Illegal workers hired by city through a contractor

[Anonymous]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=deadzone]Sure, then when that person born on the “wrong side of the border” is no longer able to work and needs government assistance are you going to pay for it? You open borders people have your heads so far up your asses it is unbelievable.[/quote]

Immigrants are very entrepreneurial, more than natives. They grow the economic pie, pay taxes, etc. We should “take advantage” of people already here by giving them legal papers so they can contribute more.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/05/469180918/here-to-stay-how-indian-born-innkeepers-revolutionized-americas-motels%5B/quote%5D

In other words, you are for open borders.

[Anonymous]

[quote=flu]I never understood the logic of people who work at a defense business/job complaining about h1bs or illegals. Neither of them directly impacts their job security. ?[/quote]

Not sure how you got on this topic (H1B debate is from many threads ago). But now that you mention it, absolutely they negatively impact Defense workers too, even if they can’t directly compete for Dod jobs. Obviously there are many US ciizens being displaced by H1B workers who are now adding to competition in other areas.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu] … There’s also unnecessary waste in our legal systems. Particularly how ridiculously expensive.legal counsel is. Just a few months ago, I was in a jury selection group for a case that was going to trial over someone that shoplifted some toiletry items at Walmart. Seriously, we need a two day trial for this?[/quote]flu, the crime you describe here is a misdemeanor in CA and typically adjudicated quickly and sentenced without trial. Your “defendant” must have had numerous (2 or more, but likely more than 2) priors of petty theft and/or grand theft.

The facts of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the offender often dictate whether prosecutors and judges go with the misdemeanor or felony label….

(emphasis mine)

See: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-wobbler.html

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law
[/quote]

Thanks for support my claim that our legal system is bloated with unnecasriky complicated and circular jargon with the sole intent and purpose to add thick layers of bureaucracy and bloat, and I guess, provide additional jobs that normally would not be needed if the legal system was actually just simplified.[/quote]This is precisely why “robots” or “Dr. Watson” can’t do the any of these jobs and will never be able to do any of them, as you suggested over on the “ot: do we need doctors” thread. Nothing in the legal system is as “simple” as it appears to the “layman.”

[quote=flu][quote=ucodegen]@flu

You might want to check the history of IBM Watson. It is ‘Deep Blue’s spawn, not something weird (yet again) from Microsoft.

With the Microsoft chatbot, some people realized that they were dealing with a parrot, a not particularly bright one at that, instead of an AI. An AI would have asked why the person wanted it to repeat everything said.

PS: IBM Watson bought some critical medical companies recently. It would probably do better at analyzing xrays, CTs and MRIs than sending them off to some cheap sweatshop in India. It will probably be more consistent than can be achieved even with well trained individuals.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ibm-watson-is-transforming-healthcare-2015-7%5B/quote%5D

I’ve very familiar with Watson…. I saw it on Jeopardy one time 🙂

I think more impressively is if Watson can replace a $300-400/hr attorney. We have way too many lawyers and folks in the legal profession in this country that way over complicates simple things, more so than doctors.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/ot_do_we_need_doctors#comment-266074

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu] … There’s also unnecessary waste in our legal systems. Particularly how ridiculously expensive.legal counsel is. Just a few months ago, I was in a jury selection group for a case that was going to trial over someone that shoplifted some toiletry items at Walmart. Seriously, we need a two day trial for this?[/quote]flu, the crime you describe here is a misdemeanor in CA and typically adjudicated quickly and sentenced without trial. Your “defendant” must have had numerous (2 or more, but likely more than 2) priors of petty theft and/or grand theft.

The facts of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the offender often dictate whether prosecutors and judges go with the misdemeanor or felony label….

(emphasis mine)

See: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-wobbler.html

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law
[/quote]

Thanks for support my claim that our legal system is bloated with unnecasriky complicated and circular jargon with the sole intent and purpose to add thick layers of bureaucracy and bloat, and I guess, provide additional jobs that normally would not be needed if the legal system was actually just simplified.[/quote]This is precisely why “robots” or “Dr. Watson” can’t do the any of these jobs and will never be able to do any of them, as you suggested over on the “ot: do we need doctors” thread. Nothing in the legal system is as “simple” as it appears to the “layman.”

