By Ted Belman
I was under the impression that Israel had a law preventing Israelis from hiring infiltrators. That law only applies to infiltrators without visas.
Now I learn that 90% of infiltrators have received temporary work permits and have jobs in the service sector.
Can anyone clarify this.
dweller Said:
Both cheeks Darlin, especialy if they are pink, soft and fat!!!! And I can pinch them at will!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
So, you prefer to get mooned with the left cheek as opposed to the right?
@ Bill Narvey:
I love you too!!!!!!!! Cheap labor is cheap labor any where in the world,Darlin
Honeybee, we are talking about Israel, not the U.S. which is being run by the dictator Obama who chooses what laws to enforce and which to ignore, contrary to his sworn oath to act in accord with the constitution and the law of the land.
Back to Israel. Do you have an answer or if not, step aside and hopefully someone with knowledge can step up to the plate.
Bill Narvey Said:
Do you live on the Tex/Mex border????? When the cooks in a Chinese restaurant are all Mexicans, you know cheap labor is the only reason for illeagle immigration.
A guess Honeybee-perhaps a good one, but Ted posed the question and I too would be interested in an informed answer.
Bill Narvey Said:
The law of mutual monitary gain!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments answer your question, what law enables illegal aliens to get temporary work permits. Surely the immigration dept of the Israeli gov’t can provide a clear answer.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The problem is I am simply convinced you are trying to get the Jews here on Israpundit to try and put their feet in their mouths (or keyboards anyway) with leading racist or stupid comments like the above. You have a pattern of this. Some people described you as an anti-Semite for this. As I said before I am not of the belief that this label fits you (Yamit and some others disagree with me).
I do not know your motivation? Maybe you have simply developed a hate for us as group or maybe you have a mental issue (that is why I inquired about it)?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Turn the other cheek!!!!!
Shy Guy Said:
For a nice Jewish boy,you’re a big HAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How is that substantially different from what I said? Israel should not sign a refugee convention until the Palestine issue is resolved.
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
You are the one with the issue.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Simply say you are not taking anyone into Israel you do not desire is the answer. The rest is mumbojumbo.
Are you trying to get the natives to jump again?
Does this amuse you?
Do you know the root cause of your illness?
Has it ever been diagnosed by a medical professional (psychiatrist)?
@ Shy Guy:
Ha hah the spammer isn’t working properly again
honeybee Said:
My previous reply
Shy Guy Said:
Again Mr Guy its not the spamer,its you puns!!!!!! You’re no Groucho, Sugar
CuriousAmerican Said:
R 194 did not define refugee for purpose of the Refugee Convention. Only the Convention’s definition applies.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Israel has the obligation to to have a hearing on whether the infiltrator is entitled to asylum. Israel can’t deport them until they have each been denied asylum. Most of the infiltrators are from Eritria and another country but the name escapes me. Very few from South Sudan.
UN 194 is not legal. No UNGA vote is legal.
However, the UN’s logic will be that the Palestinians Refugees will not be killed if they go back to Israel, hence send them back.
The problem here is not even UN 194, but the status of “Refugee”. The UN has given them the status of refugee.
As long as the UN recognizes the Palestinians as refugees, then once immediate danger has passed, they ought to be allowed to return – according to the UN.
Israel now claims that South Sudan is safe, and the Refugees must go back.
What do you bet that Lebanon will claim that Haifa is now safe, and their Refugees must go back; and the UN will cite Israeli actions to return Sudanese as a the precedent to return Palestinians.
Israel should NOT have signed a refugee convention UNTIL the Palestinian issue was resolved.
Elder of Ziyon has started a campaign to de-refugee-ize the external Palestinians. From a legal point of view, he has a rationale. It won’t get rid of the problem, but it will place Israel outside of legal obligations.
The Palestinians will move from refugees to stateless, which will not be an improvement for them; but will at least remove Israel from legal issues.
Right now, Israel is paying the Sudanese to leave.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.559988
@ CuriousAmerican:”Refugee” has a legal meaning having to do with their past country is dangerous for them. i.e if sent back they will be killed.
But in any event R194 isn’t law and doesn’t apply.
But we are a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Be careful.
Once you allow the principle of refugees, the next step will be Palestinian right of return.
Israel will be hit with UN 194.
You know that is what will follow.
I am not asking for a Palestinian Right of Return, but once Israel starts accepting African Refugees who make it across the border, then the cat’s out of the bag.
The Polisarios took over Spanish Sahara by walking across the border; while the Spanish guards refused to shoot unarmed civilians.
I have NO idea why the Palestinians have not tried this yet. Can you imagine if instead of 60,000 Africans you were faced with 60,000 Palestinians whom no nation would take back. You are lucky the Palestinians are idiots.
Since Israel is determined not to let the Palestinians back, Israel had better declare unequivocally that she has NO obligation to any refugee but her own.
That sounds cruel, but to let any in, will be to set a precedent.
Ted, why is Israpundit’s moderation logic dumber than every other blogs? Please free up my comment – again.
Come to think about it, the infiltrators are not refugees. The vast majority have not claimed asylum. I doubt if we have a legal obligation to feed them. But we may feed them out of humanitarian motives.
CuriousAmerican Said:
FIFY
@ CuriousAmerican:Its mot charity as far as I know. Its a legal obligation pursuant to the convention on Refugees. I’ll try to look it up.
Most of the blacks are from Muslim countries. There is no reason you should have to help them.
Israel should confine its charity to Christians, Hindus and Buddists.
It should be pointed out that if we didn’t allow them to work at extremely low wages, we would have to feed and house them.
I also think that international conventions mandate that we let them work.
Ditto
CuriousAmerican Said:
Are Mexican illegals allowed to work, vote, and get drivers licenses and even receive social benefits, mean they are not illegal immigrants?
Haaretz calls them temporary residency permits and they must be periodically renewed.
MK Yishai said “As long as work permits are not issued to the migrants and they are transferred to the holding facilities, he explained, they will leave of their own free will. But if they are able to work and earn monthly salaries equal to two years’ salaries in their home countries, they will remain in Israel.”
Ted, my highly important, analytical and persuasive-as-ever comment is awaiting moderation. Jump!
CuriousAmerican Said:
How would anyone here know the intricacies of work permit laws?
It could go either way. What if work permits are issued via employees but have a condition of being legally in the country with a certain visa status in order to be accepted as valid? There could be total disconnect between the two documents (visa and permit).
Your guess is as good as anyone elses.
Wouldn’t a work permit void their illegal status; and thus make them non-infiltrators, at least, not any more?