You misread the point, which is, that if you were born and grew up as she did, you would likely come to the US illegally if you thought it was the best way to get ahead because of limited opportunities at home.

-spence

Hmm, like my great grandmother who grew up in a famine in Poland? Or my grandfather growing up in the slums of Lebanon?
Or how about my wifes parents, her Dad was an indentured servant living in India? Her house had no refrigeration and no inside plumbing.
Hmm, I wonder why they all came here legally? But I bet thats all not nearly as hard as she had it in Mexico. I wonder if that mentality of taking the easy road, sneaking in, falsifying documents, lying, cheating, I wonder if that makes you a stronger citizen vs. the hard way of coming here legally, demonstrating hard work and perseverance to your children, friends, neighbors. Which one leads to a better America?

You don't think many would prefer to come here legally if they could?

I think the challenge for someone like the subject of this thread is that unless you have a family connection or can show that your job skills are in high demand it can take many years to be approved if ever. I've also seen some reports that the true cost (in $$$) can be quite prohibitive.

That certainly doesn't justify the behavior, but I don't think you can compare it to other situations which may or may not be equitable. We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA, and immigration policy has changed a lot over the past century reflecting (and shaping) many trends.

From what we see about drug violence and the trafficking of immigrants across the border, it certainly doesn't look like it's the "easy road" to me. More justification for better border security and prosecution of business that hire illegal workers.

Remember, to try and understand why someone would come here illegally doesn't mean your seeking to legitimize it.

-spence

I'll take that as a compliment.

Never said that.

Amnesty is a tricky subject. There's a very good case against it, but there's also the 12M illegals already here. Doesn't seem feasible to round them all up and the economic fallout could be serious.

While we all hear of the exceptions in the news, I'd venture a guess most generally obey the law outside of being here illegally.

The punishment should fit the crime, hence the AZ law change to make it criminal to be here without a valid status...so they can round 'em up and deport them which is difficult to do today for people who have been in the US for a long period of time.

I do think this is an area for the law to be more clear, it seems like an immigration judge has a lot of room to decide someone's fate. Regardless, I believe this should be in the Federal domain.

Post 9/11 changes certainly seem to have impacted education and employment. Many IT business leaders have been very vocal about this.

No, it's just not the applicable part of the code.

-spence

I don't think revolutions are easy or spontaneous. They require the right combination of conditions at the right time. With the inherent corruption and poverty present in many countries, I can see how a more selfish solution might be attractive to some.

Although, with the natural resources, workforce and expanding business south of the border, it will be interesting to see how the economies and people respond over the next few decades.

It's unfortunate that God chose to filter his morality through us imperfect people. (Note: This may not apply to those fortunate enough to speak directly to God.)

Definitely a slippery slope there, but I'd think it's also why immigration issues are handled as both criminal and civil elements of Federal law.

Agree, sometimes it does take a village :devil2: :hihi:

Not sure but from what I gather she cleans a mean house.

-spence

"Villagers" should have the local authority to impose various local ordinances and even to choose their version of health insurance. The Federal Government was not created to be a local village, but to protect the diverse villages from foreign invasions, even invasions such as massive illegal immigration. And the villagers should be allowed to detain and hand over such illegals to the subservient Federal Government. But it seems that some top-down politicians like to use populist phrases like "it takes a village" but, in reality, they don't trust the villagers, and they really mean "it takes a central control of the villages."

hilarious


Originally Posted by spence
That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.

spence[/QUOTE]
a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.





spence[/QUOTE]
We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA

a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.


spence[/QUOTE]
We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA[/QUOTE]


That was her ploy. get a job working for Meg "Buy the election" Whitman, THEN set up a sleeper cell. of course! case cracked!

We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA[/QUOTE]


That was her ploy. get a job working for Meg "Buy the election" Whitman, THEN set up a sleeper cell. of course! case cracked![/QUOTE]



guess I should have provided the entire quote(contradiction) so as not to confuse the brilliant global warming scientists

"I think the challenge for someone like the subject of this thread is that unless you have a family connection or can show that your job skills are in high demand it can take many years to be approved if ever. I've also seen some reports that the true cost (in $$$) can be quite prohibitive.

That certainly doesn't justify the behavior, but I don't think you can compare it to other situations which may or may not be equitable. We don't really know her true motivation for coming to the USA,

oh but we do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You misread the point, which is, that if you were born and grew up as she did, you would likely come to the US illegally if you thought it was the best way to get ahead because of limited opportunities at home.

-spence

Originally Posted by spence
That's not the point. I'm all for better control of our borders, but from her perspective...she was just trying to make a better life.

spence[/QUOTE]
a housekeeper who's here simply to improve her life pretty low on the list.
and immigration policy has changed a lot over the past century reflecting (and shaping) many trends."


stupidity like this is why we can't get anything done on immigration:

"That was her ploy. get a job working for Meg "Buy the election" Whitman, THEN set up a sleeper cell. of course! case cracked!"

she either can't be blamed for trying to improve her life or you are equating her with a terrorist if you suggest she shouldn't be here...

Although her motivation may have been honorable to her, the law is the law and she, just like myself and everybody else in this country, needs to abide by it.

She broke it so now she must take the consequences that come with it.

Rubber duck just fell from the ceiling...

