Thread: Response From NYS Att. General's Office on Illegals

This was a personal response I received after contacting the NYS Attorney General's Office about the issue of illegal aliens being allowed to leave their jobs to join the May 1st protest without being fired. First of all, THEY AREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED TO WORK!

This letter has me confused because it presents a Federal law that employers cannot fire their workers for protesting - even though they are undocumented (illegal). Yet we have a federal law that prohibits them from even working in the first place! So, how is it possible that we have 2 conflicting laws?

Here's the letter:

Your recent letter to Attorney General Spitzer regarding the issue of illegal immigration has been referred to me for a response.

Your letter seems to have been prompted by the statement that our office released prior to the National Day of Action for Immigrant Rights events held on May 1. In the days leading up to those rallies, our office had received inquiries about the legal implications for those attending the events. Federal law makes clear that employees - including both legal residents and undocumented workers -cannot be fired solely for attempting to influence legislation that would affect their rights as employees. Indeed, these federal protections apply not just to individuals who attend the May 1 events, but to all employees throughout the country.

Because it was important for both employers and employees to understand the applicable legal standards, we issued a statement advising the public about these legal issues. In addition to addressing the basic federal law protections, the statement made clear that employers "may impose reasonable requirements needed to keep their businesses functioning, and employees must comply with those requirements." Many employers and employees found the statement to be helpful, because it provided guidance on how all parties could fufill their legal and contractual obligations.

Sincerely,
Peter A. Drago

--------------------------


I have every intention of responding to this letter but I want to make sure I have all the facts first. Is he right about this? It doesn't make sense to me that you can have a federal law protecting illegals rights to protest, yet there is a federal law that says that it's illegal for them to be here in the first place! Anybody want to respond?

It appears to me that one issue is clear regarding the federal standard about firing employees, however, there is a lot of double talk and circumnavigation of the issue regarding illegal alien employment....it seems to be the way that some of our public officials prefer to deal with the issue. What that means is the common citizen needs to take things in hand...boycott businesses that use illegals, express your views openly at the store etc. and don't be intimidated by those who would call you a racisist or discriminatory because the illegals are breaking the law as is anyone who employs them or provides housing for them under federal mandates.

That letter is a joke, He jumped around your question and left the truth hanging high totally avoiding it at all costs. I would write him back and demand a straight answer. His response seems as if it was written by someone who is lost.

His response seems as if it was written by someone who is lost.

I think, like other elected officials, he probably is lost. Agreements have been made in closets by this administration who is H... bent on achieving their goal and realize if enough knowledge gets out to the people their goal will be crushed.

This is all tied into the trade agreements. I just posted an enlightening document "Canadian's opposition group" which may or may not offer an explanation for his vaque response. If nothing else it will increase your personal understanding of the issues.

If I was an employer whose employees walked out for such a demonstration and I had not knowingly hired illegal aliens, I would go ahead and fire them and dare the AG to do something about it. Period. At some point people have to just stand up and say, "I don't gove a damn what sort of nonsense you claim is law, this is my business and my life and I don't see anywhere in our compact that formed this government where you were empowered to tell me how to run my business or my personal affairs."

If enough people took a stand, the government would back down. It would back down because it is still not at a point that it can risk a serious backlash that would cause it to have to relinquish some of the power it has illegitimately claimed for itself. The real citizens of this country are getting pretty close to a boiling point. Beyond the frustration expressed on sites like this one, there is genuine anger that has people starting to ask what can be done. The catch is that the bastards will back off if Americans get too worked up, and simply wait until we have fallen back to sleep. Then they'll start in with a whole new collection of outrqages.

If enough people took a stand, the government would back down. It would back down because it is still not at a point that it can risk a serious backlash that would cause it to have to relinquish some of the power it has illegitimately claimed for itself. The real citizens of this country are getting pretty close to a boiling point. Beyond the frustration expressed on sites like this one, there is genuine anger that has people starting to ask what can be done. The catch is that the bastards will back off if Americans get too worked up, and simply wait until we have fallen back to sleep. Then they'll start in with a whole new collection of outrqages.

