I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
about programming and programmers.

I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".

(1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
with a valid Green Card or H1-B?

(2) Does it make business sense?

(3) Is it right to do so?

spinoza1...@yahoo.com schrieb:

> I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
> comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
> about programming and programmers.
>
> I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
>
> (1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
> with a valid Green Card or H1-B?

Sure. For certain jobs, US citizienship is a must. For example, to get
President, you must have been born in the US. This said, it is still
possible, that some political crackpots make it legal in one case, and
illegal in others.

> (2) Does it make business sense?

One can never know.

> (3) Is it right to do so?

Sure.

On 14 Dec 2005 03:05:38 -0800
spinoza1111@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
> comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
> about programming and programmers.
> 
> I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
> 
> (1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
> with a valid Green Card or H1-B?

	I'd be surprised if it weren't - at a PPOE I visited their
Chicago campus and found that there were areas that were restricted to
US citizens with security clearances. AIUI the work done in those areas
was on military contracts, of course I can't be sure I wasn't allowed to
look.

> (2) Does it make business sense?

	If not having the restriction prevents contracts being awarded
then it makes excellent business sense.

> (3) Is it right to do so?

	Define right.

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/

I may be mistaking but I think there is an extra financial burden on a
company to sponsor an H1-B employee.

Either way, I think the purpose of the program is to allow US employers
to hire talent that cannot be found in the US or talents that there is
a greater demand than the US employment pool can't meet.

I don't THINK the purpose of the program is to provide an alternate
imigration path.  Though it seems to be used as that.

Given that,

YES to 1) because a company would actually be expected to hire a
citizen first if one was available.

YES to 2) because the financial burden is less on the company therefore
it makes good business sense.

YES to 3) because any countly would want to employ its own citizens
before employing foreign citizens.  If for no other reason than to keep
the money in the country.

- Scott Frye
Scottf3095@aol.com

scottf3095@aol.com schrieb:

> YES to 3) because any countly would want to employ its own citizens
> before employing foreign citizens.  If for no other reason than to keep
> the money in the country.

Sorry, but this cannot be the reason, because it is completely
nonsensical.
If the US wanted to keep "the money in the country" they would not have
a huge trade deficit every year. This trade deficit means, the US
imports more goods than it exports, that way benefitting the consumer.
Anyway, employing something with a green card keeps the money in the
country as well, at least a significant part of it.

spinoza1111@yahoo.com said:

> I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
> comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
> about programming and programmers.

Wrong, but let's see where it takes us.

> 
> I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
> 
> (1) Is this legal:

It depends on the jurisdiction. Here in the UK, we still just barely have 
something called "freedom of speech", so there's nothing illegal about 
sending an email with the words "US Citizens Only", but the situation may 
well be different in, say, Pakistan or Spain or Argentina.

> is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
> with a valid Green Card or H1-B?

As far as I'm aware, most countries don't recognise Green Cards, so 
possession or lack thereof of such a card would be irrelevant to employers 
and jurisdictions alike. The situation within the USA might be different, 
though, and a US employment lawyer would know the answer to your question.

> (2) Does it make business sense?

Nah, it's stupid - a wise employer always employs the best person for the 
job.

> (3) Is it right to do so?

I have no problem with it. If someone is stupid enough to discriminate on 
anything other than merit, that's their problem, not mine.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

spinoza1111@yahoo.com writes:

> I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
> comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general
> issues about programming and programmers.

Is they really?

> I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
> 
> (1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an
> applicant with a valid Green Card or H1-B?
> 
> (2) Does it make business sense?
> 
> (3) Is it right to do so?

Funny, I didn't see *anything* about programming, or that was
in any way specific to programmers, in those questions.

In any event:

(1) Probably, but ask a lawyer.  IANAL.

(2) Depends on the business, doncha think?

(3) Depends on the goal.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

In article <1134558338.155006.309710@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
>comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
>about programming and programmers.
>
>I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
>
>(1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
>with a valid Green Card or H1-B?

- It is legal for there to be a job that requires a security clearance.
- US Citizinship is a requirement for a security clearance
- Therefore, it is legal for there to be a job for which US Citizenship is 
  a requirement.

Broader statements than this might be able to be made, but this 
much is at least true.

>(2) Does it make business sense?

To be frank, it probably makes more 'business sense' to hire employees 
H1-B visas. The visa process makes it more difficult to change jobs, which 
probably tends to depress wage rates.

