Cessna forced down by the Feds

[C J Campbell]

Apparently an immigrant smuggling operation. AP is reporting a Cessna was
forced down Tuesday morning near San Antonio with four Chinese nationals on
board. The plane, N98873, is supposedly owned by Afzal Hameed and Alyce S.
Taylor.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


Ne Obliviscaris

[[email protected]]

I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
valid W&B. I guess that an FAA action is awating this along with other
more urgent law enforcement actions! :)

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
> trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
> valid W&B.

It just depends on the adults. I have flown a C172 with all seats filled by
adults. As long as the adults aren't too heavy, it's just fine.

Why anyone would immediately assume that "adult" means "170 pounds" is
beyond me. I frequently see messages like yours, implying that it's
impossible to fly four adults in a C172, written by people without even
enough imagination to consider a very realistic legal-four-adult scenario.

Pete

[Michelle P]

You are thinking inside the law.
Why would anyone who is smuggling anything of flying under the radar so
to speak care about the legalities of Gross weight and Within balance?
Michelle

wrote:

>I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
>trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
>valid W&B. I guess that an FAA action is awating this along with other
>more urgent law enforcement actions! :)
>
>
>

[Dan Girellini]

Michelle P > writes:

> You are thinking inside the law.
> Why would anyone who is smuggling anything of flying under the radar so to
> speak care about the legalities of Gross weight and Within balance?
> Michelle


I don't only fly within w/b specs only to follow the regs! I assume you don't
either, Michelle.

d.

[George Patterson]

Michelle P wrote:
>
> Why would anyone who is smuggling anything of flying under the radar so
> to speak care about the legalities of Gross weight and Within balance?

Well, to avoid a stall-spin on takeoff, for one thing. Were I smuggling stuff or
people, I pobably wouldn't be horribly concerned with exceeding the maximum
gross weight limitations, but I would certainly want to keep things inside the
vertical boundaries of the envelope.

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
> trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
> valid W&B. I guess that an FAA action is awating this along with other
> more urgent law enforcement actions! :)

Ah, I thought it was four Chinese nationals plus the pilot.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
> trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
> valid W&B. I guess that an FAA action is awating this along with other
> more urgent law enforcement actions! :)
>

You are right, it was a 172P according to the database. So, if the pilot was
smuggling four Chinese on board, then it was a pretty tight fit.

I don't really see a problem with getting four adults in a 172. You can do
it easily if you aren't carrying a full fuel load.

[Happy Dog]

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
>> trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
>> valid W&B. I guess that an FAA action is awating this along with other
>> more urgent law enforcement actions! :)
>>
>
> You are right, it was a 172P according to the database. So, if the pilot
> was
> smuggling four Chinese on board, then it was a pretty tight fit.
>
> I don't really see a problem with getting four adults in a 172. You can do
> it easily if you aren't carrying a full fuel load.

Especially if they're Chinese. Wonder if the standard weights are different
there?

moo

[Mike W.]

Don't forget, you have 120 lbs cargo capacity behind the rear seats as well,
a small person ( young adult or female maybe?) could lay down back there. If
you are smuggling people or goods you really don't care that they aren't
properly strapped in. So it is possible to carry a pilot plus 4 adult
passengers. Anybody care to work up a theoretical w&b on this?


> >
> > You are right, it was a 172P according to the database. So, if the pilot
> > was
> > smuggling four Chinese on board, then it was a pretty tight fit.
> >
> > I don't really see a problem with getting four adults in a 172. You can
do
> > it easily if you aren't carrying a full fuel load.
>
> Especially if they're Chinese. Wonder if the standard weights are
different
> there?
>
> moo
>
>

[Roger]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:56:36 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
>> trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
>> valid W&B.

You gotta be kidding<:-)) Some one smuggling illegal aliens is going
to worry about a legal W&B?

>
>It just depends on the adults. I have flown a C172 with all seats filled by
>adults. As long as the adults aren't too heavy, it's just fine.
>
>Why anyone would immediately assume that "adult" means "170 pounds" is
>beyond me.

Basically because you almost have to hunt to find 4 adults who are
170# or under. The percent gets smaller every day. The FAA was
talking about raising the average to 200#.

