Eugene asks:

Having arrived in Los Angeles form England, I discovered that this is
exactly the place I'd really like to stay for the rest of my life,
something I'm longing for.
Going back to England and then getting the job here legally seems
almost impossible, so I have decided to overstay my tourist visa.
Basically, I need help from somebody who can advise as to what the
best way to get a job could be and also, is there some way for me to
readjust/legalize my status? .
I would greatly appreciate some practical advice, rather then
reflecting on the whole situation in general

Really? Why did you post to a woodworking forum, then?

My advice: Talk to people here about jobs while your visa is good. Get a
promise of a job and go back to England. Apply for immmigrant status legally
and come here legally.

There either are no quotas from England, or they're very high, so you should
have no problems.

That's taking it for granted this isn't some kind of silly troll.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

That's taking it for granted this isn't some kind of silly troll.

It would have been much more believable if he had signed off as "Nigel" or
"Ian".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04

Swingman responds:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

That's taking it for granted this isn't some kind of silly troll.

It would have been much more believable if he had signed off as "Nigel" or
"Ian".

Yup. Would have been more believable, too, if he'd been posting as a Croat or
Bulgar or Egyptian or Irani or similar citizen where limits are much tighter.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

On 02 Jun 2004 11:22:19 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Eugene asks:

Having arrived in Los Angeles form England, I discovered that this is
exactly the place I'd really like to stay for the rest of my life,
something I'm longing for.
Going back to England and then getting the job here legally seems
almost impossible, so I have decided to overstay my tourist visa.
Basically, I need help from somebody who can advise as to what the
best way to get a job could be and also, is there some way for me to
readjust/legalize my status? .
I would greatly appreciate some practical advice, rather then
reflecting on the whole situation in general

Really? Why did you post to a woodworking forum, then?

My advice: Talk to people here about jobs while your visa is good. Get a
promise of a job and go back to England. Apply for immmigrant status legally
and come here legally.

There either are no quotas from England, or they're very high, so you should
have no problems.

That's taking it for granted this isn't some kind of silly troll.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun


FWIW,
Things might have changed recently, but about 3 years ago I had an
English co-worker here in ATL who tried to do it as you suggest. Had
an employer all lined up who had given him a letter, they -really-
wanted him, willing to pay his international moving expenses, etc etc
etc..

He was denied because the quota of English immigrants was booked up
for the next several years.

He's back in the UK now.

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."

Mike Patterson responds:

FWIW,
Things might have changed recently, but about 3 years ago I had an
English co-worker here in ATL who tried to do it as you suggest. Had
an employer all lined up who had given him a letter, they -really-
wanted him, willing to pay his international moving expenses, etc etc
etc..

He was denied because the quota of English immigrants was booked up
for the next several years.

He's back in the UK now.

And he'd really appreciate it if the OP finds a way to trump his possible
return with illegal moves, I bet.

Sorry. I'm still for doing it legally, even if it takes a few months or years.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Eugene asks:

Having arrived in Los Angeles form England, I discovered that this is
exactly the place I'd really like to stay for the rest of my life,
something I'm longing for.
Going back to England and then getting the job here legally seems
almost impossible, so I have decided to overstay my tourist visa.
Basically, I need help from somebody who can advise as to what the
best way to get a job could be and also, is there some way for me to
readjust/legalize my status? .
I would greatly appreciate some practical advice, rather then
reflecting on the whole situation in general

My advice would be not to publicize your intent to remain after your visa
has expired in wide and sundry forums.


My advice: Talk to people here about jobs while your visa is good. Get a
promise of a job and go back to England. Apply for immmigrant status
legally
and come here legally.

There either are no quotas from England, or they're very high, so you
should
have no problems.

That's untrue. The UK is subject to the same work visa quotas for nations
generally (there are 'diversity visas' to let people in from countries
without a large immigrant population - the UK isn't among them) - and the
most common work visa (aside from specialty visas for entertainers, and
extraordinary leaders in certain fields) - the H1B for workers coming to the
US has a quota for the fiscal year (October to October) that was filled in
mid-February. Unless the person belongs to one of the rare exempt
categories, it makes no matter if one has a job offer - there are no H-1B
visas being issued, and won't be until October.

Sorry to post off-topic, but I know someone from Britain, a highly skilled
and well-regarded professional in a field (education) so in need of workers
that we're certifying people without training to teach, and I'm discovering
the widely held perception that people can just come to the US to work
easily is completely wrong.

