More than a million (illegal) immigrants land U.S. jobs

[Pooky 3,367]

Much of what you write is the history of immigration in our country. The immigrants come over and do the work that other people have moved past. The conditions were always bad. The pay was always low. The immigrants still looked at it as a better life because at least they had hope.

History should be something we learn from, not do over time and again.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, I am in full agreement with you on the issue of illegal immigrant employment! I was only referring to the issue of ethnic choices in marriage and using the K-1 process to bring foreign fiancees here.

I know, Jim. You are a reasonable guy who I agree with, probably on a lot of issues, and disagree with on some others. Honorable and thinking people can disagree. I did not mean to pick on you. I was pointing out that such reasoning is not reasoning at all.

The issue of the thread was illegal immigration. And how they take jobs from American citizens and legal residents. It is often derailed by people who are uncomfortable with their own feelings about it. So they deflect the topic to K-1 visas and such which are LEGAL methods of immigration. The US has a relatively difficult family immigration process but it need not be a process of judgement. It should not be. Making judgements about who marries who and for what reasons is just silly and a pasttime for people with no life, whether the partner is domestic or foreign. It is no better than a form of "the National Enquirer"

I do not think that VJ members would want to see changes in the legal immigration policies. I do not think you would like it if they said you could have your fiancee but she had to leave her children behind. Or maybe that if a person gains citizenship through marriage they do not have ALL the rights that other citizens do to bring family members. Maybe limit their rights to bring family members...or vote? Or speak freely? Maybe say they can come but not practice certain religions because they are not really Americans? Can you even imagine?

But people that want worker protections and wage and hour laws, except for some people of course, seem eager to limit other rights of certain people. They would not accept such for themselves or their family, but it is fine for others.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

History should be something we learn from, not do over time and again.

As long as people want to come here, and as long as we have restrictive immigration policy, that's the way it will be.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

History should be something we learn from, not do over time and again.

Illegal aliens being exploited in violation of existing federal wage and hour laws is not the history of our country. It is not and never has been OK. Although it has been accepted by some people that care only about profit and getting something cheap.

I have no problem with the issue of legal immigration and wish for legal immigrants to have all the opportunity and benefits this country CAN offer

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The issue of the thread was illegal immigration. And how they take jobs from American citizens and legal residents. It is often derailed by people who are uncomfortable with their own feelings about it. So they deflect the topic to K-1 visas and such which are LEGAL methods of immigration. The US has a relatively difficult family immigration process but it need not be a process of judgement. It should not be. Making judgements about who marries who and for what reasons is just silly and a pasttime for people with no life, whether the partner is domestic or foreign. It is no better

Maybe things like this is why people have brought it up? Is this why you keep talking about it? Is this not a different kind of immigrant exploitation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nja5gNH5QLc&feature=related

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Also there seems to be no concern with American women marrying foreign men, only with American men marrying foreign women and then only if the men are fat and the women are hot? Should we import ugly women? Then it would be OK?

This is nonsense talk. Meanwhile, as we debate if Sweden is part of the Baltic states and whether Americans should have a right to marry who they want with immigrants brought here by marriage, there are millions of men, women and children being exploited, abused, made to work and live in inhuman conditions so some employers can avoid our country's worker protections and pocket the profit, and all of that is OK? Bizarre.

Gary,

we're not talking really upgly or beautiful here. We're talking of older ugly American men to take advantage of the current immigration law, abusing it, by marrying a hot young chick from a poor country who wishes to get out of her hellhole of a country, oftentimes because no American woman of the same standard would give them the time of the day. Whether the chick is from South Asia or Siberia is irrelevant here. What matters is that this will only work with women who can upgrade her standard of life and ultimately that of her family. A young, sexy woman from a wealthy country, whether Norway or the Netherlands or France or Canada or Italy or Japan or Australia would not marry an ugly, fat, bolt and old guy just for a Green Card. The transaction requires two levels of inequality: the two countries and the two people involved.

On the same token, a chick from Germany or the UK or France or Canada would not consequently import her family clan afterward: they wouldn't want to immigrate to the US! Yet the chick from a third world country would and in most cases does. This creates an imbalance by importing poverty to the US, and that ultimately hurts this country as we have plenty of unskilled workers out of work already.

