Yes. See, the law about getting paid overtime doesn’t apply to the worker, it applies to the employer. The fact that the worker is violating a law by being in the country does not give the employer the right to ignore a seperate law dictating how much he is required to pay his workers.
Bullshit. Illegal aliens shouldn’t be entitled to any pay, at all.
There aren’t enough "fuck you"s to cover it.
If you want to rant about illegal immigration and how wetbacks shouldn’t have any rights, is it too fucking much for you to do it someplace other than this thread? Is that really too much to ask?
You can post whatever the fuck you want wherever the fuck you want to but if you’re going to be a motherfucking hijacker on the one hijack that the OP has specifically asked not be done, then you’re a piece of shit pusfucking asshole and you have no business acting like you’re the fucking injured party.
And yeah, the OP does get to decide if he wants his own thread locked. If you don’t like it, shove it up your fucking ass sideways and choke on your own puke while you do it. You’ll have to make your own thread instead of shitting on this one any more.
I’ve never pitted another Doper, but I’m seriously considering using you to pop my Pitting cherry. You disgust me. Leave poor [ib]Otto** alone to be pissed off. Just go the hell away.
You are so full of it. This isn’t your personal playground. If you can’t stand the heat, don’t stand in the kitchen.
A philosophical question: is it ethical to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man?
I think not. I’m with Otto. Close this sucker.
Milroyj, eat shit, you bigot.
Leave Otto be.
He requested posters to not go there in the OP. He requested once again to not go there later in the thread, once you started going there. This has nothing to do with whose playground it is. It has everything to do with respect and courtesy. If you can’t see that, then I guess there’s no amount of explaining that will get through to you. Start your own damned thread if this discussion is so important to you.
So our laws only apply to certain people under certain circumstances? And how we evaluate whether or not to apply these laws is a relative?
Well, I’m cerainly heartless. I cannot sympathize with someone who breaks our laws and simultaneously expects to be protected by them.
Perhaps your ancestors ended up in the United States because they were simply disoriented. However, mine realized that Ireland was a really crappy place to live and they made the conscious decision to come to this country because it afforded them the opportunities they desired ( and they did it legally). I am extremely happy that my great-great-grandfather made this decision and every year on my birthday I break out the Irish whiskey and drink a toast to the glorious bastard.
I realize it has become very fashionable to claim victimhood. That the status of “victim” means you can collect rewards by showing how pathetic you are rather than earning rewards by what you can achieve, but I’m still surprised that anyone would claim that the “victim” status should override our laws.
If the law is not to be applied equally then who decides when, where, and under what circumstances to apply the law? Who defines “exploitation” and “endangerment”? And won’t these definitions become subject to the same relativism as the laws themselves? I have to admit, I’m not to thrilled by the idea of a society that is governed by whim. Such a society would be a breeding ground for petty tyrants and I would have to think that anyone promoting such a society would have to be, at their core, pure evil.
Um, you realize that there is a very, very large body of law and jurisprudence dealing with how one may or may not treat even those convicted of very heinous crimes, yes? Let alone an un-convicted, exploited illegal*? May I hope you’re not in favour of abolishing those?
[sub]**¡Ningún ser humano es ilegal!*[/sub]
Hm. It would be amusing if you would point out where someone advocated something like this. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, workers’ rights law applies to the boss, not the staff. A boss who exploits his or her staff is as guilty whether the staff is allowed to be in the country or not.
But due to the way immigration laws are set up, a boss who exploits illegals is much more likely to get away with it than one who exploits non-illegals.
That’s the injustice.
Carcosa what the fuck does your great-great-grandfather have to do with the fact that human beings are being exploited now.
God some of you people disgust me.
No. There is a burden of proof on the spouse applying for a green card. I had to go through that with my wife several times. Once one actually has a green card, they have to visit the US at least 1 time per year or it is automatically nulled (unless said person has a valid re-entry permit). Guideline is that one has to visit the US at least every 6 months to have a comfort level that the INS will not revoke the PR status.
I was speaking of morality, not laws. Nobody was debating that the subject of the OP, at the moment, has no legal right to be in the U.S. The OP was, among other things, expressing his frustration that if the laws of the U.S. did not discriminate based on gender, an opinion which increasing numbers of this country’s citizens share, there would be a remedy for this issue: marrieg. But there is not, so someoneone who the OP cares about deeply will most likely continue to be exploited.
Did I say anything about our laws only applying to certain people? No, I did not, although that is sometimes the case. There are all sorts of precedents for differential application of laws and punishments in this country. Even the head of the Agency Formerly Known as INS has advised managers of that agency to use things like prosecutorial discreetion. Ever hear of that? Ever hear of the T visa, for victims of human trafficking, which I alluded to earlier?
And as others have already noted, we are talking about 2 different sets of laws here. One forbids people from working in the U.S. without authorization, one forbids employers from hiring them. The former is enforced much more regularly than the latter. That’s unfair, and end up punishing victims.
Well, at least we agree on something.
Mine ended up in the U.S. because Eastern Europe, as you may be aware, was not a friendly place for Jews, aside from their wish for a better life. It’s one thing to die in a famine, and quite another to be deliberately targeted because of who you are. But that’s a subject for another thread, or several.
