• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

March

  »
S M T W T F S
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The News Room

5 Page Senate Immigration Proposal - Page 3

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
  • ‹ previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#21
01-29-2013, 05:26 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2012
15,081 posts
Pianoswithoutfaith's Avatar
Pianoswithoutfaith
30 AP
See, why would you want to piss the already 200 (minus the hispanic USC) million USC in favor of just 11 million people? not to mention we are being already discriminated based on our 2 year limit on our EADs and its legal.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Face View Post
I personally knew that if he wins he's not going to be touching DACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Face View Post
I hope Trump wins second term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBefore1984 View Post
Tranny is not derogatory term dummy
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Pianoswithoutfaith
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Pianoswithoutfaith
Find all posts by Pianoswithoutfaith
#22
01-29-2013, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
From Georgia
Joined in Aug 2009
331 posts
Kari096's Avatar
Kari096
20 AP
(please excuse the lower case i's)

i agree with all those who see the clear discrimination in that proposal to hire Americans before an individual trying to legalize their status. What happened to hiring the best person for the job? This provision is not only discriminatory, but as fellow immigrants in this struggle we should be ashamed to outright accept such conditions.

i also reject the notion that dreamers should be in a separate category to legalize than immigrants who came here and were not afforded the opportunities to better themselves through education. i don't believe that i deserve an easier path to citizenship than mother, who worked tirelessly and made the sacrifices needed so that i could pursue my educational endeavors. if there is going to be a path to citizen then it needs to a fair one, not one that pins us dreamers against our agriculture friends. i have been on this site and read far too many posts where us qualified dreamers abandon those dreamers who did not qualify for DACA because of a mistake they made as years ago as juveniles or under different circumstances. Or have abandoned the plight for comprehensive immigration reform simply to get the DREAM Act passed. This is a time to stick together and to humble ourselves and realize that we are no better than the person picking our vegetables, or person sorting in a factory, and certainly not our parents, who without their efforts many of us would not already be guaranteed a brighter future.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Kari096
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Kari096
Find all posts by Kari096
#23
01-29-2013, 10:53 AM
Senior Member
Joined in May 2006
6,569 posts
Ianus's Avatar
Ianus
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK18 View Post
"Our legislation would:
o Allow employers to hire immigrants if it can be demonstrated that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers;"

I'm sorry, but isn't this discrimination?

Does any one else have a serious problem with this or it's just me.

Reminds me of the pre-civil-rights days. "Whites first, then Blacks"
It raises some questions but remember this is just an outline not actual legislation.

It is also a comprehensive immigration bill that includes a guest worker program including highly skilled immigrants to the US.The Department of Labor already requires most employers to demonstrate this before an employer can file an application for pretty much any overseas applicant.I don't think it will apply to individuals who maybe potential legalized.
__________________
We shall win our Dream!
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Ianus
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ianus
Find all posts by Ianus
#24
01-29-2013, 12:55 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2012
2,113 posts
VeryNicePerson1's Avatar
VeryNicePerson1
0 AP
25 years old? WTF????!!!?
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
VeryNicePerson1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to VeryNicePerson1
Find all posts by VeryNicePerson1
#25
01-29-2013, 03:26 PM
Moderator
Joined in Mar 2006
6,460 posts
Swim19's Avatar
Swim19
190 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK18 View Post
"Our legislation would:
o Allow employers to hire immigrants if it can be demonstrated that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers;"

I'm sorry, but isn't this discrimination?

Does any one else have a serious problem with this or it's just me.

Reminds me of the pre-civil-rights days. "Whites first, then Blacks"
I believe this is in regards to those outside US looking to immigrate through work visa. Is it somewhat discriminatory? Yes, but a country does have look out for its citizens. At the same time they should make process simply and easy for when employers can't find an American to fill job.
__________________
Initial Approval: 11/13/12
1st Renewal: 10-7-14
2nd Renewal: 10/12/16
3rd Renewal: 5/16/2018
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Swim19
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Swim19
Find all posts by Swim19
#26
01-29-2013, 06:07 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Sep 2009
1,372 posts
dreamy14
240 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kari096 View Post
(please excuse the lower case i's)

i agree with all those who see the clear discrimination in that proposal to hire Americans before an individual trying to legalize their status. What happened to hiring the best person for the job? This provision is not only discriminatory, but as fellow immigrants in this struggle we should be ashamed to outright accept such conditions.
I agree 100%.
It's not about "pissing the USCs off", but it's about recognizing that nothing will be better in this country if the immigrants being legalized will be pinned down in a lower category than the rest just because of our status. It would not have been a problem if they're basing it off on qualifications, but to be denied a job just because you were once undocumented just doesn't sound right to me.

Also, let's view it at a USC's standpoint:
When Jan Brewer banned DLs to DACA people, she said so herself that one of the reasons was that so we can't compete with the Americans for jobs here in AZ. At an economic standpoint, many said it wasn't a good idea because it would lower the job value in the state, and therefore the pay here would not be competative to employees if hired. What good would that do to Americans? Nothing. Not to mention they're still paying taxes for the lawsuits Brewer will be facing for the DL ban if she doesn't change course.

So yeah....it's not just about our pride and pissing off the USCs. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad a reform is getting done, but it isn't perfect either. We gotta look at this issue as a whole before we say Yes to everything they say.
Last edited by dreamy14; 01-29-2013 at 06:15 PM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
dreamy14
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dreamy14
Find all posts by dreamy14
#27
01-29-2013, 09:12 PM
Moderator
Joined in Mar 2006
6,460 posts
Swim19's Avatar
Swim19
190 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamy14 View Post
I agree 100%.
It's not about "pissing the USCs off", but it's about recognizing that nothing will be better in this country if the immigrants being legalized will be pinned down in a lower category than the rest just because of our status. It would not have been a problem if they're basing it off on qualifications, but to be denied a job just because you were once undocumented just doesn't sound right to me
This is being taken out of context. The heading the part about having to hire qualified Americans first says 'admitting new workers and protecting worker's rights', s this is about new immigrants coming under foreign worker program not for those who were once 'undocumented'.
__________________
Initial Approval: 11/13/12
1st Renewal: 10-7-14
2nd Renewal: 10/12/16
3rd Renewal: 5/16/2018
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Swim19
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Swim19
Find all posts by Swim19
#28
02-02-2013, 11:59 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Oct 2012
512 posts
chocolatedrop's Avatar
chocolatedrop
0 AP
For this bill to pass the house..u better believe the American worker will be ruled king..I don't believe it will just be about workers coming in...cause their are a lot of Dreamers with advanced degrees..I bet this rule will include some sort of language based on ur status when job is applied for,legal,Dreamer,undocumented,,cause remember E verify will become mandatory,,and I bet my life in the national data base that will be created ,the way you obtain your status will be listed..
__________________
I-821D /I-765 received 9/11/12- Nebraska SC
DACA APPROVAL--12/5/12--- EAD---12/5/12
Visa Overstay.. married SameSex USC 7/2013 AOS filed 10/25/13 rcvd 11/1/13 intvw scheduled 1/8/14 Adjusted 1/8/14 GC rcvd 1/16/2014 filed N-400 4/8/2018 Naturalization intvw 12/20/18 passed
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
chocolatedrop
View Public Profile
Send a private message to chocolatedrop
Find all posts by chocolatedrop
  • ‹ previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.