The unfortunate fact is the guy might well have better luck living and
working in the US illegally for a few years in the hope that he can hold out
and not be caught before the next 'amnesty' declares him legal, than in
trying to work by the rules to come contribute to the US.

My advice,marry a Mexican.

Mark responds:

Wes Stewart wrote:

So relax and enjoy your stay. After all, it's a "free" country!

Well, I appreciate your sarcasm, but the fact is that it is a shame
that the US has no skilled immigration program (unlike Canada and
Australia). So, here in Europe, there's a bunch of white, young,
well-educated, English-speaking professionals who would like to move to
the US but are stuck due to the silly immigration process that basically
is a nightmare unless you are a poor un-educated, un-skilled,
Spanish-speaking Mexican farmworker with relatives already in the
country.

So, it's up to the American public to decide what kind of people they
want to let in. So far, they seem to prefer Mexicans, Pakis, Indians,
etc, etc rather than Europeans.

Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.


True enough, but the really, really big problem is that our need here is for
kind of work the Mexican laborers do, not the skilled worker. Without illegal
help, our food costs would rise considerably.

We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem comes
from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving
people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still
manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.

We need these people, but they should be treated better, and paid better, both
of which require some political guts, something in amazingly short supply.
Bush's program is nothing more than pandering to the Latino (is that the PC
word this month?) vote, not a policy, and not sensible. The system pays, which
means that instead of employers picking up the nut for healthcare, the taxpayer
pays. That needs to be stopped. Let the employers pay, even if it raises costs.

Ah well. Not to be solved here, where we get evidence of wooden heads, but
really little in the way of political acumen.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

"The most expensive labor is cheap labor." One of the problems with our
immigration policies (or more correctly lack of them) is that those
benefiting from the cheap labor don't pay the price. The taxpayers pick
up a major portion of the tab...medical services, schools, crime, etc.

The majority of this nation has yet to see the consequences of allowing
anyone who can hop across the Rio Grande to be here. When they wake up
it will be too late. In areas where large numbers of illegals are found
you will see a lowering of quality. Stores find that these folks are
used to less and will accept poorer quality. I've even seen that
clothing sizes shift to smaller sizes, smaller shoes, etc. The impact
is perhaps subtle, but never the less real and I believe damaging to
what has been a higher standard of living.

We as taxpayers pay for an immigration service that by its performance
is useless. They should all be sent packing and we at least should see
tax reductions from not having to pay for a function that doesn't perform.

RB

Charlie Self wrote:
Mark responds:


Wes Stewart wrote:


So relax and enjoy your stay. After all, it's a "free" country!

Well, I appreciate your sarcasm, but the fact is that it is a shame
that the US has no skilled immigration program (unlike Canada and
Australia). So, here in Europe, there's a bunch of white, young,
well-educated, English-speaking professionals who would like to move to
the US but are stuck due to the silly immigration process that basically
is a nightmare unless you are a poor un-educated, un-skilled,
Spanish-speaking Mexican farmworker with relatives already in the
country.

So, it's up to the American public to decide what kind of people they
want to let in. So far, they seem to prefer Mexicans, Pakis, Indians,
etc, etc rather than Europeans.

Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.



True enough, but the really, really big problem is that our need here is for
kind of work the Mexican laborers do, not the skilled worker. Without illegal
help, our food costs would rise considerably.

We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem comes
from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving
people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still
manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.

We need these people, but they should be treated better, and paid better, both
of which require some political guts, something in amazingly short supply.
Bush's program is nothing more than pandering to the Latino (is that the PC
word this month?) vote, not a policy, and not sensible. The system pays, which
means that instead of employers picking up the nut for healthcare, the taxpayer
pays. That needs to be stopped. Let the employers pay, even if it raises costs.

Ah well. Not to be solved here, where we get evidence of wooden heads, but
really little in the way of political acumen.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:38:11 +0200, Mark
wrote:

|Wes Stewart wrote:
|
| So relax and enjoy your stay. After all, it's a "free" country!
|
| Well, I appreciate your sarcasm, but the fact is that it is a shame
|that the US has no skilled immigration program (unlike Canada and
|Australia). So, here in Europe, there's a bunch of white, young,
|well-educated, English-speaking professionals who would like to move to
|the US but are stuck due to the silly immigration process that basically
|is a nightmare unless you are a poor un-educated, un-skilled,
|Spanish-speaking Mexican farmworker with relatives already in the
|country.
|
| So, it's up to the American public to decide what kind of people they
|want to let in. So far, they seem to prefer Mexicans, Pakis, Indians,
|etc, etc rather than Europeans.

No... I would prefer that our immigrations laws would be enforced
*exactly* as written. The current view is that *reform* is needed,
suggesting that something is broken. The only thing not working is
enforcement. Those who choose to play by the rules should know that
they have a fair chance (whatever the odds) to immigrate. The current
*system* is counter to what this country is supposed to stand for: the
rule of law. The way it works now is that if you enter illegally, you
have a better than good chance that you're in for good.

As a member of the public that sees his way of live degraded on a
daily basis by the flood of illegals, I *have* decided what kind of
people I want to be let in, and it isn't the ones that are getting in
now.
|
| Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.

May I offer a suggestion. Go to Canada or Australia.

Wes

Mark wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:

So relax and enjoy your stay. After all, it's a "free" country!

Well, I appreciate your sarcasm, but the fact is that it is a shame
that the US has no skilled immigration program (unlike Canada and
Australia).

Sure we do. The "scientist visa". Ask Linus Tovalds about it!

So, here in Europe, there's a bunch of white, young, well-educated,
English-speaking professionals who would like to move to the US but
are stuck due to the silly immigration process that basically is a
nightmare unless you are a poor un-educated, un-skilled,
Spanish-speaking Mexican farmworker with relatives already in the country.

Perhaps they need more middle class professionals and we have enough of
them? (not sure if I should :-) or not)

So, it's up to the American public to decide what kind of people they
want to let in. So far, they seem to prefer Mexicans, Pakis, Indians,
etc, etc rather than Europeans.

Yes and no. It's up to the Congress really. And yes "We the people... "
and all. However grass roots swell takes a long, long time. And you have
to have a movement.

Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.

As I said before, apparently the US does not feel it needs more
professionals from other countries. Indeed policy and public sentiment
seems to bear this out. Then again I work with a Canadian professional
who's here working and he says due to NAFTA it is easy for him to enter
the US for work.

(P.S. Don't think that the newsgroup rec.woodworking is that relevant to
this discussion - are you saying we need more carpenters?!?)

--
C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN

On 07 Jun 2004 13:09:48 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:


[snip]

|True enough, but the really, really big problem is that our need here is for
|kind of work the Mexican laborers do, not the skilled worker. Without illegal
|help, our food costs would rise considerably.

That may be, but does it necessarily mean that the cost of living goes
up? I don't know, but our local, liberal as can be (redundant I
know), morning newspaper just ran a front-page story about a study of
the cost of illegal immigration to the state of Arizona.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/24834.php

If you believe that the $1.3B is a fair estimate, (I do) then illegal
immigration costs every man, woman and child (5.1 million) in Arizona
approximately $255 per year. This number does not include the
proportional share of cost to the federal government (border
enforcement, etc).

And it certainly doesn't include the cost to the quality of life due
to crime. Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the
highest crime rate in the country and it's not safe in our national
parks (http://www.desertinvasion.us/article...cles_opnm.html).
Thank you Mexico. Some might argue that this goes away if we simply
open the doors and let everyone in but I don't buy that for an
instant.

So, for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to say that it costs my
wife and me $1000/year to support illegal immigration. This is
non-discretionary spending; I can't do a thing about it.

Surely I must get some benefit, right? Aha, the price of lettuce is
lower because it was picked by illegals. And a plate of tacos at the
local Mexican eatery is a buck cheaper because the cook and dishwasher
are illegal.

But what if I choose to not go to that restaurant and buy those tacos.
As I said earlier, it's a free country, and I don't have to buy tacos.
But wait, I'm still subsidizing the people who *do* buy the tacos.
I'm paying for them whether I eat them or not!

Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and
we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument.

This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch.

|
|We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem comes
|from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving
|people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still
|manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.

But we have a policy. The laws are on the books.

|
|We need these people, but they should be treated better, and paid better, both
|of which require some political guts, something in amazingly short supply.
|Bush's program is nothing more than pandering to the Latino (is that the PC
|word this month?)

They used to be just Mexican. Then they became Mexican-American and
then Chicano, Hispanic for a while and now Latino. As for Bush, he's
given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him again, all of which I
could ignore, but this one's pushed me over the edge.

|vote, not a policy, and not sensible. The system pays, which
|means that instead of employers picking up the nut for healthcare, the taxpayer
|pays. That needs to be stopped. Let the employers pay, even if it raises costs.

