If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31]

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Mach said:

I clearly offered an alternative compromise, that's not just "poo pooing", is it?

Click to expand...

Unless I'm misreading what you wrote, you offered zero alternative compromise....all you offered was an alternative. Specifically, you offered an alternative that just made it even more left leaning by actually expanding more on part of the bill that Republicans disliked while stripping away the one part they were somewhat okay with.

Lets say we need to eat dinner. I don't particularly want to go out, but you do. I say "fine, we can go out to eat, but it needs to be at an inexpensive restaurant". You going "Okay, cool, we can go out to eat....but let's go to Ruth's Chris" is not offering a compromise, it's taking something I already wasn't keen on doing (going out to eat) and then doing it in a way I asked not to do as part of the compromise (going to an inexpensive restaurant).

The original Dream Act, that was primarily championed by Democrats, was "Allow them Permanent Residency if they spend 2 years in the military or in college"

I offered up a compromise, agreeing to support the overall idea (allowing permanent residency) if the methods of doing it were more narrowly tailored (college removed). Then, as an additional compromise, a non-military "federal service" option was added with the peace corps.

Your supposed compromise actually removed the one part that was more palatable to republicans (military service), kept in the part they had issues with (the college part), and then even EXPANDED upon that by also expanding it to allow "having a job" to be one of the criteria as well.

That's not a compromise, that's throwing out the one part the other side was mildly okay with and actually adding MORE things they dislike. If you think that's a compromise then I stand by my point that it's illustrative of why "compromising" isn't working in modern politics.

Taking your "first proposal" as take-it-or-leave it, isn't really a negotiation.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this enlightening bit of information. Not the note about negotiation, the indication you didn't bother to actually read the OP. This isn't supposed to be a "first proposal". This is a HYPOTHETICAL situation where negotiation HAD taken place based around the Dream Act, which itself has gone through multiple instances of negotiation, that resulted in the proposal I put forward in the OP being put to a vote.

If you think the OP was what I wanted, then you either didn't read and comprehend the OP or something has gone entirely over your head given the fact that it was described from the very onset as a COMPROMISED revision of the Dream Act. It wasn't meant to represent a starting point, but rather an alteration to the most recent "end point" of the Dream Act.

Basically all it's seeming like is you wanting to ignore the OP, ignore the premise of the thread, ignore the actual discussion, and just gripe about Republicans not wanting to compromise while you sit here yourself basically going "**** the compromise, the Dream Act needs to be even more liberal than it is or I wouldn't get behind it". :roll:

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

blueliner7 said:

I don't agree. They have to go, if they don't then I think we've lost all control over our immigration policy.

Click to expand...

Would I take it then that you have a staunch disagreement with plea bargains in court cases, offers of immunity for witnesses, negotiated IRS settlements for less than an individual owes in back taxes? All of those would be other instances of the government making deals and exceptions from the law. Have we lost control over our criminal and tax policy because those instances exist? Or is a more nuanced outlook only applicable in things other than immigration law?

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

There's no need for a compromise. If DACA were put to a vote today....it would pass with broad bipartisan support. Trump, Ryan and the Republican leadership are just playing the worst possible politics out there with the lives of these kids.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:

Would I take it then that you have a staunch disagreement with plea bargains in court cases, offers of immunity for witnesses, negotiated IRS settlements for less than an individual owes in back taxes? All of those would be other instances of the government making deals and exceptions from the law. Have we lost control over our criminal and tax policy because those instances exist? Or is a more nuanced outlook only applicable in things other than immigration law?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do disagree with those things. You break the law you pay the price.

But, to the point of this thread, I think countries have the right, and the responsibility, to control immigration. If we let the illegals stay then we've just told the world that if you can get here with your kid and hide long enough then your lawlessness will be rewarded. We will lose all control over our immigration.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

JayDubya said:

It's an interesting idea.

It's not even mandatory military service, truly; it's "you're welcome to leave or be deported to your country of origin if you'd prefer."

I like it.

Click to expand...

Or hell, while not necessarily "welcomed to", they're also perfect able to just continue to roll the dice living in the U.S. and hoping to not get caught. However, if they desire to be here legally, if they desire the chance to call themselves a citizen of this country, it provides for them two pathways of service to the country that can do that. I would dare say that such an incentive is as good, if not better, than the incentive many people who volunteer for either of those services have.

