kytwell

Your pro slavery and you make me sick to my stomach. Then posting this ####### on a legal immigration site to boot. You know how much money farmers make? My grandparents and every farmer within 20 miles of them made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year after paying their over head so you can save your bs for some slimy pro illegal site that's buying your spiel.
If you have to pay a few more dollars at the check stand then so be it, but save your pro illegal and pro slavery bs for the brain dead.

Some people are pro slavery...the same people that are pro illegals.

Don't start with that living-wage #######.
People should get paid what the market will bear, using illegal labor should be heavily punished as is other methods to by-pass the lawful way to do business.

Discovery had a long running series "Dirty Jobs" which showcased such work, I do not recall seeing any illegal immigrants.
I suggest the employers pay more and offer better benefits. They will get workers. Start by paying much more than they can make on unemployment and/or welfare.
YES that means you will pay more for their product. Get over it. You are employing Americans in diginifeid conditions and that is what you want...right?

As was also stated in the article. Pay enough and there would be many wanting the job. The problem (or non problem) is that they want to pay the least amount and the least benefits. There are many dirty jobs that pay a decent wage and many Americans do them.

"Lazy American citizens fighting for our country..."
Your a real piece of work. I served my country as many on this board did. As far as willingly breaking the laws of this country by knowingly and willingly entering this country illegally....
Your so full of sh*t you stink. Iv'e seen construction work performed by illegals, most of them with the skills of a ####### roach and I wouldn't let them build my dog house. Zero training, zero skills and zero pride in their work.
It's time for them to go back to their third world sh*t holes and go about entering this country legally. In the mean time they can breed another half dozen kids that they can't afford for the fact most of them have the IQ of a turnip.

One of the big talking points that pro-immigration groups make is that our food prices would be much higher if the US did not tolerate the flow of illegal immigrants into the country to work in agriculture. They argue that no American would do the work the illegal immigrants do for the wages they make. It is a myth.
First of all, agriculture is not a labor intensive business. The US supplies all the food it needs, plus exports billion of dollars to other countries, using very few people. In 1870, between 70% and 80% of the US population worked in agriculture. Today, less than 1% of the population works in agriculture. At last count there were only 821,000 people in the US employed in agriculture. This is out of a total civilian workforce of 153,904,000. There are 312,000,000 people in the US and these 821,000 workers produce enough to feed everybody, plus export food to the rest of the world. By 2018, agricultural employment in the US is expected to decrease to 804,400, even though the US population will be increasing.
Here is why. In 1945 it took 14 man-hours to produce 100 bushels of corn on 2 acres of land. By 1987, it took less than 3 man-hours to produce the same 100 bushels of corn on a little more than 1-acre of land. In 2002, the same 100-bushels of corn were produced on less than 1-acre of land. Productivity has reduced the demand for agricultural labor, and made labor more efficient.
An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables. If curtailing illegal alien agricultural labor caused tighter labor conditions and a 40 percent increase in wages, the increased cost to the American family would be $9 a year, or about 2.5 cents per day. Yet for the farm laborer, the change would mean an increase in earnings from $17,600 to $24,640 per 2000-hour work year. That increase would move the worker from beneath the federal poverty line to above it. In fact, the salary would be higher than the median salary paid by Walmart.
The cost of labor is a very small component of food. Consumers who pay $1 for a pound of apples, or $1 for a head of lettuce, are giving 16 to 19 cents to the farmer and 5 to 6 cents to the farm worker.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/fulano_de_tal/2011/aug/18/the-myth-of-illegal-immigration-and-food-prices/
It would help too, if most Americans had their own gardens. And eat what's available in season. Cantaloupes in February are imported. So eat seasonal foods, it requires adjusting what most are accustomed to, but it worked for 100's of years prior.

