Slashdot Mirror


Torvalds Becomes an American Citizen

netbuzz writes "Having brought his open-source work and family to the United States from Finland some time ago, Linus Torvalds has marked an important personal milestone by attaining US citizenship. A casual remark on the Linux kernel mailing list about registering to vote led to the community being in on the news. Torvalds has acknowledged being a bit of a procrastinator on this move, writing in a 2008 blog post: 'Yeah, yeah, we should probably have done the citizenship thing a long time ago, since we've been here long enough (and two of the kids are US citizens by virtue of being born here), but anybody who has had dealings with the INS will likely want to avoid any more of them, and maybe things have gotten better with a new name and changes, but nothing has really made me feel like I really need that paperwork headache again.' In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly."

654 comments

  1. Interesting... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but does he run Linux?

    1. Re:Interesting... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      ...but does he run Linux?

      Seeing how he stated "and maybe things have gotten better with a new name and changes"
      the question should be:

      Did he legally change his name to "Linux" ?

    2. Re:Interesting... by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he's referring to the practice at mass-immigration checkpoints like Ellis Island, where, when the processor couldn't spell particularly complicated names (for instance, those of Polish or Eastern European origin), that they'd just write down something Anglo-sounding and tell them to get used to it. He may have been afraid that he'd end up Linus Van Pelt rather than Linus Torvalds.

    3. Re:Interesting... by kc9fyx · · Score: 1

      I read that as the name change from INS to ICE that occurred a few years ago. That seems more relevant to the modern era.

    4. Re:Interesting... by uncle+slacky · · Score: 1

      That's a bit of an urban legend - immigrant names were almost never changed by immigration officials. See for example
      http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3893

      --
      Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
    5. Re:Interesting... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the info. Sorry for my hours of absence from the thread, since a question about my exact meaning is implied.

      I referred to the INS's practice of letting you "Americanize" your old name at citizenship time.

    6. Re:Interesting... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I read that as the name change from INS to ICE that occurred a few years ago.

      More likely, for Torvalds, he is referring to the name change from INS to USCIS, that occurred at the same time (with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security) as the creation of ICE.

      Which illustrates that its actually a bit more than a name change, as some of the functions of the old INS are now part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and some of them are part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE also has some functions that didn't come from the old INS (e.g., the non-immigration related customs enforcement functions), though I think the USCIS mission is essentially a subset of the old INS mission.

    7. Re:Interesting... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      My family was here since the 1650s on both sides, with a bit of Irish mixed in the 1840s, so what do I know about it? Apparently just what I've heard, which is wrong.

    8. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothings changed at the USCIS except the name.

      if the GAO only knew how lousy it's run.

    9. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure he wasn't worried about being named 'Linux der Penguin'? :D

      I mean I don't know about you, but being told that was going on my tombstone, along with being passed down to all my children residing in the US would scare the shit out of me :)

    10. Re:Interesting... by AdamWeeden · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's just a suggestion, rather than being forced, to help them assimilate. For example, my ex-roommate was named Carl Marks after his grandfather, who emigrated from Germany. Upon arriving they noticed his name was "Karl Marx" and suggested to him, if he didn't want to be branded as a communist (even though he wasn't) he might want to change the spelling a bit.

      --
      I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
  2. Finnish Anchor Babies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it was only a matter of time

    1. Re:Finnish Anchor Babies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he stole^Wcreated our jerrrrrbsss!"

  3. Derp by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny

    He took our jerbs!

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      He took our jerbs!

      Darl, is that you?

    2. Re:Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly

      Wow, he's already a real American! Add in "but won't, because the choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche is no choice at all", and I'd never even know he wasn't born here!

    3. Re:Derp by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Hmm, regarding the add-in, how do you tell which is which in American politics?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Derp by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Rig the toilet so it won't flush?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  4. So what? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's his own business.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's his own business.

      Don't you know anything? His name is known among some people so they have to pretend to understand him on a personal level and act like they personally know him and are very concerned about the most trivial and personal details of his life. That's what we do with celebrities.

      Hey, did you know that some woman you've never met is having relationship problems with some man you've never met? Who gives a fuck? Oh yeah, one of them can act/sing/dance so that makes it really really important! Let's not do this with programmers. Please.

      Epictetus said something about how talking about the affairs of others leads to small-mindedness. He couldn't have been more on the money.

    2. Re:So what? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup. Although on the plus side it is probably a good thing that people who actually contribute to society and progress are being talked about with such interest. Pity such attention is usually focused on people who sing songs and abuse substances but still manage to get paid huge sums for their dubious efforts.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    3. Re:So what? by causality · · Score: 1

      Yup. Although on the plus side it is probably a good thing that people who actually contribute to society and progress are being talked about with such interest.

      Agreed, though I draw a distinction here between discussion about their professional achievements and contributions, versus their private personal lives. One is useful and productive and can lead the appreciation of real advancements made by truly talented people. The other is just gossip and demeans everyone involved. It dishonors the famous person by trivializing them into just another spectacle.

      Pity such attention is usually focused on people who sing songs and abuse substances but still manage to get paid huge sums for their dubious efforts.

      Empty people with little significant meaning or enduring purpose in their lives can't help but to love, in an unhealthy way, those who entertain/amuse them and make them feel better about themselves. It's why the entertainment isn't enough; they have to form a cult of celebrity around the entertainer. They do that because they are looking for a more refined form of their opiate.

      As I like to say it, "you can only be addicted to a poison". So this tends to happen with singers and drug abusers who are terrible role models and not with truly outstanding citizens who have really advanced society with their contributions. By comparison to them, the doctor who finally cures cancer will be an anonymous figure. He or she won't appeal to the empty masses quite like the people who have it all and still manage to lead some fucked up lives.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:So what? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

      Nothing is ever your own business once you've shared it with even one other person. Haven't you paid ANY attention to security classes? Geeeesh. I'll bet one good cup of home brewed coffee that Linux wasn't even the first person to know that he had become a citizen. Whoever it was that rubber stamped his final bit of paperwork probably tweeted it to half the world BEFORE he told Linus.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:So what? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Absobloodylutely.

      Having procrastinted similarly in the UK for two years after being eligible I can understand him procrastinating on it. Just the thought of dealing with any immigration authority in any country feels my heart with dread. It is one of the most demeaning and degrading experiences one can have short of getting involved in the second oldest profession.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:So what? by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Epictetus said something about how talking about the affairs of others leads to small-mindedness. He couldn't have been more on the money.

      Maybe so but did you know that Epictetus was having an affair with one of his slavegirls?

    7. Re:So what? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Just the thought of dealing with any immigration authority in any country feels my heart with dread. It is one of the most demeaning and degrading experiences one can > have short of getting involved in the second oldest profession.

      In the UK, that's why you'd do it, though. Get an English passport and you get to spend 10 mins queuing up and perhaps 1 minute maximum (for your whole family) answering questions, as opposed to a 30 min+ queue and some sort of anal probe when you get there.

    8. Re:So what? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Let's not do this with programmers. Please.

      Steve Jobs isn't a 'programmer.'

      He's marketing scum.

    9. Re:So what? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Doggone it.

      I walk away to do some soldering on a breadboard, and come back, thinking I am still reading the Steve Jobs story.

      Damn.

      Linus Torvalds is not marking scum. For goodness sake.

    10. Re:So what? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I've run into some addictive non-substance habits myself; I tend to also see the applicability in throwing addiction metaphors around. Many slashdotters (including myself) likely have video game habits, for instance. Ke$ha's "Your Love is My Drug" song title and associated analogy/metaphor seems fitting here, whatever you think of her.

      Maybe what you refer to is why celebrity fandom is associated with immature teenage girls and loser adults.

      Fandom isn't entirely limited to those classes of people:
      maybe it's because the higher classes of fan like the product and then proceed to get caught up in the 'celebrity' side of it.
      Also, maybe the have determined that it's a good product and thus deserves adulation of its creator.

      _Is_ celebrity fandom any more valid because you find the work of the celebrity to be valuable? (Contributions to art/entertainment and contributions to computing I'm seeing as apples and oranges here.)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    11. Re:So what? by IF_Rock · · Score: 1

      I get it. You don't like entertainment, so you're dead-set on not being so. Well done!.

