Re: Please help - illegal working in US

[Charlie Self]

Eugene asks:

Having arrived in Los Angeles form England, I discovered that this is >exactly the place I'd really like to stay for the rest of my life, >something I'm longing for. >Going back to England and then getting the job here legally seems >almost impossible, so I have decided to overstay my tourist visa. >Basically, I need help from somebody who can advise as to what the >best way to get a job could be and also, is there some way for me to >readjust/legalize my status? . >I would greatly appreciate some practical advice, rather then >reflecting on the whole situation in general :)

Really? Why did you post to a woodworking forum, then?

My advice: Talk to people here about jobs while your visa is good. Get a promise of a job and go back to England. Apply for immmigrant status legally and come here legally.

There either are no quotas from England, or they're very high, so you should have no problems.

That's taking it for granted this isn't some kind of silly troll.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[Swingman]

It would have been much more believable if he had signed off as "Nigel" or "Ian".

[Charlie Self]

Swingman responds:

Yup. Would have been more believable, too, if he'd been posting as a Croat or Bulgar or Egyptian or Irani or similar citizen where limits are much tighter.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[Mike Patterson]

FWIW, Things might have changed recently, but about 3 years ago I had an English co-worker here in ATL who tried to do it as you suggest. Had an employer all lined up who had given him a letter, they -really- wanted him, willing to pay his international moving expenses, etc etc etc..

He was denied because the quota of English immigrants was booked up for the next several years.

He's back in the UK now.

Mike Patterson Please remove the spamtrap to email me. "I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."

[Charlie Self]

Mike Patterson responds:

And he'd really appreciate it if the OP finds a way to trump his possible return with illegal moves, I bet.

Sorry. I'm still for doing it legally, even if it takes a few months or years.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[Robert E. Lewis]

My advice would be not to publicize your intent to remain after your visa has expired in wide and sundry forums.

That's untrue. The UK is subject to the same work visa quotas for nations generally (there are 'diversity visas' to let people in from countries without a large immigrant population - the UK isn't among them) - and the most common work visa (aside from specialty visas for entertainers, and extraordinary leaders in certain fields) - the H1B for workers coming to the US has a quota for the fiscal year (October to October) that was filled in mid-February. Unless the person belongs to one of the rare exempt categories, it makes no matter if one has a job offer - there are no H-1B visas being issued, and won't be until October.

Sorry to post off-topic, but I know someone from Britain, a highly skilled and well-regarded professional in a field (education) so in need of workers that we're certifying people without training to teach, and I'm discovering the widely held perception that people can just come to the US to work easily is completely wrong.

The unfortunate fact is the guy might well have better luck living and working in the US illegally for a few years in the hope that he can hold out and not be caught before the next 'amnesty' declares him legal, than in trying to work by the rules to come contribute to the US.

[tony stramella]

My advice,marry a Mexican.

[Charlie Self]

Mark responds:

True enough, but the really, really big problem is that our need here is for kind of work the Mexican laborers do, not the skilled worker. Without illegal help, our food costs would rise considerably.

We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem comes from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.

We need these people, but they should be treated better, and paid better, both of which require some political guts, something in amazingly short supply. Bush's program is nothing more than pandering to the Latino (is that the PC word this month?) vote, not a policy, and not sensible. The system pays, which means that instead of employers picking up the nut for healthcare, the taxpayer pays. That needs to be stopped. Let the employers pay, even if it raises costs.

Ah well. Not to be solved here, where we get evidence of wooden heads, but really little in the way of political acumen.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[RB]

"The most expensive labor is cheap labor." One of the problems with our immigration policies (or more correctly lack of them) is that those benefiting from the cheap labor don't pay the price. The taxpayers pick up a major portion of the tab...medical services, schools, crime, etc.

The majority of this nation has yet to see the consequences of allowing anyone who can hop across the Rio Grande to be here. When they wake up it will be too late. In areas where large numbers of illegals are found you will see a lowering of quality. Stores find that these folks are used to less and will accept poorer quality. I've even seen that clothing sizes shift to smaller sizes, smaller shoes, etc. The impact is perhaps subtle, but never the less real and I believe damaging to what has been a higher standard of living.

We as taxpayers pay for an immigration service that by its performance is useless. They should all be sent packing and we at least should see tax reductions from not having to pay for a function that doesn't perform.

RB

Charlie Self wrote:

[Wes]

|Wes Stewart wrote: | |> So relax and enjoy your stay. After all, it's a "free" country! | | Well, I appreciate your sarcasm, but the fact is that it is a shame |that the US has no skilled immigration program (unlike Canada and |Australia). So, here in Europe, there's a bunch of white, young, |well-educated, English-speaking professionals who would like to move to |the US but are stuck due to the silly immigration process that basically |is a nightmare unless you are a poor un-educated, un-skilled, |Spanish-speaking Mexican farmworker with relatives already in the |country. | | So, it's up to the American public to decide what kind of people they |want to let in. So far, they seem to prefer Mexicans, Pakis, Indians, |etc, etc rather than Europeans.