-Mike
-- 
http://www.mschaef.com

Richard Heathfield schrieb:

> Here in the UK, we still just barely have
> something called "freedom of speech", so there's nothing illegal about
> sending an email with the words "US Citizens Only", but the situation may
> well be different in, say, Pakistan or Spain or Argentina.

Well spoken, indeed!
But, correct me if I'm wrong: Is not the freedom of speech already
declining also in UK? What about broadcasting a video where somebody
states "Smoking <cigarette brand X> makes me feel good."?

Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article 
<dnpfk7$kni$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):

>> I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
>> 
>> (1) Is this legal:
> 
> It depends on the jurisdiction. Here in the UK, we still just barely have 
> something called "freedom of speech", 

Indeed.  There is a rather long list of civil rights not freely 
given to citizens there.  Of course, the same problem exists in 
most countries, but the specifics of the list contents are 
typically different in each locale.

>> is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
>> with a valid Green Card or H1-B?
> 
> As far as I'm aware, most countries don't recognise Green Cards, so 
> possession or lack thereof of such a card would be irrelevant to employers 
> and jurisdictions alike. The situation within the USA might be different, 
> though, and a US employment lawyer would know the answer to your question.

It is legal, and valid in the US.

>> (2) Does it make business sense?
> 
> Nah, it's stupid - a wise employer always employs the best person for the 
> job.

Not true.  There are quite a few jobs where it is a requirement 
(in fact, a law) that only US citizens can be employed.  In 
other cases, the added expense of supporting an H1B candidate 
can be prohibitive, especially for small startups.

>> (3) Is it right to do so?
> 
> I have no problem with it. If someone is stupid enough to discriminate on 
> anything other than merit, that's their problem, not mine.
 
"Discriminate" is such a misused word.  If people did not have 
the ability to discriminate (in the classical, rather than P.C. 
sense), we'd be in sad shape indeed.

The "discrimination" for this job may be legally required, or 
financially motivated.  Since the candidate in this case is 
nilgewater, the "discrimination", in either sense, would appear 
to be warranted.


-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

quetzalcotl@consultant.com said:

> 
> Richard Heathfield schrieb:
> 
>> Here in the UK, we still just barely have
>> something called "freedom of speech", so there's nothing illegal about
>> sending an email with the words "US Citizens Only", but the situation may
>> well be different in, say, Pakistan or Spain or Argentina.
> 
> Well spoken, indeed!
> But, correct me if I'm wrong: Is not the freedom of speech already
> declining also in UK?

Yes, it's on its way out. The UK government has adopted the usual tactic - 
i.e. taking freedom away in a law carefully named to make it look like 
they're protecting the public (e.g. "anti-terror" police powers, famously 
used to prevent the 82-year-old Mr Walter Wolfgang - a Jewish wartime 
refugee - from re-entering this year's Labour Party conference after being 
physically thrown out for heckling a platform plonker; or the wonderfully 
named "Incitement to Racial & Religious Hatred" legislation, which is so 
ripe for abuse that it must have been deliberate - surely nobody in that 
game could draft legislation that incompetently by mistake?).

At this rate, I give freedom of speech in the UK another year or so at most. 
:-(

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Randy Howard said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote
> (in article
> <dnpfk7$kni$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
> 
>>> (2) Does it make business sense?
>> 
>> Nah, it's stupid - a wise employer always employs the best person for the
>> job.
> 
> Not true.  There are quite a few jobs where it is a requirement
> (in fact, a law) that only US citizens can be employed.

Not in most countries, there isn't. If the US is daft enough to discriminate 
on grounds other than merit, it will suffer for this in the long term.

Still, I accept that I should have said: "Nah, it's stupid - a wise employer 
always employs the best person he can for the job, given the idiocies of 
local law". (It's a safe bet that local law will contain idiocies, 
irrespective of the country, because of Sturgeon's Law.)

> In other cases, the added expense of supporting an H1B candidate
> can be prohibitive, especially for small startups.

Not here in the UK, it ain't. It's really easy - all you have to do is 
ignore the H1Bness of the candidate and focus on his or her merits.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article 
<dnpne3$anp$2@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):

> Randy Howard said:
> 
>> Richard Heathfield wrote
>> (in article
>> <dnpfk7$kni$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
>> 
>>>> (2) Does it make business sense?
>>> 
>>> Nah, it's stupid - a wise employer always employs the best person for the
>>> job.
>> 
>> Not true.  There are quite a few jobs where it is a requirement
>> (in fact, a law) that only US citizens can be employed.
> 
> Not in most countries, there isn't. 

Despite your humorous injections of points related to your 
dislike of US-centric posts in general groups (which I agree 
with in general) this thread is clearly about a US position, as 
you well know.  As such, continuing with these funnies is rather 
pointless.

> If the US is daft enough to discriminate on grounds other than 
> merit, it will suffer for this in the long term.

I would be surprised to find a single country that would grant 
the right to work on security-sensitive projects (i.e. military, 
government, MI-*, etc.) to foreign employees, especially without 
any restrictions at all.  I imagine the government in your own 
country would just LOVE to have some nice, competitively priced 
Al Queda programmers working on their missile guidance software, 
for example.

> Still, I accept that I should have said: "Nah, it's stupid - a 
> wise employer always employs the best person he can for the 
> job, given the idiocies of local law". (It's a safe bet that 
> local law will contain idiocies, irrespective of the country, 
> because of Sturgeon's Law.)

Indeed.

>> In other cases, the added expense of supporting an H1B candidate
>> can be prohibitive, especially for small startups.
> 
> Not here in the UK, it ain't. It's really easy - all you have to do is 
> ignore the H1Bness of the candidate and focus on his or her merits.
 
Already covered. 



-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

scottf3095@aol.com wrote:
 >
> I may be mistaking but I think there is an extra financial burden
> on a company to sponsor an H1-B employee.
> 
> Either way, I think the purpose of the program is to allow US
> employers to hire talent that cannot be found in the US or
> talents that there is a greater demand than the US employment
 > pool can't meet.
> 
> I don't THINK the purpose of the program is to provide an
> alternate imigration path.  Though it seems to be used as that.
> 
> Given that,
> 
> YES to 1) because a company would actually be expected to hire a
> citizen first if one was available.
> 
> YES to 2) because the financial burden is less on the company
> therefore it makes good business sense.
> 
> YES to 3) because any countly would want to employ its own
> citizens before employing foreign citizens.  If for no other
> reason than to keep the money in the country.

You fail to appreciate the objectives of the present regime in 
power in the US.  They include 'more money for the rich', 'less 
help for the poor', 'abridgement of basic rights', 'use of 
torture', 'destruction of the environment', 'suppression of the truth'.

-- 
Read about the Sony stealthware that is a security leak, phones
home, and is generally illegal in most parts of the world.  Also
the apparent connivance of the various security software firms.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DataGet� & PocketLog�  www.dataget.com
Data Collectors               www.baxcode.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------



<quetzalcotl@consultant.com> wrote in message
news:1134581330.698118.249350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Heathfield schrieb:
>
> > Here in the UK, we still just barely have
> > something called "freedom of speech", so there's nothing illegal about
> > sending an email with the words "US Citizens Only", but the situation
may
> > well be different in, say, Pakistan or Spain or Argentina.
>
> Well spoken, indeed!
> But, correct me if I'm wrong: Is not the freedom of speech already
> declining also in UK? What about broadcasting a video where somebody
> states "Smoking <cigarette brand X> makes me feel good."?
>
Yours is not an example of Free Speech - rather, it is an example of lies
and/or half-truths.  No one would stop the tobacco companies from telling
the whole truth.

Randy Howard wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote
> (in article
> <dnpne3$anp$2@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
>
> > Randy Howard said:
> >
> >> Richard Heathfield wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <dnpfk7$kni$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
> >>
> >>>> (2) Does it make business sense?
> >>>
> >>> Nah, it's stupid - a wise employer always employs the best person for the
> >>> job.
> >>
> >> Not true.  There are quite a few jobs where it is a requirement
> >> (in fact, a law) that only US citizens can be employed.
> >
> > Not in most countries, there isn't.
>
> Despite your humorous injections of points related to your
> dislike of US-centric posts in general groups (which I agree
> with in general) this thread is clearly about a US position, as
> you well know.  As such, continuing with these funnies is rather
> pointless.
>
> > If the US is daft enough to discriminate on grounds other than
> > merit, it will suffer for this in the long term.
>
> I would be surprised to find a single country that would grant
> the right to work on security-sensitive projects (i.e. military,
> government, MI-*, etc.) to foreign employees, especially without
> any restrictions at all.  I imagine the government in your own
> country would just LOVE to have some nice, competitively priced
> Al Queda programmers working on their missile guidance software,
> for example.
>

Yeah, same here in Malaysia. In fact I'd be surprised too if any
country doesn't have this kind of restrictions on security/military
related jobs. I used to work for a company writing software for MINDEF
(MINistry of DEFence). Then when we got a contract to supply Iraq with
SCADA systems, the Iraqi government (under Saddam at the time) insisted
on sending programmers to oversee the development. When MINDEF realised
this they made us move all MINDEF related work and employees to another
building. We had to rent another office lot two blocks down the road.
And they made us zone all our offices with at least two levels of
security clearence - you even need security clearence to go to the
toilet (since it was located in our staging room).

