Originally posted by lee anoma
Originally posted by foodstamp
You can't be refering to illegals, you can't require illegals to be checked! their illegal. That's the whole damn point! Lol
We have around 6 million illegal immigrants currently in this country.
They aren't going back home any time soon as most plan to stay. We need to accept that fact.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the current discussions on illegal immigration, we may not be sending them away at all. If we are going
to be granting these illegal immigrants some form of amnesty it won't matter if they were here illegally or not since no one is planning on sending
them back to where they came from.
So yes, you can require them to have a background check if they are planning on staying here under the umbrella of amnesty.
Under the Amnesty program as it is set out now, they ARE given the same background checks and have to follow the SAME criteria for citizenship. Just
log onto immigration and customs to find out the program info.
If we aren't sending them home, then we need to know their criminal background at the very least.
That is what I am talking about.
Really? That's what your talking about? And how do you think that information will be used there honcho? To jot down a little notice of felony in
their personell file? Or do you think it will be used to deport them from a country? Sheesh... You can't just generally blanket a whole portion of a
population due to the records kept in a completely UNJUST country (Mexico) that have totally different felony laws than America.
I seem to have touched a nerve. Try and calm down.
You're clearly very emotional and taking this far too personal.
You're even arguing over positions I never even made.
No one said they are a different class of people or should be discriminated against but you.
The point I made was that it is important to know the criminal history of all people living within the United States or planning to do so for the
safety of others.
An employer for example should be able to review an applicants background and determine if that background shows that person in a specific position
could likely put other people at risk. We're talking about positions of trust and security.
If you're talking about positions of trust and security, then you've only confirmed my point. I said that same thing you did but in a much simpler
way. However, background checks are used for jobs at the grocery store, McDonalds, Factory work, renting a home, renting an apartment, etc etc. You
could argue that EVERY position is a position of "trust". And if you live in the REAL world, you already know this is happening where felon's are
discriminated against at EVERY level. They can't work, they can't live, they can't eat. Mind you, this is AFTER they've paid their debt to
society.
So go ahead and say I addressed points you hadn't already made.. Cause I knew you were about too and you just did..
It doesn't matter if they are a first time offender or a repeat offender. The employer needs to be able to review their background and based on it,
make the best decision possible. Some positions are ruled out for certain types of offenses other may be more flexible. All cases are NOT the same.
Let me let you in on a little secret. You know that line on an application that says "Have you been convicted of a felony?" Then right after, it
says "May not necessarily bar you from employment"? Well, let's put it in REAL terms. Joe felon (With 5 yrs exp) files an application, and John non
felon (with 3 yrs exp) does too. WHO do you think is getting the job? The one with greater experience? Lol, please... I know firsthand this isn't the
case.
Not too mention. The most mundane of jobs within your big name corporations will, again, IN FACT, Bar you from employment. You could have a 20 yr old
felony for bad checks, it doesn't matter. End of story.
The statistical reality is that a felon is NO MORE likely to re offend than a NON OFFENDER is to offend. That's a statistical fact. So, In that case,
checking ones background for everything should have NO bearing on one's decision to consider someone for something. It's a fact. It may makes sense
in your head that people should run background checks on everything (or in your case, positions of "trust"). I understand that. But it is in FACT a
logical fallacy. You can either accept that or argue it with no evidence to your case. It's up to you.
The alternative is zero background checks and that's just stupid.
Ignoring blatant statistical fact is just stupid.
