Donald Trump

"

coatofarms wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

A person who had the slightest inkling of understanding, would have realized that when all they can do is pull the latest distraction tactic from left wing rags and repost it, that they will not prevail in the long run against the truth.

Trump said he would crack down on visitors to the United States who overstay their visas and declared that when any American citizen "loses their job to an illegal immigrant, the rights of that American citizen have been violated.". The article is relevant because it shows us that he didn't follow his current policy position.

In the article we find out he hired immigrants illegally and had them work for him for 6-9 months. After the 6-9 months, he would get them a work visa if he liked them, or would send them back to their countries if he didn't like them.

1)The articles allege Trumps modeling company did these things and doesn't allege Trump did these things personally - YOU are doing that.
2)you still didn't read anything on LLCs or you wouldn't keep making these comments that are irreducibly incorrect.
3) The article uses sources that have a vested financial interest - people who are trying to get money from Trump and/or his company.

You continue to assert that this is relevant, yet you failed to show that Trump actually did any of these things, or made the decisions to do so. (I have been waiting for you to do so, so you might want to finish reading up on LLCs before you make some serious logical blunders in your effort on this.)

As for the relevance part: Trump's hair style is relevant - apparently much more so than this, judging by all the "orange" references. But, determining importance is a matter of "perspective", which you have repeatedly dodged acknowledging.

Is the article about Trump - It's about one of his companies - so that alone makes it relevant. It is important? Determining that takes a sense of perspective:

1) The angle of perspective
2)The significance of perspective

I will give you a head start on this: The angle is consistency. To determine if DJT's consistency is reflected in this article, you will need to show that DJT made these inconsistent actions and/or decisions.

Sadly - criticism of DJT's consistency is like another shot glass of whiskey in a barrel of whiskey. He isn't known for sticking to positions. So, if that's the only point you have, then feel free to climb on top of the highest mountain and shout "Donald J Trump changed his mind about something."

It is one of the factors that have many conservatives hesitant to vote for him, even though they detest Hillary, but it isn't anything new.

Your usage of straw man is incorrect.

"it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position."

Your position before this post neglected the far worse problems caused by immigration abuse that I listed. I could speculate why you failed to reply to them, but THAT would be a straw man. You questioned my integrity with zero proof at all. It was just a blatant assertion on your part. I showed a concrete example of what you are dodging and selectively responding to.

The following is a perfect example of using personal emotion to circumvent honest discussion:

"

coatofarms wrote:

This is a straw man. You're saying that what Trump did is irrelevant because you can find other examples that are arguably morally worse (and I'm not arguing they aren't worse).

I never said it was irrelevant - that is YOUR strawman. I said it was "much ado about nothing" using an image meme. In other words a matter of perspective. I'm going to leave off "arguably worse" if murder isn't worse to you than not filing an H-1B visa, than please just come out and say it loud and proud.

If you feel it is highly significant, than go ahead and elaborate why.

"

coatofarms wrote:

other examples that are arguably morally worse

The ones I cited were problems of immigration, and things that Trump's stated positions would try to address and fix. He has also called (at least once, not sure if he is sticking with it or changing it now) for removing/altering the H-1B process -which is what his modeling company used when they obtained Visas for their models.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

So... Trump gave them an opportunity, and like many would be models, actresses, singers etc, some of them didn't make the cut, and his company didn't sponsor them for Visas.

The law is pretty clear. Employers caught hiring noncitizens without proper visas can be fined up to $16,000 per employee and, in some cases, face up to six months in prison. The law says nothing about trying out your foreign employee for 6-9 months to see if you like them and then either sending them back to their country or applying for the work visa.

Saying "the law is pretty clear" is like saying water is clear.

Water can be clear:



Or water can be murky:



Legislation (the laws) can seem to be clear when you read them, but become very murky when it comes to implementation and enforcement.

For example Federal law is clear that Marijuana is illegal. (note that the immigration/employment laws are Federal) yet, enforcement of those federal laws in Washington state and Colorado is anything but straight forward.

"SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Tuesday banned the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana cases if no state laws were broken.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the federal agency to show that 10 pending cases in California and Washington state violated medical marijuana laws in those states before continuing with prosecutions."

Then in some cases, federal judges and circuit courts decide that federal law trumps state or local laws such as a recent decision on some categories of financial aid and who is eligible to receive it. (thought I had a linked saved, but can't find it atm)

That immigration laws and enforcement have been battled about in the court rooms is well known, with executive orders, ruling and counter rulings flying all over the place.

In short - immigration laws and their enforcement is anything but clear.

The visa program itself is under fire from both sides - for being too lax and for being too restrictive.

The article mentioned filing for one model after a six month period. The visa filed for was of the H-1B category. If the model did NOT have significant skills or very high earnings before hand, she would NOT be eligible for the H-1B, and would need to have been an H-1B3 (for a very prominent or famous model, or one with a history of working for a prominent company).

The problem arises from a shift in immigration law in 1990. Previously models and their sponsors obtained visas through the H-1 program. The new law allowed for more worker immigration (a 40% boost), but it also changed the rules and shifted to specific categories, and neglected modeling - which it covered before.

NYC was concerned it might lose a major chunk of it's fashion/modeling industry. The H-1B3 was added to re-include models, but it still only covered prominent models, which led to a host of problems such as:

"Fashion models are almost twice as likely to get their visas as computer programmers, by one rough measure. There were 478 initial applications made for fashion models in 2010, according to U.S. Labor Department data compiled by Bloomberg. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved 250 visas for models. More than 325,000 H-1B petitions were filed for computer-related occupations; about 90,800 visas were distributed to foreign information-technology workers …"

New York has passed it's own laws to protect child models - so the Trump agencies actions after 2014 may have been governed by those laws.

As for the penalty amounts - "up to $16,00" for the first offense the fine for the company is $375. Which is more than the $265 fine you would get in NYC for "parking a tractor-trailer on a residential street between 9PM and 5AM" and less than the $515 fine you would get for making an "unauthorized passenger pickup or discharge" with an intercity bus.

There is also an H-2 Visa program, but this is also highly problematic (again - Too lax and Too Restrictive)- to the extent that it was recently shut down.

from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(an Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security )

https://www.uscis.gov/news/new-rules-h-2b-visa-program-announced-us-departments-labor-and-homeland-security

"In response to recent court decisions that have created significant uncertainty around the H-2B temporary foreign nonagricultural worker program, the U.S. Departments of Labor and Homeland Security today announced an interim final rule to reinstate and make improvements to the program"

Here's one example of that:

"Business and labor advocates on either side of the temporary worker debate are waiting for the Obama administration to hand down new regulations after a recent series of legal rulings triggered turbulence in the H-2B visa program designed to admit foreign workers to fill temporary low-skill jobs in the United States. Temporarily suspended in March, the program’s regulations remain unsettled, with the new focused attention raising serious questions about the program’s capacity to both fill shortages in the U.S. labor market and afford labor protections to U.S. and foreign workers."

"In both rulings, Judge Rodgers found that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, DOL lacks the authority to issue H-2B regulations."

"In Bayou Lawn v. Perez, the plaintiffs—a landscaping company and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—argued that the 2012 H-2B regulations would impose significant added costs and burdens on small businesses who sponsor H-2B workers."

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/recent-court-decisions-put-sharp-spotlight-us-h-2b-temporary-worker-visa-program

"The Migration Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, DC dedicated to analysis of the movement of people worldwide."

I have no idea (other than what you link) where you get your base of information from(not the latest news- as that is always filtered through a lot of lenses, but core knowledge), but your sources seem to be insufficient, incorrect and substantially biased.

Some suggestions for you:

Find the subject being mentioned, and dig for the actual subject itself. In this case the immigration/slash employment laws.

If you want to look up laws on this topic for instance

INA: ACT 274 Sec. 274. [8 U.S.C. 1324]

would be useful in the search field, so you get results that are either the actual law, or very close to it and not somebody's third hand opinion.


