Thread: Cintas warned against firing immigrant force

Originally Posted by Judy

CrocketsGhost writes

Ah, I see. One look at the website clarifies everything. Remember that Marion Barry's constituents re-elected him after he was caught on tape and convicted of smoking crack with hookers. The law means less than nothing in some quarters...

Yes ... the law means less than nothing in the quarters of the American White House starting with Bush and Cheney who let these people in and have deliberately allowed them to remain.

One can hardly blame a Congressman from Mississippi for simply following the position of the White House Leadership.

After all the White House and Executive Branch actually control immigration enforcement not the US Congress.

Give it a rest. Dragging your baggage from another thread to this one is not kosher. We get that you don't like the White House. If you had read any of my posts on the subject, you would see that I am as off-put by this administration as anyone. However, unlike some people, I have a grasp of the fact that this is not some fantasyland where slaying one evil dragon makes everything rainbows and lollipops.

As best I can figure, you've got a serious fixation on Dubya to the extent that you imagine that his misdeeds even excuse the absurdities committed by totally separate politicians. Or maybe you're just and over-the-top Democrat cheerleader like that other guy whose every post was of the "we must vote against all Republicans regardless of their votes on immigration because Bush is evil" variety. I really can't make heads or tails of your motives, but then chances are you can't either.

http://www.kxmc.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=71363

Democrat Blocks Enforcement of Employment Laws
Nov 28 2006 5:32PM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php
The Washington Times:

A Mississippi Democrat in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has warned the nation’s largest uniform supplier it faces criminal charges if it follows a White House proposal to recheck workers with mismatched Social Security numbers and fire those who cannot resolve the discrepancy in 60 days.

Rep. Bennie Thompson said in a letter to Cintas Corp. it could be charged with “illegal activities in violation of state and federal law” if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired.

In June, President Bush proposed new guidelines concerning “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration, saying he wanted to make it easier for employers to verify workers’ eligibility and continue to hold them accountable for those they hire.

The Department of Homeland Security followed up on that announcement yesterday, formally releasing new regulations to help businesses comply with hiring requirements intended to reduce the hiring of illegal aliens—including setting guidelines for businesses when handling “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration.

So this Democrat is threatening a private business that they better not follow the law when it come to hiring illegal workers.

I wrote a post back in September showing that the government has it set up that an employer cannot NOT hire an illegal alien with a fake ID.

“The system is broken because, from the moment the employers begin the paperwork process, the law places them between a rock and a hard place. That is while one provision punishes them with heavy fines if they fail to sufficiently inspect the documents, another provision makes them liable for discrimination if they too vigorously inspect the documents.”

“The employer may not refuse to “honor documents tendered by the employee that on their face reasonably appears to be genuine....that section of law also prohibits employer retaliation...against an employee....such as dismissing the employee, even if he suspects him to be and illegal alien, and such retaliation...is considered discrimination per se under the law.

Now when a large employer attempts to do the right thing and follow up with employees that more than likely presented false documents (identity theft) they are threatened by Democrats. It’s clear that the Democrats are too corrupt to be entrusted with any power as they just won’t enforce the law.

Of course what should happen is that the Department of Immigration and Naturalization should visit these workers and inspect their documents. Any illegals identified should be immediately incarcerated until their deportation hearing.

I’ve made the assertion many times that most employers want to do the right thing. They just don’t have the tools. In fact according to this statement the firm in question seems to be very responsible:

“Cintas, like all employers, has a legal obligation to ensure all employees are legally authorized to work in the U.S.,” the firm said in a statement. “Cintas has not terminated any employees due to the Social Security mismatches and plans to continue its policy of placing these employees on indefinite leave until they produce the required documentation.

By the way I noticed this from Michael Barone saying that Republicans didn’t lose Hispanic votes due to their harder-line stance on illegal immigration.

Dissatisfaction over the economy and job creation, the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s education policies proved more important to Hispanic voters than immigration issues, the William C. Velasquez Institute found in its exit polls of Latinos in Texas and seven other states that account for 82 percent of registered Latino voters.

I think legal Hispanics should vote Republican as they are for LEGAL immigration and growth in the economy.

OK,

So the regulation has recently become effective and now these companies are receiving the no-match letters. They are required by law to terminate the employees because they have been given a chance to correct the error with the SS office and provide accurate information from identification but again failed to match so they are not eligible to work in the US and should be terminated.

The unions are having a cow because the illegal aliens are trying to form unions to save their unlawful employment. Make me laugh.

Businesses that do not respond to the no-match letters could be in a catch 22 with DHS and regarded as willingly and knowingly hiring illegal aliens and be subject to fines as a result. They are better off firing the illegal aliens.

Dixie

Nancy Pelosi and her new Democratic leadership need to be blasted about such positions as this! This is utter nonsense and they should not be allowed to get away with this unnoticed.

Added to homepage

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=1717

Email Rep. Thompson and let him know how you feel in regards to border security, illegal immigration, and his efforts at undermining this country's rule of law!