    12. Re:So what? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I figure many of the fans wish they knew their idol personally; maybe they know (somehow) what you're getting at.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    13. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever it was that rubber stamped his final bit of paperwork probably tweeted it to half the world BEFORE he told Linus.

      True, If that person knew who Linus Torvalds is.

    14. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having procrastinted similarly in the UK

      Having lived in this dump my whole life, let me give you advice (if Im not too late):

      Dont do it! Get out while you still can.

  5. immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm more interested what his immigration category was? Mine was EB-2 (Person with advanced degree: Master or Ph.D). I suspect his was EB-1 (Person of national interest).

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
    1. Re:immigration category by rotide · · Score: 1

      Can't it be both? He holds an advanced degree (Masters) as well.

    2. Re:immigration category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H1-b of course. The job spec was typically unfulfillable by locals due to the line: "inventor of kernel in use world wide".

    3. Re:immigration category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm more interested what his immigration category was? Mine was EB-2 (Person with advanced degree: Master or Ph.D). I suspect his was EB-1 (Person of national interest).

      Probably an "O-1", a rare beast.

    4. Re:immigration category by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Funny

      More likely "O log n"

    5. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 5, Informative

      H1B is a non-immigrant visa, good for three years, renewable for another three, and then year over year as long as a permanent residency adjustment of status petition has not yet been adjudicated.

      To become a naturalized citizen, one must be a lawful permanent resident first, for five years. To become a lawful permanent resident, requires an immigrant visa, basically, a "Green Card". To get a Green Card, that is not based on family sponsorship, but employment sponsorship, one is placed into several prioritized categories:

      EB-1: Persons of National Interest or Extraordinary Ability (Nobel prize winners, etc.);

      EB-2: Persons with Advanced Degrees;

      EB-3: Skilled Workers;

      EB-4: Special Immigrants;

      EB-5: Visa Investors ($1M and creating ten American jobs, or $500k and investing in a rural area paying 150% of the national wage).

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    6. Re:immigration category by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd like to know as well.

      According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the annual immigrant visa quota is 140,000 for employment-based (EB-x) immigration. EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 each receive 28.6% of the total number, while EB-4 and EB-5 each receives 7.1% separately.

      For the current 40,000 quota of EB-2 preference, each country receives 7%, with 3,000 available for China and India, 2,500 for the other countries, and 9,000 remaining for use by those countries in need, such as India and China.

      Linus could also have come in through one of the 32,000 diversity (DV) visas available to Europeans.

      Once here (legally with a green card). having American citizen children or an American citizen spouse is one of the fastest ways to be come a citizen (3 years as a spouse, 5 years for children).

      The best guide to understanding US immigration laws is this handy poster.

    7. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. One should be classified in the most preferential category to begin with. Additional work experience will not let you move up a category. So, you should "fill any gaps" (like get that graduate degree) first, or at least while on a non-immigrant visa. You can't really go from EB-2 to EB-1.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    8. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      O-1 is a non-immigrant visa, basically equivalent to the EB-1 immigrant visa, and extensible indefinitely. But, one can not become a citizen without becoming an immigrant first.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    9. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      Also, country-based quotas are based on country of birth not residence, or citizenship.

      I was not eligible for the lottery because I was born in Canada, and nations who provide more than a certain number of immigrants in the previous five years are excluded. Because my parents were refugee immigrants to Canada, later citizens, I had, at one point, hoped that I was born while they were not yet citizens, and could claim Czech citizenship for purposes of lottery- or DV-based immigration under a really arcane exception to the nation of birth rule, but, alas, that was not to be.

      I got my green card in 1996 and can apply for U.S. citizenship in 2011.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    10. Re:immigration category by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      A green card is not a visa, but rather what you get upon successful adjudication of a petition for permanent residence (the card identifying your status that you receive when the status is granted used to be green.) To attain status as a legal permanent resident, you must enter the country on either an immigrant visa, or a dual intent visa, and then apply to adjust status for permanent residence. An H-1B visa is a dual intent visa, just as the K-visas you allude to are.

    11. Re:immigration category by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Funny

      God - it sounds COMPLICATED to immigrate to the United States! I think I'll just stay right here in Arkansas. It can't be worth the bother.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:immigration category by adamgundy · · Score: 1

      this doesn't apply to Linus, but it's only a three year wait before you can apply for citizenship if your green card was allocated due to marriage to a US citizen

    13. Re:immigration category by donutello · · Score: 1

      You can apply for citizenship 3 years after getting it as long as you've been married to a US citizen for at least that long. You can do this whether or not you got your green card due to marriage.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    14. Re:immigration category by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Or just sneak across the boarder, and live here long enough that you get your own "path to citizenship" when the powers that be deem it impossible for them to send 10-30 million of your comrades home.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LOL.

      Seriously, though, the idea is to filter in those who are likely to be a net benefit to those already here, and filter out the rest.

      So, you don't want to displace existing workers, or depress the wage base. The sad part is that too many immigrants "cheat" giving the rest of us a bad reputation, and the process, even if you meet the criteria, is excruciatingly slow.

      It used to be that to get an employment-based green card, you generally had to be here on an H1B visa, which had strict limits to how long one could stay, and the processing times for the green card could easily exceed those limits. Once your time was up you had to leave, and leaving abandoned your green card petition. There were cases of people waiting years for a green card, only to have to leave the day before their status was adjusted, abandoning everything.

      One of the things Bush Jr. did was eliminate that nonsense: if you were in the final adjustment of status stage, you could extend your H1B on a year over year basis until your status was adjusted.

      It was rather like winning a foot race, and losing because they took too long to give you your medal.

      The other thing Bush Jr. did was make H1Bs more portable. One problem that non-immigrants faced was the propensity toward horrible working conditions because they could not get another job in their line of work if fired, and some unscrupulous employers knew this and paid slave wages. This was illegal (foreign workers had to be paid the prevailing wage so as to not depress it), but fear kept many from speaking up. With the new rules, they could just leave. The benefits to American workers were that wages were not being illegally depressed with no way to find out without much sleuthing,

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    16. Re:immigration category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That poster is misleading in many cases. The US does allow non-skilled workers on a lottery basis. US immigration laws are similar to most other nations on Earth with the exception that the US does not have a language requirement..

    17. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that pisses off a lot of us immigrants that came in through the front door as well.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    18. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      "The job spec was unfillable..."

      While true, the job requirements for an H1B "job" are not permitted to be artificially tailored to the applicant.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    19. Re:immigration category by DaTrueDave · · Score: 0

      You may apply for US Citizenship after five years of legal residency. Who told you that you had to wait until 2011?

    20. Re:immigration category by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 1

      No. The point is that one is higher than the other, and therefore of higher priority. Despite what you may believe a PhD/masters classification is not all that valuable and continually becomes less so since it is now pretty much SOP for Indians and Chinese to come here and attain those degrees to increase their chances of staying.

      Numerous private American universities in addition to attracting the best and brightest also attract the "have a paycheck" crowd.

      You can have a PhD and if you do not get special sponsorship you may still remain on a waitlist forever. EB-1 or other priority categories allow to go to the head of the line so-to-speak.

    21. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      I got my green card in 2006. Until then I was a "non-resident" for immigration purposes (but, of course, a resident for tax purposes).

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    22. Re:immigration category by bjourne · · Score: 1

      What I'm more interested in is why anyone from a country in the Western World would want to immigrate to the US in the first place. Maybe he is sick of 3g phones, secular educated people, vacations longer than two days and 100 mbit internet connections.

    23. Re:immigration category by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      I'm Chilean. I got my US green card last year because I married an US citizen. But I don't want to become a citizen myself because then I'd lose my chilean citizenship and I find it useful in case we'd ever decide to go there to live. It just gives us more flexibility.

      Is it there any very, very good reasons why I should apply for citizenship when the option becomes available? I have to admit I'm a bit oblivious about it. All I see with it is voting and jury duty hehe. Because so far I'm not interested in it, I'm happy with being able to live and work here without the "migra" being after me.

    24. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      The U.S. frowns on residents being required to respect the laws of foreign powers. They dislike dual citizenship for the same reason.

