From Crains:A group of local business leaders started a petition and met with Sen. Charles Schumer to advocate for immigration reform that incorporates their need for lesser-skilled employees.
Among the group were restaurateurs, Jeremy Merrin and Marc Murphy, who met with the senator, explaining that immigrant workers are not taking jobs away from Americans.
Messrs. Merrin and Murphy are members of the newly formed New York chapter of ImmigrationWorks USA, an organization representing business owners who rely on an immigrant labor force. The group just started a petition drive to collect 500 signatures (it has 300 already) calling for a worker visa program that’s not capped and has flexible requirements.
“The reality is that Americans are not applying to be porters and dishwashers,” says Andrew Rigie, director of operations for the city chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association. “Our focus is the workers that are the backbone of the day to day operations of the restaurant industry,” adds Mr. Rigie.
“We need the ability to bring in specialized chefs from other countries to ensure that New York City can maintain its title of the restaurant capital of the world,” says Mr. Rigie.
How did we go from needing dishwashers to needing chefs? No one in America wants to design foreign food now either?
I think INS should pay this guy's establishment a visit.
41 comments:
"How did we go from needing dishwashers to needing chefs? No one in America wants to design foreign food now either?"
Q-C Do you know what you are talking about here?
It's understandable that you would be confused, the article conflates two separate issues.
The "specialized chefs" (something our group doesn't need) are subjected to the same quotas as all other "legal" immigrants, they are high skilled and not likely to be paying some coyote to smuggle them in.
I don't know how legitimate such a claim is here since the culinary schools do seem to have gained popularity due in part to all the "star" chef cooking shows and the fact that these are jobs that can't be outsourced to China.
I personally paid for three of our line cooks (mex's)to go to school and become chefs. We lost all three of them to higher paid positions within a year after they graduated.
The "porters and dishwashers" are a different issue. I recounted a while back what happened when I tried to open a new locations with all American staff shortly after 9-11.
For servers we get applications every day and most of those positions are held by who applies: whites/Asians..for scullery-bayman-line cook and porter, rarely do any Americans show interest. Even during this recession only 3 applications came from people that I, or the managers id'ed as American-born.
IF you want to point to some little Mom and pop in some little hamlet that have (what you consider)American workers doing these jobs -fine. But here in the big city those jobs were dumped by the Natives decades ago.
Arizona citizen taxpayers want no illegal aliens. and petitions from all over the U.S. appear to agree .
see:SECUREOURBORDERS NOW .org
and sign the petition.
the cost for social services for illegals and their "anchor" children is bankrupting the states.
children born to illegals in the U.S.must not be granted automatic citizenship. when we stop paying their education and medical costs they will leave. arrest the business owners who hire them.
we will send you a file in your cake, lino. did you pay the f.i.c.a. and s.s.i. contributions for your delivery boys this year? how many of your bikes hit the pedestrians on the U.E.S. sidewalks ?
No, I am not confused.
Why do we need to change immigration laws to allow more "specialized chefs" to come in?
There are plenty of Americans and legal immigrants who can fill those roles. Last I heard, we had many culinary schools. We also have kids who travel abroad to study and master specialized cuisines, then come back and need to find work.
Why are we sending many of our good jobs overseas, and then on top of that, importing people to do the ones that we have left here?
I worked in food service for many years; never had a problem hiring people here legally for the entry level jobs you described.
I like how Lino thinks the only way to be in this country illegally is to be smuggled across the border by way of coyote.
"children born to illegals in the U.S.must not be granted automatic citizenship. when we stop paying their education and medical costs they will leave. arrest the business owners who hire them."
HA!-HA! Old man. Ignorant old man, their children ARE citizens, it's the law of this and most other civilized countries.
BTW: An old friend and his family built a house just outside of Phoenix in 2004. The are NE Liberal democrats..does that make them "quislings" :-)
Try taking in some real information..you won't like at first but stick with it.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/1720/arizona-and-its-changing-demographics
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0428_arizona_frey.aspx
"Why do we need to change immigration laws to allow more "specialized chefs" to come in?"
