Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Bhadhidar
Yes, better that someone that is illegally here has a job with the state than is working under the table. /s
Hell, Osama Bin Laden should give the gov a call, I am sure he could get a job as well as a terrorist expert.
I am sorry, I cannot put up with crap like this anymore.
What the hell is a matter with you?
First off, you are probably one of those that bitches that companies have moved out of the states, then you state this is okay!
Yes, let us send jobs out of the country and then allow illegal immigrants to take jobs here in the states.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me
on the other hand seem to have allowed yourself to be so caught up in your anger over so-called "illegal" immigrants, that you failed to
understand that I was simply answering the OP's question as it was asked!
In so doing, you have fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the debator's handbook: Play to the emotional "hook" when your rhetoric is weak.
With a somewhat clearer head, you'll note that the OP's question did NOT
ask whether I was in favor of illigal immigration or not,
though that may
have been the OP's intent; I'll make no assumptions.
No, the OP's question was, and I'll quote, "Would it upset you to know that an illegal immigrant had a 'State' job"?
Accepting, as fact, that some one is in this country illegally, which the OP infers as a given, the question, as presented, becomes would I rather
have said person gainfully employed under circumstances which would insure that MY
tax dollars are not his/her sole
support, or that they be barred from such gainful employment and therefore "leeching" off me 100%.
Neither scenarios are terribly appealing, I'll grant; but the former is far more so than the later, wouldn't you agree?
It has been said that it is unwise to bring a knife to a gunfight; perhaps something similar should be said about bringing emotion to a policy
P.S. : As far as I'm concerned, if a company cannot figure out how to abide by the laws and regulations of my state, I say good riddence to them.
If that means lower employment opportunies , so be it. Perhaps that means fewer people, legal and otherwise, will be crowding in next to me. And that
my state will not have to raise my
taxes so high to pay for the services so many people require.
Mark that. I said Require
not "demand". Because service requirements rise exponentially with population, and at some point, the cost
of the requirements exceeds the ability of the population to provide them.