[quote=flu][quote=ucodegen]@flu

You might want to check the history of IBM Watson. It is ‘Deep Blue’s spawn, not something weird (yet again) from Microsoft.

With the Microsoft chatbot, some people realized that they were dealing with a parrot, a not particularly bright one at that, instead of an AI. An AI would have asked why the person wanted it to repeat everything said.

PS: IBM Watson bought some critical medical companies recently. It would probably do better at analyzing xrays, CTs and MRIs than sending them off to some cheap sweatshop in India. It will probably be more consistent than can be achieved even with well trained individuals.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ibm-watson-is-transforming-healthcare-2015-7%5B/quote%5D

I’ve very familiar with Watson…. I saw it on Jeopardy one time 🙂

I think more impressively is if Watson can replace a $300-400/hr attorney. We have way too many lawyers and folks in the legal profession in this country that way over complicates simple things, more so than doctors.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/ot_do_we_need_doctors#comment-266074%5B/quote%5D

Not yet.

[bearishgurl]

flu, imagine yourself a plaintiff in court represented by your lawyer, who is a “Dr Watson robot.” Your lawyer misses the nuances of a cross examination on you, which will need “cleaning up,” so the jury can put your previous testimony into context. Upon redirect, (s)he/it does not ask you the right questions, so the jury takes at face value how you answered when you were trapped in a cross-examination and you lose the case based on this (and likely a whole slew of other errors in your case that your “counsel,” “Dr Watson,” made).

Do you think you will be able to sue Dr Watson for malpractice (in attempt to recover all or some of your losses which should have been won)? How about filing a complaint with the state bar against Dr. Watson? How well do you think that will go over?

What if Dr Watson, the criminal practitioner, makes such egregious errors representing a defendant accused of a capital crime that that defendant ends up sentenced to death as a result of a jury verdict but was actually innocent but framed? What is the remedy against Dr Watson?

I could go on and on but you can see where I’m going here. The stakes are just simply too high in the legal system to allow “Dr Watson” to “practice law” :=0

[Anonymous]

[quote=flu]I never understood the logic of people who work at a defense business/job complaining about h1bs or illegals. [/quote]

The middle-class welfare system that is the defense industry costs orders of magnitude more than undocumented workers receiving government aid.

But the middle-class welfare workers do show up to “work” most days, so that makes it legit.

[Anonymous]

Okay so you would prefer the government subsidize foreigner workers than US workers. You are a jackass.

[Anonymous]

[quote=deadzone]Okay so you would prefer the government subsidize foreigner workers than US workers. You are a jackass.[/quote]

When one problem is a hundred times more wasteful than the other, then I prefer to address the larger problem first.

The name calling in your posts seems to imply that you don’t really have an argument. And of course I’m not the first person in our history to be called a jackass:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0881985.html

But the label isn’t really appropriate as it’s unlikely that I’ll ever appear on any money, and I’m embarrassed to say I’m still a registered Republican.

[Anonymous]

[quote=harvey][quote=deadzone]Okay so you would prefer the government subsidize foreigner workers than US workers. You are a jackass.[/quote]

When one problem is a hundred times more wasteful than the other, then I prefer to address the larger problem first.

The name calling in your posts seems to imply that you don’t really have an argument. And of course I’m not the first person in our history to be called a jackass:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0881985.html

But the label isn’t really appropriate as it’s unlikely that I’ll ever appear on any money, and I’m embarrassed to say I’m still a registered Republican.[/quote]

So on top of providing jobs and government benefits to anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S., you are also in favor of terminating the employment of existing government workers? Yes, head up your ass is the only way I can describe your way of thinking.