- I don't personally think we do. I suspect that the two advocates base their argument on quotas in the H1(B) visa program for specialized workers. It's not an area that I have had dealings with, but my point was that these sorts of workers will have come here by legal means and are thus subject to strictures in the laws.
"Why are we sending many of our good jobs overseas, and then on top of that.."
thats a pint of agreement, but you'll have to ask all those Great American (and mostly republican) Businessmen, many of whom get tax breaks, "why?"
"I worked in food service for many years; never had a problem hiring people here legally for the entry level jobs you described"
Depends on what end of the business (and when) you worked there. In the institutional side of food services (schools, hospitals even major museums and stadiums) you'll still find what you and I would consider natives. However even that is changing.
On the non-institutional level "natives" were vanishing when I got into the business in 1985. After the Reagan amnesty of 86 the pace accelerated.
"HA!-HA! Old man. Ignorant old man, their children ARE citizens, it's the law of this and most other civilized countries."
Then change it. The law does not fit these times.
The minute you make an illegal, legal there will be 50 more illegals flooding the country to take his/her place. Who is fooling who here?
Do you think a business owner who now employs an illegal for sub-par wages are going to keep the newly legal resident once he is legal? No for two reasons - the newly legal will be able to now compete amongst all the other 10% whom are unemployed for jobs that pay minimum wages. The employer who previously saved money by using illegals by underpaying them will continue to do so and will look for an even greater pool of illegals who arrive here betting they too can become legal here eventually. Crack down on business owners who hire illegals - whom do not pay payroll taxes, witholdings and break every labor law. Where are the unions here? The unions want to have illegals be union as soon as they become legals.
We are being shafted by the POLS who serve at our pleasure and this is not happening - The POS have railroaded your representation - screw them by booting them out of office this November!
My father arrived at these shore 50 years ago, legally by waiting years to be eligible. He was a chef his whole career. Don't believe this specialization crap - go to the Culinary Institute of America School for the finest of Culinary practitioners whom are all legal and will prepare the finest of meals from the all over the world. My father went to Culinary school here in the USA and went on to be a great Chef - not an easy career choice might I add but don't lump illegals with this position - it's an excuse and fabrication by owners whom cannot abide by the law to compete that other restaurants do follow.
Lino worte:
"HA!-HA! Old man. Ignorant old man, their children ARE citizens, it's the law of this and most other civilized countries."
=====================
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall abridge...
You're simply wrong, Lino. The qualifier, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", has been used since the birth of this country to negate citizenship for illegal's children born on this soil. It's only been in recent years that a large portion of the collective American psyche have reinterpreted or ignored this phrase.
A little history...
"According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court."
BTW: An old friend and his family built a house just outside of Phoenix in 2004. The are NE Liberal democrats..does that make them "quislings" :-)
What's your point? Can you provide their zip code, so we can find out the demographics of their neighborhood? I'll bet they don't live in a Vibrant! and Diverse! neighborhood! But probably just close enough so the cheap hired help can clean their home and watch their children.
Try taking in some real information..you won't like at first but stick with it.
Indeed.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/05/arizona-v-new-mexico.html
In other words, there is much more illegal immigration into Arizona than into New Mexico, which is why there is much more concern about it in Arizona.
And that raises a fundamentally important question: Why don't illegal immigrants want to go to New Mexico when it's full of Hispanics and nice white people? Why do illegal immigrants prefer to go to Arizona, with its relative shortage of vibrancy and its Not Nice White People? Why, indeed, have illegals preferred states like Georgia in recent years over New Mexico?
Because New Mexico is economically stagnant and backward.
New Mexico's state motto ought to be "Thank God for Mississippi!"
And why, despite large amounts of federal spending there since the Manhattan Project, is New Mexico too economically stagnant and backward to attract many illegal aliens?