It is amazing how the obvious escapes people

yep

I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be held accountable.

The context of the thread is RIJIMMY thinking she should be immediately dragged to the border in shackles. These aren't the consequences that typically accompany her violation.

-spence

These are the consequences and this is what should happen to her if found guilty.

No, I just want her arrested. But instead she is being paraded around by liberals trying to use her as a political pawn. And to top it off, as I highlighted in the initial post, latinos are now putting up 5 million for adds against Whitman! So how does that help their cause? Now wealthy people will think twice before hiring anyone of latin decent, it will BACKFIRE on them!

Tis the season.

She doesn't serve their interests.

I doubt it, unless there's a flood of legal workers out to perform low skilled labor people will still hire who they can get regardless.

-spence

[
I doubt it, unless there's a flood of legal workers out to perform low skilled labor people will still hire who they can get regardless.

-spence[/QUOTE]

At $27 an hour, would you rather flip burgers?

We discussed this earlier in the thread. I don't think this part of the code is applicable to her situation. The laws appear to delineate between those trying to get over the border, those who just recently crossed the border and those who have been here some time.

Sort of like meteor, meteorite and meteoroid :hihi:

-spence

Amazing to me how some have so much empathy for illegal immigrants
who can come here legally if they choose, and so little empathy for the ones
who wait on line to take their turn to come legally.

Are you saying there is a statute of limitations attached to this that equals the length of time it takes you to get way with it and enter the country

nevermind using false documentation

so - we know the Whitmans produced tax forms

Do we know if the illegal paid taxes? What SS # would she use? The fake one she gave the whitmans?

I bet she is guilty of immigrating illegally, using false documentation AND tax evasion. Now does she deserve to be arrested?

I'd venture a guess that it has more to do with the fact that if someone has been here for some time, there's likely no evidence that they violated that specific section of code. I'm not an immigration attorney, but everything I've read indicates that simply being here without a visa is a civil offense under Federal law.

-spence

I believe illegals contribute quite a bit to SS without receiving any benefits. Many also seem to pay taxes...I don't think the IRS really cares who sends them money.

What I do find interesting though, is that your animosity is directed entirely at the house cleaner, and not at the billionaire who received her services for what looks like 6 years after she likely knew the woman's status was suspect.

-spence

Emphasis on SEEM to pay taxes. They claim a rediculous number of dependents (I have heard 10 or so) and figure the microscopic little that gets witheld is price of admission to get their children and unwed spouse free stuff... Don't forget Auntie Zituni

Not having proper documentation is some evidence that they have violated that section of the code. And it is certain evidence that some part of the code has been violated. The civil offense of being here without a visa is also subject to deportation. Even overstaying your visa faces you with removal proceedings to be deported from the U.S. If you overstay your visa for more than 180 days but less than a year you will face deportation and be inadmissible to the U.S. for three years. If you overstay it for more than a year, you will be inadmissible for 10 years. Not having a visa, a green card, or proper immigration papers is evidence of your breaking immigration law and makes you subject to deportation.

The woman Whitman fired, if the code is to be enforced, should be deported.

If it can be proved that Whitman did something illegal, she should be prosecuted. If not, it's typical oxymoronic dirty politics, and the voters should decide on the merits of the candidates' policies, not on mudslinging distractions.

Yup, same old, same old politics.

If you can't win on your record snow them with :bs:

Spence, you need a little common sense, seriously.
Its pretty well documented that thr Whitmans had all the correct documentation from the housekeeper. The agency had all the right documents from the housekeeper. When the Whitmans received the letter that the SSN may have a problem, the letter was full of legal disclaimers saying this this is not an indication of any issues. The husband wrote a note and had the housekeeper look into it. I've read that imiigration attorneys siad there was not much more the WHitmans could have done. So you say "she likely knew", this is the common sense part.......Whitman was running a multi-million dollar company, I'd guess shes traveling 20 days out of the month? So, you really think she "likely" knew? In her spare time she pondered the citizenship of her HOUSEKEEPER???? The Whitmans did everything by the book, everything.
The housekeeper, illiegally entered the country, falsified documentation, and lied to her employer. She was subsequently fired and is now suing her employer.
Yes, I am faulting the housekeeper, she is a CRIMINAL.
Hell, I had a buddy get caught with a fake id when he was 18 and it caused tons of legal issues for him, this lady looks to be the vicitim and so far has not been charged. Incredible.

I think your assumption that immigrants choose to come here illegally (while legal options are readily available) isn't really true, not at least for the bulk of unskilled workers who enter the country to perform lower skilled work. There are quotas for these categories of applicants and very few are actually approved each year. Not to mention the cost which can be quite prohibitive.

Rightly so, the process doesn't want to take just anybody. A good question might be if the quotas are aligned with the demand. I've read that they are not, but don't know for sure. I've also read that in a few decades we may actually be trying to entice low skilled workers into the USA to keep the economy moving.

-spence

Maybe the Quotas would be higher if there were more jobs readily available for unskilled worker....if the bulk of these jobs weren't already being performed by people who came here illegally.

Entice Away...if the economy dictates that we need to increase our demand for Unskilled immigrant workers then the government might actually decrease all the red tape that is needed to enter the country. Wouldn't that make it easier for people to enter legally....the illegals may be shooting themselves in the foot by bypassing the system.