Ah, some agreement [g].

|
|Ah well. Not to be solved here, where we get evidence of wooden heads, but
|really little in the way of political acumen.

The solution is really quite simple. When illegals are found working
in a Walmart, Sammy Walton, Jr. gets a year in jail. When a farmer is
found with illegals in his fields, he gets a year in jail. When a
restaurant owner is found with illegals in the kitchen, he gets a year
in jail. "I didn't know" is not a defense.

A few dozen widely-publicized cases and the job market is gone and the
illegals go home.

Prices will rise to their true value and we will then get to decide
whether to pay them or not and whether we want to revise our
immigration policy or not.

Wes

--
Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue. wrote:

Eugene,

Keep at it; you will get there eventually. Unfortunately, despite what
everyone else here says, the immigration laws of this country are a
joke. Whoever heard of anyone who committed marriage fraud and was
jailed for 5 years and fined $200000?

Actually it's up to $250,000. And yes there have been people jailed,
deported (if the immigrant) and fined hefty fines. If you did a little
research you'd know that. Yes it's not that common and yes they will
focus on the biggest abusers, the marriage fraud rings as it were. Again
you would know that had you done a little bit a research.

The immigration laws are a complete folly when it comes to immigration
fraud.

Have you no idea why? You sound like you want immigration fraud to be
something that's a joke by your mere recommendation here to violate the
law. Why don't your try advocating that the laws be followed instead of
broken?

The worst CIS is will to do is deny future benefits and possibly, may
be, if they get around to it, deport you, this will take years,
believe me, and if you get a good attorney you have a good chance of
wriggling your way out.

There are many who are deported. Not as many as should be but many who
are. And, to me, deciding to violate the law and bet on the overburdened
USCIS to hopefully not catch you, or not catch up with you for years
seems to be a hell of a crappy way to live your life in fear of deportation.

--
Taxation with representation isn't so hot, either!

Wes responds:

Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and
we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument.

This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch.

No kidding. But the fact is, the work has to be done, and no native-born
American, or damned few, is willing to do it. It is a subsidy, but the subsidy
is not to the taco eater or the laborer. It is to the businessman (or woman),
usually a rabid conservative, who doesn't want to have profits reduced.

|We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem
comes
|from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving
|people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still
|manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.

But we have a policy. The laws are on the books.

But not enforced. Our president would far rather curry votes than enforce the
law.

They used to be just Mexican. Then they became Mexican-American and
then Chicano, Hispanic for a while and now Latino. As for Bush, he's
given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him again, all of which I
could ignore, but this one's pushed me over the edge.

I used Latino advisedly, simply because an awful lot of these illegals come
from countries other than Mexico. They cross the Mexico-US border, but come
from Colombia, Nicaragua, and other places further south.

The solution is really quite simple. When illegals are found working
in a Walmart, Sammy Walton, Jr. gets a year in jail. When a farmer is
found with illegals in his fields, he gets a year in jail. When a
restaurant owner is found with illegals in the kitchen, he gets a year
in jail. "I didn't know" is not a defense.

That happened here in Parkersburg a few months ago. Owner of a Mexican
restaurant got a ****pot full of property and a ton of money confiscated and is
now in jail because he harbored illegals and did money laundering. Of course,
they may well have nailed his butt because he's an immigrant himself, but what
the hell.

Not much chance of a stockholder in Walmart going to jail--do it to one, you
have to do it proportionately to all, which would really create problems in our
already over-full jails. There is a solution, but I don't know what it is.

A few dozen widely-publicized cases and the job market is gone and the
illegals go home.

Prices will rise to their true value and we will then get to decide
whether to pay them or not and whether we want to revise our
immigration policy or not.

I doubt it. Most crooks, especially business types who don't consider
themselves crooks, are positive they are smarter than anyone who works by the
rules. Some may actually be, but they overlook the fact that the little worker
ants who are trying to nail them are many in number and will eventually get
that anthill built. How many people do you think Enron's mess has scared off?
My guess is it gave others some ideas, showed them new areas to move around and
try to beta the system.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

Andrew DeFaria responds:

Then again I work with a Canadian professional
who's here working and he says due to NAFTA it is easy for him to enter
the US for work.