Include site:gov in your Google search.

Look for history of legislation, court decisions, and evaluations of them.

If you only read a few sources, and those sources are highly biased, then you will end up becoming a puppet of those sites.

You clearly care enough to post on the issues, so please take the time to learn a bit more about the topics.

I enjoy hearing contrasting points of view, and my thoughts aren't fixed in stone.

TL/DR - The hodgepodge of immigration laws, rulings and enforcement are complex, murky, inconsistently enforced, and arbitrarily judiciated. Trump proposes to try and fix this mess.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I already explained the modeling age thing to you, you can do some research on the internet if you want, but it is the truth, and your repeated typing underage, underage, underage won't change the actual business reason for this, into some nefarious reason.

"

coatofarms wrote:

Children aren't adults.

That is a straw man. I didn't say they were.

"

coatofarms wrote:

They aren't sophisticated yet which is why we have laws to protect children.

The refute of an argument I didn't make is a strawman.

"Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument."

I never said they were adults. I didn't say they were sophisticated in their thinking, and I never said we don't need laws to protect them.

I stated the reasons why Trump's agency (and many others do and have done before him) picked such models was because of their youthful skin.

"

coatofarms wrote:

For example, a direct example of Trump's modeling agency taking advantage of children is coaching them how to lie to immigration officials regarding the reason they are visiting the US.

And what is your logic or proof that this is because they are children? I'll help you with that answer. You could have said, children are more susceptible to being manipulated and Trump's agency could have more easily coached them to lie to immigration officials.

I would have accepted that as logically following from what research and common knowledge has shown.

A quick mental check will reveal why that article is a non-starter. Did Trump's agency only coach the children to lie, and tell the adults to tell the truth? Or did they coach all of them?

The word "coach" should explain it. It wasn't persuading them to lie about it. It was more about explaining HOW to mislead the immigration officials.

A quick search on modeling sites by models, will show that those who are aware they are working without authorization are well aware they should be silent. Many are not aware that they need to have authorization to work.

1) The modeling lack of visa issue is a minor one (for reasons I have stated before).

2) The working conditions one is one of business standards, and while deplorable to many (I don't like them myself), is a reality that is better than previous conditions for many people. This one isn't related to Trump's immigration policy though.

3)Any violations of New York's child model labor laws (if they occurred after the law was passed) during the time frame, may be serious, depending on the nature of them and the law itself. The fact that New York had to pass laws governing child models should tell you this was a long standing problem, and not something endemic to Trump's agency.

4)The "coaching" aspect -is likely the most serious legal violation. IIRC - the prison term for a pattern of that is a few years (3 or 6), and the fines are substantial. Intentionally fraudulent behavior about immigration would be relevant to Trump's position.

5)It still has to be shown that Trump made the actions, or the decisions. I am not saying he wasn't aware of them, but knowing how companies actually work, as well as the communication and decision process, being an owner doesn't mean you involved in every aspect. The more pots you have on the fire, the more assistant cooks are deciding what goes into those pots and how often to stir them.

6) A typical candidate would denounce any such responsibility or knowledge of these activities. DJT is not a typical candidate, and he doesn't respond to a lot of criticisms. In some ways it works as a strength, and in other ways it works as a big weakness. Unlike a typical candidate, we can't assume what Donald's responses mean.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Now - whether his company obtained the necessary visas is a legitimate question, but it is in the same category as hunting without a license, or catching more fish than your quota allows. It is a higher degree of offense within that category, but only because the Federal government wants to make sure they are getting their cut of payroll taxes and social security taxes. Once the person is paying those, the Fed could care less what happens to them.

Someone who ad ever worked with someone to obtain or extend the necessary work visas would know that the process isn't quick and painless. It isn't super expensive 5-10G depending on what legal resources you already employ, but the cost isn't negligible either, for any business that actually watches its bottom line.

"

coatofarms wrote:

What you just wrote justified Trump breaking the law.