> I frequently see messages like yours, implying that it's
>impossible to fly four adults in a C172, written by people without even

Not impossible, just difficult to find many times.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>enough imagination to consider a very realistic legal-four-adult scenario.
>
>Pete
>

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message oups.com...
> I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
> trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
> valid W&B.


Are you guys sure it was forced down by the feds? It could have been helped down by a gravity hole...

[C J Campbell]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Basically because you almost have to hunt to find 4 adults who are
> 170# or under.

Well, they *are* Chinese, so they may be small, depending on where in China
they come from.

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>Why anyone would immediately assume that "adult" means "170 pounds" is
>>beyond me.
>
> Basically because you almost have to hunt to find 4 adults who are
> 170# or under. The percent gets smaller every day. The FAA was
> talking about raising the average to 200#.

Yes, Americans are getting fatter. But some of us have friends who actually
manage to avoid making their diet consist primarily of McDonald's and frozen
dinners.

Especially for those of us that actually hang out with females, it's not
hard at all to find adults who weigh less than 170 pounds.

In any case, the point is that assuming that a C172 is overweight just
because four adults are aboard is dumb. That said, what's really dumb is
that we're talking about whether the airplane was overweight, rather than
the obscenity of a government that is willing to use deadly force when they
have not established the guilt of everyone (or anyone) being fired upon.

Pete

[Mike W.]

> > I've read this was a 172P model (but not confirmed it). I'm still
> > trying to figure out how they got four adults into the plane with a
> > valid W&B.
>
>
> Are you guys sure it was forced down by the feds? It could have been
helped down by a gravity hole...
>
>
empty wt = 1470 mom = 57330
25 gal fuel = 150 mom = 6900
frt pass & pilot = 325 mom = 13650
rear pass = 290 mom = 21170
"luggage" = 120 mom = 11400
---------------------------------
totals = 2355 lbs 110450 lb/ins (C.G. @ 46.9)


Assuming that the passengers were a little on the small side, it could be
done.

[George Patterson]

Roger wrote:
>
> Basically because you almost have to hunt to find 4 adults who are
> 170# or under.

Four *American* adults, yes. You have to hunt pretty hard to find four Chinese
adults who weigh that much. And C.J.'s post says that's the nationality of the
passengers.

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

[George Patterson]

"Mike W." wrote:
>
> Anybody care to work up a theoretical w&b on this?

Ok. With 30 gallons of fuel, 310 pounds in the front seats, 240 pounds in the
back, and 120 in the luggage compartment, a 1980 Cessna 172 with a decent radio
stack is under max gross and within the envelope. Since most of the Chinese men
I've known weigh around 140 pounds and most of the women tilt the scales below
120, it's certainly doable.

Did the AP article say if they were all adults?

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:33:41 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>Apparently an immigrant smuggling operation. AP is reporting a Cessna was
>forced down Tuesday morning near San Antonio with four Chinese nationals on
>board. The plane, N98873, is supposedly owned by Afzal Hameed and Alyce S.
>Taylor.

Are you able to provide a link to the AP article?

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:33:41 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Apparently an immigrant smuggling operation. AP is reporting a Cessna was
> >forced down Tuesday morning near San Antonio with four Chinese nationals
on
> >board. The plane, N98873, is supposedly owned by Afzal Hameed and Alyce
S.
> >Taylor.
>
> Are you able to provide a link to the AP article?

Every time I provide a link it starts a whole sub-thread about spyware. I
will look and see if I can find it again, though.

Okay, I did not find it, but I found this somewhat more sensationalized
version here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2412325A

The original AP article said that there was no link to terrorism, so this
article must have used different sources. Note that they had to backtrack a
little in a follow-up article. Of course, if you are really paranoid, maybe
the Department of Homeland Fear suppressed the terrorism link "in order to
avoid widespread panic." Who knows?

Ah, here is a more subdued AP link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/plane25.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:25:39 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>Every time I provide a link it starts a whole sub-thread about spyware.

Consider the fact that copyright laws Fair Use policy permits the
inclusion of excerpts (as opposed to the complete article) of
copyrighted material. So it is appropriate to include some of the
salient portions of articles in such a post.