Partly, because it is so lacking in water. My vague impression is that water is in even more short supply in New Mexico than in Arizona.
But a big reason is that, with Santa Fe having been founded by conquistadors in 1609, New Mexico is backward for much the same reason Old Mexico is: all that vibrant Hispanic culture, 401 years of it, has left New Mexico backward.
So, why does the NYT want to turn the rest of America into New New Mexico?
Think of it from the perspective of poor Mexican illegal immigrants: Once all of America turns into Greater New Mexico, would-be illegal immigrants from Old Mexico will have nowhere to go! Think of the Old Mexicans!
Big difference between a "chef" and "the guy who shops the onions and boils the water and fries the chicken". Let's call a spade a spade here. The restaurant owners are gilding their bogus schemes to keep the manual work in the hands of the underpaid, easily controlled illegal. BTW, I wonder if the convenience stores in Manhattan will join the ranks of smoke-blowers - I highly doubt that the hombre doing the floral arrangements out on the sidewalk knows the capital of Texas.
Pardon, and you can add the shelf-stockers in the supermarkets, too.
what places do these guys own so i know not to eat there they support the breaking of the law how crazy
at this comment it is lino 1, Queens Crap 13.
this means lino,the liberal loyalist is still a loser just like your "QUISLING" comrades.
Time for the INS to visit these establishments. Time for the NYC Board of Health to check for sanitary conditions. These guys hire illegals, so what else are they doing illegally? We have this problem because of these people. They get rich on the backs of these workers. I thought slavery was abolished. My bad! Oh, call in the IRS too. I'm sure these workers aren't paying taxes.
Why can't these restaurants hire LEGAL immigrants and citizens? Chuck Schumer should inform this group that they are breaking the law by hiring illegals. They should be subject to fines. This is why illegals keep coming here. We are in a recession. So many Americans are out of work. So many college graduates with no prospects. I'm sure they could find workers if they wanted to, but they want to exploit them and pay them pennies. Shame on them. Close down these restaurants that hire illegals or fine them heavily. They are breaking the law.
Klink-Klank--Klunk Once again attempts faux intellect"
If you are going to quote the constitution, atleast make a sincere attempt at honesty"
Amendment XIV
Section 1.:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-Do I have to bother and illustrate the meaning of each sentence for you?
You might want to read this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/0602/Will-US-revoke-the-right-of-American-citizenship-to-foreigners-born-here
Quoting:The14th amendment was passed after the Civil War with the intent of clarifying that former slaves were citizens and entitled to Constitutional rights. Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that birthright of children born to foreigners in the US, including a 1898 challenge concerning children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants.
-The article points to a bill in Congress to limit citizenship to only those with at least one citizen parent but it chances are a "long shot".
Quoting: “I’d be surprised,” if the bill passes, says Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA"
They are here. Stop hiring them if you don't want them around..otherwise STFU.
I guess Lino wants them around...
Logic says that if the parents are not here with permission, in violation of the law, then the children they create shouldn't be citizens.
What immigrant labor force ?
When did these trespassing criminals immigrate ?
People who want to hire criminals (many with 3 world desease) to work around food belong in jail !
I don't understand how quoting only the relevant section of 14th amendment is dishonest. But your mind sure does work in strange ways, Lino.
The 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant speaking to children born on US soil from parents who are illegal immigrants. Wong's parents were legal immigrants at the time. Let me repeat that again. Wong's parents were legal immigrants at the time. Your article is spinning a historical case even as it mentions it briefly with no explanation. Google or Wiki the case and try to understand it. Then read the 6-2 decision, both Opinion and Dissent. There're still interpretive issues with the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
You gain nothing again, Lino, but yet another foot in your mouth. Your ignorance is stunningly comical.
Lino,
And when you address our U.S. Constitution, use the grammatically correct capital C. It deserves that respect.