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
.... snip ...
> 
> At this rate, I give freedom of speech in the UK another year or
 > so at most.

But you never had it.  A fundamental principle of the Parliamentary 
system is that Parliament is supreme.  What you have is tradition.

-- 
Read about the Sony stealthware that is a security leak, phones
home, and is generally illegal in most parts of the world.  Also
the apparent connivance of the various security software firms.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

quetzalcotl@consultant.com wrote:
> spinoza1...@yahoo.com schrieb:
>
> > I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
> > comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
> > about programming and programmers.
> >
> > I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
> >
> > (1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
> > with a valid Green Card or H1-B?
>
> Sure. For certain jobs, US citizienship is a must. For example, to get
> President, you must have been born in the US. This said, it is still
> possible, that some political crackpots make it legal in one case, and
> illegal in others.

Wow, "political crackpots"...concerned about fairness...who needs
'em...just be a computer programmer...write your own ticket...other
people pick up your trash...

Sure, many jobs require a security clearance.

I guess I knew the answer. Immigrants do not constitute a protected
category of employee and the employer can legally say, even if the job
does not require a security clearance, that the applicant must be a US
citizen.

>
> > (2) Does it make business sense?
>
> One can never know.
>
> > (3) Is it right to do so?
>
> Sure.

I disagree. The only way to global fairness and the only way to avoid a
race to the bottom, with workers in one country such as China producing
goods at low wages, is an open labor market. Therefore I believe that
it is right, and makes business sense, for the employer to always be
willing to hire H1-Bs and Green Cards at all times, save for
assignments requiring a security clearance.

There's already a reverse movement of American programmers and teachers
who are taking jobs in India and China, me included. We need more open
borders and faster visa approvals, and for US employers to discriminate
will invite retaliation that will affect our access. Our access is a
good thing since it raises the level of international trade which is
the only way I know to improve the lives of people at the global
bottom, as long as it is done fairly.

I conclude that a world programmer union would encourage not labor
protection but open and mobile labor markets.

slebetman@yahoo.com wrote
(in article 
<1134614333.491739.205300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> ... I'd be surprised too if any
> country doesn't have this kind of restrictions on security/military
> related jobs. I used to work for a company writing software for MINDEF
> (MINistry of DEFence). Then when we got a contract to supply Iraq with
> SCADA systems, the Iraqi government (under Saddam at the time) insisted
> on sending programmers to oversee the development. When MINDEF realised
> this they made us move all MINDEF related work and employees to another
> building. We had to rent another office lot two blocks down the road.
> And they made us zone all our offices with at least two levels of
> security clearence - you even need security clearence to go to the
> toilet (since it was located in our staging room).

I'm wondering if they issued Depends to those that didn't have 
the proper security clearance, or just had a security-cleared 
janitor to clean up the mess?

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

Randy Howard said:

> I imagine the government in your own
> country would just LOVE to have some nice, competitively priced
> Al Queda programmers working on their missile guidance software,
> for example.

Knowing our lot, they already do.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Chuck F.  said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>> 
>> At this rate, I give freedom of speech in the UK another year or
>  > so at most.
> 
> But you never had it.  A fundamental principle of the Parliamentary
> system is that Parliament is supreme.  What you have is tradition.

It's arguable. I think it depends on how you read the Bill of Rights. A 
barrister (English lawyer-complete-with-wig) would probably consider it an 
interesting question (i.e. one for which he'll charge you two hundred an 
hour).

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Chuck F.  said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>> 
>>> At this rate, I give freedom of speech in the UK another year or
>>> so at most.
>> 
>> But you never had it.  A fundamental principle of the Parliamentary
>> system is that Parliament is supreme.  What you have is tradition.
> 
> It's arguable. I think it depends on how you read the Bill of Rights. 
> A barrister (English lawyer-complete-with-wig) would probably 
> consider it an interesting question (i.e. one for which he'll 
> charge you two hundred an hour).