Finally, Your point about taxing corporation is right on the money. Yet the word "taxes' has become such an emotionally loaden one, that politicians won't use it. And politicians are also dependent on campaign donations from corporations, who have become the true rulers of this country. Their money decides what's been shown in the news and which politician will be elected or dropped by bringing up some dirt in the media. Therefore, their will be no taxation of employers as long as we have corporations funding the elections.

It's all part of a game between the red and the blue team to keep the dummyfied electorate busy, so that they don't realize what the real problems are.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary,

we're not talking really upgly or beautiful here. We're talking of older ugly American men to take advantage of the current immigration law, abusing it, by marrying a hot young chick from a poor country who wishes to get out of her hellhole of a country, oftentimes because no American woman of the same standard would give them the time of the day. Whether the chick is from South Asia or Siberia is irrelevant here. What matters is that this will only work with women who can upgrade her standard of life and ultimately that of her family. A young, sexy woman from a wealthy country, whether Norway or the Netherlands or France or Canada or Italy or Japan or Australia would not marry an ugly, fat, bolt and old guy just for a Green Card. The transaction requires two levels of inequality: the two countries and the two people involved.

On the same token, a chick from Germany or the UK or France or Canada would not consequently import her family clan afterward: they wouldn't want to immigrate to the US! Yet the chick from a third world country would and in most cases does. This creates an imbalance by importing poverty to the US, and that ultimately hurts this country as we have plenty of unskilled workers out of work already.

Finally, Your point about taxing corporation is right on the money. Yet the word "taxes' has become such an emotionally loaden one, that politicians won't use it. And politicians are also dependent on campaign donations from corporations, who have become the true rulers of this country. Their money decides what's been shown in the news and which politician will be elected or dropped by bringing up some dirt in the media. Therefore, their will be no taxation of employers as long as we have corporations funding the elections.

It's all part of a game between the red and the blue team to keep the dummyfied electorate busy, so that they don't realize what the real problems are.

I do not consider it abuse for a man to marry a woman and I do not think you or the government should be allowed to determine that. If they are legally able to marry and wish to so so, it is none of my business, the government's business or your business. Period.

Please stop insulting our intelligence with descriptions of who is ugly, old, desparate and what part of the world they come from. It is disgusting and smacks just a bit of some sort of "master race" theory.

Taxes are used to manipulate behavior all the time and it is not a dirty word. I would just as well support a tax credit for businesses that prove that they are employing ONLY Americans, but next it will be stated we cannot "afford to give them tax breaks" but we can afford to pay Americans unemployment and employ millions of people that don't pay tax. Give business at tax credit of $10,000 per legal employee and the government will save 4 times that in unemployment alone PLUS collect tax from the employed American. If you are squeemish about taxing the bejeezus out of abusers of humans, then give them a huge payoff for NOT abusing humans. Fine by me. It's all economics and we can feel better about it, right? Worked for giving people $8000 if they bought a house or $4500 if they bought a new car. We can give people a $2600 tax credit for going to college, but not for employing an American citizen or legal resident and proving it? we have all the tax answers, EXCEPT for hiring illegals, then we forget how to do that? No one is "forgetting", Bob.

The bottom line, whether it is tax credits or tax penalties, is that we HAVE TO make it economically STUPID to employ illegals. We have to make it a "no-brainer" for business. We have to make it so that a business would never even consider for a second the "benefits" of hiring illegals because the economic loss would be HUGE. WHEN we do that, and not one minute before, the illegal alien problem will END. That week. There will be a massive flood of illegals OUT of the country and I hope there are no STUPID fences in the way to slow them down when they are released from bondage.

Who marries who is a non-issue.

[james&olya 1,121]

we're not talking really upgly or beautiful here. We're talking of older ugly American men to take advantage of the current immigration law, abusing it, by marrying a hot young chick from a poor country who wishes to get out of her hellhole of a country, oftentimes because no American woman of the same standard would give them the time of the day. Whether the chick is from South Asia or Siberia is irrelevant here. What matters is that this will only work with women who can upgrade her standard of life and ultimately that of her family. A young, sexy woman from a wealthy country, whether Norway or the Netherlands or France or Canada or Italy or Japan or Australia would not marry an ugly, fat, bolt and old guy just for a Green Card. The transaction requires two levels of inequality: the two countries and the two people involved.

