Undocumented aliens rebuilding Biloxi, say they deserve visas 3807

"The issue is complex and cannot be answered with a simple solution. One side says all actions must be legal, and illegals must stay illegal. "

That must be the republican stronghold. If they really don't like illegals -why not just put an end to employers' ability to hire them?

"The other side says make them "guests" so they can be "documented" and we"

That must be the moderate section that wants the benefits of slavery

"don't know if that will cause them to be paid more and get better treatment. However, there are many other factors in the equation. "

it will. When you empower them with equal rights -not only will their conditions improve, but the reason why employers prefer illegals to natives will be eliminated and the working clbutt will get better oppurtunities when competing for those jobs. Alternatively, if you want all of those jobs for yourself -it still makes sense to make it illegal to hire them. Enforcing the law is real simple. The evidence is clear cut as to which businesses employ illegals.

"This statement completely ignores two major facts: i) there are loopholes in our laws, and ii) many companies have hired lawyers to help them pay

immigrant-types less money. From what I have heard, Indian companies engage in their own tricks (eg. the Indian Caucus) to manipulate US politicians for the benefit of Indian business interests. "

My understanding is that lawmakers get paid not only to write laws -but also to create innocous looking loopholes within those laws -so that there isn't a public outcry. Indian caucus is unable to manipulate laws in the US as yet. If they did -the H1b would be done away with and a service visa would be in place that allows Indians to walk into the US (as canadians do) and it would be the employer's duty to ensure safe return of the visa holder back to India. The people paying for the H1b visa's continuance include US businesses and excludes either the India caucus or the Ind govt or the workers from India. The US govt wants slavery for non-voters and the elected representatives of those voters in other countries cannot afford to ask for the same. So that explains why the mexican president Vicente Fox is pushing to legalize the illegals if the US wants them to be part of the US economy. If you want them not to benefit the US economy -that is a different issue altogether.

"39. Straydog Sep 23, 4:18 am show options

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Kamal R. Prasad

The issue is complex and cannot be answered with a simple solution. One side says all actions must be legal, and illegals must stay illegal. The other side says make them "guests" so they can be "documented" and we don't know if that will cause them to be paid more and get better treatment. However, there are many other factors in the equation. If you

You should know that just because something is illegal, that does not mean it will not be done. You, of all people should know about corruption. If hispanics were rich enough to vacation in the USA (with

Actually, you need to replace the word "Hispanic" with the word Mexican. Most of the Hispanics coming here in fact are Mexican.

But, you pointed you finger at the US doing something bad, but here, India is doing it too.

And, you think none of it is happening in India? I don't believe it.

I remember someone had a comment about this, maybe a month or two ago, saying this was not true, either. The same is not true of the US -where lawmakers tailor their

This statement completely ignores two major facts: i) there are loopholes in our laws, and ii) many companies have hired lawyers to help them pay

immigrant-types less money. From what I have heard, Indian companies engage in their own tricks (eg. the Indian Caucus) to manipulate US politicians for the benefit of Indian business interests.

You need to read this again: --- The following quote is from Business Week, December 6, 2004 and from the article "Shaking up Trade Theory" by Aaron Bernstein on pages 116 to 120. (The subbreastle of the article is: "For decades economists have insisted that the U.S. wins from globalization. Now they are not so sure") They quoted Paul Samuelson (MIT) as saying "Comparative advantage cannot be counted on to create...net gains greater than the net losses from trade" -------------------------- if the answer is yes -then you

Sorry, not true. There are too many factors involved.

No, its not a good answer. It means you have to have "coalitions" where

the representatives make "deals" with each other to get anything done. And, all of your politicians just look out for their own interests and ignore everyone else.

Oh, this seems to be the first time I'm hearing anything from you about

anything good in the USA. This is

The other thing is freedom on newsgroups. You forgot to show appreciation that the internet was invented in the USA, and not by Al Gore.

And, I gave lots of examples of our laws where what you said is not true. If you want to

Its not that simple. I'm surprised that you think it is simple. Telling the

"However, there are many who know that if the USA loses more jobs than it gains, and loses more high paying jobs than it gains low paying jobs, then it is bad for our economy. Rich people are almost always much less interested in the citizens than governments. If you think it is OK for "

Jobs move because of cost differential. It is for the US govt to eliminate cost differential so that businesses don't react to that differential by moving work overseas. It doesn't mean the guy getting the job is the devil or the executives moving the jobs are greedy. Its their job to keep costs down and improve profits. If US govt can do something to ensure the best & cheapest labour is available in the US and not outside, even if the execs represent the devil -they woulf still prefer to hire americans.

"India to benefit at costs to the USA, then I will tell you: i) to jump

into the sea, "

Im sure lots of people would like me to do that. But what if I refuse?

"and ii) you like slavery. " having experienced it first hand-I can say for sure I don't. The reason why Im not in the US now is because I prefer freedom to better compensation.

"You don't know, then, that Islam was substantially present in all other countries WEST of the holy land, too? This is also in the books. "

Im referring to the advent of new age religions that displaced pagan religions like Hinduism. The pagan religions to the west of the holy land were destroyed-absorbed-eliminated by christianity and the ones eats of the holy land were displaced by Islam. If conversions took place from islam to christianity or vice-versa that is a different issue.

"So, you are saying the USA is barbaric today, but all that stuff centuries ago can be excused or forgotten or ignored or evaluated as infinitesimal compared to what the USA has done? And, of course, the Soviets never did anything in the last 100 years, and Hitler was a bad guy but since he was only around for a few years, he doesn't count, right? "

what happened 400 yrs back cannot be changed now. What is happening NOW can be changed -if you better understand how vested interests have displaced public interest in the USA.

regards -kamal