>
>Okay, I did not find it, but I found this somewhat more sensationalized
>version here:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2412325A
>
>The original AP article said that there was no link to terrorism, so this
>article must have used different sources. Note that they had to backtrack a
>little in a follow-up article. Of course, if you are really paranoid, maybe
>the Department of Homeland Fear suppressed the terrorism link "in order to
>avoid widespread panic." Who knows?
>
>Ah, here is a more subdued AP link:
>
>http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/plane25.html
>

Thank you for the links.

About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
their own hands. The Department of Homeland Security is another
pathetic joke on the citizenry of this noble nation perpetrated by the
baby Bush administration, IMNSHO.

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thank you for the links.
>
> About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
> through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
> of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
> their own hands.

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive. Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc. The
few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals engaged
in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping. They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thank you for the links.
>
> About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
> through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
> of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
> their own hands.

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive. Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc. The
few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals engaged
in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping. They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

[Joe Feise]

Larry Dighera wrote on 1/28/2005 07:46:
>
> About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
> through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
> of them.

The INS interdicts 0% of them, because the INS doesn't exist anymore and
hasn't for a while now (since the DHS was created a couple of years back.)
It would be CBP (Customs and Border Protection), a department of DHS,
that intercepts illegals.

-Joe

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:19:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Thank you for the links.
>>
>> About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
>> through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
>> of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
>> their own hands.
>
>I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
>counterproductive.

To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
your personal spin on the issue.

>Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
>be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone come
>into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work or
>pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
>entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.

And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
mass entry into our country?

>The
>few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals engaged
>in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.

In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
border entry points?"

>They would therefore be a lot
>easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
>things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
>would be greatly improved, also.

My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
our borders; Ludicrous!

Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
borders would create.

May I humbly suggest that you do a little research on the subject?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:54:49 -0800, Joe Feise > wrote
in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote on 1/28/2005 07:46:
>>
>> About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
>> through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
>> of them.
>
>The INS interdicts 0% of them, because the INS doesn't exist anymore and
>hasn't for a while now (since the DHS was created a couple of years back.)
>It would be CBP (Customs and Border Protection), a department of DHS,
>that intercepts illegals.
>
>-Joe

Thanks for the information.

A rose by any other name is still a rose....

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
> >counterproductive.
>
> To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
> your personal spin on the issue.
>

I prefer to call it 'values.' I value people more than money.

> >Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
> >be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone
come
> >into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work
or
> >pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
> >entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.
>
> And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
> mass entry into our country?
>

They are being stopped now? I am saying that people coming into the country
for legitimate purposes such as work should not be stopped from doing so. A
terrorist would still have to sneak in or come in under false pretenses,
just as they do now.

> >The
> >few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals
engaged
> >in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.
>
> In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
> immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
> border entry points?"

What stops them now? Pretty much nothing. The only thing we are doing now is
forcing huge numbers of people to become criminals for wanting nothing more
than a job and a decent living. You run the same checks on people at the
border that you do now.

>
> >They would therefore be a lot
> >easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
> >things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
> >would be greatly improved, also.
>
> My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
> our borders; Ludicrous!
>
> Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
> some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
> would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
> have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
> hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
> be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
> borders would create.

Immigrants are also taxpayers. They do not stay poor. The only thing that
keeps them poor now is that they must work in the underground economy in
constant fear of being deportation. They are vulnerable to con men, thugs,
and thieves just because they want to work. Many are killed every year. If
we have a welfare problem, it is not because of immigrants. It is a problem
with the idea that it is our responsibility to support everyone who does not
want to work.

It is hysterically funny to have a Democrat accusing a Republican of being
egalitarian or altruistic.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:05:39 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
>> >counterproductive.
>>
>> To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
>> your personal spin on the issue.
>>
>
>I prefer to call it 'values.' I value people more than money.

So then, if you don't really think Americans are guilty of fear and
hatred of strangers or foreigners, why did you use the word
'xenophobia'?

What has money got to do with the government policing the country's
boarders?

Surely you're not proposing wide open boarders without any check to
see who is entering or leaving. That would be irresponsible.

>> >Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
>> >be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone
>come
>> >into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work
>or
>> >pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
>> >entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.
>>
>> And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
>> mass entry into our country?
>>
>
>They are being stopped now?

I have no information on the number of terrorists who are currently
prevented from illegally entering the country, only the number of
souls: 4,000/day illegally cross the southern boarder.

