Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Deep In the Heart of Texas


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ElCid said:

When employers stop hiring them, they'll stop coming - to some extent.  Have had a lot of work done to my property in past year due to storm damage and other things.  Probably 70% of the workers were Hispanic.  Same for work being done at neighbors houses.  Of course the bosses were all older white guys.

When customers like yourself insist when dealing with the older white guys that their crew show proof of being legally allowed to work in the US, employers will stop hiring them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LuckyDan said:

When customers like yourself insist when dealing with the older white guys that their crew show proof of being legally allowed to work in the US, employers will stop hiring them. 

Never said they were illegals doing the work.   The ones doing work here are legal, but that leaves other jobs open to illegals.  Besides should not be up to homeowners to verify "legality" of workers just as we do not verify various state and federal certifications.  So, not going to happen - and you know it.  If did that, nobody available to do the work and I am unable to do it.

Don't place the burden on us; place it on the employers.  Increase Federal budget and raise taxes so Federal agencies can enforce the laws.  That is what good government does, but GOPers refuse to enable it.  And don't forget most of these employers support the Republican Party with votes and money.  You know it is true.  

It happens where you live and your good Republican acquaintences also do not verify legality of workers.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ElCid said:

It happens where you live and your good Republican acquaintences also do not verify legality of workers.

 

I do. It is illegal to hire illegals. Even for homeowners. I also expect all crew members to speak English. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

When customers like yourself insist when dealing with the older white guys that their crew show proof of being legally allowed to work in the US, employers will stop hiring them. 

Every  construction company that has come out to my property for the past 20 years has had a Hispanic crew. They have roofed my house, built my fence and deck, and repaired a leaking chimney.  The entire crew was Hispanic.  The person in charge of the crew is always an English speaking Hispanic, the others seem to only speak Spanish. I was very pleased with the work that was done in every case.  I don't feel like it's my duty to try and  question the legal standing of the employees of a company that I hired.  In fact, I think that would be rather insulting to them for me to ask such questions. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Every  construction company that has come out to my property for the past 20 years has had a Hispanic crew. They have roofed my house, built my fence and deck, and repaired a leaking chimney.  The entire crew was Hispanic.  The person in charge of the crew is always an English speaking Hispanic, the others seem to only speak Spanish. I was very pleased with the work that was done in every case.  I don't feel like it's my duty to try and  question the legal standing of the employees of a company that I hired.  In fact, I think that would be rather insulting to them for me to ask such questions. 

It is not your obligation, no, but if you know or have reason to believe that someone you are paying is working illegally, you have potential liability. 

It may feel awkward to you to ask, but it is you're right to know who you are hiring. You're not stopping some stranger on the street and asking if they are here legally. You are talking to a potential employee.

The questions are posed during the vetting process. You get the company on the phone and ask, will all members of the crew be I-9 compliant? Will they all speak English?  I would be suspicious of anyone who takes offense.

And if I were an immigrant who went to the trouble of coming here legally and securing a work visa, I would be glad that you as the homeowner value it to the point of making sure I get the job.

Then there are those who just don't care. You may be in that group, with Cid. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

It is not your obligation, no, but if you know or have reason to believe that someone you are paying is working illegally, you have potential liability. 

It may feel awkward to you to ask, but it is you're right to know who you are hiring. You're not stopping some stranger on the street and asking if they are here legally. You are talking to a potential employee.

The questions are posed during the vetting process. You get the company on the phone and ask, will all members of the crew be I-9 compliant? Will they all speak English?  I would be suspicious of anyone who takes offense.

And if I were an immigrant who went to the trouble of coming here legally and securing a work visa, I would be glad that you as the homeowner value it to the point of making sure I get the job.

Then there are those who just don't care. You may be in that group, with Cid. 

Donald Trump didn't seem to care and also encouraged it when it came to his own business.  And we're not talking about casual labor here but full-time (illegal) employees.

Just another thing that his supporters chose to overlook.  By the way, did you vote for Trump in 2016 and 2020 knowing full well all of the things he was guilty of?

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Donald Trump didn't seem to care and also encouraged it when it came to his own business.  And we're not talking about casual labor here but full-time (illegal) employees.

Just another thing that his supporters chose to overlook.  By the way, did you vote for Trump in 2016 and 2020 knowing full well all of the things he was guilty of?

I'm not talking about trump. I'm talking about homeowners. Especially those who live in the border states.

And I did not vote for Trump in 16 or 20. I will not vote for him in 24. Not because I thought he was guilty of anything, but because I believe he was and is a complete buffoon.

Edit: Remember, too, until he ran for president, trump was a NY democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

Every  construction company that has come out to my property for the past 20 years has had a Hispanic crew. They have roofed my house, built my fence and deck, and repaired a leaking chimney.  The entire crew was Hispanic.  The person in charge of the crew is always an English speaking Hispanic, the others seem to only speak Spanish. I was very pleased with the work that was done in every case.  I don't feel like it's my duty to try and  question the legal standing of the employees of a company that I hired.  In fact, I think that would be rather insulting to them for me to ask such questions. 