But don't try to go the other way. Last year, I went to Canada to talk about
some contract work. Made the mistake of telling the border interviewer (airport
really) that I was there on business. It took me over 45 minutes to convince
the clown that I was not there to work permanently in Canada and wouldn't be
taking bread from the mouths of Canadian babes. The whole mess was made worse
by the guy being a French Canadian who spoke "fluent" English, meaning I could
barely understand him, and he didn't know what 3 out of 4 of my words meant.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

On 07 Jun 2004 16:35:19 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes responds:
|
|Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and
|we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument.
|
|This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch.
|
|No kidding. But the fact is, the work has to be done, and no native-born
|American, or damned few, is willing to do it.

When the wage scale becomes high enough, native-born folks will take
the jobs.

|It is a subsidy, but the subsidy
|is not to the taco eater or the laborer. It is to the businessman (or woman),
|usually a rabid conservative, who doesn't want to have profits reduced.

Let's take another example: I'm required to carry uninsured motorist
insurance. Am I subsidizing the insurance company or the illegals and
other nitwits running around here without insurance? The insurance
companies are going to cover their losses and make a profit regardless
of who pays the premiums. Do you think they make more profit selling
me the insurance than they would selling policies to the numbskulls?

|
||We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem
|comes
||from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving
||people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still
||manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.
|
|But we have a policy. The laws are on the books.
|
|But not enforced. Our president would far rather curry votes than enforce the
|law.

See sentence three in the paragraph below.
|
|They used to be just Mexican. Then they became Mexican-American and
|then Chicano, Hispanic for a while and now Latino. As for Bush, he's
|given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him again, all of which I
|could ignore, but this one's pushed me over the edge.
|
|I used Latino advisedly, simply because an awful lot of these illegals come
|from countries other than Mexico. They cross the Mexico-US border, but come
|from Colombia, Nicaragua, and other places further south.

All of those places are in "Latin" America, so you're on firm footing.
[g]
|
|The solution is really quite simple. When illegals are found working
|in a Walmart, Sammy Walton, Jr. gets a year in jail. When a farmer is
|found with illegals in his fields, he gets a year in jail. When a
|restaurant owner is found with illegals in the kitchen, he gets a year
|in jail. "I didn't know" is not a defense.
|
|That happened here in Parkersburg a few months ago. Owner of a Mexican
|restaurant got a ****pot full of property and a ton of money confiscated and is
|now in jail because he harbored illegals and did money laundering. Of course,
|they may well have nailed his butt because he's an immigrant himself, but what
|the hell.

Good. Too bad it wasn't widely publicized. The IRS gets (used to)
compliance because they widely publicize the cases they bring. Gets a
lot of folks to toe the line.
|
|Not much chance of a stockholder in Walmart going to jail--do it to one, you
|have to do it proportionately to all, which would really create problems in our
|already over-full jails. There is a solution, but I don't know what it is.

I didn't say stockholder, I mean the CEO, CFO, COO, President or
whomever is the top dog at the business. If you have a retirement
plan, 401k or any such vehicle you *are* a shareholder in Walmart.

Well, gotta go to Woodcraft now and help prop up their bottom line.

Wes

Wes asks:

|It is a subsidy, but the subsidy
|is not to the taco eater or the laborer. It is to the businessman (or
woman),
|usually a rabid conservative, who doesn't want to have profits reduced.

Let's take another example: I'm required to carry uninsured motorist
insurance. Am I subsidizing the insurance company or the illegals and
other nitwits running around here without insurance?

Mostly the other nitwits. When I was a kid, I had to carry UM insurance, and
you can bet that back then, illegals weren't much of a problem in NY State.
Mandatory insurance came in the year before I got my first car, and UM
insurance came in a couple, three years later, say about 1959, if memory
serves.

I didn't say stockholder, I mean the CEO, CFO, COO, President or
whomever is the top dog at the business

Fair enough, because he is responsible, much like several generals and several
cabinet level types are responsible for the prisoner abuse in Iraq. You and I
both know what will happen there. Some brigadier is going to be sacrificed, but
will not be enough of a sacrifical lamb to lose his or her pension.



Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

"Wes" wrote in message
...
On 07 Jun 2004 16:35:19 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes responds:
|
|Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and
|we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument.
|
|This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch.
|
|No kidding. But the fact is, the work has to be done, and no native-born
|American, or damned few, is willing to do it.

When the wage scale becomes high enough, native-born folks will take
the jobs.

And will the cost of that wage increase then be passed on to the supermarket
produce aisle?


Let's take another example: I'm required to carry uninsured motorist
insurance. Am I subsidizing the insurance company or the illegals and
other nitwits running around here without insurance?

Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist
insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover the
note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government regulation?

"Andrew DeFaria" wrote in message
ervers.com...

--
Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue. wrote:

Eugene,

Keep at it; you will get there eventually. Unfortunately, despite what
everyone else here says, the immigration laws of this country are a
joke. Whoever heard of anyone who committed marriage fraud and was
jailed for 5 years and fined $200000?

Actually it's up to $250,000. And yes there have been people jailed,
deported (if the immigrant) and fined hefty fines. If you did a little
research you'd know that. Yes it's not that common and yes they will
focus on the biggest abusers, the marriage fraud rings as it were. Again
you would know that had you done a little bit a research.

A 'marriage fraud ring' putting together sham marriages was busted here in
Texas in the past week, at least two women arrested.

"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:

"Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist
insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover the
note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government regulation?

New York State requires it. See:
http://www1.unitrindirect.com/unitri..._coverage.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Jack Novak responds:

"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:

"Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist
insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover the
note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government regulation?

New York State requires it. See:

http://www1.unitrindirect.com/unitri...nce_minimum_co
verage.html


Virginia requires it, too, IF you carry insurance. Insurance isn't mandatory,
but you have to pay a fee about equal to insurance costs, to the state, if you
don't carry insurance. It does not serve as insurance. I'm not sure what its
point is.

Charlie Self
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:58:22 GMT, "Robert E. Lewis"
wrote:

|
|"Wes" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]
| When the wage scale becomes high enough, native-born folks will take
| the jobs.
|
|And will the cost of that wage increase then be passed on to the supermarket
|produce aisle?

I certainly hope so. If you want to eat lettuce and tomatos then you
should pay for them, I'm not interested in subsidizing your salad.
|
|
| Let's take another example: I'm required to carry uninsured motorist
| insurance. Am I subsidizing the insurance company or the illegals and
| other nitwits running around here without insurance?
|
|Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist
|insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover the
|note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government regulation?

Actually, I misspoke slightly. In the past it was an Arizona law that
I purchase uninsured and underinsured coverage. That has been
changed; however, it is still a requirement upon the insurance
companies to provide such coverage. In otherwords, I don't have to
buy it, but any auto insurer doing business in the state must offer
it. I buy it, thus I subsidize the uninsured for my own protection.
This is still pretty close to a mandate.

As you have seen by now, other states still mandate it.

Wes

Wes wrote:
Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the
: highest crime rate in the country


You've said this before, and I doubt it's true. We in Tucson have the
highest car theft rate in the US (medium-sized city; Republican-driven
budget, so small police force and weak bordr patrol; affluent population
and proximity to Mexico). But overall crime rate? Come on -- you really
think we have a higher crime rate than LA, Detroit, D.C., or other major
cities?

Citations please.

-- Andy Barss

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Sure we do. The "scientist visa". Ask Linus Tovalds about it!

How many are issued every year? And, in any case, you have to be Linus
Torvalds to get one! We're talking here about the average Joe with a
college degree.

Yes and no. It's up to the Congress really. And yes "We the people... "
and all. However grass roots swell takes a long, long time. And you have
to have a movement.

You don't need a grass roots movement. You need common sense in the
politicians. But they prefer to turn an eye blind to illegal immigration
and close the border for the rest.

Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.

As I said before, apparently the US does not feel it needs more
professionals from other countries.

Well, one way or another, they will. The baby-boomer generation is
about to retire, and that will create a huge number of professional jobs
to be filled. OTOH, a young professional immigrant that earns 60K per
year and pays taxes is always a greater benefit for the country than an
illegal that works underground and earns peanuts.

The US has become the only superpower because it knew how to atract the
brains. Remember all the European scientist that fled Europe before and
during the war. Well, it seems the US now prefers the muscle rather than
the brain. That might be the beginning of the decline of the US.

Indeed policy and public sentiment
seems to bear this out. Then again I work with a Canadian professional
who's here working and he says due to NAFTA it is easy for him to enter
the US for work.

I'd extent NAFTA to western Europe (and get rid of Mexico). Americans
would be welcome to come over and enjoy European food and lifestyle. And
the other way around. I'd like to drive a SUV and park it with ease.