One of the big talking points that pro-immigration groups make is that our food prices would be much higher if the US did not tolerate the flow of illegal immigrants into the country to work in agriculture. They argue that no American would do the work the illegal immigrants do for the wages they make. It is a myth.
First of all, agriculture is not a labor intensive business. The US supplies all the food it needs, plus exports billion of dollars to other countries, using very few people. In 1870, between 70% and 80% of the US population worked in agriculture. Today, less than 1% of the population works in agriculture. At last count there were only 821,000 people in the US employed in agriculture. This is out of a total civilian workforce of 153,904,000. There are 312,000,000 people in the US and these 821,000 workers produce enough to feed everybody, plus export food to the rest of the world. By 2018, agricultural employment in the US is expected to decrease to 804,400, even though the US population will be increasing.
Here is why. In 1945 it took 14 man-hours to produce 100 bushels of corn on 2 acres of land. By 1987, it took less than 3 man-hours to produce the same 100 bushels of corn on a little more than 1-acre of land. In 2002, the same 100-bushels of corn were produced on less than 1-acre of land. Productivity has reduced the demand for agricultural labor, and made labor more efficient.
An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables. If curtailing illegal alien agricultural labor caused tighter labor conditions and a 40 percent increase in wages, the increased cost to the American family would be $9 a year, or about 2.5 cents per day. Yet for the farm laborer, the change would mean an increase in earnings from $17,600 to $24,640 per 2000-hour work year. That increase would move the worker from beneath the federal poverty line to above it. In fact, the salary would be higher than the median salary paid by Walmart.
The cost of labor is a very small component of food. Consumers who pay $1 for a pound of apples, or $1 for a head of lettuce, are giving 16 to 19 cents to the farmer and 5 to 6 cents to the farm worker.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/fulano_de_tal/2011/aug/18/the-myth-of-illegal-immigration-and-food-prices/
It would help too, if most Americans had their own gardens. And eat what's available in season. Cantaloupes in February are imported. So eat seasonal foods, it requires adjusting what most are accustomed to, but it worked for 100's of years prior.

Due to the increasing incidents of child abductions in disputed custody cases and as possible victims of child pornography, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) strongly recommends that unless the child is accompanied by both parents, the adult have a note from the child's other parent (or, in the case of a child traveling with grandparents, uncles or aunts, sisters or brothers, or friends, a note signed by both parents) stating "I acknowledge that my wife/husband/etc. is traveling out of the country with my son/daughter. He/She/They has/have my permission to do so."
CBP also suggests that this note be notarized.
While CBP may not ask to see this documentation, if we do ask, and you do not have it, you may be detained until the circumstances of the child traveling without both parents can be fully assessed. If there is no second parent with legal claims to the child (deceased, sole custody, etc.) any other relevant paperwork, such as a court decision, birth certificate naming only one parent, death certificate, etc., would be useful.
Adults traveling with children should also be aware that, while the U.S. does not require this documentation, many other countries do; failure to produce notarized permission letters and/or birth certificates could result in travelers being refused entry (Canada has very strict requirements in this regard).
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/268/~/traveling-with-children---child-traveling-with-one-parent-or-someone-who-is-not

Nice try but lets look beyond the one word "modern" and see what your complete sentence stated.
The modern universities and colleges in England were built largely by atheists
You need to make up your minds, were they Atheist university then or now>
If you claim it's simply an Atheist endeavor now.....you will force me to post about the size and scope of the current theological studies program, the largest in Europe I believe.
I overlook your misunderstanding of American history but really now..... you have no excuse to be so far off base about your own history.
Tsk,Tsk Tsk.

If you do, leave your cell phone at home, ride a bike and pay with cash.