I didn't say either A) Breaking the law was justified or B) that Trump broke it. You have 2 strawman arguments in the same sentence. What I did was, A) explained that there are various categories of laws (for instance you might want to consider what laws you might be breaking in making some of your claims), B)listed some categories of laws so that you might have an understanding that saying something like it's the law doesn't convey any information about the gravity of the violation. C) I explained one of the reason immigration laws are problematic -instead of listing any of hundreds of cases where judges have ruled in various ways for various reasons. D) I explained that the process is not a simple , quick or cheap.

None of these said it is OK, or right to bypass the law. YOU implied that, not me.

Since you have trouble understanding explanations, I will try an example:

Imagine if it took non-supporters one to three weeks to get approval from GGG to play Atlas of Worlds. How many would go ahead and play in the meantime anyway?

"

coatofarms wrote:

Regardless, hiring illegal immigrants isn't remotely comparable to hunting without a license.

LOL! Did you stop to think that through? They are comparable, for the same reasons underlie the laws.

1)Limited resources
2)exploitation of subjects.

There are a limited number of job openings. Immigration laws are intended to let people apply to fill those jobs without so many coming in that citizens who have jobs end up losing theirs or getting their wages lowered.

There are a limited number of deer to shoot. Hunting licensing laws are intended to let people apply to hunt those deer without killing so many of them that they endanger the future supply of deer.

In both cases, the deer and the immigrants can be exploited, so part of the law covers that.

"

coatofarms wrote:

I mean, you just compared the illegal hire of human beings in order to exploit them

Did I say that? No, you just implied it right now. I compared categories of laws. I didn't categorize exploitation of humans by listing various laws - that was your imagination doing so.

"

coatofarms wrote:

Wow, well at least I now know you definitely aren't a Christian or Buddhist.

I am continually amazed at all the things you know. I feel more enlightened every moment.

I'll skip over a few more of your unfounded insults (maybe I'll spend some quiet time later letting them further enlighten me)

"

coatofarms wrote:

The fact is you're wildly speculating to be able to defend your orange cult leader and don't really know anything.

I wasn't posting speculation. I've some experience in various areas of life, that it is clear from your postings that you do not. There are questions I expected you to ask, or comments you could have made that you didn't. It's kind of like a job interview, and from your posts so far, you aren't going to get hired.

"

coatofarms wrote:

But in the article the girls clearly say conditions in the basement were not OK.

Think about that for a second. Someone was unhappy with "X". That never happens does it? Everyone loves their internet speed. Everyone loves the new skill changes made to PoE. Everyone loves their new boss, and everyone thinks they are getting paid fairly.

How much basis of experience would these models have to judge by? Later on, when they had a bigger portfolio and were making more money, their conditions and pay should obviously improve. This is the normal route in life - start out with little experience, living in cramped conditions (or living at home for some) making little money, and then later on moving up in life.

You should know this stuff - unless you are still living at home, or a student still living off some kind of support system.

Other than cramped conditions, let's examine the models complaints:

"The bathroom always smelled like burned hair. "

Because Donald Trump was personally sneaking in and setting their hair on fire? Or because they couldn't figure out how to use a curling iron properly? Or possibly, they kept forgetting to unplug the curling iron.

"I will never forget the place!" She added, "I taught myself how to write, 'Please clean up after yourself' in Russian."

Who knew that Donald Trump couldn't read English and has to have messages in Russian? Or is she not implying that DJT made a mess and didn't clean up after himself?

Messy Roomates. Because, those don't exist anywhere for anyone ever.

ALERT! Put the wall on hold, some models had messy roomates!

"

DalaiLama wrote:

There's also the caveat, that so far - the article only points its finger at the modeling agency - and not directly at Trump. I already mentioned what an LLC is. You might want to look it up for your own understanding. Saying "Trump's company did X" is vastly different from saying "Trump did X".

"

coatofarms wrote:

Trump owned 85% of the Trump Modeling Agency. Are you saying Trump shouldn't bear responsibility for what his modeling agency did?