Note that a property owner could be held liable is a worker gets injured while working on their property and that worker isn't covered by Workers Comp insurance and all workers are not fully covered under the company's bond.      To many shady companies don't provide such coverage for illegal immigrants since they are hiring them off-the-books.    

Therefore it is wise to ensure the contract one's signs notes that all employees are fully covered under a WC insurance policy, and that any bond covers them as well.    If the contract doesn't have this,  the property owner should send the company an email asking these questions and only sign a contract if the response indicates YES.     These steps should shield the property owner from any future liability.

    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

I'm not talking about trump. I'm talking about homeowners. Especially those who live in the border states.

And I did not vote for Trump in 16 or 20. I will not vote for him in 24. Not because I thought he was guilty of anything, but because I believe he was and is a complete buffoon.

Edit: Remember, too, until he ran for president, trump was a NY democrat.

This is what happens when one exposes bogus assumptions:

How to get rid of crickets in California - Ask Mr. Little

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all illegals work in the construction and/or garden-landscaping businesses.  Many more toil in independent slaughterhouses, on corporate farms and in domestic  settings( housekeepers, maids, nannies, etc.)  And you can bet none of them, regardless of doing landscaping or light construction or domestic work , are being paid minimum wage.  Most likely being paid for one day what they should get per hour.  And no doubt many more are migrants who usually find work picking fruits and vegetables( here in MI, thousands get paid slave wages helping with asparagus  harvests). 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

Not all illegals work in the construction and/or garden-landscaping businesses.  Many more toil in independent slaughterhouses, on corporate farms and in domestic  settings( housekeepers, maids, nannies, etc.)  And you can bet none of them, regardless of doing landscaping or light construction or domestic work , are being paid minimum wage.  Most likely being paid for one day what they should get per hour.  And no doubt many more are migrants who usually find work picking fruits and vegetables( here in MI, thousands get paid slave wages helping with asparagus  harvests). 

Sepiatone

Don't most illegal immigrants work in the hospitality industry?    Hotels\restaurants\resorts\Mar-a-Lago?

As for being paid less than minimum wage?   Not here in CA if the workers are unionized.    

I believe your overall POV here is dated.    Long term illegal immigrants are treated just like everyone else,  at least here in CA.   E.g. if the employer is exploiting them they sue and they can't be deported for doing so (there are laws that protect them).     There were a few major lawsuits against car wash companies  and the illegal immigrants won all of them and there were no post immigration-status consequences.    Also wineries were sued,   major farming operations etc...   

Hey,  they deserved to win;  an employer should be punished if they break employment laws,  regardless of the immigration status of the employee.

     

    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Is this new Texas Pro Life Bounty Hunter Program bring 'em back dead or alive?

Lost interest in the border and illegal immigration? Ok.

I'm pro-life but I don't like the law either. I don't expect it to stand. No one should be able to sue for relief who has not suffered a loss or a wrong.  It's a chicken-**** move. I like the Mississippi law.

Roe needs to go. It is outdated for one but mostly its bad because it reads like a piece of legislation more than a legal opinion.

Imagine the stress reliever removing abortion from federal law will be. We won't flip out every time a SCOTUS vacancy opens op. National party values will realign. And states can decide for themselves how to handle abortion, which will likely reflect that state's consensus.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Did you ask me a question?  No.

No, I didn't but let me take this opportunity to put an OT question to you. Why do you use Bogie's name with a photo of Larry Fine? Did they have a connection? Just curious how that happened. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

No, I didn't but let me take this opportunity to put an OT question to you. Why do you use Bogie's name with a photo of Larry Fine? Did they have a connection? Just curious how that happened. 

image7.jpg

It all started with a Bogie avatar but then I underwent some dramatic surgery.  I guess I shouldn't have said "Fine, fine, fine" to the doctor.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

Lost interest in the border and illegal immigration? Ok.

I'm pro-life but I don't like the law either. I don't expect it to stand. No one should be able to sue for relief who has not suffered a loss or a wrong.  It's a chicken-**** move. I like the Mississippi law.

Roe needs to go. It is outdated for one but mostly its bad because it reads like a piece of legislation more than a legal opinion.

Imagine the stress reliever removing abortion from federal law will be. We won't flip out every time a SCOTUS vacancy opens op. National party values will realign. And states can decide for themselves how to handle abortion, which will likely reflect that state's consensus.

 

BTW, characterizing a positions as "Pro Life" is BS in more ways than one.  Who isn't Pro Life?  It's about personal choice, not about being anti-life.  You can be "Pro Life" yourself and still acknowledge abortion as a personal choice of a woman.

That characterization is just more HS messaging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

BTW, characterizing a positions as "Pro Life" is BS in more ways than one.  Who isn't Pro Life?  It's about personal choice, not about being anti-life.  You can be "Pro Life" yourself and still acknowledge abortion as a personal choice of a woman.

That characterization is just more HS messaging.

Anti-abortion then. I'm good with that, too. 