That's part of why I don't necessarily buy the "soldier at your side doesn't want to be here" notion. If someone believes that every enlistee into the military is someone who actively and desperately wants to be a soldier and fight for the country, I think they're fooling themselves. There's undoubtedly people who volunteered because they want the access to the GI Bill afterwards. There's those who did it because they like the idea of making it a career and simply for the retirement benefits. There's those who are likely doing it because of pressure from their family. There's those who are probably just feeling lost and feel it gives them direction. I could likely rattle off a dozen other motives that could lead to enlisting that have nothing to do with "I want to be a soldier". I don't see why "I want to eventually become a citizen" is a problematic motive, or that such a person would inherently be a less dedicated soldier than the average. If anything, I'd imagine they'd have a greater incentive to be a model soldier, wanting to assure they get through their 2 year minimum.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

SmokeAndMirrors said:

The forced military,Peace Corps service is a deal-killer for me. These are tough, potentially dangerous jobs not everyone can do, psychologically or physically, and I don't believe in forced labor as a condition for survival (given that many of these kids have no ability to survive in their parents' nation), especially when it's so potentially dangerous, to be frank. To me, that reads as indentured servitude.

I'll work with you on the path to PR and the length of time before attaining it, but proposing risky servitude as the only way of staying in the US seems pretty ethically dark to me.

Click to expand...

+1

The Peace Corp is not service to the USA. It is service to whichever country you go to to lend a helping hand.

Having military service suggested by (correct me if I'm mistake) someone who has never been in the military is absurd. Most of these kids are as American as apple pie, and probably couldn't pass a Spanish language exam given a week to study.

I agree with removing the college requirement. It seems unfair to those who cannot earn a scholarship.

President Reagan didn't need stipulations when he granted amnesty. Why should we need them now?

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

The military and its branches should remain voluntary. That's how we've kept our forces #1. Forcing would-be citizens to join would create a different class of soldier and I don't agree with that.

Same with the college aspect. If they can't get funding for school then it's a moot point. If you give them access to Federal aid then it's an economic liability to the nation, and puts them in financial servitude forever.

DACA doesn't need changing, Trump and Ryan just need to stop playing the battle drum.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Mach said:

That's absurd. Everyone can look up legislative accomplishments when D is in power, and the platforms of the DNC, Bernie, and Hillary (the last #1/#2 D candidates). The actual Republican president, and House, and Senate, having won the power their supporters so desperately craved during the evil BHO, have enacted which parts of their platform? Come on Jimbo, waited 8 years, and what have they brought to the table when in full control?

Admit it, you're attacking Democrats for the failures that are evident in the Republican party right now. Republicans can't do anything substantial on immigration for one simple reason.
Right wing media has whipped up their ignorant base into believing crazy ****. And when the house/senate (and the dumb president to a degree), look at their options for "how do we pass legislation our base wants?", they are so appalled by how crazy-stupid it is, they the only thing they can do, nothing. They will block anything sure, but they won't enact anything.

The Republican majority is good at one thing, sitting on the sidelines flinging poo. It's what they did for 8 years with Obama, and now that they won power, they look around, scratch their ass, and resume flinging poo at Obama and Hillary.

Click to expand...

I've never stated that the establishment R's are any better than the estalishment D's. I've stated the opposite. Hence my Trump vote.

Hillary in particular is the best poo flinging target ever to be nominated by a major party. That's why she lost.

So what was the DNC - Hillary platform? Or the DNC platform going into '18 and '20? '18 is a year off. Time to come up with something.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

At one time, not very long ago, I would have preferred that version to the one with college. At one time. Now, I think the point of DACA/DREAM is that, with the limited group of those who where brought here by their parents, if you show a willingness to serve, or get a higher education, those should be the type of immigrant we want. Having those type people living in this country makes us stronger. I therefore think leaving the go to college option in the bill is preferable. However, if that would not pass, and your option would, then yeah, partial win is better than total loss. Sometimes you do have to take what you can get.

Note: low on caffeine today, not sure how clear all that was...

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

jimbo said:

I've never stated that the establishment R's are any better than the estalishment D's. I've stated the opposite. Hence my Trump vote.

Hillary in particular is the best poo flinging target ever to be nominated by a major party. That's why she lost.

So what was the DNC - Hillary platform? Or the DNC platform going into '18 and '20? '18 is a year off. Time to come up with something.

Click to expand...

Here's Hillary's platform. Straight from Hillaryclinton.com:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Nothing there. The usual talking points about problems. No solutions.

Oh, and Trump bad. Not mentioned.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Not "if male". If you're going to require those conditions, EVERYONE needs to do it regardless.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

I don't support a compromise of any kind. The program should be terminated. Of the 800,000 people (most between the ages of 19-36)with a DACA exemption - only 7.7% (61,959) have ever applied for a green card or citizenship and only 40,570 were approved. The remaining 92.3% (738,041) have never expressed an interest in lawful residence and have been renewing their DACA exemption. So we're talking about a large number of people very few of whom even want to be lawful residents and a large portion of those who do are not eligible. Why should they be permitted to stay?