As I understand it your Bill of Rights was something passed by 
Parliament.  What Parliament gives Parliament can take away.  The 
only real constraint is the House of Lords, and they have been 
rather thoroughly emasculated over the past century.

-- 
Read about the Sony stealthware that is a security leak, phones
home, and is generally illegal in most parts of the world.  Also
the apparent connivance of the various security software firms.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

Baxter wrote:

Effectively nothing, since his article began with a sig marker that 
causes everything following to be treated as a sig.

Don't do that.  Sigs belong after the quoted material.  So do 
answers, although they can also usefully be interspersed.

-- 
Read about the Sony stealthware that is a security leak, phones
home, and is generally illegal in most parts of the world.  Also
the apparent connivance of the various security software firms.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

spinoza1111@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have today 3 questions about programming, germane to
> comp.programming, which, *pace* Heathfield, is about general issues
> about programming and programmers.
>
> I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
>
> (1) Is this legal: is it legal to discriminate against an applicant
> with a valid Green Card or H1-B?

I imagine it is within some context, perhaps if the job were with the
CIA or somesuch.

> (2) Does it make business sense?

A business should recruit people within whom they believe they will
obtain the greatest return on their investment in that person - i.e.
the applicant best suited to doing the job well, this tends to find a
mutual relationship ("We do well, You do well").   That means
discrimination on race, sex, nationality etc (whichever way round) will
almost always result in a poorer choice, a lower productivity and thus
less efficient wealth creation in the economy generally, which means
lower tax revenues as well as less investment the result being less
schools and less new sources of economic benefit.

But then some people view merit as a source of inequity, not always
without reason, but trying to fake it by forcing choice on other than
merit doesnt work.

In this case the company may have confused some aspects of merit (e.g.
knowing US social customs and getting on with US co-workers) with the
need to discriminate.

> (3) Is it right to do so?

based on my answer to #2, no!

Chuck F.  said:

> As I understand it your Bill of Rights was something passed by
> Parliament.  What Parliament gives Parliament can take away.

Not being an expert on constitutional law, I can't be certain, but I believe 
it to be the case that the Bill of Rights is so fundamental to English law 
that any *overt* attempt to repeal it or any of its provisions would 
provoke a constitutional crisis. Heads would probably roll 
(metaphorically!).

That doesn't seem to stop Parliament from hacking away at it in less direct 
ways, alas.

> The
> only real constraint is the House of Lords, and they have been
> rather thoroughly emasculated over the past century.

Yes, and I think I think that's very regrettable. (No, there are no 
typographical errors in that sentence.) 

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

spinoza1111@yahoo.com schrieb:

> quetzalcotl@consultant.com wrote:

> > > (3) Is it right to do so?
> >
> > Sure.
>
> I disagree. The only way to global fairness and the only way to avoid a
> race to the bottom, with workers in one country such as China producing
> goods at low wages, is an open labor market.

Agreed. But an open labor market is one, where people are free to make
contracts with whom they wish. This includes, of course, the freedom
not to make contracts with, for example, non US-Citiziens, people with
green eyes, blondes if one is so inclined.

BTW, do you think it "is right" that one person gets a green card,
while most others don't?

In article <dnpfk7$kni$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
invalid@invalid.invalid says...
> spinoza1111@yahoo.com said:

> > I received a recruitment email which said "US Citizens Only".
> > 
> > (1) Is this legal:
> 
> It depends on the jurisdiction. Here in the UK, we still just barely have 
> something called "freedom of speech", so there's nothing illegal about 
> sending an email with the words "US Citizens Only", but the situation may 
> well be different in, say, Pakistan or Spain or Argentina.

He specified a recruitment e-mail, i.e. an offer to treat with regard 
to employment that indicates to any non-UK citizens receiving it that 
they will not be considered for employment.

I suspect that an intending employer sending out such e-mails in the UK 
would have several governmental agencies coming down on his head, 
unless the job was in a specific sector requiring a special degree of 
security clearance.

- Gerry Quinn
 

In article <dnpn1v$anp$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
invalid@invalid.invalid says...
> quetzalcotl@consultant.com said:

> > Well spoken, indeed!
> > But, correct me if I'm wrong: Is not the freedom of speech already
> > declining also in UK?
> 
> Yes, it's on its way out. The UK government has adopted the usual tactic - 
> i.e. taking freedom away in a law carefully named to make it look like 
> they're protecting the public (e.g. "anti-terror" police powers, famously 
> used to prevent the 82-year-old Mr Walter Wolfgang - a Jewish wartime 
> refugee - from re-entering this year's Labour Party conference after being 
> physically thrown out for heckling a platform plonker; 

Freedom of speech surely includes the right to organise voluntary 
events in such a way that those entering with intent to disrupt the 
proceedings may be ejected.

Or is everyone to be allowed to scream down any speakers with whom they 
disagree?  Doesn't sound like freedom of speech to me.  

As I understand it, Mr. Wolfgang's brief difficulties with the police 
occurred when he tried to re-enter the event after his pass was 
confiscated.

- Gerry Quinn

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Chuck F.  said:
> 
>> As I understand it your Bill of Rights was something passed by
>> Parliament.  What Parliament gives Parliament can take away.
> 
> Not being an expert on constitutional law, I can't be certain, 
> but I believe it to be the case that the Bill of Rights is so 
> fundamental to English law that any *overt* attempt to repeal it 
> or any of its provisions would provoke a constitutional crisis. 
> Heads would probably roll (metaphorically!).
> 
> That doesn't seem to stop Parliament from hacking away at it in 
> less direct ways, alas.

Well, this is a theoretical discussion.  Similarly, I see nothing 
to prevent Maxwells demons from collecting all the active molecules 
in this room, leaving me a frozen mummy for future generations to 
discover and analyze.  While we here ultimately have to rely on the 
US Constitution and the Supreme Court not being packed with 
Bushmen, you have to rely on tradition, common law, and possibly 
Magna Carta.

-- 
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
  design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
  no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
  that there are no obvious deficiencies."   --  C. A. R. Hoare

Chuck F.  wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > Chuck F.  said:
> >
> >> As I understand it your Bill of Rights was something passed by
> >> Parliament.  What Parliament gives Parliament can take away.
> >
[]
> > That doesn't seem to stop Parliament from hacking away at it in
> > less direct ways, alas.
>
> Well, this is a theoretical discussion.  Similarly, I see nothing
> to prevent Maxwells demons from collecting all the active molecules
> in this room, leaving me a frozen mummy for future generations to
> discover and analyze.

Maxwell's demon is an interesting little project to simulate in a
computer program.  In such a simulation it works, the 'temperature' in
both chambers change.  In reality it is less simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

in case anyone is interested!

>  While we here ultimately have to rely on the
> US Constitution and the Supreme Court not being packed with
> Bushmen, you have to rely on tradition, common law, and possibly
> Magna Carta.

and the common reality which is that people will just quietly break
laws, often unwittingly, all the time and that part of the purpose of
law is to ensure that just about anyone can be had 'legally' if need
be.

The problem with that is that laws tend to build over time until such a
time as just about everyone is acting against the law regularly without
necessarily being aware of it and at the same time there being no
practical facility for enforcing the law.   It might be, ironically,
that too many laws and regulations actually causes lawlessness and the
disrespect of law and regulation by simply being impossible to obey
sensibly.   Bad laws erode good ones.

Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article 
<dnrcb9$7sc$2@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):

> Chuck F.  said:
> 
>> As I understand it your Bill of Rights was something passed by
>> Parliament.  What Parliament gives Parliament can take away.
> 
> Not being an expert on constitutional law, I can't be certain, but I believe 
> it to be the case that the Bill of Rights is so fundamental to English law 
> that any *overt* attempt to repeal it or any of its provisions would 
> provoke a constitutional crisis. Heads would probably roll 
> (metaphorically!).

Tell that to the former firearms owners in your country.

> That doesn't seem to stop Parliament from hacking away at it in less direct 
> ways, alas.

The frog in a pot of water analogy goes here.

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

Gerry Quinn wrote
(in article <MPG.1e0b90b352224d7f98a85f@news1.eircom.net>):

> Freedom of speech surely includes the right to organise voluntary 
> events in such a way that those entering with intent to disrupt the 
> proceedings may be ejected.
> 
> Or is everyone to be allowed to scream down any speakers with whom they 
> disagree?  Doesn't sound like freedom of speech to me.  

Freedom of speech and "freedom to be heard" are often 
misunderstood as equivalent.

I find it interesting that the ACLU-esque crowd are much more 
likely to scream down a speaker they disagree with than the 
right-wing folks they so love to hate, despite their 
hypocritical stance on "hate speech".


-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article 
<dnqtv3$637$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):

> Randy Howard said:
> 
>> I imagine the government in your own
>> country would just LOVE to have some nice, competitively priced
>> Al Queda programmers working on their missile guidance software,
>> for example.
> 
> Knowing our lot, they already do.

That's ok, we have the chinese working on ours, which poses a 
much greater long-term threat.


-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those 
 who have not got it."  - George Bernard Shaw

Gerry Quinn said:

> As I understand it, Mr. Wolfgang's brief difficulties with the police
> occurred when he tried to re-enter the event after his pass was
> confiscated.

Mr Wolfgang had as much right as anyone to be there. He joined the Labour 
Party before the current Prime Minister was even born. Furthermore, until 
very recently heckling has been a regular and even welcome part of party 
conferences, so one might argue that he has "ancient custom" on his side.

Anyway, the point is that he was held under anti-terror legislation. An 
82-year-old! When the police can do that, they are well on their way to 
being able to do anything they like. Not a good day for freedom of speech.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Chuck F.  said:

> Well, this is a theoretical discussion.  Similarly, I see nothing
> to prevent Maxwells demons from collecting all the active molecules
> in this room, leaving me a frozen mummy for future generations to
> discover and analyze.

There is another theory to the effect that this has already happened. :-)

> While we here ultimately have to rely on the
> US Constitution and the Supreme Court not being packed with
> Bushmen, you have to rely on tradition, common law, and possibly
> Magna Carta.

Magna Carta certainly forms part of the British Constitution. So do the Bill 
of Rights, the Act of Succession, the Act of Union and the Coronation Oath.

I think that's the lot.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Randy Howard said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote
> (in article
> <dnrcb9$7sc$2@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>):
> 
>> Chuck F.  said:
>> 
>>> As I understand it your Bill of Rights was something passed by
>>> Parliament.  What Parliament gives Parliament can take away.
>> 
>> Not being an expert on constitutional law, I can't be certain, but I
>> believe it to be the case that the Bill of Rights is so fundamental to
>> English law that any *overt* attempt to repeal it or any of its
>> provisions would provoke a constitutional crisis. Heads would probably
>> roll (metaphorically!).
> 
> Tell that to the former firearms owners in your country.

Back door job. They didn't repeal the Bill of Rights, which (for the 
uninitiated) reads, in part: "That the subjects which are Protestants may 
have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by 
law;" - if we think of this clause as a subroutine that reads a file to 
determine what is and what is not allowed by law, then basically they 
hacked the file rather than change the program.

>> That doesn't seem to stop Parliament from hacking away at it in less
>> direct ways, alas.
> 
> The frog in a pot of water analogy goes here.

<ribbit>Yep.</ribbit>

Croak. 

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

In article <dnspkg$40e$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
invalid@invalid.invalid says...
> Gerry Quinn said:
> 
> > As I understand it, Mr. Wolfgang's brief difficulties with the police
> > occurred when he tried to re-enter the event after his pass was
> > confiscated.
> 
> Mr Wolfgang had as much right as anyone to be there. He joined the Labour 
> Party before the current Prime Minister was even born. Furthermore, until 
> very recently heckling has been a regular and even welcome part of party 
> conferences, so one might argue that he has "ancient custom" on his side.

Clearly a security pass as well as a party card was required for this 
event.  In any case, the fact is that he was attempting either to 
deprive others of freedom of speech, or to hijack their message by 
adding one of his own.  

Freedom of speech does involve a right to be heard in some senses.  If 
he did not have freedom to speak to journalists, publish pamphlets, 
etc., his actions could have been justified on freedom of speech 
grounds.  But in the circumstances, it hardly applies. 

(On a side note, if he had posted his political opinions in 
comp.programming, there would have been a flurry of responses telling 
him to take it to alt.crank.political.newsgroup.nobody.reads ).

> Anyway, the point is that he was held under anti-terror legislation. An 
> 82-year-old! When the police can do that, they are well on their way to 
> being able to do anything they like. Not a good day for freedom of speech.

There is a tendency for people to make something of a meal out of the 
'anti-terror legislation' issue.  The police used 'stop and search' 
powers afforded to them under the 2000 Terrorism Act [published long 
before, say, 9/11 - I mention this for the benefit of the wise nodding 
heads who will be murmuring about 'panic reactions'].  It is not 
uncommon, I think, for the powers of detention used by police forces to 
have sources in bills not specifically named as legislating for such 
purposes.  

He started shouting, the bouncers asked him to leave, he had some 
difficulty getting back in.  Not a day of any particular relevance to 
freedom of speech.

- Gerry Quinn



 







 

In comp.programming, quetzalcot wrote:
>
> scottf3095@aol.com schrieb:
>
>> YES to 3) because any countly would want to employ its own citizens
>> before employing foreign citizens.  If for no other reason than to keep
>> the money in the country.
>
> Sorry, but this cannot be the reason, because it is completely
> nonsensical.
> If the US wanted to keep "the money in the country" they would not have
> a huge trade deficit every year. This trade deficit means, the US
> imports more goods than it exports, that way benefitting the consumer.
> Anyway, employing something with a green card keeps the money in the
> country as well, at least a significant part of it.
>

Just because we FAIL to keep money in the country doesn't mean we don't
want to.   Many US tarrifs are in place that apply extra taxes to
things made outside the country.  Many trade negotiations involve
removing or lowering these tarriffs.

I think the main goal isn't just to keep the "money in the country" but
to make sure we have a minimum number of people out of work.  When we
employ a person from another countly instead of someone that is
unemployed in our country, we still have to bear the burden of
supporting the unemployed person.  Therefore it would be wisest not to
give jobs to anyone outside our country until every US citizen was
employed.  Unfortunately this is an ideal that isn't practical, thus we
have visas...

Scottf3095@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------
Panton in temperantia , comprehendo temperantia.
     -unknown
-------------------------------------------------

>You fail to appreciate the objectives of the present regime in
>power in the US.  They include 'more money for the rich', 'less
>help for the poor', 'abridgement of basic rights', 'use of
>torture', 'destruction of the environment', 'suppression of the truth'.


yeah...thank goodness they can't do it as fast as they want though :)
--
Scottf3095@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------
Panton in temperantia , comprehendo temperantia.
     -unknown
-------------------------------------------------

>BTW, do you think it "is right" that one person gets a green card,
>while most others don't?

Its the method of determination that is important.  The ability to
control the number of recipients is how the government maintains
control over immigration.  Not controlling this could be devestating to
a countries economy.  Controlling it too much can result in problems as
well.

Scottf3095@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------
Panton in temperantia , comprehendo temperantia.
     -unknown
-------------------------------------------------

Gerry Quinn said:

> Clearly a security pass as well as a party card was required for this
> event.  In any case, the fact is that he was attempting either to
> deprive others of freedom of speech, or to hijack their message by
> adding one of his own.

I believe the message he was trying to add was "what a load of rubbish", or 
something of that kind. I doubt whether he could lay claim to ownership of 
that message, though - lots of people have expressed the same sentiments 
with regard to the Labour Party in particular and political parties in 
general.

>> Anyway, the point is that he was held under anti-terror legislation. An
>> 82-year-old! When the police can do that, they are well on their way to
>> being able to do anything they like. Not a good day for freedom of
>> speech.
> 
> There is a tendency for people to make something of a meal out of the
> 'anti-terror legislation' issue.

Actually, I think that's exactly wrong. There is a tendency for people not 
to make enough of a meal out of it.

Still, we're getting so far off-topic that we're in danger of re-entering 
from the other side. I'll let it go.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Hmm, a discussion I started that I do not dominate. How cool is that.
That is very cool.

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Gerry Quinn said:
>
> > Clearly a security pass as well as a party card was required for this
> > event.  In any case, the fact is that he was attempting either to
> > deprive others of freedom of speech, or to hijack their message by
> > adding one of his own.
>
> I believe the message he was trying to add was "what a load of rubbish", or
> something of that kind. I doubt whether he could lay claim to ownership of
> that message, though - lots of people have expressed the same sentiments
> with regard to the Labour Party in particular and political parties in
> general.
>
> >> Anyway, the point is that he was held under anti-terror legislation. An
> >> 82-year-old! When the police can do that, they are well on their way to
> >> being able to do anything they like. Not a good day for freedom of
> >> speech.
> >
> > There is a tendency for people to make something of a meal out of the
> > 'anti-terror legislation' issue.
>
> Actually, I think that's exactly wrong. There is a tendency for people not
> to make enough of a meal out of it.
>
> Still, we're getting so far off-topic that we're in danger of re-entering
> from the other side. I'll let it go.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
> http://www.cpax.org.uk
> email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)