First of all, this ain't about no illegals. They want to find a legal pathway for these folks to immigrate. The assumption that any future immigrant will be illegal is pantsless.
Second, importing chefs from the countries that produce the cuisine in question makes perfect sense. How could a white boy from Wyoming be trained to produce authentic Thai* food in anywhere near the amount of time that it would take to allow a Thai* chef to immigrate?
*for example
"How could a white boy from Wyoming be trained to produce authentic Thai* food in anywhere near the amount of time that it would take to allow a Thai* chef to immigrate?"
Well, let's see...because there are classes that graduate every year?
"You gain nothing again, Lino, but yet another foot in your mouth. Your ignorance is stunningly comical."
Klunk, this is the same tactic you always try when your point misfires.
Try re-reading the modern history on this issue.
(Excerpting): Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that birthright of children born to foreigners in the US, including a 1898 challenge concerning children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants.
Note the word "including" NO distinction has been made legal vs. illegal and in all likelihood it is considered settled law.
Why not familiarize your self with established law on "automatic birthright citizenship"
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
Quoting: Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the overseas territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) [1] and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship.
Game over.
klunk, you picks your fights..you takes your chances..here have a kleenex and go to bed.
Time for the INS to visit these establishments. Time for the NYC Board of Health to check for sanitary conditions.
Illegals - those who arrive on our soil without papers and maybe arrested at the desecration of law enforcement - enforce the law NYPD!
If a restaurant had a sign on its window "All of our workers are legal," I would eat there, and encourage my friends and family ot do as well.
Perhaps this could be a good way for some restaurants to drum up business.
I should take that back. You do gain something. Embarrassing yourself again, and again, and again.
(Excerpting): Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that birthright of children born to foreigners in the US, including a 1898 challenge concerning children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants.
"Note the word "including" NO distinction has been made legal vs. illegal and in all likelihood it is considered settled law."
- I'd back away from the Christian Science Monitor article written by Matt Rocheleau if I were you. It's poorly written by a wet behind the ears journalist with less than a hand full of years experience and it shows glaringly.
Picking apart words, analyzing tenses, and finding meaning through historical references is better left to law cases, treaties and fine literature. Not hack articles by a young inexperienced adult. All you did by pointing out the word "including" is strengthen my previous statement that, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in relation to illegal versus legal aliens, hasn't been brought before it. This doesn't negate the current immigration laws today regarding the infamous anchor babies syndrome.
Why not familiarize your self with established law on "automatic birthright citizenship" Here, I'll make it easy for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
- You do enjoy talking out your bum, don't you? Do you even read what you link to? Evidently not. Since you have this difficulty, let me quote a relevant passage or two from the very Wikipedia "article" you link to...
Let's start with the intent of the 14th Amendment by the very Senator who authored it. Senator Jacobs M. Howard. A direct quote from Howard from the Senate floor debate for section 1 of the 14th Ammendment.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
How about another quote from the 1873 US Attorney General on what "jurisdiction" meant to him?
"The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them."
~ continued in next post.
Now let's look at a few law quotes on birthright citizenship. And pay attention to the jus sanguinis section and what it means in the application of jurisdiction. Also note the intentional use of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause under jus soli. It's political obfuscation to gain senatorial votes through compromise. Common law-speak bullshit. Just what Thomas Jefferson loathed as a practicing lawyer.
Jus soli
As of 2006, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens from birth. According to that law the following acquire citizenship by jus soli:
▪ "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
▪ "a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
▪ "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
▪ "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
Jus sanguinis
▪ Under certain circumstances, US citizenship can be acquired via jus sanguinis from one's parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the US and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[6]
▪ If both parents are US citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever lived in the US prior to the child's birth
▪ If one parent is a US citizen and the other parent is a US national, the child is a citizen if the US citizen parent has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
▪ If one parent is a US citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
▪ the US citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the US before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
▪ at least two of those five years were after the US citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.