      Further, if you are ever convicted of a crime, you might find yourself subject to deportation if you are not a citizen. This might be more likely than you think.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    25. Re:immigration category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, we've had nothing but trouble with immigrants ever since we came here.

    26. Re:immigration category by DaTrueDave · · Score: 0

      Chile doesn't allow dual citizenship? That does make it a tough decision.

      If you're sure you will never make a mistake and never be convicted of a crime that makes you deportable, and you have no desire to participate in the American political process, then being a Legal Permanent Resident is practically the same as being a citizen. The problem is that everyone makes mistakes. Once you become a US citizen, assuming you committed no fraud in the process, nobody can take that citizenship away from you. You can't be deported for anything! But what kind of crimes would cause a resident to be deported? How about getting into an argument with your wife, and having the police show up to arrest you for grabbing her wrists? Domestic violence will get you deported. What about leaving your kid in the car while you walk in to pay for gas and the cop sees that as "child abandonment"? What about renting a car and getting pulled over for speeding and the cop finds cocaine in the ashtray in the back seat? What about after the divorce, after the restraining order when you go back to get your favorite leather jacket from her house? Violating a protective order will get you deported. All crimes that can be horrible, but also crimes that result in convictions due to misunderstandings and mistakes. Judges often convict people for these crimes and give them lenient sentences, or even no sentence, but immigration law is clear. Convictions of certain crimes, regardless of sentence, make a permanent resident deportable.

      It's easy to sit back and say that you will never make such a mistake, but I doubt very many people that have lost their residency ever planned for it to happen, either... Being a US Citizen means you never have to worry about being deported from the United States. Ever.

      http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5672.html

    27. Re:immigration category by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Well, I'm the woman here, so if anything, if my husband is ever aggressive with me (highly doubt it), HE is the one who gets thrown in jail and I get insta-citizenship (or at least that's what he said, we usually joke about this haha). I also didn't get here under any fraud, I became a permanent resident by all the legal means. We even hired a lawyer to help us through the process. I obviously don't intend to commit any crimes and I just have to be aware not to commit any unintentional ones. I guess I *can* push becoming a citizen if I'm not interested in it at the moment, or if Chile allows double citizenship.

    28. Re:immigration category by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I had, at one point, hoped that I was born while they were not yet citizens, and could claim Czech citizenship for purposes of lottery- or DV-based immigration...I got my green card in 1996 and can apply for U.S. citizenship in 2011

      My great-grandparents from Czechoslovakia (then Bohemia) just got off the boat, and were US citizens after 3 years of residence. It is a shame we have all these crazy hoops to jump through now...

    29. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Don't know about instant citizenship if you are a victim of domestic violence, but yes, there are mechanisms where that will let you stay in the U.S., and presumably be able to eventually apply for citizenship if that happens.

      I presume he sponsored you (or you him?). If so, he (or you) signed an "Affidavit of Support" for you (or him). If you split up, beyond spousal and child support (if any) he (or you) will be required to support you (or him) at 125% of the federal poverty level (until you both have 40 Social Security credits).

      It's not a question of committing crimes. It is very easy to get accused of doing so and it being far cheaper to accept a plea bargain than to defend yourself. Some plea bargains can result in deportation.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    30. Re:immigration category by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      He's the US citizen, I'm the immigrant. Yes, he did have to sign said affidavit, is another of our "you're stuck with me for a while" jokes (immigration is a source of jokes in our marriage). And I'm also aware about the crime part. I know it's really easy to get accused of something nowdays. I guess that part would be like playing the lottery, only in this case, winning is losing.

    31. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      On the Affidavit of Support: once you have 40 social security credits, he's "off the hook". If you are working, you will earn them after 10 years. If he is working, he will earn them after 10 years, if he hasn't already.

      Here's the kicker: once you are married ten years, his social security credits accrue to you too, even if you subsequently divorce, as long as you do not remarry.

      So, be married ten years, and his obligation under the Affidavit of Support ends once you have 40 social security credits (directly, or indirectly), even if indirect credits are attributed to those earned by him after the divorce.

      It's one of those weird arcane things.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    32. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I immigrated from Canada to the U.S. for lower taxes and better health care.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    33. Re:immigration category by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, the idea is to filter in those who are likely to be a net benefit to those already here, and filter out the rest.

      Yet every person who comes to the United States and works is, by definition, providing more benefits to the economy than they are being paid (or else their employer would not employee them)!

      Also I know my immigrant great-grandparents were not skilled when they arrived, but they gained some skills, and their kids went on to get advanced degrees and get highly skilled jobs. Thus we should also not ignore the "progeny effect". And I can assure you, no one thought in the first decade of the 20th Century that the grand-kids of those "nasty immigrants from Bohemia" were going to amount to anything, but they did.

      Now it might be that we provide too much socialist welfare support to immigrants or poor people in general, and perhaps we should rethink that.

      you don't want to displace existing workers, or depress the wage base

      If you are a US citizen who knows English and got 12 years of free school, and you are competing in the labor pool with people with a 3rd grade education who only know Spanish, then perhaps you deserve to have your wage base depressed! In truth, if your wage base was not depressed through immigration, it would become depressed through trade, or through robots taking over your job!

    34. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      I never said I agreed with the idea, though the motive is as described.

      Further, depressing wages suddenly through an influx of cheap labor is not a good idea.

      Yes, artificial barriers prop up otherwise unsustainable systems, but to let them fail suddenly results in the kind of social unrest that leads to civil war.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    35. Re:immigration category by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link to that poster. I looked into it on various US government websites in the past, and it's ridiculously confusing. Confusing to the point that the cynical part of me thinks that it's made purposefully confusing in order to discourage people. Which of course will backfire since that encourages illegal immigration.

      Anyway I'm a US citizen and am considering marrying my girlfriend, a foreign national not living in the US, and the government websites really put a damper on my enthusiasm - not for her, but for the process ;) After doing some additional research into the claims of that poster for a little verification, it makes things a lot clearer and encourages me to do it.

      It may be of interest to know that the process for most other countries is similar, if not worse. I'm not really happy with the US and considered moving elsewhere, like Canada or the UK if I want to speak English or anywhere else really, but it's practically impossible unless you're famous or rich.

    36. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      You will have to sign an Affidavit of Support. If she divorces you, you will have to continue to support her to 125% of the federal poverty level.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    37. Re:immigration category by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      Yeah the lawyer explained that to us when my husband had to sign it. Funny thing huh? Well I'm hoping my marriage lasts for more than 10 years!

    38. Re:immigration category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really? It pisses you off that they got the easy way in? That their lives are just so much more easy and desirable than yours? What with the manual labor jobs that you wouldn't do anyway? Quit complaining. Jackass.

    39. Re:immigration category by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Quit supporting criminals, coward. There are plenty of out of work Americans that would love such manual labor jobs right now.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    40. Re:immigration category by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that illegal aliens are only doing menial labor jobs. That is not so. Here in Arkansas, more than 70% of unskilled labor jobs are held by immigrants (both legal and illegal) more than 50% of semi-skilled labor is held by immigrants, and they are at about 20% of skilled labor. While liberals like to call my attitude toward illegal aliens "bigoted", you display your own bigotry in assuming that all those illegals are illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated. Some are, but that is not the universal condition! Adding 20 million people (roughly 6% of the total population) to the labor pool in a single generation does indeed depress wages - for EVERYONE. Yes, even for an elitest like yourself. You are selling your elite services to more elitests whose income depends on the population. Even if all your clients are lawyers, doctors, and other professionals - those people's income depends on the less educated people coming to them for services. Depressing THEIR wages affects the income of the professionals. Ever heard the saying, "No man is an island"? This is why the illegal aliens have become such a problem. Many people fail to understand that there IS a problem, while many more just don't care.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    41. Re:immigration category by berberine · · Score: 1

      Your post implies that you can become a citizen after 3 years if you're married to a citizen. In reality, you are eligible to apply for citizenship after 3 years. Best case scenario is you actually become a citizen in 6-7 years, often taking longer. Yes, it's still the quickest way, but you won't be a citizen after three years.

    42. Re:immigration category by DaTrueDave · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's no fun to think about worst-case-scenarios! But it's good to prepare for them as best we can...

