They Took Our Jobs!!

[M4zz]

Actually, nevermind. In this situation, I would blackmail him to give me my job back, give me a promotion and raise my salary.

WIN!!!

Seriously though, pitting a lawsuit against a manager from a large coorperation would be difficult. Nearly impossible.

 

[BigLutz]

My reaction would be to file a lawsuit against him. I, for one, have done nothing wrong but be wrongfully fired and illegally replaced.

He is the one that is in the wrong.

But here is the problem, many states are Right to Work states, meaning they can fire you for any reason what so ever. Next, if you are filing a lawsuit against your boss you will have to prove wrongful termination, seeing how we all do stupid things at our job, and our boss can probably either come up with them if needed or go into the past and find examples of it, you would be screwed by that.

 

[GaZsTiC]

But here is the problem, many states are Right to Work states, meaning they can fire you for any reason what so ever. Next, if you are filing a lawsuit against your boss you will have to prove wrongful termination, seeing how we all do stupid things at our job, and our boss can probably either come up with them if needed or go into the past and find examples of it, you would be screwed by that.

For real!?


Gosh, the US is so backwards in some areas...

 

[BigLutz]

For real!?

Gosh, the US is so backwards in some areas...

I am not sure about other states, I know Texas is a right to work state, and it does help us keep very low unemployment. Having the ability to fire people at will, also allows owners to have more faith in hiring people. Thus you have better unemployment, and do not end up like France with incredibly high unemployment due to the inability to fire people.

 

[chuboy]

In Australia, unemployment is relatively low despite laws in place to prevent 'unfair dismissal'.

I'd hazard a guess that there's more to the equation of unemployment figures than dismissal laws.

I'm on the fence as to whether they are a good idea - one favours the business, while the other favours the employees.

 

[Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy]

I greatly dislike the argument that illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans 'don't want to do'. Are the jobs glamorous? No, but people would still do them if wages weren't driven down to completely uncompetitive levels. The advantage illegal immigrants have is that coming from a country with lower standards of living in the majority of circumstances, they can get by on much lower wages than the native populace. There are people who are fine with having a crap job, but then there's having a crap job and living in a deplorable shack with a dozen other people working for just a few bucks a week, and the native populace's higher standards of life just can't compete with that. The illegal immigrants, while they don't want to live in such a state (despite how they're supposedly here to do the jobs everyone else won't do, the moment they get a green card they make a beeline for a better job-- and rightfully so.) aren't in much of a condition to do so. The employers have them in a vice, and who are they to object if they're getting paid dirt for hard labor? What if they were to be deported? I support harsher punishments on employers caught using illegal labor. As for increased deportation... only after the double fence is constructed. It's not going to work very well otherwise, with the border as porous as it is. As the son of a legal immigrant, I also say from my father's experience that it's incredibly frustrating how a legal immigrant will spend ages in the outrageously complex process of getting into the country legally, but some jerk can just hop the border because they were born in the right place. For all the people who talk about how illegal immigrants should be let into the country freely because they were poor and in desperate situations; what about other countries? Mexico isn't particularly bad when you compare it to many of the war-torn, disease stricken and poverty-riddled countries of Africa and such, so how will you explain to them that, despite their unfortunance, by accident of birth they should have a more difficult time getting into the USA than some Mexican who can just waltz on into California or somewhere? Is that your supreme idea of fairness?

Enough partly coherent ramblings on my part, I guess, but that's my two cents.

 

[dragoniteKnight]

to the above guy, yeah, i agree, saying illegals do the jobs we dont want to is complete bull crap. especially in this economy, jobs will fill up pretty fast, regardless if its a micky d's job, or a job slaughtering cows, itll get filled

honestly law abiding citizens have just as much of a right of any job (bar presidency) as natural born citizens. btw i bolded citizens, because i hate illegals.

 

[Skiks]

So residents aren't legal?
Now now don't get so testy on us either. Anyways I'm pretty sure we all agree that what they do isn't right but a law change would be lovely. However it's a complicated process. I don't agree that citizenship should be taken from those already here however future people who come here illegally to have a child here should have some restraints put on them.

 

[BigLutz]

So residents aren't legal?
Now now don't get so testy on us either. Anyways I'm pretty sure we all agree that what they do isn't right but a law change would be lovely.

And what law change would that be? Allowing anyone to cross in to be considered legal? That would essentially destroy any meaning of borders and set much of our country up to be a third world country no better than Mexico.

 

[Skiks]

And where did you get that idea? Anyways I was talking about the simple law change that you have to be at least a legal resident of the united states for your newborn child to be a citizen. However I think I read a few pages before people want to nullify citizenships gained by those that crossed the border and had a child already. But I feel thats a bit too unfair.

 

[BigLutz]

And where did you get that idea? Anyways I was talking about the simple law change that you have to be at least a legal resident of the united states for your newborn child to be a citizen. However I think I read a few pages before people want to nullify citizenships gained by those that crossed the border and had a child already. But I feel thats a bit too unfair.

