It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Attorney General Nominee: Illegal Immigrants Have a Right to Work in The United States

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Jamie1
Back up a step.

Nobody has a "right" to work.

That would imply that another person would be "required" to provide a job.

We can't force one person to take an action so that another person can express a so-called "right."


Yes. You have a right to work. BUt you don't have a right to a job.

But it all boils down to: does an individual have a right to ply their trade? Or can there be laws that stipulate who can and cannot mow a yard, or flip a burger, or clean a house, or prepare a tax return.

We all have a right to work if we so choose. Whether we will actually find work....that's a whole 'nuther story.


Well maybe they have a right to work in their country of citizenship.

They don't even have a legal right to physically be in the U.S., let alone a right to be employed.

You can't have an AG who is so political that they ignore the laws. Maybe they should do it the old fashioned way and actually pass new laws if they want to change policy.


"Being employed" is not "working". The whole idea of having a job is a result of the industrial revolution. And that mindset is what kills entrepreneurialism.

If I need a yard mowed, and someone is willing to mow my yard, I should be able to pay them to mow my yard. Its that simple.

Companies, on the other hand, who have a tax ID (FEIN or state issued sales tax ID) have a duty to not employ people who are not here legally. That is a result of their contract with the government (in return for the tax status of a company). On a side note: there is a similar issue happening in California and Colorado, where pot sellers cannot enjoy the benefits of having a tax ID. There are benefits to having a tax ID, and a business owner does well to keep their agreement with the government in mind. On a side note: the same argument relates to gay wedding cakes. The tax ID agreement is what compels a baker to sell cakes to gay couples getting married.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Same topic just different face.

One group says ILLEGALS don't have to follow the law.

And yet gun owners,bankers, rich people,corporations DO.

Doesn't work like that.

After all the rule of law is for everyone.

Not just a group of people every administration deems to be special.

It's called consistency.



And I 100% agree with you.

consistency is key.


We are just arguing the same point now.

The only issue I had was giving the goverment the power to bypass courts and due process with current civil forfeiture.


edit on 29-1-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The point being missed is all those groups is ASSET FORFEITURE.(my fault).

It's just never called that.

Guns,money, rights.

Same thing.

That goes by other names as regulation,taxation. etc.

The state has the supreme 'right' to take what it wish's from who it wish's.

And that will never end.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree with this, too. The backbone of civilization is the rule of law. My problems however:

- we want to selectively enforce the law. Not the government, mind you. I mean The People. As I have mentioned: there is evidence in circulation that our government has acted illegally in central America. Both by our own laws, and the laws of the other countries.
- our government facilitates the drug sales from those countries in the US, then arrests US citizens for purchasing their product, while taxing us to pay for programs meant to fight their own drug operations.
- the result of this is a bad situation in Mexico got worse. To survive in Mexico means licking the boots of people who will behead you for not licking their boots.

So we are criminalizing the regular jose's behavior, while not holding accountable the government that, through its own violations of law, created the problem that is resulting in the criminalizing of said behavior.

If the king walked up and took a commoners bread meant to feed his family, would you not expect that commoner to go take the bread from some place else? And we are going to call that criminal behavior?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Ahh, got it.

My foot tastes good as I just had my weekly shower.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think we have a duty,and obligation to take care of our own.

Before we even think about opening the doors to anyone else.

We can't, and it doesn't look like we will anytime soon.

If we can't even take care of ourselves, how can we take care of anyone else?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I know. Its a real catch-22. and making matters worse, we exacerbate things by criminalizing the result of Uncle Sam's little drug empire. Rather...the US owns the global drug trade. Both white and black market.

Further exacerbating it, we have pulled money from central America and invested it in Asia. So while we are funding their criminal element, we are removing legitimate employment sources. I've been to Mexico countless times over the years. It used to be charming. Now it is sad.

Yes, we have a duty to our own first. But the bumbling is so bad, and has gone on for so long.....i can't accept that any more. Because we treat our own pretty bad, too. And its all related. The woes of America are to a large degree completely tied to the woes of Mexico. And now that we have crapped in their living room, we turn our backs on them. Pulling jobs out, and then criminalizing their attempts to get some employment here. Were my family starving, I wouldn't have any regard for laws either. The kings game is fair game.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think we have a duty,and obligation to take care of our own.

Before we even think about opening the doors to anyone else.

We can't, and it doesn't look like we will anytime soon.

If we can't even take care of ourselves, how can we take care of anyone else?


Because all of those "everybody else" people will vote Democrat?

I know it's just a crazy theory.

Really, it's an impeachable offense.