    43. Re:immigration category by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Because some people like guns, pickup trucks, enormous steaks, pizza, owning actual land without having to be royalty, the full gamut of climate and geography options, cultural diversity, high quality universities, advanced technology R&D opportunities, and being able to make a difference in how their country is run.

    44. Re:immigration category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more interested what his immigration category was? Mine was EB-2 (Person with advanced degree: Master or Ph.D). I suspect his was EB-1 (Person of national interest).

      Jikes! I'm sure glad I live in a country were people are still treated as equals by the government. But it is starting to erode: Sweden (my home country) this year limited the rights to free (of cost) university studies to citizens of EU or the Nordic Union, previously it had been free of cost to all people with the right academic background, whatever citizenship or other background, at least lower level education is still free for all (and obligatory for children from the age of 7). We also have a neo-nazi (they don't like to be called that, they call themselves democratic nationalists) party that may get enough votes to get into the Swedish "Parliament" (riksdag).

  6. WOAH WOAH WOAH by moogied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He has TWO kids here? And he had those while NOT being a full american citizen? He had Anchor babies? Someone call FOX news please. We cannot have this filth just coming here and knocking out brats!
    Wait what? He is a constructive member of society? Hes already contributed to the American culture before he was a citizen? The entire idea of making immigration more difficult is crazy bullshit? *mind explodes*

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    1. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

      no, no, no... the proper term is GNU/Anchor Baby.

    2. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Skyshadow · · Score: 1

      Bravo, sir. Bravo.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      You win the thread.

    4. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He has TWO kids here? And he had those while NOT being a full american citizen? He had Anchor babies? Someone call FOX news please. We cannot have this filth just coming here and knocking out brats! Wait what? He is a constructive member of society? Hes already contributed to the American culture before he was a citizen? The entire idea of making immigration more difficult is crazy bullshit? *mind explodes*

      I realize you are being sarcastic but I would like to point out that he was here legally to begin with. Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    5. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      No, that's for Mr. Stallman's kids.

    6. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by devphaeton · · Score: 1

      That implies that Linus had a spawn of hairy love-children with Richard Stallman... ..ew.

      --


      do() || do_not(); // try();
    7. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by moogied · · Score: 0

      Ya I agree. I was just feeling a bit of the daily show style of mis-contextualized jokes. :p

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    8. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Linus is an educated and skilled worker who is responsible for the underpinnings of large section of the digital economy. He's not exactly the type of person who's likely to need to sneak across the boarder. Chances are high that the only lawn he's mowed since arriving is his own.

    9. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, it's if Mr. Stallman and Linus had kids together..

      *shudder*

    10. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is just one more reason we need to repeal the 14th Amendment! Nevermind the parts about Due Process and Equal Protection, or the fact that we're ALL immigrants; we have to quash further immigration at any price!

    11. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Draek · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, considering even a guy with a Master's Degree in Computer Science had such a hard time with the inmigration process he postponed dealing with it again for *years*, I'd say it's hard to blame those who just "sneak" across.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    12. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Byzantine immigration process

      Is that the one where you arrive in an occupied country, kill most of the natives and displace the rest?

      Someone should teach the Mexicans how to do it properly.

    13. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by AltairDusk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that he dealt with it enough to come here legally, remain here legally, and now become a citizen here legally despite his apparent frustration with the process I don't find it hard to blame those who just sneak across. If someone isn't willing to do it the right way perhaps they should reconsider how much they want to be here.

    14. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not only that, he's also stealing American jobs with his "free software"! How can a man make an honest living when immigrants are coming over and offering to do it for nothing!

    15. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well done, sir.

    16. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by shentino · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      It took a genius like Linus to do it.

    17. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      That's hardly fair, the man has an advanced degree in Computer Science, has a line on his resume that puts him in a club with maybe 20 other people currently living ("Invented a widely used operating system"), is a minor celebrity, and is from a European country. Of course he got through immigration, immigration probably sent people to his house to make sure everything was all right. He's exactly the kind of person the immigration process was designed to facilitate. Most people that want to come over here have none of those advantages, and aren't in way likely to be able to pick them up before they apply for a green card.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    18. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chances are high that the only lawn he's mowed since arriving is his own.

      Chances are even higher than the guy mowing his lawn now doesn't have the same paperwork that Linus had before he became a citizen.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    19. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by albedoa · · Score: 1

      If someone isn't willing to endure a process that provides no guarantees and is instead willing to risk it all to come here, then they should reconsider how much they want to be here. Yeah that makes sense.

    20. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by jedidiah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > I realize you are being sarcastic but I would like to point out that he was
      > here legally to begin with. Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate
      > the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?

      You don't "navigate the Byzantine immigration process", you hire a lawyer.

      If you personally had to deal with the Migra, you would probably remain undocumented.

      It's not trivial. It's also not cheap. It's not cheap if you are a well paid geek; forget about being a normal working stiff like your poor gringo cousins.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does that mean Jose can break the law by living here illegally?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    22. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It took a genius like Linus to do it.

      I know a waitress that did it. Then again, she came from Eastern Europe, so bureaucracy was nothing new.

    23. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Nimey · · Score: 1

      That's god-fearing American jobs, mind you.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    24. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The INS has gotten loads better now that it is part of DHS but the transition was much much worse than anything.

      I don't find it hard to excuse those who snuck over, I know of a lawyer who graduated suma cum laude and who still needed a specialist lawyer to help with the paperwork. If there is that much paperwork and that complicated who really can blame poor undereducated workers from just sneaking across? getting in leggaly will cost upwards of 15'000$, or roughly a years wages after taxes for these people.

      Fix the imigration system, and give it some reasonable quotas (increasing them by merly and order of magnitude would not address the current flow of people, which gives you an idea for how out of date they are.), then you can complain about people crossing illegally.

    25. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the "right way" is unavailable to some people.

      Then they can stay the fuck out! How hard is this to understand?

      I may disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might really, very strongly, in the most heartfelt way disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might think they're a bunch of jackasses for having such a policy. None of that gives me the right to break their laws.

      I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.

      Coincidentally, highly educated and highly skilled people from Finland aren't causing the USA's illegal immigration problem.

      You might as well complain that people who have not so much as a high school degree have a really difficult time becoming brain surgeons. Horrible discrimination, that is.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    26. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does that mean Jose can break the law by living here illegally?

      All evidence suggests that, yes, he can do so quite easily.

    27. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Zeek40 · · Score: 1
      You obviously have no understanding of the immigration process. People with no money and little education get told to fuck off now. Lady Liberty no longer welcomes the poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, she tells them to go get educated, make some more money and try again next year.

      Linus is a well educated, highly skilled worker and he still had a horrible time of it.

    28. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      or the fact that we're ALL immigrants Speak for yourself, paleface!

      Technically, if you want to go back far enough, we're all African. Anybody living anywhere else is an immigrant from Africa.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    29. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      no, no, no... the proper term is GNU/Anchor Baby.

      Congratulations on coming up with the newest ThinkGeek shirt design.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    30. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Chances are high that the only lawn he's mowed since arriving is his own.

      No. He probably pays some Mexicans to do that, just like everyone else.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    31. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no appreciation for Spanish-Mexican history, do you? If there is one group of people in American history I can despise more than our early settlers of the United States, it would be the Spanish. The atrocities committed against the native Indians makes me feel ill to the stomach; the atrocities committed by the Spanish make my blood freeze. Early Americas was not a friendly place. //captcha: slaver. WTF? Coincidence is bizarre sometimes.

    32. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by russotto · · Score: 0

      Does that mean Jose can break the law by living here illegally?

      It means that crying that Linus came here legally, therefore Jose could have too if only he was willing to do so, is disingenuous.

    33. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Do I get royalties? :-p

    34. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paperwork is a pain but workable if you just pay a lawyer to do the really annoying and sit back and wait knowing that you already have a job so there's no real hurry. It wouldn't take much to put someone like Torvalds off bothering. I'm sure that being in the US isn't really an important life goal of his, it was just a convenience for a job.

      For the illegal immigrants that easy leave the layers who are paid by a company to do it method isn't practical. They're actually keen on moving to the US because their life here is likely to be significantly better than elsewhere.

    35. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      The U.S. immigration process is not Byzantine if you have money. If you have a stable income and property in your home country, almost anyone can get a visa in weeks to travel to the U.S. It is the hard-working people who don't have money, whose only way for them and their family to survive is to risk their lives by sneaking across the boarder. It is an outrage that we can't fine a legal way for these people, who want to work hard and pay your and my Social Security income when we retire, to enter the U.S. legally.

    36. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?

      First, "boarder" is a word, but its not the word you probably mean to use here.

      Second, because of a by-country quota system that isn't aligned proportionately to the number of qualified applicants in legal immigration categories, its a lot easier to immigrate legally to the US from, say, Finland in most of the legal immigration categories, than it is from, say, Mexico.

    37. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an immigrant. I was born here. Please knock off this BS "we're all immigrants." At what point in time is someone considered not to be an immigrant? 5,000, 10,000, 2000 years? Go back far enough and you can claim that everyone not born\living in Africa is an immigrant to some country.

    38. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a neighborhood kid who doesn't know he should be charging at least minimum wage? But then again, the neighborhood kid probably hasn't ever seen his own birth certificate, let alone have an ID card of any kind.

    39. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I don't find it hard to blame those who just sneak across.

      We'd probably do a better job of dealing with the problem if people spent more time focussing on defining what the problem really was and thinking about whether proposed solutions would work than about who they can feel good about blaming.

    40. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by geekoid · · Score: 1

      As can all the people living here legally.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by cwgmpls · · Score: 0

      The lazy ones *do* stay the fuck out. It is the hard-working ones who try repeatedly to get into the country. To work hard, better their family, improve our cities and economy, and pay our Social Security taxes. Would it be a such a terrible thing to give people a way to do this good work legally? Bad laws reward bad behavior. Good laws reward good behavior. Our current immigration policy is one of the worst laws we have.

    42. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone isn't willing to endure a process that provides no guarantees and is instead willing to risk it all to come here, then they should reconsider how much they want to be here. Yeah that makes sense.

      Because clearly I am entitled to immigrate to any country I please. Therefore, because of my entitlement, any immigration laws that wouldn't let me move to that country are flawed and should be flippantly ignored rather than respected as reflecting the intent of a soverign nation. It's all about me, baby, and anything that interferes with what I want to do is wrong even if that means breaking the laws and trespassing on the foreign soil of a nation that doesn't owe me anything. Because I take up space and breathe oxygen I get to be anywhere, even where I'm clearly not wanted and even against the wishes of those who rightfully live there.

      Signed,
      Jose

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    43. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Meskarune · · Score: 1

      But neither one of them have made their DNA open source... As evidence by the fact that I cannot currently make a child from Linus's or Stallman's DNA.... Hypocrisy I say! You think there's a computer powerful enough to compile a gnu/linus? I for one welcome the new theoretical overlord.

      --
      cat /dev/head >> post
    44. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an immigrant. Only people who immigrate here are immigrants. Sheesh

    45. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The illegal immigration problem isn't nearly as bad as the puppets directed by the Koch would have you believe.

      What you fail to understand is that people who come here illegal know it's illegal but living here under the radar is the best alternative they have.

      If going to Canada illegally was the only way I could a minimum scratch level of a life for my family, I would break their migration laws. So would you.

      It's not about rights, or illegality. It's about surviving. Once the US congress realizes that the sooner we can crter a better way to deal with the issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    46. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      I don't find it hard to excuse those who snuck over, I know of a lawyer who graduated suma cum laude and who still needed a specialist lawyer to help with the paperwork. If there is that much paperwork and that complicated who really can blame poor undereducated workers from just sneaking across? getting in leggaly will cost upwards of 15'000$, or roughly a years wages after taxes for these people.

      That has more to do with the nature of a very large federal bureaucracy than anything else. For an example, you can contact the IRS and ask a relatively simple tax question 50 times and are likely to get more than 40 different answers. This isn't unique at all to immigration.

      The real way to fix this is to reduce the demand. That can be arranged by cracking down on businesses who operate on US soil and hire illegal immigrants, by getting rid of bi-lingual everything and declaring the national language to be English, and by requiring proof of citizenship before one may receive any sort of welfare, public education, or other public assistance. Then it's more like "sure, you can probably cross that border without getting caught, it's a big border and hard to police all of it even if we had the will to do so, but once you get here there's nothing for you."

      Anyone who thinks that any of the above would be harsh needs to take a good look at Mexico's immigration laws and is not qualified to speak about the subject until they do.

      That would stem the tide and make it a much more attractive option to come here legally. That in turn would tend to encourage those who respect our laws to be the ones who immigrate.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    47. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      And I bet he had plenty of legal guidance from his employers' lawyers.


      One anecdote of not-failure out of tens of thousands does not paint a picture of a functional system.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    48. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, I am unaware of any group that has a problem with legal immigrants. Most of the people I have seen who have a problem with illegal immigrants favor reducing the difficulty of legally immigrating into this country while increasing the enforcement against illegal immigration.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    49. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying Americans aren't from America? What are you, an immigrant?

      /'Native Americans would probably like us all to GTFO, and give them their land back.
      //conquered people should be a term best left to the analogues of collonialism and history

    50. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Right, so you've got absolutely no problem with anchor babies. You know, since they were born here, and aren't immigrants.

    51. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      This neighborhood kids sounds suspicious, let's sic ICE on his ass!
      Remember the new doubleplus good slogan: See something, Say something.

    52. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.

      Well, yeah. For instance, while the US Embassy in Mexico City (a full 20% of the population of Mexico lives in the Mexico City metropolitan area, and much of the rest lives in the surrounding states) issues non-immigrant visas, the only place in Mexico that issues immigrant visas is the US Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez, which is pretty much ground zero for the drug violence in Mexico. Quoting from the US Department of State's 10 September 2010 travel advisory: "The situation in the state of Chihuahua, specifically Ciudad Juarez, is of special concern. Mexican authorities report that more than 2,600 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez in 2009. Three persons associated with the Consulate General were murdered in March, 2010."

      And that's even before considering the fact that irrespective of proximity of the country, population of the country, or number of qualified visa applicants in legal categories, the US has a per-country cap (in 2010, this was 15,820 for family based, and 10,440 for employment-based) on the number of immigrants admitted from any one country, and that the number of applicants in the family-based categories on the waiting list from Mexico is over 1 million.

       

    53. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by allenthelee · · Score: 0

      A nuanced conservative viewpoint on anchor babies is that they provide a perverse economic incentive for illegal immigrants to have babies here as US citizenship provides a social raft of benefits (pretty crappy compared to most other developed countries but generally better than their country of origin).

      There's no anchor baby issue at all with Linus, as he is a legal immigrant here, with a valid visa. The anchor babies debate should be framed on whether or not babies born to illegal immigrants should be automatically granted citizenship status.

    54. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a neighborhood kid who doesn't know he should be charging at least minimum wage?
      I guess you haven't gotten a quote for getting your lawn mowed lately. Let's just say I have considered quitting my job and mowing lawns as I could make more per hour and enjoy the fresh air.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    55. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That can be arranged by cracking down on businesses who operate on US soil and hire illegal immigrants,

      That right there would be enough to do it. The rest would be totally redundant. Fine 1000 x wages made by said illegals and 1 day per illegal worker in county jail for the CEO or owner of the company. If wages cannot be determined make it 1% of the company's gross revenue per illegal worker or $1 million per which ever is higher.

      No jobs, no illegal immigrants.

    56. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymuous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The real way to fix this is to reduce the demand. That can be arranged by cracking down on businesses who operate on US soil and hire illegal immigrants, by getting rid of bi-lingual everything and declaring the national language to be English, and by requiring proof of citizenship before ... once you get here there's nothing for you

      And at the end of that process USA will become a 'regular' country like Belarus or North Korea, where people will be desperate to sneak out instead of in.

    57. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I realize you are being sarcastic but I would like to point out that he was here legally to begin with. Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?

      You must be American. If you only knew how the process really worked you might not have made that smart ass, ignorant comment. Here's how it really works.
      If you are an athlete that an American sports team wants, you'll get a visa.
      Entertainer? In general, you'll get a visa too.
      Rich? Come on in!
      Student? You're in. Note that this was how 30+ year olds got into the US to cause 9-11.
      American business wants to sponsor your visa? You got it.