I’m not claiming that anywhere. I’m just claiming that if you give a damn about justice, then you should apply BOTh sets of laws: one to the exploiter, and one to the exploitee. That former set does have a reason for existing, you know.
[quoteIf the law is not to be applied equally then who decides when, where, and under what circumstances to apply the law? Who defines “exploitation” and “endangerment”? And won’t these definitions become subject to the same relativism as the laws themselves? [/quote]
Differential punishments and mitigating factros are frequently written into laws the laws themselves. Have you ever actually read a law? If you had, you’d know they generally come with a range of punishments. Or are you not aware that one of a judge’s primary duties is selectiing an appropriate sentence upon conviction? And that large numbers of appeals are filed on the basis of the judge’s sentence, not merely on the conviction itself>
[quoteI have to admit, I’m not to thrilled by the idea of a society that is governed by whim. Such a society would be a breeding ground for petty tyrants and I would have to think that anyone promoting such a society would have to be, at their core, pure evil.[/QUOTE]
What, a society like ours, where half the laws are ignored because the lawbreaker is in a position to lobby and provide campaign contributions? I don’t know where you’re panning on moving to, but I hope they have regular bus service to Mars.
I’m beyond disgusted with you. But if you don’t care, then I guess it’s irrelevant.
I am assuming that you would not say that the situation should be remedied by enforcing the laws against illegal immigration more strongly.
IOW, kicking Otto’s boyfriend out of the country isn’t what you want. What seems to be wanted is some way to be sure his boyfriend is protected by one set of laws, but not sanctioned by the other.
So milroyj’s point remains. Why is it a moral imperative to enforce the law on the employer, but any suggestion that the same enforcement should devolve onto the illegal alien is greeted with cries of “No fair!”
Regards,
Shodan
Shoan, I want a remedy to exist which does not: namely, equal immigration rights for same-sex couples who wish to get married. That would solve all the other immigration issues in this particular situation.
Barring that, I want enforcement of labor laws aimed at employers on at least an equal basis as immigration laws against people who have overstayed their visas. This is not currently the case, by a long shot; tens of thousands of people are deported every year, but lawsuits or fines against employers are the exception rather than the rule, even in cases of repeat violations.
Anyone interested in the Supreme Court’s current take on this subject should look up Hoffman Plastics. It came out a couple years ago and was highly criticized by immigrant rights people as well as “the international community” (see the advisory opinion by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights).
And by the way, I feel your predicament Otto. It seems ridiculous that these laws are getting in the way of romance. It almost makes me want to engage in illegal sham marriages.
And milroyj is a jerk.
That’s a fair response. I would only add that to push for enforcement only for illegal employers is an almost equal injustice to enforcing only against illegal aliens.
Although as China Guy points out, and I am sure you know, marriage is not quite a slam dunk fix.
Both sides are wrong here. Otto’s boyfriend has no right to be in the US, to hold a job here, and therefore also no right to complain. And his employer has no right to employ him.
I imagine most people would have roughly the same amount of patience in listening to Otto’s boyfriend complain about his job as they would listening to his employer complain about the lazy employees he has to hire.
But this stuff about “how dare you disagree with me in my own thread - you’re a bigot” is childish. If you don’t want to be disagreed with in public, don’t post on a public messageboard.
Apparently not.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly.
And if the OP was looking for tea and sympathy, he shouldn’t have posted in the Pit. If this thread were in MPSIMS, I would have still disagreed, but I wouldn’t have posted. If you’re posting in the Pit, you have to expect that not everyone will agree with you, and that they will let you know about it. I don’t see how that makes me a bigot or a jerk.
Shodan, you’re a prick. But that’s hardly breaking news.
The OP wasn’t looking for tea and sympathy. The OP was looking to rant a bit. The OP also specifically asked that the thread not be used to go into your feelings on illegal immigration. Which you chose to ignore, despite being asked again not to go into it.
I didn’t call you a bigot. What makes you a jerk is your flagrant disregard of the wishes of the OP to make your asinine point about illegal immigrants and continuing to yammer on about it to the point of the OP asking for the thread to be closed (which, prick Shodan, is certainly allowed, has been done many times before and will undoubtedly be done here when a Mod gets to it). You knew I didn’t want the thread to go there but you took it there anyway. I asked you again not to and your lame brain decided that because your shit didn’t mention my bf by name it was OK. You could just as easily have started a new thread about it to show a bare minimum of respect for the OP, regardless of who the OP is or which forum held the original thread. Instead, you chose to keep shitting here.
And that, fuckwit, is what makes you a jerk.
It pains me to say it, but milroyj actually has a point. Soon as I read the OP, I knew this was going to happen, no matter how much the OP begged and pleaded. Not that it makes it right, by any means, but it was pretty much an inevitable consequence of posting this rant in this forum.
Anyway, I feel guilty for participating in the hijack and not responding to the OP, so, Otto, it sucks that you and your boyfriend are caught in this situation. The entire concept of “illegal” immigration is offensive in and of itself. I say, open the borders, and let them what can get here, live here. I wish the two of you every possible success in circumventing any law that stands between you and happiness, and only wish there were some way I could help.