You want the real answers or just poking fun?
There are 116 women for every 100 men in Ukraine and that is the average for young women. The odds are far higher against them at age 30 or 40. The average life span of a man in Ukraine is 58, a woman 77. Population dymanics. The dfference is OBVIOUS. If you do not know what 116 women to 100 men looks like on the street...go to Ukraine.
Alcoholism is a pervasive problem in the FSU. FSU women do not like drunks because they are notr reliable and FSU women are very traditional in their beliefs of the roles for women in the family which is still incredibly important there. She sees a drunk as nothing but trouble. Scratch 30% of the men at least, maybe 50%. Now the odds are 116 to what? 75? maybe. That means if ALL the Russian men who aren't drunks marry ALL the women, it leaves 41 women unmarried out 116. OR 16 unmarried and 25 miserable, abused women. Those are not good odds, even for musical chairs.
Now add in that there is a strong cultural desire for women to be married and care for a family. I am almost done with demographics.
the other is that any man can look good when he is 22 or 23, but maybe he will be a drunk by age 33 and they will be divorced with two kids. Now if a guy is 50 and he has a good job (good means stable and pays enough to live, not necessarily "rich")and is not an alcoholic and is not abusive, then he probably will not be ever. If he is from American he has a life expectancy of 79. Not bad at all! I am not all that much older than Alla, she looks younger than she is. I don't. Our age difference is slightly more than common in the USA but not much. We do know some couple with age differences of 30 years, Alla and I are on the "low side" for age difference in the couples we know. None of them make any judgements, Alla's best friend has a husband 30 years older than her and I have never heard Alla even mention it.
A large portion of the population, less now than before, were raised in the Soviet Union and had a lot of disapointment in life. They have had a difficult life. There are things burned into the memory of the little girl that is now my MIL, that I do not have the fortitude to discuss and I stand in awe of the woman, to be frank. They were always told of the glory of communism and that the promised land was just on the horizon. Promises and maybes and things that fade mean nothing to those people. You can not understand it and I cannot either, though maybe just a tad better than the average American.
So they do not care about yor bank account, your car, or even your home as long as it is enough for the family and their idea of "enough" is quite less than yours or mine. I assure you. Money gets lost, it has twice in my wife's lifetime simply evaporated and been worthless the next day. You have no idea of that and wouldn't handle it well. Cars work for a while and break. So does the hot water and elevator. They believe it will.
They want something enduring, good looks are not enduring, anyone with a brain can see that. Women do not concern themselves with good looks for men.
I assure you my wife believes she has hit the jackpot with me. I have a woodshop and make her things, I remodel all the rooms in our home and do amazing ceramic tile work, our kitchen and bathrooms look as good as anyone making ten times my income because I do it myself. She eats on a table I made, sleeps on the bed I made, hangs her clothes in the wardrobe I made, all design copies from Italian furniture catalogs she dreamed about but knew she could never own. We go places together whenever we can, there is no one I would rather be with, for any reason. I care for the kids as if they were my own, she KNOWS that now and that is what she imagined before we married. I make them a priority as she does. I am a warm fuzzy bear she takes a bath with every night and holds all night who keeps her warm and safe. She gets to live her lfie as she dreamed, caring for family, doing a job using her education, using the skills she loves to use. There are richer, better looking guys than me, but try to find one that will really care for her, help her with her difficult education, teach the bys to drive, help Pasha to learn English. You cannot buy those things from my wife. I guess I could go on. Never mind.
Frankly, a woman that says "Why is SHE with YOU?" is exactly the kind of superficial woman I had no interest in. And it is a fact that an American woman cannot have the combination of life experiences that result in the qualities I admire in my FSU wife. The recipe is all wrong. Not to say that someone else doesn't want that, or prefer that. I can imagine that sentence will be the only one some people focus on. Oh, well. Just proves the case.
I am very proud of my intelligent, talented, loving, caring and drop dead gorgeous wife. I consider myself the luckiest man on earth. And while people who would rather think bad things like to say I only care about her looks, you would have to ignore that I proudly post her other accomplishments since she has arrived and not just to brag (a little bragging OK) but to show other women from other non-native English speaking countries that they CAN succeed, have a rewarding life, and make progress in their new home

Scorpio women don't need it either.

