Cessna forced down by the Feds

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:05:39 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive.

To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
your personal spin on the issue.


I prefer to call it 'values.' I value people more than money.

So then, if you don't really think Americans are guilty of fear and
hatred of strangers or foreigners, why did you use the word
'xenophobia'?

What has money got to do with the government policing the country's
boarders?

Surely you're not proposing wide open boarders without any check to
see who is entering or leaving. That would be irresponsible.

Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone
come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work
or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.

And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
mass entry into our country?


They are being stopped now?

I have no information on the number of terrorists who are currently
prevented from illegally entering the country, only the number of
souls: 4,000/day illegally cross the southern boarder.

I am saying that people coming into the country
for legitimate purposes such as work should not be stopped from doing so. A
terrorist would still have to sneak in or come in under false pretenses,
just as they do now.

So what you're actually advocating is a quotaless system of
immigration into the US?

That would be terrific for business, but displaced employees would
surely find their wages declining. Declining wages would reduce
purchasing power. That would ultimately impact business, because
folks wouldn't have adequate income to purchase products and services.
Or am I overlooking something?

The few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals
engaged in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.

In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
border entry points?"

What stops them now? Pretty much nothing. The only thing we are doing now is
forcing huge numbers of people to become criminals for wanting nothing more
than a job and a decent living. You run the same checks on people at the
border that you do now.


Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were suggesting no barrier
to immigration at all. So what you're really advocating is removal of
any restriction on the NUMBER of people permitted to immigrate into
the US.

They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
our borders; Ludicrous!

Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
borders would create.

Immigrants are also taxpayers. They do not stay poor. The only thing that
keeps them poor now is that they must work in the underground economy in
constant fear of being deportation.

I see. That's reasonable.

They are vulnerable to con men, thugs,
and thieves just because they want to work. Many are killed every year.

That is consistent with my understanding.

If
we have a welfare problem, it is not because of immigrants. It is a problem
with the idea that it is our responsibility to support everyone who does not
want to work.

So how would you suggest that be reformed? If we do not provide basic
health care, we will be awash in sick people who infect the healthy.

It is hysterically funny to have a Democrat accusing a Republican of being
egalitarian or altruistic.

Be that as it may, I support the underlying premise of your
suggestion. I just don't think it is workable. It is a pro business
anti labor proposal. But it is shortsighted.

The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Regardless, the DHS's failure to adequately police illegal immigration
while arresting US citizens without benefit of due judicial process is
a failed policy, that underscores the DHS farce.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects.

Pete

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:57:24 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects.


How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:29:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
part of the problem is the rules as written.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

It's "borders", by the way. And "borne". That said, I do not believe that
the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry. Never mind that the company for which she was working was
never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.

In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law, it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

Pete

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:15:40 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
part of the problem is the rules as written.

The subject and predicate in the second clause of your sentence above
should agree in number: 'rules are' or 'rule is'.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

It's "borders", by the way. And "borne".

Thanks.

That said, I do not believe that
the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

From what knowledge do you derive that opinion? I would be surprised
if you were familiar enough with MOST illegal immigrants to make such
a statement.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry.

So all she would have had to do to remain in the country is find a job
at prevailing wage? That sounds quite reasonable to me.

Never mind that the company for which she was working was
never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.

In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

If she could prove that her replacement and/or predecessor, who was a
US citizen, received equal or less pay at the same job, I would think
she might be able to establish the fact that she received the
prevailing wage for that job. Is it possible to appeal the decision?

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law,

How would you feel if all the Indian programmers or EEs who wanted to
work in the US for substandard wages were permitted to immigrate and
displace the current highly compensated US citizens performing those
jobs? While such might make the US more competitive internationally,
it would cause a lot of bankruptcies and a significant reduction in US
standard of living.

it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

Did your sister-in-law make a good case for that? Did she provide
documentary and testimonial evidence that supported that?

If enterprises were forced to pay what they are "actually capable of
paying," the wages of Microsoft employees might rise substantially.
:-)

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

If you characterize a reduction in US wage standards as "no good
reason," perhaps you're correct.

I would guess, that congressional representatives would find it
difficult to be reelected if there constituencies found themselves
displaced by cheap immigrant labor.

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 00:15:

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry.

Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
applying.
The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
95% of the prevailing wage.

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law, it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the
prevailing wage?
Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

"Healthy, educated, skilled labor" can find employers that pay the
prevailing wage.

-Joe

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a
permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving
to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and
exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete


The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
turn as there are quotas for entry. That is not an indication of a broke
system. Being an educated fine upstanding person does not guarantee
immediate entry.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
turn as there are quotas for entry.

Read my other post. Her issue was not about quotas.

You should refrain from speculating on a situation about which you know
nothing. People are being turned away even when the spirit of the existing
regulations should allow them in.

Pete