Treason.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




I know. Its a real catch-22. and making matters worse, we exacerbate things by criminalizing the result of Uncle Sam's little drug empire. Rather...the US owns the global drug trade. Both white and black market.


I say it was because of NAFTA.

Since those people crying about illegals have a 'right' to be here, and work.

Increased immigration from the south.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality

Now the same people who gave us that snip want to offer their 'solution'.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Immigration Officers Blast Border Bill: 'A Global Joke;' 'Where is the Outrage?'
source: www.infowars.com...



edit on 29-1-2015 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Something that is being missed in all this: She said she believes everyone has a "right and obligation to work for the country." Or something like that if I didn't get it exactly, but she did say right and obligation to work.

She basically paraphrased MARX with that statement. Everyone likes that Marx gives you a job, but everyone glosses over how he goes on to say that those who don't work should also not eat. In other words, you also have an obligation to work. If you are obligated, it is no longer your choice. You are a slave in her mind.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Why should an illegal be raised above a citizen or those coming through the proper channels? Since when is an illegal's family more important than one's own?

When we have millions of unemployed people and millions of illegals holding jobs, it's a huge problem. When many of our people are forced to choose between food or life saving medicines, we have a huge problem. When thousands of our people are dying at the hands of an illegal because our laws were not enforced, it is a huge problem.

We shouldn't be meeting the needs of illegals while leaving our own people suffering and struggling to survive.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Night Star

My experience living near the border: Americans who die at the hands of a Mexican national almost always (99%) die because they were mixed up with folks they shouldn't have been mixed up with. Armed and trained by US forces, no less.

There are likely a few thousand soldiers and ex soldiers out there who can discuss their black missions to Mexico and Costa Rica to guard crops. I know one personally.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yippee...good for you...you managed to take a statement completely out of context..

Senator Jeff Sessions was rambling on with his question and not being fully coherent in his line of questioning...

Maybe you could have provided the rest of the transcript that immediately followed?




LL: I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR YOUR QUESTION WHETHER THERE'S A LEGAL BASIS FOR THEM TO WORK.

S: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHTS, WHO HAS THE MOST RIGHTS. DOES A LAWFUL AMERICAN IMMIGRANT OR CITIZEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ENFORCED SO THEY THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK OR DOES A PERSON WHO CAME HERE UNLAWFULLY HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND A JOB?

LL: CERTAINLY, THE BENEFITS OF CITIZEN CITIZENSHIP CONFER GREATER RIGHTS ON THOSE OF US WHO ARE CITIZENS THAN THOSE WHO ARE NOT.

S: WELL, DO YOU THINK A PERSON HERE UNLAWFULLY IS ENTITLED TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN THE LAW SAYS THAT EMPLOYEES CAN'T HIRE THEM LEGALLY IN AMERICA?

LL: I THINK THAT CERTAINLY THE PROVISION THAT YOU REFER TO REGARDING TO THE ROLE OF THE EMPLOYER IN ENSURING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THOSE WHO ARE HERE IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS ISSUE IN TERMS OF PREVENTING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, WHO YOU HAVE INDICATED BEFORE, ARE SEEKING EMPLOYMENT. WE WANT EVERYONE TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT, BUT WE HAVE IN PLACE AT THIS POINT IN TIME A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT REQUESTS OR REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO BOTH PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AS WELL AS NOT HIRE INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP.

S: WOULD YOU TAKE ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYER WHO SAYS NO, I PREFER TO HIRE SOMEONE WHO CAME TO THE COUNTRY LAWFULLY? WOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAKE ACTION AGAINST THAT?

LL: WITH RESPECT TO TEMPORARY DEFERRAL, I DID NOT READ IT AS PROVIDING A LEGAL AMNESTY, BUT A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL.



www.c-span.org.../us-attorney-general-nominee-confirmation-hearing
edit on 29-1-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Further transcripts from the hearing..



I JUST WANT TO ASK, IS THERE ANY FEDERAL RIGHT FOR AN IMMIGRANT WHO'S NOT A LAWFUL -- NOT IN LAWFUL STAT TO US WORK?