-Mark

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 04:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

|Wes wrote:
| Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the
|: highest crime rate in the country
|
|
|You've said this before, and I doubt it's true. We in Tucson have the
|highest car theft rate in the US (medium-sized city; Republican-driven
|budget, so small police force and weak bordr patrol; affluent population
|and proximity to Mexico). But overall crime rate? Come on -- you really
|think we have a higher crime rate than LA, Detroit, D.C., or other major
|cities?
|
|Citations please.

Certainly.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/To...Doid%253A55200
|

"Wes" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:58:22 GMT, "Robert E. Lewis"
wrote:

|
|"Wes" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]
| When the wage scale becomes high enough, native-born folks will take
| the jobs.
|
|And will the cost of that wage increase then be passed on to the
supermarket
|produce aisle?

I certainly hope so. If you want to eat lettuce and tomatos then you
should pay for them, I'm not interested in subsidizing your salad.

No, you just want to subsidize producer workers' salaries by limiting the
labor pool (to the extent some people willing to take a particular job are
not allowed to take that job, the labor pool is being limited).

Of course, those Americans working the fields are going to need those higher
wages - as you say and hope, their grocery bill will be going up (and the
bill at McDonalds, etc.)


|Where do you live that you're required to carry uninsured motorist
|insurance? Or do you mean it's a condition of the auto loan, to cover
the
|note if somebody uninsured hits you, as opposed to a government
regulation?

Actually, I misspoke slightly. In the past it was an Arizona law that
I purchase uninsured and underinsured coverage. That has been
changed; however, it is still a requirement upon the insurance
companies to provide such coverage. In otherwords, I don't have to
buy it, but any auto insurer doing business in the state must offer
it. I buy it, thus I subsidize the uninsured for my own protection.
This is still pretty close to a mandate.

As you have seen by now, other states still mandate it.


Thanks for the clarification. I spoke to an uninsured Arizona driver last
night, and she wants to know when she can expect your subsidy check in the
mail. G

Mark wrote:

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Sure we do. The "scientist visa". Ask Linus Tovalds about it!

How many are issued every year?

Not sure. Probably as many as we feel we need.

And, in any case, you have to be Linus Torvalds to get one!

No, just a scientist.

We're talking here about the average Joe with a college degree.

I wasn't! In any event I think the concept is clear - all countries set
their immigration policies such that they benefit the country you are
immigrating to. If that country has a lack of professionals then they
will loosen up the visa requirements for such professionals. In fact I
believe there are some special provisions for nurses or something like
that (don't know the exact details, I don't keep up with the latest in
employment based immigration). It is demonstrable, therefore, that the
US does not feel that it needs a lot of professionals...

Yes and no. It's up to the Congress really. And yes "We the people...
" and all. However grass roots swell takes a long, long time. And you
have to have a movement.

You don't need a grass roots movement. You need common sense in the
politicians. But they prefer to turn an eye blind to illegal
immigration and close the border for the rest.

Not really. By and large I'll grant you that politicians appear to lack
common sense - that is until you step into their shoes and see things
from their viewpoint. They basically do what they believe their
constituents want. Ergo if they don't see the public wanting this (IOW
some grass roots movement or show, in the policitians constituency, that
action is demanded) then they don't do it.

And out of curiosity - what makes you think it's somehow common sense to
say open up the borders to people from foreign lands who we really don't
need in this country anyway? 'Cause to me that does not seem sensible.

Well, sorry dude, from my point of view, US immigration system sucks.

As I said before, apparently the US does not feel it needs more
professionals from other countries.

Well, one way or another, they will.

Why?

The baby-boomer generation is about to retire, and that will create a
huge number of professional jobs
to be filled.

Why professional jobs? Why not say manufacturing jobs?

OTOH, a young professional immigrant that earns 60K per year and pays
taxes is always a greater benefit for the country than an illegal that
works underground and earns peanuts.

Why is that? If you're country is filled with professionals earning
60K/year then having another one come in from say Italy really does very
little for you. Alas there are still lots of jobs to be filled in the
fields though.

The US has become the only superpower because it knew how to atract
the brains.

Yeah and now we got em. ;-)

Remember all the European scientist that fled Europe before and during
the war. Well, it seems the US now prefers the muscle rather than the
brain.

Supply? Meet Demand... :-)

That might be the beginning of the decline of the US.

A decline of the US is inevitable and will be caused by many, many
factors. Immigration policy will be one of them but in the end it will
probably not be that large a factor.

Indeed policy and public sentiment seems to bear this out. Then again
I work with a Canadian professional
who's here working and he says due to NAFTA it is easy for him to
enter the US for work.