>I am saying that people coming into the country
>for legitimate purposes such as work should not be stopped from doing so. A
>terrorist would still have to sneak in or come in under false pretenses,
>just as they do now.

So what you're actually advocating is a quotaless system of
immigration into the US?

That would be terrific for business, but displaced employees would
surely find their wages declining. Declining wages would reduce
purchasing power. That would ultimately impact business, because
folks wouldn't have adequate income to purchase products and services.
Or am I overlooking something?

>> >The few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals
>> >engaged in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.
>>
>> In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
>> immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
>> border entry points?"
>
>What stops them now? Pretty much nothing. The only thing we are doing now is
>forcing huge numbers of people to become criminals for wanting nothing more
>than a job and a decent living. You run the same checks on people at the
>border that you do now.
>

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were suggesting no barrier
to immigration at all. So what you're really advocating is removal of
any restriction on the NUMBER of people permitted to immigrate into
the US.

>> >They would therefore be a lot
>> >easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
>> >things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
>> >would be greatly improved, also.
>>
>> My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
>> our borders; Ludicrous!
>>
>> Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
>> some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
>> would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
>> have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
>> hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
>> be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
>> borders would create.
>
>Immigrants are also taxpayers. They do not stay poor. The only thing that
>keeps them poor now is that they must work in the underground economy in
>constant fear of being deportation.

I see. That's reasonable.

>They are vulnerable to con men, thugs,
>and thieves just because they want to work. Many are killed every year.

That is consistent with my understanding.

>If
>we have a welfare problem, it is not because of immigrants. It is a problem
>with the idea that it is our responsibility to support everyone who does not
>want to work.

So how would you suggest that be reformed? If we do not provide basic
health care, we will be awash in sick people who infect the healthy.

>It is hysterically funny to have a Democrat accusing a Republican of being
>egalitarian or altruistic.

Be that as it may, I support the underlying premise of your
suggestion. I just don't think it is workable. It is a pro business
anti labor proposal. But it is shortsighted.

The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Regardless, the DHS's failure to adequately police illegal immigration
while arresting US citizens without benefit of due judicial process is
a failed policy, that underscores the DHS farce.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
> and limits immigration of others.

Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:57:24 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
>> and limits immigration of others.
>
>Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
>there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
>admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
>harmful effects.
>

How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
> harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:29:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
>seems you think it does.

Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
> > harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?
>
> Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
> familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a
permanent
> resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.
>
> I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving
to
> the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and
exceptions
> to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
> skilled labor" than I really would like to have.
>
> You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
> characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
> seems you think it does.
>
> Pete


The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
turn as there are quotas for entry. That is not an indication of a broke
system. Being an educated fine upstanding person does not guarantee
immediate entry.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
part of the problem is the rules as written.

> This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
> currently occurring across US boarders.

It's "borders", by the way. And "borne". That said, I do not believe that
the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

> So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
> admittance?

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry. Never mind that the company for which she was working was
never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.

In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law, it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
> The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
> turn as there are quotas for entry.

Read my other post. Her issue was not about quotas.

You should refrain from speculating on a situation about which you know
nothing. People are being turned away even when the spirit of the existing
regulations should allow them in.

Pete

[[email protected]]

There are adults weighing 170 lbs and under. Looking around my
neighborhood and office, however, there's not very many of them. Some
of this is based on height (hard to be 170 lbs and 6' 3" for example -
but yes, not impossible), some on the documented weight gains in
America. So, based on my admittedly anecdotal evidence on average
weight, my initial thoughts on this are that it's likely to be an
overgross situation.

Perhaps you live in an area with a lot of 170 lbs and under adults.
Good for you. Since this situation seems likely to be a smuggling
situation, it's pretty clear that a valid W&B isn't the prime
consideration for the pilot. I guess your own excellent imagination
didn't extend to seeing my indended tongue-in-cheek quality to my post.
Perhaps I should have been more clear.

-Malcolm Teas

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:15:40 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Such is the nature of bureaucracies.
>
>Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
>part of the problem is the rules as written.

The subject and predicate in the second clause of your sentence above
should agree in number: 'rules are' or 'rule is'.

>> This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
>> currently occurring across US boarders.
>
>It's "borders", by the way. And "borne".

Thanks.