You fool yourself if you think that all these same considerations as to standard of living, etc that a man offers and the youth and beauty a woman offers are not a very big part of the marriage equation everywhere! I think that some are only objecting to the fact that this market is now also being globalized! Get used to it, this is the world we are in. Maybe women here will have to work harder to compete! If what I have to offer is valued higher by women in Siberia, and what they have to offer is valued higher here than their american competition, than guess what will happen? I think this is really not a lot different than what the american car companies were saying in the 70's about japanese imports. Domestic car companies had a bit of an attitude of entitlement, didn't think they had to try harder to compete. Now they are more competitive but they had to learn they were now in a global marketplace. Same dynamic here!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You fool yourself if you think that all these same considerations as to standard of living, etc that a man offers and the youth and beauty a woman offers are not a very big part of the marriage equation everywhere! I think that some are only objecting to the fact that this market is now also being globalized! Get used to it, this is the world we are in. Maybe women here will have to work harder to compete! If what I have to offer is valued higher by women in Siberia, and what they have to offer is valued higher here than their american competition, than guess what will happen? I think this is really not a lot different than what the american car companies were saying in the 70's about japanese imports. Domestic car companies had a bit of an attitude of entitlement, didn't think they had to try harder to compete. Now they are more competitive but they had to learn they were now in a global marketplace. Same dynamic here!

Oh, what are we competing for?

[Captain Oates 910]

Gary,

we're not talking really upgly or beautiful here. We're talking of older ugly American men to take advantage of the current immigration law, abusing it, by marrying a hot young chick from a poor country who wishes to get out of her hellhole of a country, oftentimes because no American woman of the same standard would give them the time of the day. Whether the chick is from South Asia or Siberia is irrelevant here. What matters is that this will only work with women who can upgrade her standard of life and ultimately that of her family. A young, sexy woman from a wealthy country, whether Norway or the Netherlands or France or Canada or Italy or Japan or Australia would not marry an ugly, fat, bolt and old guy just for a Green Card. The transaction requires two levels of inequality: the two countries and the two people involved.

On the same token, a chick from Germany or the UK or France or Canada would not consequently import her family clan afterward: they wouldn't want to immigrate to the US! Yet the chick from a third world country would and in most cases does. This creates an imbalance by importing poverty to the US, and that ultimately hurts this country as we have plenty of unskilled workers out of work already.

Finally, Your point about taxing corporation is right on the money. Yet the word "taxes' has become such an emotionally loaden one, that politicians won't use it. And politicians are also dependent on campaign donations from corporations, who have become the true rulers of this country. Their money decides what's been shown in the news and which politician will be elected or dropped by bringing up some dirt in the media. Therefore, their will be no taxation of employers as long as we have corporations funding the elections.

It's all part of a game between the red and the blue team to keep the dummyfied electorate busy, so that they don't realize what the real problems are.

Got to agree with this. When I was foolin' with the German psychiatrist she wanted to live in Wester Ross in Scotland or Bremen - they are both flooded. Both unacceptable to me.

When I met current, present, at the moment, (oops I mean final), wife, I wanted to live in England and we did.

My brains were fuddled by green moss while we were living in Lancashire (the pits of the world) for her job during the wettest year since the ice age - and so here we are. The USA sounds exciting to many Europeans but when they learn of the extreme religion and the health care system and appallingly crude and violent speech in public life, and the short vacations and lack of worker protection, even many adventurers pack it in after a year.

Luckily all my income is sourced outside the country, I have 365 vacation per annum, no need of worker protection and I get great health care via my wife's safe job and the aggressively religious christians can't drive me out of my job or wreck my career - so it's ok for me or in the words of Plastic Bertrand " Ca plane por moi "

I would hate to have a bird from one of those countries where the USA is heaven on earth to them; I mean, how would I know that they were with me just for my unrelenting charm and pure 'niceness' under all circumstances ? I would have to do what my mate suggested which was hide all your money offshore and have 100% finance on my car/house etc. Then she can try and get blood out of a stone. Actually, I think women from those countries will be quiet satisfied living somewhere without malaria and waiting it out for the old codger to ####### his toes up. A money grab divorce isn't necessary.

