To clarify, both sentences in the first paragraph of my earlier comment were sarcastic. Working that many hours per week might be a BFOQ in rare instances of personal service work, and maybe (I personally doubt it) some operations jobs, but there is no way it would be accepted as a BFOQ for a development job.
Unions are an incredibly poor way to control abusive employer tactics unless workers in the bargaining unit are basically fungible -- and knowledge workers are not. A much better approach would be something like an online exchange for H-1B job postings, where US-based employees can register their interest for a job opening (along with their current and/or target salary) and see whether the job eventually goes to someone with permanent work authorization in the US and what the salary is, and perhaps see an anonymized summary of the eventual hire's qualifications relative to the posting's requirements. This would give employees most of the information necessary to (decide whether to) file a complaint either with immigration authorities or in court.
Hey, working 60+ hours per week is a bona fide occupational qualification for some jobs! These immigrants are just filling jobs that Americans don't want to do.
Another problem is that these companies tend to tailor H-1B job requirement statements to particular foreign candidates in such a way that essentially every US-based candidate who might see the posting would not qualify or would ignore it (for example, because of that pay disparity or the work week or other conditions listed in the job description).
If you like looking like a whiny, hypocritical moron, be my guest. I take it that you concede that illegal immigration is in fact a crime, and that you didn't read far enough into my earlier comment to see where I explained that, because you haven't done a thing to rebut either of those. I'm not going to use soft words to save the feelings of someone who is a lazy, useful idiot or worse.
And I wish you luck in learning to read more than the first sentence of a comment before you fire off an utterly wrong response to it, you moron.
EPIC is not trying to stop the government from using this system -- they are trying to get information about the system, presumably so that they can decide whether to try to rein in the system (via political or judicial means) to protect civil rights. Why oppose that, indeed?
DoofusOfDeath and AHuxley make good points as well. Some modern advocacy groups (like the Cato Institute) claim that open immigration can coexist with a welfare state, but even the studies they write admit that low-skilled immigrants consume more social spending than they pay in taxes, that welfare spending does not go down due to higher levels of immigration, and that working-class citizens are the hardest hit due to open immigration policies.
- Unsurprisingly, political leanings explain most of the differences in welfare spending between US states, and Cato's study this year did not try to control for that at all. Illegal immigrants and non-permanent aliens are barred from collecting almost any kind of welfare. Even permanent residents are barred from collecting most welfare for five years. Naturalized citizens, of course, can collect the same kinds of welfare that other citizens can collect -- but these are typically the most motivated and skilled immigrants, and have less need of wealth transfers.
With no borders, when you break the laws of the City of Entrope, the City of Entrope Police will hunt you down to the end of the earth if the mayor tells them to. There is no reason for them to stop short of that. Does that sound good to you?
With no political borders, the only possibly stable equilibria are anarchy and uniform world government, and I am deeply skeptical that either would actually be stable. Which one of those do you prefer?
Bless your heart, CaptainEuphemism: I know you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I will spell out why clueful people still call them illegal immigrants rather than "undocumented" immigrants and reserve "unaccompanied minor" for kids who fly on planes without their parents.
Entering the US other than in a time and place authorized by immigration officers is punishable by up to six months in jail under 8 USC 1325, as is using forged paperwork to enter. However, in most cases, it does not make sense to lock someone up -- and have US taxpayers pay their room and board -- for any longer than necessary, so we deport them quickly rather than sending them to prison and *then* deporting them.
Illegal immigrants (or unauthorized aliens, if you prefer the statutory term) get a "free ride" home if the executive branch thinks they are likely to break the law further by trying to stay after the final order of removal. The Immigration and Nationality Act is written as if Congress assumed illegal immigrants would -- for some unfathomable reason -- pay their own way out of the country after getting that final order of removal.
I'll cut you a deal, AC: Microsoft gets a new allotment of H-1B visa sponsorships if they promise to only use them to bring workers who have jobs with Microsoft subsidiaries (as of some fixed day in the past) to the US, and consent to meaningful oversight to ensure they keep that promise. If they don't want to make that promise, I will infer they mostly want to fire people with decent-paying jobs (which I hear is the usual case in Finland, especially for tech workers) in favor of low-paid, almost captive labor.
On the flip side, if/when those college-educated people decide to have kids, they will find that having family nearby is a huge help. Roughly half of the college-educated parents in my generation (out of those I know well) moved to be near their parents specifically to make childcare easier. This often means a bit of career back-tracking, as they come up to speed in a different area of their field, or change to a significantly different industry.
It's called humor, but you're apparently too square to have heard of that either.
It's called the Dormant Minting Clause. But you probably haven't heard of it...
My questions are pertinent because they show that health insurance, like the buildings you mention, are chosen and paid for by the employer, and that the employer does and should have correspondingly broad freedom to choose the parameters of what they pay for. wickerprints made the frivolous argument that when health insurance is part of the employee's compensation package, the employer should have no say in what the insurance covers, and my questions were meant to rebut that. If I wanted to argue here against government meddling, I would take a quite different tack.
Thanks for the correction -- what I had learned (and said) applies to biologically inert IUDs, which are no longer used in the US or Canada. I stopped going to church 20-some years ago, so I am not entirely up to date on these things.
If you don't want religious views to influence society, move to China or somewhere else that effectively outlaws religious practice. Otherwise, expect others to think you are a loon for comparing an adult's religious beliefs to a two-year-old's security blanket, and an outright nutcase for calling that comparison "a very accurate view of a theological view on religion". (I say this as a non-evangelical atheist -- I am no fan of religion, but I respect people who make sacrifices for their religious beliefs and try to judge/criticize each belief and practice on its own merits, rather than dismissing the whole edifice as unworthy of human belief.)
- To be clear, I mean forgone benefits, extra effort, and the like, not ritual sacrifices. I think most people would take my meaning, but sometimes it is better to say these things directly.