>That said, I do not believe that
>the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
>of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
>reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

From what knowledge do you derive that opinion? I would be surprised
if you were familiar enough with MOST illegal immigrants to make such
a statement.

>> So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
>> admittance?
>
>She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
>work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
>denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
>the industry.

So all she would have had to do to remain in the country is find a job
at prevailing wage? That sounds quite reasonable to me.

>Never mind that the company for which she was working was
>never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.
>
>In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
>visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
>salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

If she could prove that her replacement and/or predecessor, who was a
US citizen, received equal or less pay at the same job, I would think
she might be able to establish the fact that she received the
prevailing wage for that job. Is it possible to appeal the decision?

>Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
>included as part of our immigration law,

How would you feel if all the Indian programmers or EEs who wanted to
work in the US for substandard wages were permitted to immigrate and
displace the current highly compensated US citizens performing those
jobs? While such might make the US more competitive internationally,
it would cause a lot of bankruptcies and a significant reduction in US
standard of living.

>it seems pretty ridiculous to me
>for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
>employer is actually capable of paying.

Did your sister-in-law make a good case for that? Did she provide
documentary and testimonial evidence that supported that?

If enterprises were forced to pay what they are "actually capable of
paying," the wages of Microsoft employees might rise substantially.
:-)

>Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
>educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
>in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

If you characterize a reduction in US wage standards as "no good
reason," perhaps you're correct.

I would guess, that congressional representatives would find it
difficult to be reelected if there constituencies found themselves
displaced by cheap immigrant labor.

[[email protected]]

I agree.

There's the self-interest argument as well. Immigrants self-select for
traits we want in our country: a willingness to take a calcuated risk
for gain, an ambition to get ahead and improve their lives and their
childrens, a drive to do better.

It's no accident that with each peak of immigration into the US there's
been an economic rise in innovation, business formation, and employment
in the long term over the previously existing trends. The less we put
legal or social strictures on immigration the more true this is.

Besides, making things illegal just attracts the criminals - immigrants
wouldn't be smuggled if it were easier to get in. Clearly immigrants
are doing work that most of us don't want to do - otherwise there'd be
no demand for them and they wouldn't be coming in.

-Malcolm Teas

[George Patterson]

" wrote:
>
> There are adults weighing 170 lbs and under. Looking around my
> neighborhood and office, however, there's not very many of them.

Not many Asians in your office, are there?

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The subject and predicate in the second clause of your sentence above
> should agree in number: 'rules are' or 'rule is'.

Wrong. "Part is". You're so eager to come up with your own corrections,
you failed to read the sentence properly.

> So all she would have had to do to remain in the country is find a job
> at prevailing wage? That sounds quite reasonable to me.

Not to me. She had a perfectly good job, working a perfectly fair wage for
that segment of the industry. Why should she be forced to do another job
search? Furthermore, if her job WAS hurting wages in the US, why was her
work visa approved? It's okay to hurt wages for 12 years, but not for a
lifetime?

> If she could prove that her replacement and/or predecessor, who was a
> US citizen, received equal or less pay at the same job, I would think
> she might be able to establish the fact that she received the
> prevailing wage for that job. Is it possible to appeal the decision?

No. And the INS does not allow for her to prove her case as you suggest.

> How would you feel if all the Indian programmers or EEs who wanted to
> work in the US for substandard wages were permitted to immigrate and
> displace the current highly compensated US citizens performing those
> jobs?

That's entirely irrelevant to the situation I mentioned, nor am I going to
get into a philosophical discussion about how the rules *should* be. The
fact is that the rules are intended to protect wages in the US. In the
situation I describe, wages in the US would not be at risk.

> Did your sister-in-law make a good case for that? Did she provide
> documentary and testimonial evidence that supported that?

She was not allowed the opportunity to do so. INS did not consider it
relevant.

> If enterprises were forced to pay what they are "actually capable of
> paying," the wages of Microsoft employees might rise substantially.
> :-)

INS does not generally have anything to do with domestic pay policy. The
point here is that the non-profit company was already paying at the maximum
of their ability.

> If you characterize a reduction in US wage standards as "no good
> reason," perhaps you're correct.

You're not listening. Her job was not lowering US wage standards
whatsoever.

> I would guess, that congressional representatives would find it
> difficult to be reelected if there constituencies found themselves
> displaced by cheap immigrant labor.