I have met a small number of Thai imports (in England), probably six, and they all seemed bored out of their skulls and just sat swinging their legs and staring at the wall

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You fool yourself if you think that all these same considerations as to standard of living, etc that a man offers and the youth and beauty a woman offers are not a very big part of the marriage equation everywhere! I think that some are only objecting to the fact that this market is now also being globalized! Get used to it, this is the world we are in. Maybe women here will have to work harder to compete! If what I have to offer is valued higher by women in Siberia, and what they have to offer is valued higher here than their american competition, than guess what will happen? I think this is really not a lot different than what the american car companies were saying in the 70's about japanese imports. Domestic car companies had a bit of an attitude of entitlement, didn't think they had to try harder to compete. Now they are more competitive but they had to learn they were now in a global marketplace. Same dynamic here!

Legal immigration is not the concern of people who are unemployed, though some people would like to blur that line. Any thinking person woul dnot want the WIFE (or husband) of a US citizen to be unemployed if they didn't want to be and suggesting that is just racist.

I would expect all marriages have some benfit for both people, why else do it? It isn't for tax reasons!

If both people are adults and happy with the deal, what's the problem? Yes it is a global market and just as when other American markets have been opened, it wasn't always welcomed by the American business but ultimately resulted in an imporved American product. Though that may come long after my ability to "drive" has passed.

The internet and travel possibilities that have opened in the past 20 years have changed everything.

Blame it on "the Science of Airplanes"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Got to agree with this. When I was foolin' with the German psychiatrist she wanted to live in Wester Ross in Scotland or Bremen - they are both flooded. Both unacceptable to me.

When I met current, present, at the moment, (oops I mean final), wife, I wanted to live in England and we did.

My brains were fuddled by green moss while we were living in Lancashire (the pits of the world) for her job during the wettest year since the ice age - and so here we are. The USA sounds exciting to many Europeans but when they learn of the extreme religion and the health care system and appallingly crude and violent speech in public life, and the short vacations and lack of worker protection, even many adventurers pack it in after a year.

Luckily all my income is sourced outside the country, I have 365 vacation per annum, no need of worker protection and I get great health care via my wife's safe job and the aggressively religious christians can't drive me out of my job or wreck my career - so it's ok for me or in the words of Plastic Bertrand " Ca plane por moi "

I would hate to have a bird from one of those countries where the USA is heaven on earth to them; I mean, how would I know that they were with me just for my unrelenting charm and pure 'niceness' under all circumstances ? I would have to do what my mate suggested which was hide all your money offshore and have 100% finance on my car/house etc. Then she can try and get blood out of a stone. Actually, I think women from those countries will be quiet satisfied living somewhere without malaria and waiting it out for the old codger to ####### his toes up. A money grab divorce isn't necessary.

I have met a small number of Thai imports (in England), probably six, and they all seemed bored out of their skulls and just sat swinging their legs and staring at the wall

And everyone should be the same by law.

Maybe you could list the countries that Americans should not be allowed to marry women from. That would make it easier for us to have our "choice" of who to marry.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Captain Oates 910]

And everyone should be the same by law.

Maybe you could list the countries that Americans should not be allowed to marry women from. That would make it easier for us to have our "choice" of who to marry.

Please expand - does that mean that I have to bulk up to the same dimensions as the Walmartians ?

Americans should not be allowed to marry Americans as they are already 'exceptional' by birth and we don't want them to leave the rest of humanity too far behind by only marrying other exceptional people - ie Americans

Edited January 23, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Please expand - does that mean that I have to bulk up to the same dimensions as the Walmartians ?

Americans should not be allowed to marry Americans as they are already 'exceptional' by birth and we don't want them to leave the rest of humanity too far behind by only marrying other exceptional people - ie Americans

Excellent points in the argument on illegal aliens taking jobs from citizens and legal immigrants.

Economic incentives or dis-incentives to prevent American employers from exploiting illegals for profit are the answer. Economic incentives are the problem, fix the problem.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

There is only one way to really fix that problem, and that's at the root: take corporate money out of the election process! Publicly funded elections where every candidate get equal exposure. Corporations are allowed to contribute, and the money is tax deductible as before, but goes into a big pot that feeds all of the candidates.

I would actually go further, but that's pure utopia:

1) get rid of the 2-party system and winner takes all.

2) Allow presentation in congress proportunate to the votes received. This will allow coalitions based on issues, not partisanship.

3) Make it known that members of Congress abide to the same principle. No "government" health care? They don't get any either! Airport screening? Screen them as well, and touch 'em where they don' like it, and so on.

4) Give the President of the United States a vote afterward. If the majority of voters believe he did a good job, he gets a pension; if the majority feels he was a crook or messed up royally, he gets the boot and SS like the rest of the populace.