Promoting The Good Guys

[ProAmerica]

I am an attorney in Dallas, and recently started ProAmerica Companies (www.ProAmericaCompanies.com) which is a non-profit promoter (completely free) of companies in America which pledge to not knowingly violate the law by hiring illegal aliens. We just went live and are already over 400 companies across 43 states and growing.

I am curious about the thoughts here. I encourage you to take a look a the site and share your thoughts. We are taking a very positive approach, and want to bring customers to those that are often struggling to compete against law-breaking employers.

Again, this is a completely free service to the customers and the companies, so I am NOT soliciting anything here, other than your awareness of the program, and your thoughts.

Thank you!

[ProAmerica]

I am an attorney in Dallas, and recently started ProAmerica Companies (www.ProAmericaCompanies.com) which is a non-profit promoter (completely free) of companies in America which pledge to not knowingly violate the law by hiring illegal aliens. We just went live and are already over 400 companies across 43 states and growing.

I am curious about the thoughts here. I encourage you to take a look a the site and share your thoughts. We are taking a very positive approach, and want to bring customers to those that are often struggling to compete against law-breaking employers.

Again, this is a completely free service to the customers and the companies, so I am NOT soliciting anything here, other than your awareness of the program, and your thoughts.

Thank you!

[SonofMichael]

Hello and welcome ProAmerica. I am sorry but I do not think this is the right board. I would say about 90 % of the people that post here are frauds ad scam artists. Mostly they share ideas on the best way to defraud innocent Americans mostly thrugh marriage. I think you should look at sites like imbra.org and onlinedatingrights.com to find a more sincere and open minded group of pro-Americab values.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProAmerica:
I am an attorney in Dallas, and recently started ProAmerica Companies (www.ProAmericaCompanies.com) which is a non-profit promoter (completely free) of companies in America which pledge to not knowingly violate the law by hiring illegal aliens. We just went live and are already over 400 companies across 43 states and growing.

I am curious about the thoughts here. I encourage you to take a look a the site and share your thoughts. We are taking a very positive approach, and want to bring customers to those that are often struggling to compete against law-breaking employers.

Again, this is a completely free service to the customers and the companies, so I am NOT soliciting anything here, other than your awareness of the program, and your thoughts.

Thank you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am curious how you define "illegal alien" in legal terms since Title 8 of the United States Code does not give an exact or any definition? I iewed your website, and there was no informaiton on the requirements of companies to comply with the associated federal and state labor laws, whatsoever. How do you explain this?

From my experience, most of the companies I know who knowingly violated federal laws violated Title 26, specifically, IRC § 3402, § 3501, § 3102, § 6011, # § 6041, and others.

[SonofMichael]

An illegal alien is anyone in the United States without authorization; this includes people who entered the country without inspection or people who overstayed their visa. Employers are not allowed to hire anyone unless they have authorization to work. Your question is an ignorant one and serves no purpose but demonstrate your ignorance snce everyone knows this.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
Violating IRS tax issues shouldn't give a free pass or excuse any other violation. If I rob a bank should the speeding ticket I received be waived as I fled the scene? I think not. Its common knowledge what an illegal is and is not. Simply put as Sonof said, Anyone who does not have governmental authorization to be physically present on US soil. Are you going to say the immigration judges are incorrect when they order a deportation? Additionally it is also common knowledge many illegals pay no income taxes. They don't because they are violating the first rule which is they are not supposed to be here in the first place. They themselves know it.

Perhaps there should be joint trials in immigration court. One for Title 8 and the other for Title 26. They probably have no insurance so we should have a civil trial as well to get a judgment for the medical bills they ran up and did not pay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was being a little esoteric with my question. The reason is that the term "illegal alien" can mean practically anything from a very strict definition to a very loose definition, depending on ones politcal and/or economic perspective. SOM gave two instance in which an alien has violated such laws, but it may not define what exactly is an illegal alien. The term, "illegal alien" can be very broad; thus can include any alien who has fallen "out of status" such as your fiancee or is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country. He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws. Or it can be very strict; thus, an "illegal alien" is one who has entered the country other than through a designated port of entry, or a EWI. But does the term "illegal alien" also include aliens whose status is either "loose" or "out of status?" Should it include any alien who violated any immigration law, including failure to file the form AR-11? And if we define an illegal alien as a criminal, should we also define criminal for a USC to mean anyone who has violated any Federal or state law including any misdemeanor laws, such as a traffic tickets or building code enforcement? That is the problem when people start throwing terms around with multiple definitions and multiple connotations, and the point of my question.