Can you explain why the law suit filed by the 9/11 widow Mariana and the censure put in by Feingold and the lawsuit by Conyers which made it to court but dissappeared off the radar stop cold?

HOW can we proceed with an impeachment when Gonzales is the one who has to agree to proceed? Isn't this a rather stacked deck against not only American citizens but citizens of this entire continent?

Originally Posted by xanadu

If enough people took a stand, the government would back down. It would back down because it is still not at a point that it can risk a serious backlash that would cause it to have to relinquish some of the power it has illegitimately claimed for itself. The real citizens of this country are getting pretty close to a boiling point. Beyond the frustration expressed on sites like this one, there is genuine anger that has people starting to ask what can be done. The catch is that the bastards will back off if Americans get too worked up, and simply wait until we have fallen back to sleep. Then they'll start in with a whole new collection of outrqages.

Can you explain why the law suit filed by the 9/11 widow Mariana and the censure put in by Feingold and the lawsuit by Conyers which made it to court but dissappeared off the radar stop cold?

HOW can we proceed with an impeachment when Gonzales is the one who has to agree to proceed? Isn't this a rather stacked deck against not only American citizens but citizens of this entire continent?

Actually, the AG has little to do with impeachment from a constitutional standpoint. It is the House that brings charges (articles of impeachment) and the Senate that tries the charges.

Most lawsuits brought against the Executive Branch are shut down as a result of a ruling of lack of standing. There are a couple of ways to look at that, and the courts are rarely helpful in helping determine which view is the correct one.

The first is the exemption of the Executive Branch from lawsuit so long as there is no substantial evidence of bad faith or breach of oath. That is to say, so long as the act in question was taken in the actor's official capacity and within the scope of his (or her) legitimate duties, the exemption accrues. Now, the question arises as to how and where this exemption arose. It is not sufficient for Congress to simply pass a law, for the President to issue an EO, or for the courts to decide that the exemption should exist. Exempting the government from legal action amounts to depriving the People of due process, which would seem on its face to be unconstitutional. Yet the fact remains. This of course presumes that we are still operating under the Constitution and its prohibitions and protections.

The second possibility is that the government is operating under a separate authority from the Constitution, which most Americans presume to be its sole source of authority and power. There is strong evidence that Lincoln, lacking a Congress because of his insistence that the Southern states could not secede and were therefore still part of the Union (that would mean that Congress had no quorum and therefore that no lawful business could be transacted, up to and including a declaration of war), sought external authority from the Holy Roman Empire and received apotheosis from the Vatican. This is in fact commemorated in the Capitol rotunda painting by Vatican artist Constintino Brumidi, the Apotheosis of Washington (where Washington was used as a symbol for the office of the Presidency), which was painted as the Civil War raged. If that is, as it appears to be, the case, then since the Civil War the federal government has been an extra-constitutional entity operating under Roman Civil Law. The office of the Presidency would also receive the sovereign immunity granted to monarchs recognized by the Vatican.

Given that it is clear that the prohibitions codified in the Bill of Rights have been systematically ignored since at least the earliest part of the 20th century, and given the rise of the Executive Order as a legislative device and the krytocratic legislation from the bench undertaken by judges who no longer act judicially, but rather magisterially, with the power to ignore the findings of juries and to ignore domestic stare decisis in favor of the conventions of so-called "international law," it would appear that the latter is the case. Remember that under the laws of the Holy Roman Empire, there are no rights except those that the government chooses to grant or rescind at its own caprice. The People are chattel, property of the sovereign and, by extension, of the Empire. The government may, therefore, impose strictures and limitations upon its chattel in order to protect it, even from itself (think about seatbelt laws, or the government's now unquestioned power to take children from their parents if it doesn't like how they're being raised.) Property is not allowed to sue its owner.

From the attorney Generals letter you can assume that if workers opposed to illegal immigration took off a day or two to protest they couldn't be fired. If it happened I doubt that would be the case. Our government pretty much decides which laws they want to ignore.
In parts of Texas they raised the speed limit to 80. One of the reasons they gave is that everyone drives that fast anyway. You have to know that this will raise the defacto speed limit to 90. Great if you are driving a porsche on the Autobahn, but dangerous for rural Texas.