Allright fair enough I misread it. Right now if you have a baby on the US side of the border, they are automatically considered a legal Resident by I believe the 16th Amendment. The problem with that is that parents come over, have children, and believe that they will not be separated from their Children. Thus they are called Anchor Babies as they Anchor the illegal immigrant to the U.S. as the Government doesn't want to break up families. By taking away the baby's citizenship and give it the citizenship of its birth mother, it allows the baby to go home with its parents, when its family is deported.

 

[Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy]

By taking away the baby's citizenship and give it the citizenship of its birth mother, it allows the baby to go home with its parents, when its family is deported.

But wouldn't the baby already be a citizen of the country of its parents? In that situation, it would seem to me that if the parents are being deported, they can perfectly well take their children back with them, or else leave them for adoption in the United States of America.

 

[Devastator2000]

When I saw this thread, I said, 'Dey took our jobs!' 'dey tuk ur jobs!' 'Dey tuk d jrbs!'

Lolz.

Well, anyway, I'm perfectly fine with immigration, so long as they don't take my job.

 

[Aquanova]

Thats not the way it works apperently. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. Its dumb. They should deport them anyway. The problem is putting them up for adoption in the US would clog up the already overcrowded Foster system. Why would people adopt those kids when they could adopt an American kid born to an American mother.

I think it would be pretty impossible for an illegal immigrant to just take your job. You'd have to be fired for that to happen. Bosses dont just fire people for no reason

 

[Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy]

Thats not the way it works apperently. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. Its dumb. They should deport them anyway. The problem is putting them up for adoption in the US would clog up the already overcrowded Foster system. Why would people adopt those kids when they could adopt an American kid born to an American mother.

I believe I'd be right in that the parents could choose to take their own baby back with them. If they don't, they're splitting up their own family. But as for the rest of your argument... Yes, it may be overcrowded, but if a family wants to leave their child to the USA, where else are we supposed to put them? We can't force the parents to stay with their children when they are deported if they don't want to, I think.

I think it would be pretty impossible for an illegal immigrant to just take your job. You'd have to be fired for that to happen. Bosses dont just fire people for no reason

You're funny.

 

[chuboy]

I think it would be pretty impossible for an illegal immigrant to just take your job. You'd have to be fired for that to happen. Bosses dont just fire people for no reason

Being able to hire someone to do the same work for half or a third of the cost of making you do it IS a reason.

 

[chuboy]

[IMG139]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/national_language.jpg[/IMG139]

[IMG139]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs553.ash1/32256_423421650819_522735819_5370549_3143637_n.jpg[/IMG139]

Everyone can justify as they please but at the end of the day some perspective and a pinch of salt would go down nicely.

 

[Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy]

Everyone can justify as they please but at the end of the day some perspective and a pinch of salt would go down nicely.

That that particular wave of immigrants completely devastated the natural populations and marginalized them in their own lands? That... doesn't sound like a positive advertisement for illegal immigration, to say the least.

 

[BigLutz]

Everyone can justify as they please but at the end of the day some perspective and a pinch of salt would go down nicely.

Except for the pesky fact that we are talking about Illegal Immigrants to the nation of the United States of America, a recognized country with recognized borders. The argument could be made for that in the 1700s and 1800s, but because those Indian nations no longer exist the argument that we are illegals in a nation that no longer exists is moot. If you want to go deeper, most Mexicans are illegals in their own country as the Spanish went in and conquered the Indian nations there and mixed their races.

Now if you want to make the argument that illegals are moving in to establish their own nation or to expand the nation of Mexico, as Americans did to the Indian nations you can. But then that would be more than enough to justify the forceful if not violent deportation of all illegals in this country for plotting the overthrow of US land.

 

[chuboy]

Except for the pesky fact that we are talking about Illegal Immigrants to the nation of the United States of America, a recognized country with recognized borders. The argument could be made for that in the 1700s and 1800s, but because those Indian nations no longer exist the argument that we are illegals in a nation that no longer exists is moot. If you want to go deeper, most Mexicans are illegals in their own country as the Spanish went in and conquered the Indian nations there and mixed their races.

Now if you want to make the argument that illegals are moving in to establish their own nation or to expand the nation of Mexico, as Americans did to the Indian nations you can. But then that would be more than enough to justify the forceful if not violent deportation of all illegals in this country for plotting the overthrow of US land.

BigLutz, I am suggesting nothing more than that the New Americans had no more a right to invade Indian America than Mexicans do now.

'Recognised borders' is a weak excuse, considering that borders themselves are an entirely artificial invention which the British used to justify taking the territory of wherever they pleased. When they occupied Australia in the 18th century, the Aborigines had no knowledge or concept of a fence. The land owned them, rather than the other way around. Of course, this sort of 'backward, primitive thinking' got them decimated and all but destroyed.

I don't know how you could possibly say 'we had a right to take the land, it had no borders', when it had never been discovered white people and so could not possibly have been given an 'owner'.

And the Indian nations don't exist purely because they were stamped out by the discoverers who 'found it first'.

I'm not starting a debate about this, I'm just saying, considering a big picture never does anyone any harm.