No... I would prefer that our immigrations laws would be enforced

*exactly* as written. The current view is that *reform* is needed, suggesting that something is broken. The only thing not working is enforcement. Those who choose to play by the rules should know that they have a fair chance (whatever the odds) to immigrate. The current *system* is counter to what this country is supposed to stand for: the rule of law. The way it works now is that if you enter illegally, you have a better than good chance that you're in for good.

As a member of the public that sees his way of live degraded on a daily basis by the flood of illegals, I *have* decided what kind of people I want to be let in, and it isn't the ones that are getting in now. | | Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.

May I offer a suggestion. Go to Canada or Australia.

Wes

[Wes]

[snip]

|True enough, but the really, really big problem is that our need here is for |kind of work the Mexican laborers do, not the skilled worker. Without illegal |help, our food costs would rise considerably.

That may be, but does it necessarily mean that the cost of living goes up? I don't know, but our local, liberal as can be (redundant I know), morning newspaper just ran a front-page story about a study of the cost of illegal immigration to the state of Arizona.

you believe that the $1.3B is a fair estimate, (I do) then illegal immigration costs every man, woman and child (5.1 million) in Arizona approximately $255 per year. This number does not include the proportional share of cost to the federal government (border enforcement, etc).

And it certainly doesn't include the cost to the quality of life due to crime. Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the highest crime rate in the country and it's not safe in our national parks

you Mexico. Some might argue that this goes away if we simply open the doors and let everyone in but I don't buy that for an instant.

So, for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to say that it costs my wife and me $1000/year to support illegal immigration. This is non-discretionary spending; I can't do a thing about it.

Surely I must get some benefit, right? Aha, the price of lettuce is lower because it was picked by illegals. And a plate of tacos at the local Mexican eatery is a buck cheaper because the cook and dishwasher are illegal.

But what if I choose to not go to that restaurant and buy those tacos. As I said earlier, it's a free country, and I don't have to buy tacos. But wait, I'm still subsidizing the people who *do* buy the tacos. I'm paying for them whether I eat them or not!

Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument.

This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch.

| |We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem comes |from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving |people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still |manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.

But we have a policy. The laws are on the books.

| |We need these people, but they should be treated better, and paid better, both |of which require some political guts, something in amazingly short supply. |Bush's program is nothing more than pandering to the Latino (is that the PC |word this month?)

They used to be just Mexican. Then they became Mexican-American and then Chicano, Hispanic for a while and now Latino. As for Bush, he's given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him again, all of which I could ignore, but this one's pushed me over the edge.

|vote, not a policy, and not sensible. The system pays, which |means that instead of employers picking up the nut for healthcare, the taxpayer |pays. That needs to be stopped. Let the employers pay, even if it raises costs.

Ah, some agreement [g].

| |Ah well. Not to be solved here, where we get evidence of wooden heads, but |really little in the way of political acumen.

The solution is really quite simple. When illegals are found working in a Walmart, Sammy Walton, Jr. gets a year in jail. When a farmer is found with illegals in his fields, he gets a year in jail. When a restaurant owner is found with illegals in the kitchen, he gets a year in jail. "I didn't know" is not a defense.

A few dozen widely-publicized cases and the job market is gone and the illegals go home.

Prices will rise to their true value and we will then get to decide whether to pay them or not and whether we want to revise our immigration policy or not.

Wes

[Charlie Self]

Wes responds:

No kidding. But the fact is, the work has to be done, and no native-born American, or damned few, is willing to do it. It is a subsidy, but the subsidy is not to the taco eater or the laborer. It is to the businessman (or woman), usually a rabid conservative, who doesn't want to have profits reduced.

But not enforced. Our president would far rather curry votes than enforce the law.

I used Latino advisedly, simply because an awful lot of these illegals come from countries other than Mexico. They cross the Mexico-US border, but come from Colombia, Nicaragua, and other places further south.

That happened here in Parkersburg a few months ago. Owner of a Mexican restaurant got a pisspot full of property and a ton of money confiscated and is now in jail because he harbored illegals and did money laundering. Of course, they may well have nailed his butt because he's an immigrant himself, but what the hell.

Not much chance of a stockholder in Walmart going to jail--do it to one, you have to do it proportionately to all, which would really create problems in our already over-full jails. There is a solution, but I don't know what it is.

I doubt it. Most crooks, especially business types who don't consider themselves crooks, are positive they are smarter than anyone who works by the rules. Some may actually be, but they overlook the fact that the little worker ants who are trying to nail them are many in number and will eventually get that anthill built. How many people do you think Enron's mess has scared off? My guess is it gave others some ideas, showed them new areas to move around and try to beta the system.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[Wes]

|Wes responds: | |>Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and |>we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument. |>

|>This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch. | |No kidding. But the fact is, the work has to be done, and no native-born |American, or damned few, is willing to do it.