- In the end, Lino, I have absolutely no issue with legal immigration, legal immigrants themselves or their children of jus soli. I am a direct product of such. I do however have an issue with rampant illegal immigration and its disastrous effects on this country. "Anchor babies."
Boycott their restaurants:
Murphy:
landmarc [time warner center]
Ditch Plains
landmarc [tribeca]
Merrin:
Havana Central [Times Square] Havana Central [Union Square] Havana Central [the West End]
Klunk, you are just being childish here. Where you went wrong is that you attempted to debate -whether- an established law -exists- instead of whether it -should-.
The rest of your efforts are pointless face-saving after the fact.
Learn something from this:
1) Place FACT and opinion in separate thoughts, and sentences.
2) Do some research BEFORE making a claim, instead of trying to scour the internet and torture reality to just CYA..it's too late by then.
You have an inquisitive mind but it hasn't yet learned when, and how to pick a fight.
Once again you show you hand here, Lino. All the insults tossed are merely a projection of your own inadequacies.
You can't back up your initial statement with anything relevant or factual. And when you attempt to do so, you don't even bother to digest your source.
Your interpretation of our exchange is laughable. Debate? What debate? And your suggestions are even more ludicrous. Is this how you act when you lose? Just walk away, please, and save everyone here your crap.
HA! Klunk read it again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
"Quoting: Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the overseas territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) [1] and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship."
Note the word "any".
You are stupid enough to try arguing whether an established law exists. Blame yourself for the result.
You have absolutely no idea what you're even claiming. That's not a law you're quoting. It's just a summation. Some shmoe's uneducated and often biased crib notes.
This is why Wikipedeia is nothing but a large steaming pile of excrement. Fact checking is practically nonexistent. Last I checked it was a team of two people.
Try the actual laws. Have fun wading through the sewer.
Sorry klunk, try reading this one then:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
mendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Or, if you prefer..from the horses mouth:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
See? Right back where we started.
The fact is that the Constitution -can- be amended but this will not happen. It is born-here-stays-here, there is not enough political muscle to change that.
has it been confirmed that the killer of the young chinese woman in flushing is an illegal alien?
the media seems to have suppressed this information in their reports.
Anonymous said...
has it been confirmed that the killer of the young chinese woman in flushing is an illegal alien?
the media seems to have suppressed this information in their reports."
-Did it occur to you that the Police may not have, or release that information?
If they had wouldn't one of those flatulent blabbers on talk radio (hanutty etc)have tried to make a point of it..and blame Obama.
And round and round we go?
No.
Lino, if you go all the way back to my very first comment you'll see what I've been trying to get across your thick skull in the successive comments. I'll quote myself...
"It's only been in recent years that a large portion of the collective American psyche have reinterpreted or ignored this phrase."
It's a pretty broad statement, but I feel it captures the essence of what's happening here in the US. It's that one phrase in Amendment 14. In the past it hasn't been an issue. Lawyers, immigration and port officials and the people understood what it meant. In recent times it has been reinterpreted or outrightly ignored. Just like other "controversial" parts of the Constitution. But I believe in this case, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is fairly cut and dry. Specially when you take in the historical surrounding content. I gave you two statements in support of this line of thinking. You keep insisting on showing me garbage to refute it or circular reasoning.
We don't need to change the Amendment. We need to understand it.
There are several responses to take to employers hiring or harboring illegals.
A) Strike loudly outside their establishments that they are breaking Federal laws by harboring workers that criminally illegal to be here in this country and failing to follow hiring laws.
B) Report business owners to the IRS for nonpayment of individual payroll taxes.
C) Report business owners to NYS for failure to pay minimum wages.
D) Report business owners to the City for failure to pay City State Taxes and stealing government services.
C) Refuse to do busisness with these establishments - when inside loudly announce you will refuse to be served or help by any employee who is not legal.
you must read the 4th paragraph of this research paper.
Post a Comment