It's "their". And again, this isn't about whether it's reasonable to
protect US wages or not.

Pete

[Joe Feise]

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 00:15:
>
> She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
> work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
> denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
> the industry.

Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
applying.
The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
95% of the prevailing wage.

> Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
> included as part of our immigration law, it seems pretty ridiculous to me
> for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
> employer is actually capable of paying.

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the
prevailing wage?
Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

> Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
> educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
> in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

"Healthy, educated, skilled labor" can find employers that pay the
prevailing wage.

-Joe

[Peter Duniho]

"Joe Feise" > wrote in message
...
> Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
> A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
> applying.

Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
advice.

> The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
> Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
> 95% of the prevailing wage.

As I mentioned before, I'm not going to get into the debate as to whether
the rules make sense. Suffice to say, not everyone feels that "the
prevailing wage are there for a good reason".

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant. They simply cannot afford to compete with
other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

> How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the prevailing
> wage?

Because if they were, they would have kept my sister-in-law on at the higher
wage, rather than lose her skills. Finding someone to replace the skillset
she'd developed during the 12 years with the company (never mind the
experience she'd had prior) would have cost them far more than a salary
increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
permanent resident application.

As things stand now, the company was forced to let her leave the country
unemployed, and hire someone else at the same wage (possibly lower), who was
less qualified than her.

> Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

I assume you mean "isn't it more likely that they...", and the answer is no.

Pete

[Joe Feise]

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 11:24:
>
> Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
> finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
> three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
> assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
> advice.

I agree that there are way too many bad immigration lawyers out there. I
have experienced one or two of them myself...
That's when I decided to learn enough about this stuff to be able to
know if a lawyer is trying to BS me.

> Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
> have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
> going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
> commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
> that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
> World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
metropolitan area. The prevailing wage for a specific job in, say, some
small town in the Midwest is less than the prevailing wage for that same
job in Silly Valley, or Seattle, or NYC. The cost of living is of course
lower in small towns as well.

> Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
> companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
> interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
> permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

> They simply cannot afford to compete with
> other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...
Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody. If a company, for
profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to pay the going rate
for a specific position in a specific area, they can't sponsor a
Greencard for that position.

> increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
> they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
> permanent resident application.

Well, there is the catch right there: "within their budget". If they
were really, really interested in keeping her, they would have paid her
the going rate in the area.
In other words, the company was paying lip service to her, but their
actions or rather lack of action spoke louder than their words.
Once she would have gotten the GC, she could have gone to the
higher-paying companies. She couldn't do that as long as she was on a
work visa, hence the company took advantage of her limited ability to
change jobs. And that's what the rules try to prevent.
And, btw, the law doesn't allow to use the experience gained on the job
as an advantage over other applicants who are otherwise qualified for
the job.

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.

-Joe

[Peter]

Joe Feise wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 11:24:
>
>>
>> Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just
>> as finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two
>> (maybe three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different
>> times) to assist with the permanent resident application, but none
>> offered that advice.
>
>
> I agree that there are way too many bad immigration lawyers out there. I
> have experienced one or two of them myself...
> That's when I decided to learn enough about this stuff to be able to
> know if a lawyer is trying to BS me.
>
>> Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage
>> should have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit
>> organization isn't going to pay the same pay scale as might be found
>> at a high-revenue commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or
>> Sun...three big employers that hire technical editors), or a
>> for-profit periodical publication (say PC World or Windows Magazine,
>> or something like that).
>
>
> And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
> metropolitan area. The prevailing wage for a specific job in, say, some
> small town in the Midwest is less than the prevailing wage for that same
> job in Silly Valley, or Seattle, or NYC. The cost of living is of course
> lower in small towns as well.
>
>> Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
>> companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
>> interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire
>> a permanent resident applicant.
>
>
> By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
> Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
> big bucks...

Only if you assume that people decide which company to work for based
purely on salary. Many non-profits pay less for equivalent work than
other companies because they can find people who want to work for them
and are willing to make do with less salary.
>
>> They simply cannot afford to compete with other employers that are
>> engaged in an entirely different business.
>
>
> Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
> competitive salaries...

But it frequently means they don't have to in order to attract employees
and can therefore take the money saved and apply it to their primary
mission. Someone who believes in the goals of say, Greenpeace, may
well be willing to work there even if they could make substantially more
elsewhere.

> Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody. If a company, for
> profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to pay the going rate
> for a specific position in a specific area, they can't sponsor a
> Greencard for that position.

But the rules aren't flexible enough to recognize substantial
differences in the non-monetary rewards of positions at different
types of employers which result in different salary scales even
though the job qualifications and responsibilities might be similar.

[Peter Duniho]

"Joe Feise" > wrote in message
...
> And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by metropolitan
> area.

So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was compared
to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources. The
employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say "this
isn't the case" even so).

>> Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
>> companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
>> interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
>> permanent resident applicant.
>
> By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
> Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
> big bucks...

Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point is
that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing so
on a career basis.

> Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
> competitive salaries...

In this case, it does.

> Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody.

Therein lies the problem.

> If a company, for profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to
> pay the going rate for a specific position in a specific area, they can't
> sponsor a Greencard for that position.

Duh. That's exactly what I've been saying. Glad you finally caught up.

> Well, there is the catch right there: "within their budget". If they were
> really, really interested in keeping her, they would have paid her the
> going rate in the area.

Bull****. I'm really, really interested in owning a Cessna CJ3. But there
is no way that will ever happen. My motivation doesn't magically allow
things to happen. Likewise, the company can want to keep her 'til the cows
come home, if they can't pay the scale the INS wants them to pay, they can't
keep her as a permanent resident employee.

> In other words, the company was paying lip service to her, but their
> actions or rather lack of action spoke louder than their words.

Bull**** again. The company was simply unable to do what the INS insisted
they do.

> Once she would have gotten the GC, she could have gone to the
> higher-paying companies. She couldn't do that as long as she was on a work
> visa, hence the company took advantage of her limited ability to change
> jobs. And that's what the rules try to prevent.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with this issue.

> And, btw, the law doesn't allow to use the experience gained on the job as
> an advantage over other applicants who are otherwise qualified for the
> job.

Yes, I know. Again, that has nothing to do with this issue.

> In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
> to alt.visa.us.

"Getting"? This was off-topic from the get-go. If you don't want to see
any more discussion, just junk the thread.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Feise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
metropolitan
> > area.
>
> So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was
compared
> to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources.
The
> employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
> necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
> know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say
"this
> isn't the case" even so).
>
> >> Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
> >> companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
> >> interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
> >> permanent resident applicant.
> >
> > By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
> > Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
> > big bucks...
>
> Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point
is
> that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
> reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing
so
> on a career basis.
>
> > Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
> > competitive salaries...
>
> In this case, it does.
>
> > Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody.
>
> Therein lies the problem.

Rules that apply equally to everybody, how absolutely horrid.

[Joe Feise]

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 20:30:
> "Joe Feise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by metropolitan
>>area.
>
>
> So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was compared
> to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources. The
> employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
> necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
> know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say "this
> isn't the case" even so).
>
>
>>>Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
>>>companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
>>>interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
>>>permanent resident applicant.
>>
>>By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
>>Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
>>big bucks...
>
>
> Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point is
> that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
> reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing so
> on a career basis.

The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a
job because of an immigrant. It doesn't matter if an immigrant wants to
work for a company. The company has to try and find a qualified American
or Permanent Resident first, and only if they don't find one, then they
can try and sponsor an immigrant. If they don't find one because they
don't pay as much as others, that's not an excuse to sponsor an immigrant.
Immigration Law 101.
If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change it. CIS has to apply the law.

-Joe

>>In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
>>to alt.visa.us.
>
>
> "Getting"? This was off-topic from the get-go. If you don't want to see
> any more discussion, just junk the thread.

I have no problem with discussing this. In fact, I post quite regularly
on alt.visa.us. There are a number of people there who know a lot more
about immigration than I do. That's why I prefer to have the thread there.
So, again, setting the followup to alt.visa.us.

-Joe

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
> Rules that apply equally to everybody, how absolutely horrid.

You must work really hard to miss the point by so much.

[Peter Duniho]

"Joe Feise" > wrote in message
...
> The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a job
> because of an immigrant.

Again, my point is that there are examples (such as the one I've described)
where an immigrant is not causing an American to lose a job.