When the wage scale becomes high enough, native-born folks will take the jobs.

|It is a subsidy, but the subsidy |is not to the taco eater or the laborer. It is to the businessman (or woman), |usually a rabid conservative, who doesn't want to have profits reduced.

Let's take another example: I'm required to carry uninsured motorist insurance. Am I subsidizing the insurance company or the illegals and other nitwits running around here without insurance? The insurance companies are going to cover their losses and make a profit regardless of who pays the premiums. Do you think they make more profit selling me the insurance than they would selling policies to the numbskulls?

| |>|We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem |>comes |>|from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving |>|people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still |>|manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family. |>

|>But we have a policy. The laws are on the books. | |But not enforced. Our president would far rather curry votes than enforce the |law.

See sentence three in the paragraph below. | |>They used to be just Mexican. Then they became Mexican-American and |>then Chicano, Hispanic for a while and now Latino. As for Bush, he's |>given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him again, all of which I |>could ignore, but this one's pushed me over the edge. | |I used Latino advisedly, simply because an awful lot of these illegals come |from countries other than Mexico. They cross the Mexico-US border, but come |from Colombia, Nicaragua, and other places further south.

All of those places are in "Latin" America, so you're on firm footing. [g] | |>The solution is really quite simple. When illegals are found working |>in a Walmart, Sammy Walton, Jr. gets a year in jail. When a farmer is |>found with illegals in his fields, he gets a year in jail. When a |>restaurant owner is found with illegals in the kitchen, he gets a year |>in jail. "I didn't know" is not a defense. | |That happened here in Parkersburg a few months ago. Owner of a Mexican |restaurant got a pisspot full of property and a ton of money confiscated and is |now in jail because he harbored illegals and did money laundering. Of course, |they may well have nailed his butt because he's an immigrant himself, but what |the hell.

Good. Too bad it wasn't widely publicized. The IRS gets (used to) compliance because they widely publicize the cases they bring. Gets a lot of folks to toe the line. | |Not much chance of a stockholder in Walmart going to jail--do it to one, you |have to do it proportionately to all, which would really create problems in our |already over-full jails. There is a solution, but I don't know what it is.

I didn't say stockholder, I mean the CEO, CFO, COO, President or whomever is the top dog at the business. If you have a retirement plan, 401k or any such vehicle you *are* a shareholder in Walmart.

Well, gotta go to Woodcraft now and help prop up their bottom line.

Wes

[Charlie Self]

Wes asks:

Mostly the other nitwits. When I was a kid, I had to carry UM insurance, and you can bet that back then, illegals weren't much of a problem in NY State. Mandatory insurance came in the year before I got my first car, and UM insurance came in a couple, three years later, say about 1959, if memory serves.

Fair enough, because he is responsible, much like several generals and several cabinet level types are responsible for the prisoner abuse in Iraq. You and I both know what will happen there. Some brigadier is going to be sacrificed, but will not be enough of a sacrifical lamb to lose his or her pension.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[Robert E. Lewis]

And will the cost of that wage increase then be passed on to the supermarket produce aisle?

Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover the note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government regulation?

[Nova]

New York State requires it. See:

Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

[Charlie Self]

Jack Novak responds:

Virginia requires it, too, IF you carry insurance. Insurance isn't mandatory, but you have to pay a fee about equal to insurance costs, to the state, if you don't carry insurance. It does not serve as insurance. I'm not sure what its point is.

Charlie Self "The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

[Wes]

I certainly hope so. If you want to eat lettuce and tomatos then you should pay for them, I'm not interested in subsidizing your salad. | | |> Let's take another example: I'm required to carry uninsured motorist |> insurance. Am I subsidizing the insurance company or the illegals and |> other nitwits running around here without insurance? | |Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist |insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover the |note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government regulation?

Actually, I misspoke slightly. In the past it was an Arizona law that I purchase uninsured and underinsured coverage. That has been changed; however, it is still a requirement upon the insurance companies to provide such coverage. In otherwords, I don't have to buy it, but any auto insurer doing business in the state must offer it. I buy it, thus I subsidize the uninsured for my own protection. This is still pretty close to a mandate.

As you have seen by now, other states still mandate it.

Wes

[Andrew Barss]

Wes wrote: Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the : highest crime rate in the country

You've said this before, and I doubt it's true. We in Tucson have the highest car theft rate in the US (medium-sized city; Republican-driven budget, so small police force and weak bordr patrol; affluent population and proximity to Mexico). But overall crime rate? Come on -- you really think we have a higher crime rate than LA, Detroit, D.C., or other major cities?

Citations please.

-- Andy Barss

[Wes]

|Wes wrote: | Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the |: highest crime rate in the country | | |You've said this before, and I doubt it's true. We in Tucson have the |highest car theft rate in the US (medium-sized city; Republican-driven |budget, so small police force and weak bordr patrol; affluent population |and proximity to Mexico). But overall crime rate? Come on -- you really |think we have a higher crime rate than LA, Detroit, D.C., or other major |cities? | |Citations please.

Certainly.

|