Yes, hearsay.
If you don’t believe things that people post on this board, why are you here? It’s not like his story is that unbelievable.
It’s not? Slavery has been outlawed for what, 140 years now? To say in 2005 that someone has been a slave is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires evidence.
It was made as a figurative claim, not a literal one. It was a figurative description of a vastly verifiable phenomenon. To give an analogy, I could claim that you have shit for brains. That’s a figurative claim, not a literal one but it’s describes a manifestly true phenomenon. Your posts are my cite.
If the phenomenon is so vastly verifiable, you’ll have no problem, um, verifying it, right?
You want verification that undocumented workers are exploited for cheap labor in the US? Would you like some verification that water is wet while I’m at it?
Some verification that anything approaching slavery is happening would be nice.
Other than that, Happy New Year.
[url=http://www.forbes.com/archive/forbes/2004/0607/074.html;jsessionid=2enFsSWGpt8H9FWe?token=MSBKYW4gMjAwNiAwNjo1Nzo1MiArMDAwMA%3D%3D]Here’s a start. I’m too lazy to search for more tonight. If you want to deny that undocumented workers are exploited in the US, then we really have nothing to talk about.
WTF? I don’t know what happened with that link. Here it is again.
undocumented workers != slavery
Trafficking and exploitation of undocumented workers = virtual slavery.
Ah, so now you’re claiming virtual slavery.
It’s hard to keep track, with the constantly changing definitions, and all.
You didn’t answer my question Updike.
Do you mean legally or culturally? Legally, I imagine it would be the same as children born to U.S. citizens when they are outside of the U.S. The children are citizens of whatever country their parents are.
You’re going to have to let that country know then. And some countries are probably not going to accept children not born in their respective countries.
(Really asking, atleast sort of)
So we should have to accept anyone who wants to come, at any time, and in any amounts? That statement is an attitude, not a policy.
IIRC, there was a rancher a while back in Ventura County (CA) who was officially charged with slavery because he locked the gates of the rach to prevent the escape of his illegal alien employees/borders.
Seriously, wouldn’t this be true? I was thinking about this, and why wouldn’t it be the case that kids of illegal immigrants from Honduras would still be citizens of Honduras? Have I accepted a premise that’s faulty? Why would there be stateless kids?
Again, seriously: Why would we have to let their country know? We presumably don’t even know they’re here in the first place. It’s a very real case of “It wasn’t my turn to watch them,” isn’t it? Do you have a cite that any country is going to deny citizenship to the child of its citizens who is born outside the country?
Oh, and Updike, I had things on an actual intellectual level, with people discussing my conservative points like I had something to say. You seem to be tap dancing all over that.
Updike, when a person is placed in a position and given to understand that he or she has effectively no choice but to do as he/she is told, that constitutes a form of involuntary servitude. Coercion of this sort is justifiable only in very specialized circumstances. (Imprisonment at hard labor owing to conviction of a heinous crime, and the nature of loving parents raising a small child, are the only ones that come to mind.) There is a fair amount of documentation out there that in fact some businesses do treat undocumented aliens in this manner. Hence I have no reason to disbelieve what Rushgeekgirl claims happened to her husband. It is true that “on the Internet, no one can tell you are a dog,” but on this forum, there is a presumption of honesty in representing oneself and one’s affairs. After all, I have only your word that you are in fact who you yourself purport to be, and not an Al Qaeda operative trolling the SDMB to foment disagreement. (Note that that is not an accusation but rather the statement that you too are entitled to the same presumption of honesty.) If you have reasons to doubt her statement, it’s incumbent on you to advance them.
AFAICT, nobody is “changing definitions” – I and others have used “slavery” hyperbolically to describe that state of coerced involuntary servitude into which some unscrupulous people put undocumented aliens. (Note too that “undocumented” and “illegal” are two distinct concepts. A person in this country legally for a specific term and entitled by law and regulation to have that term extended, and who applies for that extension substantially before it is needed, but whose initial term runs out before the extension is granted owing to bungling incompetence at the INS office, is technically “undocumented” between the end of the initial term and the granting of the extension, even though by law he or she is in the country legally.)
Cardinal, different countries have differing definitions of citizenship. The most obvious example is Israel, where the Right of Return places it partly on ethnic qualifications. Jus soli entitles anyone born in a country to claim citizenship. Jus natalis bases it on being the child of a citizen or citizens. There’s a provision in British/Commonwealth law that makes citizenship in any Commonwealth country interchangeable with any other, under certain restrictions; someone more familiar with British/Commonwealth law would have to speak more to that. So depending on how Honduras’ law works, it’s quite possible that a child of Hondurans residing in the U.S. may not be entitled to Honduran citizenship by birth (no jus natalis – or if not the case for Honduras, pick another country at random, because some don’t recognize it. On the other hand, jus soli is slowly being eliminated from national definitions.
By the way, Cardinal, I noticed on rereading that I inadvertently threw an ethnic slur your way; I had no idea you were of Irish stock, but that “No Irish need apply” was the classic phrase evocative of the “Know-Nothing” anti-immigrant stance in the 1800s, and so I used it to suggest an alternative regarding the Hispanic-immigrant concern that I find to be beyond the pale. No personal referent was intended.
Oh, I knew what you meant. I was just pointing out another area of racism I wouldn’t be a part of. As far as the Irish comment, my reply was more of distancing myself from the attitude, not thinking you were accusing me of something in reality.