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cephus said:

Not "if male". If you're going to require those conditions, EVERYONE needs to do it regardless.

Click to expand...

The only part I see with the "if male" condition is registering for the selective service, which women cannot currently do.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

I don't think it should be about service to country. It needs to be about likelihood to work (and not break the law). Presuming the person spends the rest of their life of some service, in some way, to the country, what's 1% up front about?

I don't agree with substituting 2 years of Peace Corps for 2 years of education. The latter is much more indicative of likelihood to work.


ps. They'd be getting paid for military service, right?

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Anagram said:

The only part I see with the "if male" condition is registering for the selective service, which women cannot currently do.

Click to expand...

And they should. But then again, selective service isn't the same as signing up, which women can certainly do.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

ecofarm said:

ps. They'd be getting paid for military service, right?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

ecofarm said:

ps. They'd be getting paid for military service, right?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

I'm not so certain about the forced service instead of allowing these kids to go straight into college. Two years drains a lot of learning from a youthful brain, and they will be woefully behind when they finally get there.

Also, women aren't required register for the draft (although they should be), but could voluntarily choose military service.

If they are given the option of serving those two years either before or after completing their 4-years in college, it's a compromise I think I could live with (if I'm understanding the actual proposal properly).

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Anagram said:

The only part I see with the "if male" condition is registering for the selective service, which women cannot currently do.

Click to expand...

Not to mention it's a requirement for both male US citizens and non-US citizens living in the US (green card holders) anyway. So I see it as a given.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

DiAnna said:

If they are given the option of serving those two years either before or after completing their 4-years in college, it's a compromise I think I could live with (if I'm understanding the actual proposal properly).

Click to expand...

They have to serve 2 years within the 6 years of signing up, during which time they're conditional residents. So nothing would be prohibiting them from doing 4 years of college and THEN doing their 2 years in service if they wanted to go that route.

They just have to do 2 years sometime during the 6 years post signing up for Dreamer status.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

"volunteer" service?


Anyway, if I had to choose between this and deportation, I'd choose this, but I'm still not comfortable with treating people who were brought here when they did not have the power or means not to be brought here - because they were KIDS!, and don't tell me you ran away and moved to another country as a KID - and are American in every sense other than a piece of paper.

Yeah, their parents broke the law. If you're interested in sending a message, don't let people stay here for 20 years (but do make sure the cost/benefit actually works out in our favor)!





The OP's path to citizenship is better than deportation, but it really does go astray in demanding they have "moral character" while seemingly ignoring the morality of punishing people for actions taken by their legal guardians to whom they were beholden, both legally and factually.

Morality.....it can be very fuzzy when it comes down to it. I question the morality of putting absolute enforcement over the law above all else (aka, full deportation crowd), when (1) ability to form intent and related issues in other areas of law consider age and personal attributes, (2) the persons in question were legally bound to their parents' will at the time the civilly unlawful entry was committed, (3) the deportation is not tied to commission of a criminal act.

What is moral about saying to them "you are blameworthy for not running away from home, traveling X-X000 miles to Mexico, and living an HONEST life, you scumsucking bastard!" How many of you did something comparable? No one? Oh, well duh. Because that would be insane and unreasonable to expect of someone.

What is moral about waiting 10-20 years to get around to enforcing the law, then going ape****?



I'd say a service-to-citizenship for persons who came here as adults and are crime-free for X years. I'd say service-to-citizenship for the parents of these children.

It's better than nothing but those brought here as kids do not deserve it.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cigar said:

... but this won't change the color of their skin.

Click to expand...

You mean some will cintinue to be Black and others White. So?

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

No. There are here illegally.They shouldn't be able to walk into a recruiter's office or peace corp office while they are in this country illegally. It sends the wrong message if they can freely walk int a government office or government recruiting office while in this country illegally. What should be done is that congress creates a law so that the next presidents who kisses the asses of illegals can't make another DACA executive order or have border guards allow people into this country who don't have a legal right to be here.

Our compromise should be is if you get caught while in this country illegally you go to jail for six months for your first offense, two years for your second offense like the law says you can and then after your sentence is over you get deported to the furthest place in you country away from us by ground. So if for example your country is Mexico then you get deported to Cancun since by foot and car/truck it would be the furthest away from us and you will be permanently barred entry into the US. If you self deport you can go anywhere in your home country you want and since there will be no record of you being in the US illegal so you can apply to come and stay here legally in the US.

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

Let me think about it

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

So you want to employ slaves? I do have a problem with illegals not getting paid. So you came up with a solution where they don't get paid again. All people's should get paid a living wage for work

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk