18 Apr 2011 3:22 pm
I don't support involuntary servitude, and not a word I've written would show that.Every word you wrote about Tom Delay and the Marianas Islands showed that you do indeed support involuntary servitude. I don't have time to refute your dishonest smears.Even if you had all the time in the world, you couldn't refute what I said, because it's true.You've totally ignored the fact that these workers borrowed and scraped together thousands of dollars on the promise that they were coming to 'America' to get a job, only to find themselves locked behind barbed wire in the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. Territory, where the clothes they made bore a 'Made In The U.S.A.' label.They could never hope to save up enough money to repay the lenders they borrowed money from, after they paid for rent, food, medical expenses...etc. So going home was not an option.You said:They agreed to live in separate areas, because they're guest workers, not citizens.If those conditions are so terrible, why did they agree to work under them?They didn't agree you pinhead. Don't you **** get it? They were tricked.You also said:Who are you to destroy the chance for them to earn five times or more what they earn at home?****. I'm the one who is destroying their chances? Chances to what? Work 20 hours a day, six days a week, many times without getting paid? Live in squalor behind barbed wire? Work as prostitutes? Be physically abused? And of course you said:No legislation is necessary, so as usual, you're dishonestly smearing conservatives. 100:1 the legislation you refer to went far, far, far beyond the problems you cite.No legislation was necessary to get these poor workers out of indentured servitude and forced prostitution, and to prevent them from being forced to have abortions?You say the legislation went far, far, far beyond the problems I cited. You even underlined it, as if it's a link, which is your usual deceptive practice. Just like most statements you make, it's based on nothing. You have no idea what was in the legislation.How could any legislation designed to get people out of those circumstances ever go too far?What do you mean by too far? Can you explain?Was it okay to trick them as to where these jobs were? Is the barbed wire okay? The forced prostitution? The mandatory abortions? Which parts of the legislation went too far?You can't answer that can you? Because you don't know what was in the legislation, yet being the huge [butt opening] that you are, you're willing to bet, sight unseen, that it went too far. Coming from rural villages and the big city slums of poor Asian countries, these garment workers began their sojourn in the Marianas with a huge financial deficit, having paid recruiters as much as $7,000 to obtain a one-year contract job (renewable at the employer’s discretion). Many of them borrow the money—a small fortune in China, where most are recruited—from lenders who charge as much as 20 percent interest. In a situation akin to indentured servitude, workers cannot earn back their recruitment fee and pay annual company supplied housing and food expenses of about $2,100 without working tremendous hours of overtime. Before being able to save her first dollar, a worker who owes, say, $5,000 to her recruiter has to work nearly 2,500 hours at Saipan’s current minimum wage—which equals six more 40-hour workweeks than exist in a year. And that’s assuming she gets paid. Increasingly, workers are filing formal complaints that they have not received their wages, with some women going without paychecks for over five months. Still, workers at RIFU and other Saipan garment factories labor six days a week, sometimes up to 20 hours a day.Paradise Lost-Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing MoralistsIn the early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Labor began looking into allegations of garment industry worker abuses, focusing on factories owned by one of Saipan's biggest employers, Willie Tan. In 1992, the department filed suit against Tan and ordered him to pay $9 million in back wages and damages to workers at five of his plants-at the time, the largest fine ever imposed by the Department of Labor. The suit alleged that employees were forced to work more than 80 hours a week, below the islands' already low minimum wage and with no overtime. Further, workers were kept locked inside their barracks and were not allowed to leave during their off-work hours Tan and his associates in the government of the Northern Marianas looked to American lobbyists for protection against potential federal regulation. Jack Abramoff was one of those lobbyists.Abramoff pocketed nearly $8 million from his contracts with Saipan between 1995 and 2001, according to the Northern Marianas' public auditor. And with the help of Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and others he accomplished his goal of keeping congressional hands off the commonwealth's sweatshops, despite a growing public outcry over the continuing abuse of immigrant workers.Between 1995 and 1998 — in testimony before Congress; in investigations by the Department of Labor and the Department of the Interior; in congressional fact-finding missions; and in numerous media accounts, including a report which aired on ABC's 20/20 as "The Shame of Saipan"-the mistreatment of nearly 18,000 workers in the Northern Marianas became widely known. The public and the nation's lawmakers heard tales of women forced to undergo abortions in order to keep their jobs, of women and young girls guaranteed jobs in the restaurant industry only to find that they would be working as prostitutes; of long hours with no overtime and illegally substandard pay; of foul living conditions and beatings and humiliations. Tom DeLay visited Saipan in for the New Years holiday 1997/1998 — at the invitation of Abramoff, whom DeLay called one of his "closest and dearest friends." DeLay's trip — which boasted luxury hotels, fine white-sand beaches and several premier golf courses — was paid for by the government of the Northern Marianas and was one of a number of junkets the government sprung for at the urging of Abramoff. When DeLay returned to Washington, he kept his promise to his clients in the Northern Marianas regarding federal regulation. Although the Senate in 1999 passed legislation that would have stipulated that any garment bearing a "Made in the U.S.A." label would have to be made by American workers, and more than 200 members of the House co-sponsored similar legislation the same year, the efforts were never made into law. Willie Tan, the Saipan garment giant was captured on hidden camera by by Global Survival Network saying that DeLay had effectively told him not to worry about the legislation. According to Tan, "[Delay] said, 'Willie, if they elect me majority whip, I make the schedule of the Congress, and I'm not going to put it on the schedule.' So Tom told me, 'Forget it, Willie. No chance.' " In 2000, Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska authored a bill that would have extended U.S. labor protections and minimum-wage laws to the Northern Marianas. The Senate bill passed with unanimous consent. Again, it died in the House.LinkFor you to say that no legislation was necessary to help these workers, makes you just as big a piece of **** as that weasel Tom Delay.And yes, you.....just like Delay and Abramoff....do support involuntary servitude.Every word you've written on this subject proves that.You blamed the victims, said that no legislation was necessary to help them, and you said that the proposed legislation went too far, even though you haven't a clue what was in it.Go ahead....call me a liar again. Those are your own words. Edited by MistyBlue, 18 April 2011 - 03:34 PM.