to come here and take low wage jobs. Charge them 10grand a year for each of their kids to go to an American school. That will slow down the invasion.

Hey, Jackwagon... A 5-year old can't cross the kind of wall Trump plans to build. We're probably going to put more people on the border until we get the wall built... but we're building a wall, get used to the idea...(and stop calling it a fence, Jeb and Marco) We'll deal with all other issues when the wall is built.

And hey... it doesn't matter if you want to compare it with the Great Wall of China or Berlin Wall.... that only demonstrates a wall CAN be built. And in our case, it is going to be built.

When my boys were 5 they could easily go around or over any wall the morons are gonna build. Now that their older I doubt our wall could hold them back for more than a few seconds.

Well, I tell ya what... When Trump gets it built, we can let your boys test it out!

 

[Boss]

In the USA we don't shoot people crossing the border.

I think a lot of people believe we should.

 

[Boss]

You really are a fucking moron. Do you think they could get over the Israeli wall, especially when there is a guard tower every half mile?

They all know their precious Democrat voters won't be able to get over a wall... why do you think they are whining and moaning about it so much?