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