Re: Please help - illegal working in US

Page 1 of 2  
Eugene asks:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

It would have been much more believable if he had signed off as "Nigel" or "Ian".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02 Jun 2004 11:22:19 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

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..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My advice,marry a Mexican.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07 Jun 2004 13:09:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
[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.
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/24834.php
If 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 (http://www.desertinvasion.us/articles/articles_opnm.html ). Thank 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07 Jun 2004 16:35:19 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
|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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Charlie Self)

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:

New York State requires it. See: http://www1.unitrindirect.com/unitrin/auto/iquote/NY_insurance_minimum_coverage.html
-- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:58:22 GMT, "Robert E. Lewis"
|
| [snip] |> When the wage scale becomes high enough, native-born folks will take |> the jobs.| |And will the cost of that wage increase then be passed on to the supermarket |produce aisle?
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, you just want to subsidize producer workers' salaries by limiting the labor pool (to the extent some people willing to take a particular job are not allowed to take that job, the labor pool is being limited).
Of course, those Americans working the fields are going to need those higher wages - as you say and hope, their grocery bill will be going up (and the bill at McDonalds, etc.)

Thanks for the clarification. I spoke to an uninsured Arizona driver last night, and she wants to know when she can expect your subsidy check in the mail. <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That sounds a lot like saying that buying property insurance is subsidizing arsonists and theives. I think the reason for buying uninsured motorists insurance is to protect yourself if someone damages your property or injures you and are unable to pay their liability either through insurance or personal assets. It is to protect you. In Pa. you are required to have a certain amount of liability insurance on your car in order to get/maintain your license plate and they seem to enforce this requirement aggressively. However you still need to get uninsured motorist insurance unless you are willing to accept some idiot from out-of-state or who is driving without a valid plate destroyoing your car and you eating the cost. I would no more go without uninsured motorist insurance than without homeowners insurance. I don't get it for the other guy's benefit, I get it for my economic security.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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     
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.