Our government pretty much decides which laws they want to ignore.

The ABA has convened a panel to evaluate the excessive amount of presidential signing statements Bush (followed by Clinton in total number) have excercised.

I hope this panel is more diligent than the 9/11 Commission.

Crocket'sGhost wrote:

The second possibility is that the government is operating under a separate authority from the Constitution, which most Americans presume to be its sole source of authority and power.

When the Emergency Banking Act was passed the United States filed bankruptcy. Assets (chatels) of this country were passed to the lenders who were European Bankers. I read somewhere there was a tie with the English Monarchy. Is this when our Constitution along with the Republic became obsolete? Is the concept held by the American people that the Republic is still functional only a myth perpetuated by those who orchestrated the events which led up to the Act?

Is this group of people (reportedly the royalty of Europe) the "seperate authority"?

There is strong evidence that Lincoln, lacking a Congress because of his insistence that the Southern states could not secede and were therefore still part of the Union (that would mean that Congress had no quorum and therefore that no lawful business could be transacted, up to and including a declaration of war), ....[b]

Napolitano provides an enlightening history of the two choices which could have been made at the time of the Civil War. It was informative and disturbing and another "mythical American Hero" was debunked. Did the states loose the right to seceed as a result of the Banking Act or the fact they conceded to an alternative authority with the declaration of war against the states that wished to seceed? Napolitano clearly states a choice was made at that time. Had the congress enforced the original constitutional rights of the states would that have reinstated our Constitution as we understand it.

I thought the loss of states rights to seceed was the result of the reunion of the states at the end of the Civil War. What effect did the reunion of the states have upon the Constitution of the Republic or did it even exist to be affected?

Was the consequence of The Emergency Banking Act and the creation of a New entity the authority Lincoln imposed?

...sought external authority from the Holy Roman Empire and received apotheosis from the Vatican.

Is it possible the decendants of the Holy Roman empire in fact are in the royal blood lines fo Europe? Or does that imply the "control" is the Vatican?

The first is the exemption of the Executive Branch from lawsuit so long as there is no substantial evidence of bad faith or breach of oath. That is to say, so long as the act in question was taken in the actor's official capacity and within the scope of his (or her) legitimate duties, the exemption accrues.

The congress who legislated in behalf of those who instigated the Federal Reserve Act (which created an entity outside of the government ) in fact assisted those who orchestrated events that would require the need for the Emergency Banking Act. In fact that Congress (or those who voted to approve the act) were guilty of contributing to the deception perpetrated upon the "People". Would that not be considered "bad faith"?

Could a case be built impeaching that congress and the president after the fact? If so would that allow any restoration of the orignal Constitutional powers and infact restore the ability of the people to impeach with consequences?

...so long as the act in question was taken in the actor's official capacity and within the scope of his (or her) legitimate duties, the exemption accrues.

Are any of the duties actually legitmate? The oath was sworn to uphold and defend a Constitution which in theory may or may not exist as a living document. That is fraud and therefore removes the legitimacy of the duties performed.

The perpetuation (for decades) that the government allowed and in fact encouraged the belief that our original Constitution and Bill of Rights were still functional documents ---- is that not a breach of faith? If the Constitution is in fact not the utimate law of the land then the oath sworn is in fact a deception a lie perpetrated upon the People again a breach of faith. No oath can be sworn to a hollow document. By the mere fact they swore this oath... does that lend some credence to the fact the Constitution is in fact functional?

What I hear you saying is that if our Constitution is subserviant to another authority then we have no right of impeachment irregardless of the deception practiced upon the citizens of this nation. Is that correct?

Cannot a case be built based upon the breaking of faith with the American people based upon pure unadulterated deception and entrapment?

Why are the only cases which are at least accepted by the court based upon the RICO act? There must be some connection between racketeering and the deception heaped upon the citizens of this country in order to profit. If RICO Act cases are at least admitted to the court (if not tried) then it would seem to me that could be a legal basis to pursue removal of those in present office who are illegally occupying positions of power as the result of KNOWINGLY continuing to perpetuate the deception in order to achieve financial benefit. Or is that trumped by "plausible denial".

Crocket I would really appreciate your answers to my questions. Thanks