But if we include "illegal alien" to mean anyone who has violated any immigration alw, then how do we reconcile the fact that in some instances, those "illegal aliens" can adjudicate their status to become legal? You cannot make the reconciliation if you connotatively mean illegal alien is also criminal? Hence, those that came here legally, but work without authorization is what I refer to as undocumented worker. Those who status is in limbo, or "loose status," should not be called illegal immigrant, and any alien who is out of status should also not be called "illegal alien."

But lets not kid ourselves with the "common knowledge" ****. It is also "common knowledge" that the term "illegal alien" is specifically used to describe undesirable aliens from Latin America, Mexico, and Asia. And that many of the laws will become, if left unchecked, the Jim Crow laws, where institutional racism will run rampant. If the situation was a whole bunch of French, English, German, or Swiss immigrants who overstayed, the US will not be having this discussion. And the history of immigration law is on my side for proving that very point.

The biggest problem I have with the web site is that it does not offer any education on employment laws, or immigration laws. For instance, your fiancee will become legal once you file the paperwork to become legal, such as the I-130 and I-485. So, is she a legal or illegal alien? Depends on the point of view.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SonofMichael:
An illegal alien is anyone in the United States without authorization; this includes people who entered the country without inspection or people who overstayed their visa. Employers are not allowed to hire anyone unless they have authorization to work. Your question is an ignorant one and serves no purpose but demonstrate your ignorance snce everyone knows this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Listen stupid, you gave two examples in which an alien or immigrant has violated the immigration law. However, title 8 does not exactly provide what an illegal alien is? Title 8 does, however, define what is a deportable alien, how an alien can change status including an alien who is out of status (sometimes referred to as an illegal alien) and the consequences of violating those laws. And because there is a wide variety of definitions and connotations in the term "illegal alien," I was asking for the specifics of that individual in how he defines "illegal alien" since they are making grand statements that can have multiple meanings.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
Probably the simplest definition would be anyone in deportable status. Technically all of the above since some rule or law was violated placing them in that position.

But I don't know if it could be said we're going back to Jim Crow. The connection to the ethnicities given is only due to their present numbers being the majority. They are the face of illegals we see. There was a time when employers had signs stating 'Irish need not apply'. Each group who came here endured some hardship from the prior arrivals. Goes to the idea of wanting to close the door behind you once in.

For the last question. She is an illegal on bond. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Personally, I use a strict definition when defining an "illegal alien." The broader the term, the more interpretation one can make. Broader the interpretation, more assumptions will be made. More assumptions will mean more fear and insecurity being predicated by those who make the claims. We have already seen this when you have those claiming Mexican immigrants being Conquistidors, that most of the criminals in prison are illegal (the illegal crime wave story), that illegals are now terrorists, and so forth. Or we can look at the internment camps in WWII that the US detained Japanese, German, and Italian USC and immigrants suspected of being enemy agents. Although some were, most were not. And the same will go with immigrants. It will be more difficult for a Asian Hispanic immigrant to show proof of legal status simply because the fear that the documents were "stolen."

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
We may not have internment camps in the physical sense but there is a form of it being done. Years ago if you mentioned the name Muhammed it would bring to mind boxing. Muhammed Ali. Now, it conjurs up a different set of images. Here in San Diego we have a very high concentration of Iraqi immigrants. Every so often I notice the mail service goes through a slow down in delivery. I use it a lot for mailing commissions to our sales staff who are located all over the country. Normally a letter takes 2 or 3 days to go from San Diego to Houston Texas. Sometimes, on a regular schedule it can take weeks. Especially if the addressee has a name that would probably raise a flag. One of our reps shares the same last name as the former leader of Iraq. His commissions always took weeks to get to him. It became a running joke in the office and he was well aware of the issue. I finally convinced him to use his business name which prompted the mail to get their much faster.

Is it right? I can't say since we are not privey to what is really going on in the international domain. From my own experience I know we are not being told anything close to the truth. I will go along with it since it is to protect the safety of those trying to protect us. So far so good. No more planes hitting buildings. I'm still able to run my business the way I did before. The only consequence has been some extra paper work every so often.

Is some inconvenience too high a price to pay for security? Depends on who is being put on the spot I suppose. If I'm innocent I wouldn't like the idea of having to cringe every time I saw one of those green and white trucks behind me. If I'm not the profile I probably don't notice or care.