Some people wonder why many American children seem to lack motivation in school. Could this stem in part from attitudes and policies that believe income needs redistribution after divorce so that children do not see the substantial lifestyle differences resulting from how hard one works in school and in their career? Maybe it would be better for all if children saw how one lifestyle results in canned ravioli and sleeping on the couch while another affords the family some of the nicer things. Now we often have the opposite. The deadbeat mothers get support from all their baby-daddies while some of those fathers are reduced to poverty in spite of good educations, good jobs, and hard work. What is this teaching our children? Before any of you get on my case I am not advocating for fathers to let their children live in poverty. But I think the current laws in many jurisdictions go way too far the other way!

Unless you know a lot more about his situation than has been disclosed here you don't really know that! It is people like you that judge situations like this based on often faulty stereotypes that results in a lot of the prejudice (pre-judging) that has the effect of depriving many fathers of their rights!
I agree that, as a general rule, you should never, ever, disparage the ex when your children are around. As a child their identity is derived from both of their parents and when you attack the other parent you attack them. But individual situations vary widely, often in ways you might never imagine! My ex has sociopathic personality disorder and can lie so convincingly she can fool almost anyone for a while. She had custody and bad-mouthed me constantly. I NEVER spoke ill of her within their hearing. They have both chosen to live with me since their mid-teens and have NOTHING good to say of their mother. I used to try and get them to ease up on her till a child psychologist told me I needed to let them vent. It became necessary for me to acknowledge their feelings and that those feelings were valid and justified in order to prevent them from feeling like that worthless piece of meat/bargaining chip as you put it! By their choice and hers they no longer have any contact. I have never said it to them but they say often that they know the only reason their mother wanted custody was for the money!!!

You know my ex?!!!

Okay it's a subsidy. Call it what ever fits your viewpoint. But there are huge inequalities in the child support process and I know them all too well from all avenues, as a child of divorced parent's, as a payer when I had 50-50 and now as a receiver since I have custody. And the system screws you as a man. If you're the father and are non custodial, you need to step up and be a man and support your kids. Women in this situation are firm in their stance that this money isn't charity.
Now if you're a woman having to pay child support, you can do whatever you damn please. Don't pay, not show up, not call or care for your kids and they system doesn't punish you for it, as they would if you were a man.
If you have 50-50 custody as it should be in the vast majority of the cases, then the father should care for the kids when he has them and the mother should care for them when she has them. No money needs to be exchanged and kids would fare better as it benefits them having equal access to both parent's and the parent's would be more civil, since there's no bitterness involved from the child support system, because it's been eliminated with this set-up.

If the dude already paid taxes on it then it's not income. But if they deducted it from his salary pre-tax and then gave it to the baby momma she should claim it as income and pay taxes on it.
What's interesting about child support is it's typically only income when it matters. Need some credit? Go ahead and count it as income. Need to pay the government? Don't count that support, it'll put you in a higher bracket.

I have to agree. When I was paying child support (when my kids lived with the ex) that money was to be used to pay for their support not hers or her bf. As I was paying the taxes on this money, it should be my choice how that money is used. If she wanted to use it as income for any reasons, then she should be paying the taxes on it.
My kids needs come first, not hers.

I know, it's rather stunning a mob which points it's fingers at others while accusing them of greed are in fact turning away the hungry in their midst.
Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Discussions about how we think things SHOULD BE are not appropriate for these upper forums. The OP is looking for accurate information in response to pertinent questions.
If the child support is court ordered, and there is evidence it is actually received, it is added as "other income" in the I-864. Just put "Court Ordered Child Support" as employer number two and document both sources of income.
These children are 6 and 9. If they were 17, I would be looking for a joint sponsor. Income from any allowable source is CONSIDERED by the Consular Officer, as the officer deems appropriate. Failure to meet minimum requirements assures a negative decision. Successfully meeting MINIMUM requirements does NOT assure a positive decision. It's a judgment call that includes consideration of the totality of circumstances.

child support should be just for children

Using Medicaid to pay for the bill? Which version of the constitution do you have?

Using Medicaid to pay for the bill? Which version of the constitution do you have?