Direct email link:


http://benniethompson.house.gov/HoR/MS0 ... ct+Bennie/

CrocketsGhost Wrote: (To Judy)

Give it a rest. Dragging your baggage from another thread to this one is not kosher. We get that you don't like the White House. If you had read any of my posts on the subject, you would see that I am as off-put by this administration as anyone. However, unlike some people, I have a grasp of the fact that this is not some fantasyland where slaying one evil dragon makes everything rainbows and lollipops.

As best I can figure, you've got a serious fixation on Dubya to the extent that you imagine that his misdeeds even excuse the absurdities committed by totally separate politicians. Or maybe you're just and over-the-top Democrat cheerleader like that other guy whose every post was of the "we must vote against all Republicans regardless of their votes on immigration because Bush is evil" variety. I really can't make heads or tails of your motives, but then chances are you can't either.

"As best I can figure" ... my suggestion is that you stop figurin' altogether.

"Or maybe you're just and over-the-top Democrat cheerleader" .... I'm a 4th Generation Republican that's never voted for a Democrat and voted for GW Bush TWICE.

"I really can't make heads or tails of your motives, but then chances are you can't either".

I want the people responsible for failing to enforce immigration law removed from office and that would be the Wackident and Dickey Boy. I consider failure to uphold and enforce our laws an impeachable offense as it represents a violation of their sworn oath; treason; perjury; and betrayal of our laws and our people on the highest possible level. If you can't make "heads or tails" out of that ... then maybe you should just stop trying to "make" anything pertaining to impeachment and go on a date with one of your "Looney Tunes" and "make" out instead.

I mean if you don't get it by now, you're not going to.

Originally Posted by Judy

CrocketsGhost Wrote: (To Judy)

Give it a rest. Dragging your baggage from another thread to this one is not kosher. We get that you don't like the White House. If you had read any of my posts on the subject, you would see that I am as off-put by this administration as anyone. However, unlike some people, I have a grasp of the fact that this is not some fantasyland where slaying one evil dragon makes everything rainbows and lollipops.

As best I can figure, you've got a serious fixation on Dubya to the extent that you imagine that his misdeeds even excuse the absurdities committed by totally separate politicians. Or maybe you're just and over-the-top Democrat cheerleader like that other guy whose every post was of the "we must vote against all Republicans regardless of their votes on immigration because Bush is evil" variety. I really can't make heads or tails of your motives, but then chances are you can't either.

"As best I can figure" ... my suggestion is that you stop figurin' altogether.

"Or maybe you're just and over-the-top Democrat cheerleader" .... I'm a 4th Generation Republican that's never voted for a Democrat and voted for GW Bush TWICE.

"I really can't make heads or tails of your motives, but then chances are you can't either".

I want the people responsible for failing to enforce immigration law removed from office and that would be the Wackident and Dickey Boy. I consider failure to uphold and enforce our laws an impeachable offense as it represents a violation of their sworn oath; treason; perjury; and betrayal of our laws and our people on the highest possible level. If you can't make "heads or tails" out of that ... then maybe you should just stop trying to "make" anything pertaining to impeachment and go on a date with one of your "Looney Tunes" and "make" out instead.

I mean if you don't get it by now, you're not going to.

I get that you won't even admit that Clinton was the signatory to many if not most of the major trade agreements of the last twenty years, such as the NAFTA and the GATT 1994 agreement that created the WTO.

Now, I note that you have several times made complaints about the tenor of my posts, yet you continue to make comments such as the one highlighted in red above. Twice I have tried to step away from this ongoing and pointless debate (once its pointlessness became obvious to me), yet you persist in trying to stir the pot. I am through with this increasingly absurd exchange, as I made clear in the other thread. I will now ask you this one time to knock off with the attempts to goad me into comments that you can and will report to the moderators as abuse. I think that anyone should be able to see that you are and have been at least as responsible for the tenor of these posts and that you now persist. What you cite as attacks on my part have been based in the absolute and incontrovertible fact of your persistent denial of reality, as in your claim that the Bushes were responsible for all the free trade agreements (nevermind that GATT in its various incarnations goes back to just after WWII) and your bizarre denial of Clinton's OWN WORDS in which he took credit for various of the free trade agreements of the 1990s, not to mention the fact of his actual signature on those agreements. These are not my opinions, but rather facts that may be confirmed by any reasonable person. They are a matter of governmental and historical record. Conversely, any claim that well-documented fact is not fact is, by definition, unreasonable. If my calling bizarre claims bizarre is an "insult," then it is certainly not a gratuitous one, as have been the cases in which you repeatedly call the free trade forces and this administration "my guys," or when you make strange attacks such as the one above.

I will not respond to further posts from you on this subject, and further attacks will be duly noted.

Garsh you two, have you drawn enough blood yet?

Judy,

I know that Clinton was a major player in the NAFTA nightmare. I recall seeing him on TV promoting it as well as several highly charged discussions with a favorite uncle about his foreboding of the NAFTA plan. Clinton was in office when it was signed. I didn't like the idea then and it has proven to be a real problem today.

Dixie

JUDY

why not start an "impeachment" thread and anyone interested has a place to post. But let's stop dragging this from one thread to another.
Some of us are pro and others of us are con. This would give the pro folks a place without disrupting other discussions.

my 2 cents