OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:But let me ask you Bill, do you think a requirement for the employer to ensure that guest workers have access to adquate, affordable housing is the same thing as providing housing to the guest workers?
If not, then how is making sure the worker has a means to get home the same thing as providing transportation home for the worker?
Both are additional obligations on the employer that they don't currently have. The whole idea of hiring a cook from Mexico is preposterous. A dozen pages ago you listed off your nonsensical conditions... and protested when I laughed and suggested you'll be watching Restaurants close... IF there's a wall... and nothing changing IF there wasn't. That is the simple truth. What you want to have happen has about as much chance of happening as annexing Mexico. You don't discuss points in pursuit of truth. You reverse engineer everything said, in feeble attempts to cling to your pre-defined idea's... and I'm done indulging your silly games. That you can't see a contradiction there defies reason. Any 12 year old could spot your error. Good night.
And again when you can't counter the argument, you resort to the liberal way with personal insult. I even asked you to show how it was a contradiction. You do understand that you simply declaring it a contradiction doesn't make it one don't you?
I wasn't the one who brought up hiring a cook from Mexico. You did. And you didn't suggest it was preposterous when you said it. You just said it wasn't reasonable for the employer to have to ensure that a Mexican cook had access to decent affordable housing and/or a ride home. One could take that as your proposal that you be able to hire a Mexican cook or dishwasher and, if they didn't work out, you could just dump them on the street to fend for themselves and to hell with them. I know that's not what you meant. But there are employers who in fact would do that if there are not rules in place to ensure that they cannot do that.
But yes, there should be additional responsibilities for an employer who invites a person to the United States to work. I discussed that in some detail earlier today which you would know if you had really been following along. I cited the need for these extra conditions because such workers would not have the choice or freedoms that are available to permanent legal residents and therefore we would have more responsibility for their welfare. Permanent residents have mobility and freedom to go elsewhere to work if they don't like the conditions where they are. Any employers who didn't wish to assume such extra conditions had better hope they can offer jobs attractive enough that permanent residents will accept.
There are numerous construction, janitorial, landscaping, etc. jobs however that can use 100% unskilled labor and/or train people on the job if they are physically able to do the work. How much training does a dish washer or the guy who mops the floor have to have? You show them what to do and anybody, of any nationality, in any language, is probably going to be able to do that. But if you won't accept responsibility for guest workers you bring from Mexico or someplace else, you are suggesting the only way is for them to all be made legal or allow them to come in illegally and fend for themselves. For the rest of us, that is not an acceptable solution.
In other words this whole problem doesn't revolve around you and your narrow little world, Bill or just the restaurant business. If you don't want to hire a cook from Mexico, then don't hire one. But don't presume to tell other people who they will or won't or should or shouldn't or can or can't hire. Personally I think a guest worker program is a great idea and could provide the best solution for problems on both sides.
I don't accept that there is no solution available that will meet the needs of everybody. I accept that this is your opnion, however, and that you think I am ignorant, an idiot, and racist, and a bigot and offer nonsensical solutions because I see things differently than you do. And I think that's unfortunate. But I also accept, as you said.....again.....that you are done.
Obviously not. (Stupid games.)
Let's see; in order: A bald face lie, an inconsequential difference, (both followed by idiotic snotty questions), some nonsense about it being you who wants to treat them the same as Americans; which is of course role-reversal from the truth... and now this nonsense about it being rational... and not contradicting yourself? 
How many examples do you need? 
