Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomluvr1778
Yes it did, had he come her legally he likely would not have been working for an outfit hiring illegals. Likewise had he not come here illegally and stayed where he belonged until going about things properly he would have also not been in harms way.

What happened is his responsibility alone. Come here illegally and get hurt, tough. Cry to mother mexico.
32 posted on 02/17/2004 8:59:52 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Bikers4Bush
Jorge Gomez can go...Cry me a River.
36 posted on 02/17/2004 9:22:10 AM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Bikers4Bush
Yes it did, had he come her legally he likely would not have been working for an outfit hiring illegals.

Irrelevant. Plenty of U.S. born persons have been injured in construction accidents.

What happened is his responsibility alone.

No, it simply is not, no matter how many time you want to say it. He and the subcontractor had an agreement - he worked, and in turn, was compensated. I highly doubt part of their agreement was "If you get hurt, tough luck". Aperson does not lose natural and human rights because they are in some geographic area "illegally". He still has the right not to be injured through the negligence of another. This isn't like some thug breaking into your house, cutting himself on your broken window, and demanding you compensate him. Not even close. The sub-contractor is 100% reposnisible for the injuries, unless the injured caused it himself(which isn't alleged in the story). His "legal" statuse does not remove liability from a negligent party.

Come here illegally and get hurt, tough. Cry to mother mexico.

That's a warped sense of repsonsibility you have there. So, are you telling me, that if I find a Mexican who just crossed the border, I have the legal right under the laws of this country, and the moral right, to beat him, rob him, rape him and enslave him? I mean, that is essentially what you are saying - the person has no rights and its "tough". Please clarify if that is not your belief.

38 posted on 02/17/2004 9:29:50 AM PST by freedomluvr1778
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson