Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmum!rgatkinson From: rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: definitions of culture Message-ID: <836@watmum.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 14:18:04 EST Article-I.D.: watmum.836 Posted: Mon Mar 2 14:18:04 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Mar-87 00:36:33 EST References: <192@fornax.uucp> <396@cognos.UUCP> Reply-To: rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (Robert Atkinson) Distribution: can Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 27 In article <396@cognos.UUCP> glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) writes: >. An obvious difference between U.S. and Canada was demonstrated recently > by the border refugee problems between U.S. and Canada. If the U.S. has as > liberal and non-political refugee policy as Canada, these people would not > be flooding from U.S. into Canada! Perhaps you have a point, by my understanding of the situation is somewhat different. I remember hearing that sometime in the last six months or so that the US Immigration and Naturalization Service began requiring that new employees be able to PROVE their elligablility (sp?) to work in the US. I do not remember the enforcement mechanism, but it was structured in such a way as the employers were given strong incentive not to be caught employing illegal aliens. Does anyone else remember more details? Now, what would you do if you were an illegal alien from two or more borders south of here and your employer will no longer hire you for fear of the INS? You obviously left the far south for a good reason, so you probably won't go back. Why not try one more country north? After all, if you claim refugee status at the border then you get to stay in the country **at their expense** (read: on welfare) until an immigration hearing. And these usually take on the order of months or a few years. What have you got to lose? At best you get to stay. At worst you get to live free for a while before going back south again. No, I think the word just got around. -bob atkinson