Of course this is brought to you by the Mexican Consulate in Portland. Nut 'grafs from the article in the Zero here:
A program called "Mi Casa en Mexico" is tapping into Mexicans' nostalgia to turn their remittances into real estate investments down south. Already, some Mexicans have bought into the program, which will be pitched during the Latino Homebuyers Fair on Sunday at the Oregon Zoo."Remittances" is money illegal aliens send back to Mexico from working here illegally and hired illegally by employers in the US.
...Ursula Rojas Weiser, coordinator of the Institute of Mexicans Living Abroad for the consulate[.] "It's a productive use of remittances, and once those basics are covered, it helps people with their dream of owning a home."
16 comments:
This should make you happy, as it will give them more incentive to return home.
That is what you want them to do, right?
Indeed but they don't have that money legally. Now, if they all went back to Mexico without using money gotten illegally, then Victoria would probably be happy about it.
Was the money earned illegally Keith?
What law?
Don't give me the law that covers illegal entry, the act of entering, and the act of being here, and the act of being paid to work, are all different acts.
The person who hired the person who entered the country illegally, likely broke the law.
If a person escapes from jail, or has a warrant for their arrest, and they gain employment, and earn money working, was the money earned illegally?
Suppose a person does not have a warrant for their arrest, but has broken a law (and not been caught yet), and they get a job.
Is the money being earned illegally.
Eileen, it's similar to the concept of the fruit of the poisoned tree... they broke the law to enter the country. The employers broke the law to hire them. To have a social security number for hiring, they would have had to, at the very least, commit fraud. There's three laws broken right there in the very process of getting hired. The money gained from being hired, which required the breaking of three laws at least, is therefore money that was illegally earned.
That's dependent upon the situation. But your hypotheticals are irrelevant because breaking immigration law is the only instance where it's illegal for you to be in any place within the borders of the United States. It is also a rare instance where the commission of an initial crime (illegally entering the United States) renders neccessary the commission of further crimes (fraud, illegal hiring). It's so incredibly rare, as far as law goes, that you cannot legally even attempt to get any job whatsoever that series of hypotheticals don't apply. The bottom line is that if obtaining money requires the commission of a crime, then that money is not legally yours.
Keith,
You never do see the correlations Keith.
Think about it,
Everything you just mentioned about the person who entered the country illegally, applies to the citizen who is a fugitive from the law.
So why do you claim it is irrelevant.
If you want to throw in the hypothetical need to commit a further crime (such as the illegally obtained social security number) would that
also not apply to a fugitive.
Is someone who is a fugitive from the law going to put down their actual social security number?
In both cases assumptions can be drawn, as to the additional crimes committed.
I still would like to see the law that they are breaking, while doing the actual work.
(Note, my argument has nothing to do with letting them stay or sending them home. It is limited to their right to keep the money they earned, by working, while here.)
Because in that case, they've been deprived of the right to live outside the detention facility but it's a right they already had and they already have the legal right to be in the United States and legal assignment of a social security number and the like. With illegal aliens, they never had that status in the first place. There's a world of difference between someone being deprived of a right and someone not having that right whatsoever.
I just gave you the law they're breaking by being paid to do the work or while doing the work: the law that prevents them from being in a position to be hired in the first place. They can be model workers after that fact but they're in violation of the law from the moment they step onto US soil without proper authorization (or remain on US soil without the same).
How'd you get it to do that funky mirror image of your name? o.O
Well, actually, it doesn't. There's a world of difference between having a right revoked and never having that right in the first place.
They have no legal right to money they obtained through violation of the law. It's as simple as that.
Keith,
I find your argument illogical.
Basically you are saying
If A is True at point X in time.
And A is False at point Y in time.
And B is False at point X in Time
And B is still False at point Y in Time,
Then at point Y in time A is Not False.
Or do you mean that A is not as False as B.
In this case you are saying that something can be more illegal than something else.
Something can carry a stiffer minimum/maximum penalty.
Something can be classified as a mistemeanor instead of a felony.
But can something be less illegal on those terms.
If this is your argument, can you point to the law that is being broken in each case, and show where one has a lower (less illegal?) classification than the other?
Should I say that my name is not a mirror image, because it is really an upside down mirror image?
Nah, I agree is is a mirror image.
As for how I did it, would you like your name upside down and mirrored?
I will do it for you.
ǝɹooɯ ɥʇıǝʞ
Could you assign statements to variables instead of just using hypothetical variables? Using A, B, X, and Y without attaching a value to them doesn't tell me anything about how you view my reasoning because I have no way of knowing what statements you're saying relate to others.
In what "each case"? The only "case" is the case of a person entering the country illegally, getting a job illegally, and, by logical extensions, obtaining money illegally. My point is that someone in prison (unless they're an illegal alien) once had the right to be outside the prison and get a job but was deprived of that right whereas an illegal alien never had that right to begin with. At no point in time did an illegal alien have the right to legally obtain employment in the United States.
I gather you used the character map.
I agree, Eileen. I guess it's always better to agree not to argue but verbal fights are still sorta fun sometimes.
Sorry Keith,
I deleted the post you answered.
When I looked at it in IE6, enough of the characters were not properly represented, that it looked a mess.
I hadn't realized that you had answered it (obviously you were able to read it.)
And I don't remember what you said but with a little attention, I can read words that are backwards and upside-down. A trick I developed for the general joy of it.
It was something about neither of us being experts, and that the direction the argument had headed was subject to legal interpretation anyway.
I mastered writing backwards when I was a kid (manually without a computer). It is one of my unmarketable talents.
The characters that work with IE6 are way too limited.
I agree.
To go completely off-topic, I want to take a moment to incur the wrath of my fellow conservatives and express sympathy for Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy. I have no use for the man and regard some of his statements on the Senate floor as despicable but I wouldn't wish brain cancer on my worst enemy. There is some indication that the tumor is inoperable and will steadily damage his ability to speak and understand language as well as function normally. The type of brain cancer is an exceptionally deadly variety that kills half of its victims in a single year. Once again, my sincerest condolences to the Senator and his family; no one deserves this.
Post a Comment