      That's it. Now where exactly does leave the honest, hardworking people who don't fit into those categories?

      I'm going to skip the very long response I was going to write on the "fun" that honest people have in trying to simply get tourist visas to come to the USA. Or go into details about the "fun" that people legally here on work visas have when trying to marry American citizens and then remain here with their spouse when the job ends. Not to mention how a colleague of mine married a girl from South America who had overstayed her tourist visa by years illegally and he no problems of any kind getting her status changed to legal. Read the sentence I wrote that starts with "Or go ..." and think about that. The US immigration system isn't "Byznatine". It's nonsensical.

    58. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You don't "navigate the Byzantine immigration process", you hire a lawyer.
      I navigated the Byzantine immigration process without a lawyer to get my wife to be a naturalized citizen. I did not use a lawyer. The paperwork is trivial, and the lawyers take thousands of dollars for something that you could do yourself.

      If you personally had to deal with the Migra, you would probably remain undocumented.
      Amazingly no, my wife is now a naturalized citizen, and we did not use a lawayer.
      It's not trivial. It's also not cheap. It's not cheap if you are a well paid geek; forget about being a normal working stiff like your poor gringo cousins.
      It was about $400 back then. It is about $800 now. That is not cheap, but it is not a very high price to pay to become a citizen of another country. The "Leaving the country tax" in some corrupt countries (like Honduras) is higher than that.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    59. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should demonstrate "America" to him. Sure him for something.

    60. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Why is it disingenuous? Do you even know any migrant workers? Do you know of the near slave-like conditions most of them toil under? Have you ever had to gut a mobile-home because the previous park owner turned a blind eye to 7 adults & 3 children illegally living in a two bedroom trailer? The current system is *bad for the migrant workers*. It's exploitive. It's not about some fucking yard service or farmer's bottom line, it's about treating people with humanity & dignity. What part of this do people like yourself not understand?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    61. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, I couldn't disagree with you more. . .

      I used to work for a uniform company in Florida and spoke to many illegals (en espanol mind you). They informed me that their plan was to make money, send it back to Mexico (or other south american country) then go and retire as upper class citizens. Many did not want to maintain long term citizenship here in good ole USA.

      Once the congress focuses on the real constitution as it relates to true Liberty then we can focus on what truly matters.

    62. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Hes already contributed to the American culture before he was a citizen?

      Nonono! He has contributed to the destruction of America! Damn immigrants! Terrists, all of them!

      Just ask Steve Ballmer.

    63. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      First of all, it's nothing to do with survival. People survive just fine in Mexico. It's not even a particularly poor country by the world standards, and it is classified as an "upper middle-income" country by the World Bank. If the goal of a country's immigration policy is to provide foreigners with a better life (a laughable notion but that's what you seem to be saying) then help sub-Saharan Africans, or old and sick, immigrate to the US. Why help young and healthy who just happen to be born in a country which shares a land border with the US?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    64. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by albedoa · · Score: 1

      Literally nobody in this subthread has claimed any of that. Good job Jose!

    65. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by houghi · · Score: 1

      So the ones who bring their lives in danger should be saying legally, as they have dealt with way much more then those filling out a few papers or just being born in the country.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    66. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Well, he probably qualifies as an EB-1 for making freaking Linux, so he doesn't have to navigate much of an immigration process: A green card for under 10K between fees and laywer costs, all in under a year.

      If you don't have a master's degree, things are not so easy: A programmer with quite a bit of experience but no publications or a master's degree will only qualify as an EB-3. Today, they are giving people green cards to Europeans that received a labor certification in 2004. Yes, a 6 year wait, and that's if you come from Europe. That's why so many Indians get master's degrees in CompSci, even though they don't really have much use for them in the real world: Their line is longer than 6 years if they don't have a masters, but if they do, it's about 2 years last time I checked.

      Oh, and all of those require an employee willing to sponsor you, and with those waits, no employer will sponsor you unless you are already working for them, so you have to have already qualified for an H1 visa or a research visa just to start the process, and chances are you need to work with them for a bit before they'll sponsor you.

      So if you don't have a degree, manage to get a job with an H1 visa, and stay afloat without changing jobs all that often for about a decade, your best chance of coming in legally is to marry an American. If you can't go through that, you either go somewhere else or go illegal.

      No wonder so many people choose illegal immigration.

    67. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      no, no, no... the proper term is GNU/Anchor Baby.

      GNU/AB is old news. I'm starting a fork called YAFABS (Yet Another Free Anchor Baby System). Naturalized in 5 years? With YAFABS you'll be naturalized in two!
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    68. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Though society needs both manual laborers and computer programming geniuses, but it seems logical that any one such programmer has work that's more valuable than any one such laborer

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    69. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      Many of the people crossing the Mexican border are from poorer countries in central and south america. And yes, they are the young, healthy ones. If you could choose one person to send overseas to try to earn enough money for your family to survive, would you send the old, sick ones? We should be glad it is the young, healthy ones coming in. They are the ones who will contribute most to our economy and pay for your and my social security when we retire.

    70. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the having your corporation pay your legal bills & take care of most of the paperwork to bring you in is extremely different than having to do everything yourself.

      You're setting up a strawman argument. No one is saying that immigrating illegally should somehow be legalized (although logistical problems of dealing with the current situation need to be addressed). However, making it easier to immigrate may solve a lot of problems. The current backlog & just insane wait times (even if you have an education & employment) are ridiculous.

    71. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Nobody sane wants to make immigration more difficult for contributing members of society. The whole 'anchor baby' thing is an axillary response to what is happening; it's a symptom, not the cause, of immigration 'glut'.

      What people want is for the enforcement of current immigration laws, or if not that, then at least keep the southern border secure or remove the incentive to immigrate illegally - the result of which is huge communities of non-assimilating, non-citizens.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    72. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      in addition to legal/illegal, perhaps part of the argument is "okay, now we have enough"

      Also, the only 14th Amendment repealing I've heard about is repealing the one specific auto-citizenship clause.

      interesting, I'm a native American, born and raised here even though I don't have Indian ancestry.

      Here's another terminological fuzzy area: a white guy from South Africa is an African-American, whereas a black guy from Jamaica is not, technically speaking, but the common usage does not consider it as such.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    73. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by slick7 · · Score: 1

      or the fact that we're ALL immigrants Speak for yourself, paleface!

      The first DHS

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    74. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Did you ever stop to consider that those people "sneaking across the boarder", as you so negatively put it, may simply not be able to read the large signs on the fences that clearly stated they were entering another country?

      Who could blame them for not noticing the cultural difference, as there isn't much of one in many of the southern towns which have been overwhelmed by these apparent illiterates.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    75. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, highly educated and highly skilled people from Finland aren't causing the USA's illegal immigration problem.

      Indeed, though people occasionally move from one first world country to another (as is the case here), there's no en mass movement; that comes from people wanting to move into the first world from outside of it.

      People already in the first world are sometimes annoyed because they're afraid that third-worlders bring us down in addition to or instead of bringing themselves up. Also, they don't want to deal with another country's problem.
      Not saying I agree, just trying to figure out some of what's going through their heads.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    76. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      We already did. It is called California and Texas.

    77. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      no, no, no... the proper term is GNU/Anchor Baby.

      Don't you mean he forked two child processes while in the USofA? Linus spawns child processes not anchor babies. Hand in your GNU Citizenship card. ;)

    78. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      to borrow from a certain significant piece of world literature, we overemphasize the splinter in our own eye, and underemphasize the plank in theirs?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    79. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Technically, if you want to go back far enough, we're all African. Anybody living anywhere else is an immigrant from Africa.

      Technically, if you go back far enough, we're all aquatic creatures. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn, niggers!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    80. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      You realize, don't you, that "Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree" (nice racist stereotyping, there) isn't exactly the kind of person a progressive Western society wants to be able to participate in our system, right?

      * no education, so can't read/write well
      * can not speak English
      * likely has no skills aside from what can be done with his hands

      Within a modern Western society (especially one with socialized healthcare), these people are a drain on the native people. They work under the radar for less then minimum wage, depriving the natives of those jobs (whether they're preferable or not - they pay something, and even unskilled natives need to earn a day's wage to fulfill their sense of self-worth).