> It doesn't matter if an immigrant wants to work for a company. The company
> has to try and find a qualified American or Permanent Resident first, and
> only if they don't find one, then they can try and sponsor an immigrant.
> If they don't find one because they don't pay as much as others, that's
> not an excuse to sponsor an immigrant.

Yes, I know all that. Did I mention that I know quite a few immigrant
workers?

> Immigration Law 101.
> If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change it. CIS has to apply the
> law.

None of what you wrote has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

> [...]
> So, again, setting the followup to alt.visa.us.

And again, ignoring your idiotic urge to move this thread to somewhere else.

I have no idea why I expected any outcome from my comment other than what
happened. There's always someone, on Usenet, who feels that in spite of
having NO personal knowledge of some situation that they can comment with
any intelligence on the wherefors and wherehows of that situation. This
time it was you (and others), but it's always someone.

I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws. That sort of optimism
surely improves the world somehow. But it doesn't mean you are right.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:38:14 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
>yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
>following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws.

I believe it was I who pointed out that there are significant
quantities of illegal immigrants crossing the boarder daily; I don't
feel that constitutes the government doing a "perfect job." Or did
you miss that point that seems to contradict your statement above? In
fact, I have often found that the bureaucrat is ignorant of the law,
arbitrary, and unjust. But when confronted with evidence of their
errors, they have little choice but to conform to the law.

That said, it has been my experience, that if one is able to cause the
bureaucrat in question to go on written record in direct opposition to
the law s/he is administrating, s/he is often able to prevail. It
requires knowledge, research and diplomacy, which are often difficult
to muster when one is emotionally involved in the issue. That's why
it is often advantageous to employ a competent attorney.

--

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

[Joe Feise]

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/30/2005 00:38:
> "Joe Feise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a job
>>because of an immigrant.
>
>
> Again, my point is that there are examples (such as the one I've described)
> where an immigrant is not causing an American to lose a job.

How do you know that there wouldn't be a qualified American, if the
company would pay market rate? Presumably, there is no American for the
job only because the company pays less.
So, my point is that your assertion simply is wrong. It can *only* be
determined if there is no American available for the job if the company
is paying the prevailing rate.

> I have no idea why I expected any outcome from my comment other than what
> happened. There's always someone, on Usenet, who feels that in spite of
> having NO personal knowledge of some situation that they can comment with
> any intelligence on the wherefors and wherehows of that situation. This
> time it was you (and others), but it's always someone.

I only challenged your false assumptions. You were the one who went on
somewhat of a crusade here.

> I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
> yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
> following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws. That sort of optimism
> surely improves the world somehow. But it doesn't mean you are right.

There is lots of stuff wrong with the immigration law and with
immigration law enforcement. But the case you mentioned is not one of
them. In fact, I consider it whining.
To provide some perspective: how would you feel if you, as a Permanent
Resident, married a foreigner, and would not be able to live with your
spouse for over 5 years, because the spouse is not allowed to enter the
US? Or a Permanent Resident adopting a foreign child and not being able
to bring the child to the US?

-Joe

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 at 16:39:12 in message
>, George Patterson >
wrote:
>
>
" wrote:
>>
>> There are adults weighing 170 lbs and under. Looking around my
>> neighborhood and office, however, there's not very many of them.
>
>Not many Asians in your office, are there?
>
No so many women either?
>George Patterson
> He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

--
David CL Francis

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
>through the southern border daily. The DHS interdicts only about 20%
>of them.


Perhaps the DHS could have better spent some of that $500,000.00 of
taxpayers' money they spent partying on patrolling the borders:



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 6a -- February 7, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------

VIGILANTE AIR FORCE COMBATS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
A California man has assembled a vigilante air force and army to
patrol an area of the Mexican border used frequently by illegal
immigrants. James Gilchrist says that so far 16 pilots have offered
themselves and their aircraft to help out the Minuteman Project, which
he hopes will embarrass the government into stopping "the endless mob
of illegal aliens streaming across our borders like a tsunami." The
aircraft and up to 400 volunteers will patrol an area south of Tucson
that is considered particularly prone to border jumping. Gilchrist
said the volunteers will use binoculars, telescopes and night-vision
gear to spot the aliens and report them to immigration officials. They
won't try to turn them back themselves.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/347-full.html#189114