I believe if you use the term your opponent prefers when debating them, you're more likely to get honest replies from them. I have to laugh when I hear "reproductive rights" (as if women are fighting for their rights to reproduce) but I let it go.

As for "choice" I can't think of any other areas where leftists holler for choice outside of abortion. They tend to want things their way. No alternatives. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

BTW, characterizing a positions as "Pro Life" is BS in more ways than one.  Who isn't Pro Life?  It's about personal choice, not about being anti-life.  You can be "Pro Life" yourself and still acknowledge abortion as a personal choice of a woman.

That characterization is just more HS messaging.

Democrats should have begun calling the anti-abortion crowd "anti-choice," or something like that, instead of letting that crowd name themselves, with a name that sounds positive. Just like the Democrats should be talking about Republican death panels, related to the anti-mask, anti-vaccine positions of many in their party. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swithin said:

Democrats should have begun calling the anti-abortion crowd "anti-choice," or something like that, instead of letting that crowd name themselves, with a name that sounds positive. Just like the Democrats should be talking about Republican death panels, related to the anti-mask, anti-vaccine positions of many in their party. 

That term is used. I remember one of the NOW leaders liked to use it. Forget her name. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny enough, but some evangelicals changed their official position on abortion after the Roe v Wade decision.  While Catholicism has opposed anything that interferes with procreation (including most forms of birth control), other denominations had a different view on abortion prior to Roe.  It's only been since then that the bloc solidified behind this issue.   For example, a majority of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion in certain circumstances.  Their position started to change in the late 70s.

This is an article from the ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC) that summarizes the history of the SBC position on abortion.

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/5-facts-about-the-history-of-the-sbc-and-the-pro-life-cause/

The Bible didn't change in the 70s, as far as I know.  No new tablets were discovered on a mountaintop.  Maybe it's kind of like the Mormons, who suddenly decided Black men  were OK for the priesthood (most males in good standing are considered priests in the LDS denomination) in 1978 after a revelation.

Or maybe it's just politics...

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Funny enough, but some evangelicals changed their official position on abortion after the Roe v Wade decision.  While Catholicism has opposed anything that interferes with procreation (including most forms of birth control), other denominations had a different view on abortion prior to Roe.  It's only been since then that the bloc solidified behind this issue.   For example, a majority of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion in certain circumstances.  Their position started to change in the late 70s.

This is an article from the ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC) that summarizes the history of the SBC position on abortion.

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/5-facts-about-the-history-of-the-sbc-and-the-pro-life-cause/

The Bible didn't change in the 70s, as far as I know.  No new tablets were discovered on a mountaintop.  Maybe it's kind of like the Mormons, who suddenly decided Black men  were OK for the priesthood (most males in good standing are considered priests in the LDS denomination) in 1978 after a revelation.

Or maybe it's just politics...

Jonah Goldberg talked about how there have been those who feel there should be some leeway on abortion who have voted for pro-life republicans because they knew Roe was there. That too will change when it's gone. The shift in American politics will be seismic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Don't most illegal immigrants work in the hospitality industry?    Hotels\restaurants\resorts\Mar-a-Lago?

As for being paid less than minimum wage?   Not here in CA if the workers are unionized.    

I believe your overall POV here is dated.    Long term illegal immigrants are treated just like everyone else,  at least here in CA.   E.g. if the employer is exploiting them they sue and they can't be deported for doing so (there are laws that protect them).     There were a few major lawsuits against car wash companies  and the illegal immigrants won all of them and there were no post immigration-status consequences.    Also wineries were sued,   major farming operations etc...   

Hey,  they deserved to win;  an employer should be punished if they break employment laws,  regardless of the immigration status of the employee.

     

    

Sorry, but it's not (or ever) a case of "As California goes, so goes America".   There wouldn't be a need for wanting that silly idea of a "border wall" if illegals were treated and considered in that area as those in California.   And no doubt employers breaking employment laws should face some  punitive consequence if breaking employment laws.  I've been advocating that for years.  But sadly, those most blatant employment law breakers have enough clout and significant politicians and such so deeply ensconced  in their pockets that enforcing those laws against them is near impossible.   And many politicians(and notably on the right) who run for first term or reelection and who are in need of campaign funds won't do much to help kill the cash cow( the ONLY cow they hold sacred).  

The promise of building a huge wall to keep illegal aliens out of the country sounds euphoric  to xenophobes and such, but it was foolish to think that anyone would really get it done.  Once the votes did their job serious interest on the wall was pushed aside in the minds of them that promised it.  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

Funny enough, but some evangelicals changed their official position on abortion after the Roe v Wade decision.  While Catholicism has opposed anything that interferes with procreation (including most forms of birth control), other denominations had a different view on abortion prior to Roe.  It's only been since then that the bloc solidified behind this issue.   For example, a majority of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion in certain circumstances.  Their position started to change in the late 70s.

 

I neglected to add in my original response that Jonah also says one consequence of Roe was that it started the pro-life movement. Attitudes did change as a result. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...