      There are man reasons why you would not want this Jose in your country in the first place as even a documented foreigner, never mind as a citizen. The point of immigration is to improve the country, not weigh it down with a heavy underclass of unskilled foreign workers who leech off the public tit (most Western societies have enough of those already).

      Jose should no sooner gain more than a visitor's visa than Billy Bob, the illiterate 350lb Alabama native with a load of student debt and no marketable skills, should get one to Japan or Mexico.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    81. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I were an US leader standing across from Mexican delegation, this is what I'd ask them "Aren't you embarrassed about how many people are fleeing your country?"

      It should be embarrassing and shameful.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    82. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Though society needs both manual laborers and computer programming geniuses, but it seems logical that any one such programmer has work that's more valuable than any one such laborer

      Until you actually need some manual labour done and realize just how much work that really is. Then you try it anyway and realize just why the companies that kicked the few actually competent manual labourers out are having such problems. Then you use the remaining hand to type in a want-ad :).

      In any case, Linus's work at this point is managering, not programming.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    83. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, highly educated and highly skilled people from Finland aren't causing the USA's illegal immigration problem.

      Further coincidentally, did you know that Jose Gonzalez is a highly educated and highly skilled person from Sweden?

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
    84. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Why is it disingenuous?

      Because saying "A world-renown programmer/manager moved here legally, therefore anyone could" is a logical non-sequiter.

      The current system is *bad for the migrant workers*. It's exploitive.

      That was kind of the grandparent's point.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    85. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

      The problem with the anchor babies is with ILLEGAL aliens, not legal ones. But that may be too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

    86. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lazy ones *do* stay the fuck out. It is the hard-working ones who try repeatedly to get into the country. To work hard, better their family, improve our cities and economy, and pay our Social Security taxes. Would it be a such a terrible thing to give people a way to do this good work legally? Bad laws reward bad behavior. Good laws reward good behavior. Our current immigration policy is one of the worst laws we have.

      The second they break our laws to be here they demonstrate a belief that we owe them something. We don't. It's that simple.

      An analogy can be made to your private residence. It doesn't matter if I'm the nicest most hard-working guy in the world. If you tell me that I am not welcome in your home, I don't get to stay there against your wishes because I think I should be allowed to. The term for that is trespassing. The fact that I'm willing to do your yardwork and landscaping doesn't override your wishes as the homeowner. If you think my work is valuable and decide to allow me on premises, you may do so, but I don't have the right to demand that you make that decision.

      It's the same thing when a sovereign nation decides who is and is not welcome in their territory and on what terms they may be there. The problem lies in the people who don't respect its wishes and break its laws. Any good traits they have like paying taxes or doing work is completely irrelevant. I don't have the right to break the immigration laws of a sovereign nation no matter how great of a person I think I may be.

      Furthermore, it's completely pathological to insist on being where you're not wanted.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    87. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the goal of a country's immigration policy is to provide foreigners with a better life (a laughable notion but that's what you seem to be saying)

      "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."

      It was this notion that built the most powerful country on the Earth. It's abandoning it that has caused said country to decline. People trying to improve their lot usually end up improving plenty of other people's lot too; the worse off they were to begin with, the more driven they are. What the heck happened to you to forget that? Megacorps?

      Bloody Hell! I can understand selfish psychopaths - and will argue with them from the understanding that they only care of themselves - but I'll never, ever, understand people who are acting against their own interests, despite presumably being intelligent enough to understand them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    88. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      The real way to fix this is to reduce the demand. That can be arranged by cracking down on businesses who operate on US soil and hire illegal immigrants, by getting rid of bi-lingual everything and declaring the national language to be English, and by requiring proof of citizenship before ... once you get here there's nothing for you

      And at the end of that process USA will become a 'regular' country like Belarus or North Korea, where people will be desperate to sneak out instead of in.

      I'll state up-front that I disagree with you. However, I'm willing to listen to you and entertain your idea but I need more information. Why do you think that would be the outcome?

      I'll make one correction to my previous statement. When I said that proof of citizenship should be required, I should have said "proof of citizenship or proof that you are here legally, i.e. a green card". If someone has come here legally, followed and respected our laws, then I have no problem with them or their children going to a public school. For natural-born citizens, a driver's license should be good enough for most purposes.

      I believe that what I mentioned is reasonable. Many countries have an official national language; it does not seem to cause their destruction. The idea that benefits like welfare which are provided by the taxpaying citizens of the country should be limited to those who are here legally doesn't sound unduly harsh to me. And when I, a natural-born citizen, apply for a job at any company, I am expected to provide documents like a Social Security card in addition to forms of ID such as my driver's license and/or a birth certificate. That's been no problem for me and I don't consider it some horribly oppressive burden.

      So if these ideas are inherently unreasonable, or could not be implemented in a reasonable way, can you demonstrate why that is true?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    89. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by StayFrosty · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are the ones who will contribute most to our economy and pay for your and my social security when we retire

      This is so ridiculous I am undoing moderation to reply.

      First of all I'd rather my children be contributing to the economy and social security when I retire. There is no shortage of American workers in the US right now. In fact there is a surplus. Putting these people to work will do more for our economy than hiring illegals. Not only will unemployment be lower but the cost of unemployment, food stamps and other welfare benefits payed to currently unemployed or underemployed Americans will decrease. It could even help raise wages for low-paying jobs as Americans (or legal immigrants) aren't as likely to live in unsafe conditions just to save a few bucks.

      You are also forgetting the burden illegal immigrants put on our welfare system. Since they often work for low wages and live below the poverty line they qualify for all sorts of benefits. In Wisconsin they get excellent health care (better than my current employment benefits and they pay nothing for it), housing assistance, heating assistance, food stamps, etc... all on the American taxpayer's dime. Interestingly it seems that these programs were tailored for illegal immigrants as you do not need a social security number to qualify--meaning you don't have to be paying taxes to get the benefits.

      As someone whose job was displaced by illegal immigrants I don't believe that Americans would not do the same work as illegals. I was paying my way through school by working on a farm on weekends and over the summers. Pretty soon the farmer hired a few illegal immigrants to work week nights. Within 6 months he had hired 4 more and my hours went from 30/week to about 4. Why? The illegals were willing to work for minimum wage and I couldn't. I have a few unemployed friends who would be more than willing to work on a farm or something similar for $8-$10 an hour just so they can get by. None of them can find work because all the farms around are only hiring illegals these days.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    90. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "Aren't you embarrassed about how many people are fleeing your country?"

      And yet, for their credit, they have done nothing to stop people from leaving. That's better than quite certain states can boast.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    91. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs so much because the guy charging you has to pay himself plus the two [other] Mexicans who actually do the work.

    92. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that gives me the right to break their laws.

      Unless there's oil involved, then you wouldn't mind a bunch of guys breaking other countries' laws, right?

      It's not that simple. Illegal immigrants are trying to find a better future for themselves and their families, being their current situation intolerable.

    93. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      So by that logic it would be in our interest to abandon all immigration control? Do you have any idea how many people would come here overnight. 100s of millions is not an exaggeration. Do you still keep the welfare state in that case. Free healthcare for the poor, unemployment benefits etc. How on earth is that in our interest?

      "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." It was this notion that built the most powerful country on the Earth. People trying to improve their lot usually end up improving plenty of other people's lot too; the worse off they were to begin with, the more driven they are.

      That doesn't work with welfare state on. Some people come here with the idea of working hard to improve their lot, others come with the idea of easy living at other people's expense. You might benefit from watching this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    94. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."

      It was this notion that built the most powerful country on the Earth. It's abandoning it that has caused said country to decline. People trying to improve their lot usually end up improving plenty of other people's lot too; the worse off they were to begin with, the more driven they are. What the heck happened to you to forget that? Megacorps?

      The difference is that those people weren't breaking our laws to be here. Additionally, they came to America because they wanted to be Americans. They were willing to learn our language, follow our laws, and participate in our culture. It was the "great melting pot". The German immigrants did not insist that our signs and documents be written in both English and German. The Chinese immigrants did not insist that our signs and documents be written in both English and Chinese. They knew they were moving to an English-speaking country and expected to adapt because they were reasonable and didn't possess the sense of entitlement you see so much of today.