I'd extent NAFTA to western Europe (and get rid of Mexico).

I'd repeal NAFTA.

Americans would be welcome to come over and enjoy European food and
lifestyle.

Americans are already welcomed to come over and enjoy European food and
lifestyle. Each year hundreds of thousands do.

And the other way around. I'd like to drive a SUV and park it with ease.

And again, each year thousands do. Just take a camping trip to any US
National park. Most of the people you'll meet are Europeans "on holiday".
--
I(nternal) R(evenue) S(ervice): We've got what it takes to take what
you've got.

U.S. stats : http://www.city-data.com/

Top 100 Cities with Highest Percentage of Foreign-Born Residents (pop.
5000+)
#1 Swee****er Fla. 74.9%
City-data.com crime index = 240.5 (higher means more crime, US average =
330.6)

Top 100 High-Educated but Low-Earning Cities (pop. 5000+)
#1 Stanford, California ($41,106, 94.6%)

Top 100 Low-Educated but High-Earning Cities (pop. 5000+)
#1 Union Beach, New Jersey ($59,946, 8.5%)

Top 100 Least-Educated Cities (pop. 5000+)
#52 South Tucson, Arizona (3.7% bachelor+, 41.1% high school+)

Top 100 Least-Safe Cities (Highest City-data.com crime index) (pop. 5000+)
#1 Markham, Illinois (2405.7)
#18 South Tucson, Arizona (1100.0)
--
Chipper Wood

useours, yours won't work


"Wes" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 04:02:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

|Wes wrote:
| Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the
|: highest crime rate in the country
|
|
|You've said this before, and I doubt it's true. We in Tucson have the
|highest car theft rate in the US (medium-sized city; Republican-driven
|budget, so small police force and weak bordr patrol; affluent population
|and proximity to Mexico). But overall crime rate? Come on -- you really
|think we have a higher crime rate than LA, Detroit, D.C., or other major
|cities?
|
|Citations please.

Certainly.


http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/To...Doid%253A55200
|

Andrew Barss wrote:

Wes wrote:
Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the
: highest crime rate in the country

You've said this before, and I doubt it's true. We in Tucson have the
highest car theft rate in the US (medium-sized city; Republican-driven
budget, so small police force and weak bordr patrol; affluent population
and proximity to Mexico). But overall crime rate? Come on -- you really
think we have a higher crime rate than LA, Detroit, D.C., or other major
cities?

Citations please.

-- Andy Barss


The property crime rate for Tucson is higher than LA, Detroit and D.C..
Tucson's violent crime rate is less than any of the three.


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Ref:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/...able06TUV.html

According to the FBI's 2002 data (latest complete data) the crime
index for Tucson is 7542/100,000 population.

Detroit is 4298/100,000

Washington DC is 4047/100,000

Los Angeles is 3998/100,000 and

NYC is 2973/100,000

I haven't scanned the whole database but I see that Topeka is
7355/100,000, giving Tucson a run for it.

Furthermore, the City of Tucson now considers petty thefts such as
drive-away gas theft, convenience store "beer runs" and many other
such crimes as "non-criminal". As such they will not investigate and
the best you can expect is a postcard to send in to get a case number
for your insurance claim.

In effect, crime has been "de-criminalized" pretty much like Bush
wants to do with illegal aliens. Too bad he won't do it with drugs; a
much more worthwhile endeavor.

"Wes" wrote in message
SNIP

Actually, I misspoke slightly. In the past it was an Arizona law that
I purchase uninsured and underinsured coverage. That has been
changed; however, it is still a requirement upon the insurance
companies to provide such coverage. In otherwords, I don't have to
buy it, but any auto insurer doing business in the state must offer
it. I buy it, thus I subsidize the uninsured for my own protection.
This is still pretty close to a mandate.

That sounds a lot like saying that buying property insurance is
subsidizing arsonists and theives. I think the reason for buying
uninsured motorists insurance is to protect yourself if someone
damages your property or injures you and are unable to pay their
liability either through insurance or personal assets. It is to
protect you. In Pa. you are required to have a certain amount of
liability insurance on your car in order to get/maintain your license
plate and they seem to enforce this requirement aggressively. However
you still need to get uninsured motorist insurance unless you are
willing to accept some idiot from out-of-state or who is driving
without a valid plate destroyoing your car and you eating the cost. I
would no more go without uninsured motorist insurance than without
homeowners insurance. I don't get it for the other guy's benefit, I
get it for my economic security.

Dave Hall