[Coronita]

[quote=harvey][quote=flu]I never understood the logic of people who work at a defense business/job complaining about h1bs or illegals. [/quote]

The middle-class welfare system that is the defense industry costs orders of magnitude more than undocumented workers receiving government aid.

But the middle-class welfare workers do show up to “work” most days, so that makes it legit.[/quote]

Well hang in there. Illegals do work. They are the day laborers that do all the low skill work….on the other hand, there are a bunch of welfare recipients in the southern states that don’t work at while receiving welfare benefits. So……

[Coronita]

[quote=deadzone]Okay so you would prefer the government subsidize foreigner workers than US workers. You are a jackass.[/quote]

No, let’s get rid of everything. Let’s eliminate all social entitlement programs for everyone and cut defense spending by 50-60% and reinvest that same amount of money into our crumbling infrastructure or medicine or the reducing the deficit.

And while we are at it lets revisit social security and make 50% of contributions paid to oneself in a self directed account while the remaining 50% goes to that promised entitlement benefit to our older people.

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl]flu, imagine yourself a plaintiff in court represented by your lawyer, who is a “Dr Watson robot.” Your lawyer misses the nuances of a cross examination on you, which will need “cleaning up,” so the jury can put your previous testimony into context. Upon redirect, (s)he/it does not ask you the right questions, so the jury takes at face value how you answered when you were trapped in a cross-examination and you lose the case based on this (and likely a whole slew of other errors in your case that your “counsel,” “Dr Watson,” made).

Do you think you will be able to sue Dr Watson for malpractice (in attempt to recover all or some of your losses which should have been won)? How about filing a complaint with the state bar against Dr. Watson? How well do you think that will go over?

What if Dr Watson, the criminal practitioner, makes such egregious errors representing a defendant accused of a capital crime that that defendant ends up sentenced to death as a result of a jury verdict but was actually innocent but framed? What is the remedy against Dr Watson?

I could go on and on but you can see where I’m going here. The stakes are just simply too high in the legal system to allow “Dr Watson” to “practice law” :=0[/quote]

I didn’t say Watson could replace lawyers. I said Watson would more readily replace legal support functions a lawyer needs.

[Anonymous]

[quote=deadzone]
So on top of providing jobs and government benefits to anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S., you are also in favor of terminating the employment of existing government workers? Yes, head up your ass is the only way I can describe your way of thinking.[/quote]

Your strawman keeps getting more creative.

The words “anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S” and “terminating the employment” are yours, not mine.

I’d like to see people doing necessary work be paid a fair wage, whomever they may be.

I’d like to eliminate unproductive government spending, whatever that may be.

Why does that upset you so much?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey][quote=deadzone]
So on top of providing jobs and government benefits to anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S., you are also in favor of terminating the employment of existing government workers? Yes, head up your ass is the only way I can describe your way of thinking.[/quote]

Your strawman keeps getting more creative.

The words “anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S” and “terminating the employment” are yours, not mine.

I’d like to see people doing necessary work be paid a fair wage, whomever they may be.

I’d like to eliminate unproductive government spending, whatever that may be.

Why does that upset you so much?[/quote]

Harvey is exactly right. We’re talking about people working right now. They have nothing to do with “anybody/everybody in the world”.

[Anonymous]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=harvey][quote=deadzone]
So on top of providing jobs and government benefits to anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S., you are also in favor of terminating the employment of existing government workers? Yes, head up your ass is the only way I can describe your way of thinking.[/quote]

Your strawman keeps getting more creative.

The words “anybody/everybody in the world who wants to come to the U.S” and “terminating the employment” are yours, not mine.

I’d like to see people doing necessary work be paid a fair wage, whomever they may be.

I’d like to eliminate unproductive government spending, whatever that may be.

Why does that upset you so much?[/quote]

Harvey is exactly right. We’re talking about people working right now. They have nothing to do with “anybody/everybody in the world”.[/quote]

Bullshit. If you give amnesty to everybody currently in the country illegally just “because they are already here” that is a green light for the entire world to come here.

[Author]

Posts