With the amnesty bill going down and now the switch to aggresive enforcement we're going to see another switcharoo again. Once enforcement gets going and we start seeing mass deportations the anti-any-immigrant voices will applaud vigoursly. A few months later... The various industries who depended on that labor will start crying for help. That is if its true we are as dependent on it as alleged. Assuming true, another amnesty bill will be slapped together overnight to stave off the impending doom. Now, the pro-any-immigrant crowd will have a reason to rejoice. Bush will have gotten praise from both groups. Everyone will be somewhat pacified and the whole issue will die out. Lets see what happens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But we are playing a very dangerous game. In order for security to really work, it must apply to everyone. Whether it is holding up a senator from Massachuessetts or a Congressman from NY to a nobody with the last name Laden, security must apply to everyone. That is why I was upset about the Senators aid from Virginia sho was able to take a gun into a federal building. Any other person would have been arrested on the spot and go through a FBI inquiry and DE police interrogation. But no, the Senator believed the laws did not apply to him or hs staff.

But the danger is not knowing when the law goes too far. That is where history is on my side. Many Japnaese Americans who were interned would not have mind if it was temporary, that is, only a couple of months so that the authorities can check out who was who and which side. But the blatant disregard of the Constitution by FDR in this time will always be a black mark on his record. We will have another McCarthy syndrome based more on hearsay, false presumptions, and guilty by association than by real facts. let the security experts do their jobs with clear and concise battle plan irregardless of whether one is a USC, LPR, non immigrant, or EWI.

But I also see another possibility on the horizon. The increased scrutiny will lead more credence to the anti-government groups propaganda machine. Groups like the Michigan Militia, the Republic of Texas, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation front, the tax protesters, etc will show their rhetoric is truthful to the disenfranchised. or the US government could go after the racist organizations that still permeate in our society. But no, we just want to go after the "foreign terrorists" and ignore the inbreeding within our own territories. And then Congress will step in and demand "explanations" why the government is going after the so called innocents that happen to be USC. Congress never learns from history, especially their own msitakes. Perhaps they should be shot first?

[Someone12]

It's too simple Hudson (which is why you cannot understand it, because one must have an IQ above 78 to do so...sorry)..
Merely ask each and every potential employee to show you their GREEN CARD or EAD....period....no phony stories, no phony copies of some work visa that has expired...the ONLY people that can work LEGALLY in the US are:
US Citizens (yes, most of us hardworking taxpayers)
LPRs
Foreign students with an EAD
Certain nonimmigrant visa holders (H1B) who can change employers
H2b visa holders working ONLY for the petitioner (sadly, even if that petitioner is bogus - thanks to immigration attorneys!!)
L2 and J2 visa holders with an approved EAD
Certain lying cheating asylees (all) with an EAD
no one else....
so...if you are an employer...why not ask to see proof that the person seeking said job has all of the above, INCLUDING an SSN AUTHORIZED FOR WORK and that has been checked with our SS folks for accuracy.....everyone else are bogus...so don't hire these $hitbags. Case closed.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Someone12:
It's too simple Hudson (which is why you cannot understand it, because one must have an IQ above 78 to do so...sorry)..
Merely ask each and every potential employee to show you their GREEN CARD or EAD....period....no phony stories, no phony copies of some work visa that has expired...the ONLY people that can work LEGALLY in the US are:
US Citizens (yes, most of us hardworking taxpayers)
LPRs
Foreign students with an EAD
Certain nonimmigrant visa holders (H1B) who can change employers
H2b visa holders working ONLY for the petitioner (sadly, even if that petitioner is bogus - thanks to immigration attorneys!!)
L2 and J2 visa holders with an approved EAD
Certain lying cheating asylees (all) with an EAD
no one else....
so...if you are an employer...why not ask to see proof that the person seeking said job has all of the above, INCLUDING an SSN AUTHORIZED FOR WORK and that has been checked with our SS folks for accuracy.....everyone else are bogus...so don't hire these $hitbags. Case closed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You actually left a few out such as US nationals now living in the US, J, O, H2, H3, P, R, and TN. But the employer must also withhold the right amount of tax or not withhold, depending on the circumstances. In certain instances, the employee could provide a form 8233 or W-8BEN to be exempt of income tax withholding based on a treaty position. IRC 3121(b)(19) also states that FICA should not be withheld from a employee who are under a F, J, Q, or M visa while maintaining a nonresident status. Thus, the employer needs to look at the I-94 from the foreign student in order to determine whether tax is withheld or not. If it is withheld, but the code states it should not, the student employee must first ask the employer to get it back. If the employer refuses, then the foreign student can file a form 843 for a claim of refund, along with the appropriate documentation. The employer will get a letter to follow the rules. If it continues to happen, the employer will be fined for not observing with Subchapter C, Chapter 21, of the code.