A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cessna forced down by the Feds



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 30th 05, 06:19 AM
Joe Feise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 20:30:
"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...

And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by metropolitan
area.



So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was compared
to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources. The
employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say "this
isn't the case" even so).


Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.


By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...



Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point is
that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing so
on a career basis.


The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a
job because of an immigrant. It doesn't matter if an immigrant wants to
work for a company. The company has to try and find a qualified American
or Permanent Resident first, and only if they don't find one, then they
can try and sponsor an immigrant. If they don't find one because they
don't pay as much as others, that's not an excuse to sponsor an immigrant.
Immigration Law 101.
If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change it. CIS has to apply the law.

-Joe

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.



"Getting"? This was off-topic from the get-go. If you don't want to see
any more discussion, just junk the thread.


I have no problem with discussing this. In fact, I post quite regularly
on alt.visa.us. There are a number of people there who know a lot more
about immigration than I do. That's why I prefer to have the thread there.
So, again, setting the followup to alt.visa.us.

-Joe
  #2  
Old January 30th 05, 08:38 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a job
because of an immigrant.


Again, my point is that there are examples (such as the one I've described)
where an immigrant is not causing an American to lose a job.

It doesn't matter if an immigrant wants to work for a company. The company
has to try and find a qualified American or Permanent Resident first, and
only if they don't find one, then they can try and sponsor an immigrant.
If they don't find one because they don't pay as much as others, that's
not an excuse to sponsor an immigrant.


Yes, I know all that. Did I mention that I know quite a few immigrant
workers?

Immigration Law 101.
If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change it. CIS has to apply the
law.


None of what you wrote has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

[...]
So, again, setting the followup to alt.visa.us.


And again, ignoring your idiotic urge to move this thread to somewhere else.

I have no idea why I expected any outcome from my comment other than what
happened. There's always someone, on Usenet, who feels that in spite of
having NO personal knowledge of some situation that they can comment with
any intelligence on the wherefors and wherehows of that situation. This
time it was you (and others), but it's always someone.

I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws. That sort of optimism
surely improves the world somehow. But it doesn't mean you are right.

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1/72 Cessna 300, 400 series scale models Ale Owning 3 October 22nd 13 03:40 PM
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! Enea Grande Aviation Marketplace 1 November 4th 03 12:57 AM
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! Enea Grande Owning 1 November 4th 03 12:57 AM
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! Enea Grande Piloting 1 November 4th 03 12:57 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.