::CLAPS:: Congrats on asking a great question actually based on what I wrote.

Trump did own a large chunk (not disputing the 85% figure) of the agency. It is possible he made some decisions, instructed others, or knew about what was going on in what is being alleged in the article. It is also possible that he didn't take part in or know about this stuff. Sometimes owners just tell their manager's "Just get it done" or "Make it happen" or "Find a way to take care of the problem" Other times, they don't even want to hear the problem, they just look at the numbers. The accountant may actually make more decisions, if he/she has the trust of the owner and they have a profitable history.

This is often true with "visionary" business leaders. They know what the goal is, and the details (permits, payments etc) they don't want to be bothered with - in some cases EVER.

This can work great with the right people in place, or it can be a recipe for disaster.

Responsibility depends on how involved Trump actually was, and with an LLC it takes a lot more to tie in an owner. Being an owner in an LLC is not responsibility. That is the entire function of the LLC.

Please read up on LLCs - even fifteen minutes would help you a lot.

"

coatofarms wrote:

"

coatofarms wrote:

Anyway there's a pattern of Trump companies engaging in unscrupulous behavior.

A different topic than what we are discussing atm, but slightly relevant in terms of integrity. Have Trump companies engaged in some questionable behavior and possibly legally dubious actions? I would agree they have.

"

coatofarms wrote:

Because you will say anything to defend your orange cult leader, I have a couple direct questions for you.

Loaded questions like "Is Hillary still physically beating Bill Clinton or has he stopped now?"

"

coatofarms wrote:

Did foreign underage girls work for Trump modeling agency without the proper work permits?

A loaded question. If they weren't foreign, then they wouldn't need H1-B3 or H-2 work authorization permits. If you want a direct answer to the loaded question anyway - then I'd have to say - your article doesn't provide any information substantiating that. They could have substantiated it- they linked a lot of documents, but they didn't on that aspect.

Underage girls is also a loaded term. Under 21? Under 18? Under 16? Under legal work limit ages? They certainly weren't under the ages typically employed by modeling agencies.

Rachel Blais mentions she was 18, so therefore not underaged. Alexia Palmer states she was 17, but we don't have her birth date listed on any forms to judge off of. She allegedly worked for Trump on Jan of 2011.

In mid June of 2010 she was 17:

"Alexia Palmer’s luminous skin, captivating features, winning smile and determination was a recipe for success from the day she arrived at Pulse. Snatching second place in the agency’s 2010 Caribbean Model Search at merely 17 years old"

And hired by Vogue almost immediately after (are you going to accuse them of child exploitation as well?)

Prior to 2013 "Underage" would have been <16 in New York state. After that it would be <16 for many jobs, but <18 for models. The year in question was 2011.

I didn't see other model names given that were underage.

So "Did foreign underage girls work for Trump modeling agency without the proper work permits?" We have a 50% chance (if born between late June 1992 and Jan 21st 1993) that one did, if she isn't lying about her age. We have no other information about foreign underagegirls.

If you had split you question and framed it in less loaded terms such as asking:

A: "Did models work for Trump modeling agency without the immigration visas?"

and

B:"Did models under the age of 18 /b] work for Trump modeling agency?"

Then it would be easier to answer.

A: Some suing Trump's agency are alleging that they did.

B: Some suing Trump have said during the interview that others were under the age of 18 (what a court would dismiss as "heresay" without evidence.

It is possible both are true, and the gist of your loaded question (both being under 18 and working without proper non-citizen work permits) are true.

"

coatofarms wrote:

If you answered yes to the above question, did Trump modeling agency break the law?

The age portion of the question is irrelevant, as labor laws prior to 2013 did not cover child models.

If the agency did hire and employ Alexia Palmer before any visa or permit was granted (the forms linked suggest that, but they are not the only permitting forms) then they violated Section 274 of US code Title 8 [8 U.S.C. 1324] and if this is the first offense before the court (and I didn't see others ... yet) The agency should be fined $375.

The lawsuit by Ms Palmer has been thrown out twice.