LL: NO, THERE'S NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

I THINK EARLIER YOU SAID YOU HAD A PREFERENCE THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WORK REGARDLESS OF STATUS. I THINK A LOT OF US WOULD SHARE THAT PREFERENCE. I THINK THIS IS CONFUSING FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE LITERALLY -- THERE LITERALLY ARE NEARLY 100 CATEGORIES OF STATUSES OR STATI, WHATEVER THE RIGHT WORD, IS THEY DIDN'T TEACH THAT AT JAMES MADISON HIGH SCHOOL. FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO COUNT GREEN CARDS, NONIMMIGRANT VISAS, SPOUSES OF INDIVIDUALS ON CERTAIN VISAS, PAROLE, ASYLUM, APPLICANTS FOR GREEN CARDS, NON-IMMIGRANT VISAS, IMMIGRATION VISAS. MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK, FOR EXAMPLE, GREEN CARDHOLDERS. WE ADMIT PEOPLE TO WORK ON A WORK VISA. SO LET ME ASK YOU, JUST WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY -- WHEN YOU SAID YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD WORK REGARDLESS OF STATUS?

LL: WELL, CERTAINLY, SENATOR, WHEN I MADE THAT COMMENT I WAS REALLY MAKING MORE OF A PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND I MUST ADMIT I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE MY FATHER IS HERE AND MY MOTHER IS WATCHING. BUT CERTAINLY IN MY FAMILY, AS WE GREW UP, WE WERE ALL EXPECTED TO TRY AND FIND EMPLOYMENT AS PART OF BECOMING A RESPONSIBLE ADULT AND AS PART OF BECOMING A RESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY. SO I WAS MAKING A PERSONAL OBSERVATION BASED ON THE WORK ETHIC THAT'S BEEN PASSED DOWN TO ME BY MY FAMILY. NOT A LEGAL OBSERVATION.

S: SO AGAIN, TO REITERATE, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A FEDERAL RIGHT FOR AN IMMIGRANT WHO IS NOT LAWFUL HERE TO WORK?

LL: NO, SIR, NOT AT ALL.


S: OK. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. I WISH SENATOR SESSIONS WERE HERE. I THINK HE WASN'T CERTAIN ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID. I THINK NOW THE RECORD IS 100% CLEAR.

www.c-span.org.../us-attorney-general-nominee-confirmation-hearing

When did ATS become BS central?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




When did ATS become BS central?


The day people started making excuses for their government, and it's appointed 'leader's.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

When did ATS become BS central?


The B.S. occurred when Lynch gave answers that were an attempt to be politically correct. She had to clarify those answers upon further questioning so she could at least create the appearance of being legally correct as well.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
What is the end game? While they destroy the middle class, they bring in people who will work for a whole lot less. They make a big stink about it but the sucking sound is your jobs leaving. They tell you everything is great but great for who? This will end with us all in a world of #. It doesn't happen overnight. It progresses into a nightmare. Inch by inch. I'm glad I can live like a savage.

...or it's a major evolutionary shift. You either keep up with technology, or get left by the wayside. You need to be innovative and think outside the box. There's a system in place you need to understand to get ahead in life. You want to be the one going to the poorhouse they have in store for you or do you want to be successful? It really is up to you.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

WALL OF CAPS

It hurts the eyes, it does.

Shouting it won't make the testimony incoherent. I heard it on the radio this morning and it was perfectly coherent to me.




edit on 29-1-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


My experience living near the border: Americans who die at the hands of a Mexican national almost always (99%) die because they were mixed up with folks they shouldn't have been mixed up with.


I was referring more to the ones killed by illegal drunken drivers etc. There are many instances of innocent children, men and women minding their own business, out for an ice cream or something and then WHAM! And please don't anyone bring up that it could have happened by a legal citizen... chances are that out of thousands, these deaths were preventable. That is only one of the many negative issues surrounding illegal immigration and why I am against it.

With millions and millions of illegal immigrants, these are not all refugees.

I have known plenty of illegals throughout the years and enjoyed the company of many of them. Their stories are varied, but many do take advantage of the system. They come right out and tell you what they do. I was always honest with them and they knew how I felt about it. Many woman would work while their spouses worked under the table. They would claim a one income household and receive benefits. Their combined incomes placed them well above the poverty level and they had no right receiving what they did.

Many had no intentions whatsoever of becoming legal as they were just saving money so that one day they could return to their own Countries well off. I know two who have returned and are doing quite well for themselves. Our money of course is worth a lot more in their Country.

I have seen our citizens turned away from a job they desperately needed to provide for their families, while an illegal got the job instead. I guess that's where the impact comes in, when you see and hear things for yourself, when you get to know illegals personally and hear their stories and see what they do. Not all illegals can be judged the same of course, I am just relating my own personal experiences for whatever they are worth.

One thing people don't always think about is how many of our poor are falling through the cracks because they make a dollar or two over the poverty limit so they can't get the help they desperately need. It is only natural for them to feel resentment and frustration when they see illegals having their needs met. I have much sympathy for anyone who has to suffer, but when you see citizens suffering while an illegal is being helped makes no sense to me.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join