patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,362,178 comments by 15,734 users - Booger, brazil66, HANrongli, HeadSet online now
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 59 of 59 Search these comments
51
HeadSet
2025 Apr 20, 2:05pm
HeadSet
2025 Apr 20, 2:05pm
Patrick says
I call baloney on this one. It will not matter who disabled the safety device. The employer can fire someone who did noy follow procedures, but once an accident occurs the injured party can sue and will likely win. I know a guy in Texas who lost his arm exactly because a safety device was removed. In Texas at that time, it was illegal to sue one's employer. However, he was able to sue and win against the manufacture of the machine. Ironically, the employer later used his attorney after he won to sue the manufacturer as well. The manufacturer was in no way to blame for the safety device being removed, but a jury will want to award damages anyway to someone who lost an arm. The lawyer took 45% right off the top of the award, before any deductions like paying back worker's comp.
I tell OSHA that he disabled the safety features himself. Shit, I even have a paper he signed saying that he was trained to never ever, ever disable safety features! Jesus is going to get fired. No compensation. Sent back to Honduras. Do not collect 200 pesos.
I call baloney on this one. It will not matter who disabled the safety device. The employer can fire someone who did noy follow procedures, but once an accident occurs the injured party can sue and will likely win. I know a guy in Texas who lost his arm exactly because a safety device was removed. In Texas at that time, it was illegal to sue one's employer. However, he was able to sue and win against the manufacture of the machine. Ironically, the employer later used his attorney after he won to sue the manufacturer as well. The manufacturer was in no way to blame for the safety device being removed, but a jury will want to award damages anyway to someone who lost an arm. The lawyer took 45% right off the top of the award, before any deductions like paying back worker's comp.
52
Patrick
2025 Apr 20, 3:57pm
Patrick
2025 Apr 20, 3:57pm
Maybe the key is that a criminal alien is not going to go to the authorities or sue even if he gets injured.
53
HeadSet
2025 Apr 20, 5:22pm
HeadSet
2025 Apr 20, 5:22pm
Patrick says
Not a chance. Too much money involved and too many lawyers. California even has special laws to make it easier for illegals to sue.
https://lawshun.com/article/can-an-undocumented-person-file-a-law-suit
Maybe the key is that a criminal alien is not going to go to the authorities or sue even if he gets injured.
Not a chance. Too much money involved and too many lawyers. California even has special laws to make it easier for illegals to sue.
https://lawshun.com/article/can-an-undocumented-person-file-a-law-suit
54
TheAntiPanicanLearingCenter
2025 Apr 20, 5:29pm
TheAntiPanicanLearingCenter
2025 Apr 20, 5:29pm
We should allow illegals who turn in their employers to remain on a work visa.
55
HeadSet
2025 Apr 20, 5:49pm
HeadSet
2025 Apr 20, 5:49pm
AmericanKulak says
Then the illegal would just steal another job somewhere else.
We should allow illegals who turn in their employers to remain on a work visa.
Then the illegal would just steal another job somewhere else.
56
Patrick
2025 Apr 21, 11:21am
Patrick
2025 Apr 21, 11:21am
True, but maybe it's a worthwhile deal because prosecuting the employer would presumably result the elimination of in many illegal jobs in exchange for that tolerating that one illegal guy.
57
HeadSet
2025 Apr 21, 1:59pm
HeadSet
2025 Apr 21, 1:59pm
Patrick says
In that case, the illegal would have no incentive to turn in his employer because he would lose his job and have nowhere to go. Who would hire a guy who turned in his last employer, even if the employers were not already afraid of hiring illegals in general?
True, but maybe it's a worthwhile deal because prosecuting the employer would presumably result the elimination of in many illegal jobs in exchange for that tolerating that one illegal guy.
In that case, the illegal would have no incentive to turn in his employer because he would lose his job and have nowhere to go. Who would hire a guy who turned in his last employer, even if the employers were not already afraid of hiring illegals in general?
59
Patrick
2025 Apr 22, 9:06am
Patrick
2025 Apr 22, 9:06am
Hey, Trump used the term "criminal alien"!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114378317437182332
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114378317437182332
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 59 of 59 Search these comments
Megafarms and other institutions are driving down US wages illegally. The criminal aliens themselves impose a large cost in tax money.
Both Democrat and Republican politicians profit at the expense of the public:
Democrats get more Hispanics who reliably vote Democrat.
Republicans get cheap labor for their rich patrons.
What you lose:
US wages, public safety, respect for the law
The more poor people there are in a society, the more you have to pay in taxes for social services and law enforcement, and the less healthy economic activity per capita there is, resulting in a decrease in material standard of living for all but the richest 0.1%.
Poverty does not just affect the poor.
How they rationalize their abuse:
"No human being is illegal."
How you should respond to their rationalizations:
True, no person is illegal, but everyone who entered the US illegally is a criminal so we should correctly call them "criminal aliens".
Criminal aliens have broken the law by sneaking over the border. They don't belong here.
Even if the criminals were actually brought here by farm owners, they are still criminals and should be deported.
Their illegal immigration results in no bargaining power for labor and thus effective slave labor.