      Bloody Hell! I can understand selfish psychopaths - and will argue with them from the understanding that they only care of themselves - but I'll never, ever, understand people who are acting against their own interests, despite presumably being intelligent enough to understand them.

      The selfish ones are the people who insist on being here against our wishes. An analogy to the personal level makes this easier to illustrate: who's the selfish one -- the uninvited trespasser or the homeowner who asks him to leave? I'd say the trespasser is the selfish one, and if you disagree then surely you'd have no problem letting anyone occupy your home anytime they want even against your wishes? What's against our interests is to ignore all of the trespassers on a national scale and all of the problems they are causing.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    95. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work for a uniform company in Florida and spoke to many illegals (en espanol mind you). They informed me that their plan was to make money, send it back to Mexico (or other south american country) then go and retire as upper class citizens.

      This sounds like a astroturf talking point. It simply doesn't jive with the reality that I grew up with in Central CA, which has a huge population of legal and illegal immigrants. At best you're extrapolating the actions of a minuscule portion of the immigrant population out to the population as a whole. At worst you're regurgitating something you received in a chain email.

    96. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by toadlife · · Score: 1

      t's not even a particularly poor country by the world standards, and it is classified as an "upper middle-income" country by the World Bank.

      If you are of the "white" variety of Mexicans, yes. The darker "Mestizo" ones are treated like sub-humans.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    97. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      "Aren't you embarrassed about how many people are fleeing your country?"

      And yet, for their credit, they have done nothing to stop people from leaving. That's better than quite certain states can boast.

      There's more to it than that. The Mexican government has been known to actually provide information to assist its citizens who want to enter the US illegally. That isn't because their motives are great and altruistic. It's because many of those illegal aliens want to earn money in the USA and then send it back to Mexico, enhancing the Mexican economy.

      Is it such a surprise that Mexican politicians won't take action to stop activities that effectively transfer wealth from the USA to Mexico? I don't care what language they speak; politicians are politicians.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    98. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      Literally nobody in this subthread has claimed any of that. Good job Jose!

      What they have claimed is that it's okay for people to come here illegally, that there's anything wrong with opposing this, that it's our fault for having immigration laws and not the fault of those who break them, and otherwise that there is a moral equivalence between the sovereign nation that has immigration laws over its own territory and those who break those laws whenever convenient.

      All of those are false. All of those revolve around an entitlement mentality. You have to look at the essence, at what's behind those ideas, to understand the mentality that drives them. Or you can be willfully blind to that and think that your bit of sarcasm there overrides the point I was making. Your call.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    99. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Americano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dated a Brazilian girl a few years ago who was here illegally, and it certainly gave me a lot more sympathy for the situation our immigration laws put some people in. She came here legally (I believe on a student visa - she was a journalist back in Minas Gerais, and was here for some sort of communications program at a college near Boston), got a job to cover expenses while she was here, and ended up pregnant by an American guy. When the visa expired, she stayed. I never inquired too closely how she was able to keep her job after the visa expired, as it seemed to me the corporation she worked for should have had the resources to track these sorts of things.

      So now, she's sort of stuck between staying illegally and going home and leaving her child behind. The baby's father told her that he would never allow her to move back to Brazil with the baby, putting her in the position where she could choose to obey the law, or abandon her child. If she left the country to go back to Brazil even to visit, she would be denied re-entry because her visa had expired - meaning she couldn't even go home for her mother's funeral when her mother passed away.

      That our laws are putting people in this sort of a situation is fairly disturbing. I'm sure it's an unintended consequence, but it points to a problem that needs to be fixed.

      My opinion on what I'd consider a 'generally fair' system:
      1) Fine companies that hire illegals out of existence. Make it so painful to do so that no employer would ever consider it, and *enforce* that law, vigorously. It should be considered the next thing to human trafficking to hire somebody here, treat them like livestock, and pay them criminally low wages. The management chain from line manager all the way up to CEO should be held personally, criminally, responsible for failing to secure adequate documentation.
      2) Allow companies to sponsor workers from foreign countries to come here and work for them, under the following conditions:
                a) Prove that the job has been posted for some amount of time in the local markets, and that you've failed to find a qualified candidate;
                b) Pay prevailing market wages to anybody you hire, immigrant or local, for that job.
      3) Allow people to come here as long as they can demonstrate:
                a) They are being sponsored for a job by a company here, or have a job already here;
                b) -- OR -- they are a dependent of someone who is being sponsored or has a job already here;
      4) People entering on this jobs program must hold a job & be paying taxes (or be a dependent) in order to access public services - healthcare, education, driver's license, etc.etc.
      5) Break the law in a serious fashion (or multiple less-serious offenses), risk losing your job and being deported.

      A system like this would probably neuter about 80% of the "illegal immigrant" problem today. If there is no way to get a job other than through these methods, and the job is required to take advantage of public services, that will eliminate the lazy do-nothings from the queue. The remaining people who would want to come in illegally and undocumented would *probably* largely be the criminal element & security concerns - so you focus your attention on finding & stopping those people, rather than looking through a 30-million-person haystack for the 1 or 2 needles, or looking at rounding up the entire immigrant population and deporting them all.

    100. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the one where you swear loyalty to the Emperor and take up the Eastern Orthodox faith.

    101. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been to the South lately? Down here there are tons of people against immigration of /any/ kind.

    102. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      But low-wage workers from other countries _are_ wanted. Many industries depend on them, including the food you eat, the housekeeping at hospitals and hotels, the cleaning companies that clean our offices and shopping centers. Our economy would collapse without these low-wage workers.

      If these workers are truly not wanted, the solution is very simple. Stop paying them, and they'll stop coming.

      It is completely pathological to make it illegal to provide the labor that we that we want and pay for every day -- the labor that our economy depends on.

    103. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      That's it. Now where exactly does leave the honest, hardworking people who don't fit into those categories?

      What makes us responsible for their lot in life?

      If we are responsible for that, then why do we discriminate? Why stop at the Mexicans? Why not assume the full burden of the entire human population which is downtrodden in some way and wants a better life elsewhere? It would be hard but hey, we could find some way to fit a few more billion people into the continental USA. Then you'd feel really good about yourself, right?

      I'm betting that if you were having money troubles, you would not approach your slightly wealthier neighbor and demand that this is his problem and tell him that whether he wants to or not, he's going to help you out. I'm guessing you understand why that would be wrong. What makes this so acceptable to you on a national scale? The fact that the effects are spread out among large numbers of people? That changes the fundamental right-and-wrong of it for you?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    104. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      I can't agree more with this AC fellow. While you guys got decent people in the Mayflower, we got all kinds of criminals from Spain, because they didn't want to risk sending the "nice people" on such a long trip. They came later on when the land was "subdued". So central and south american natives got all kinds of nasty stuff from spanish military and criminals. Of course I don't mean to imply that native north americans got it easy at all. Just stating a small difference.

    105. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like a bit of xenophobia to rile up the masses. You do realize how the country was founded, right?

      Talk about shit deep in irony.

      An American Indian

    106. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      The second they break our laws to be here they demonstrate a belief that we owe them something.

      You're making a logical leap there that I'm not convinced is defensible.

      I assume there exist people who never break any law, ever, no matter whether they disagree with it or how light the penalty for being caught breaking it is. However, I've never met any such person, and if you claimed to be one, I would not believe you.

      If the upside of breaking immigration laws is that a person can get a better job and provide a better life for their family, and the downside of being caught isn't all that bad, many rational, even ethical people will take that gamble. It would be delusional to believe otherwise.

      People don't hold laws, especially laws they don't have a voice in making, sacred. It doesn't matter to them if you think they should. Calling them names won't change their behavior. Altering the risk/reward equation of breaking the law, on the other hand, probably would to some degree.

      Furthermore, it's completely pathological to insist on being where you're not wanted.

      If illegal immigrants were unwanted by all of America, no one would hire them.

      If I tell you to stay out of my house, but it's also known that I'll give you $100/hour (or whatever wage would seem attractive to a given person) if you show up anyway, there's something pathological about that, but it's not the person who shows up and works.

    107. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      $8-$10 per hour plus minimal benefits, employment tax, workers comp. and reasonable working conditions is *way* more than most farmers are paying illegal immigrants.

      The jobs you lost to illegals are still there, it just costs the farmer less to hire illegals than it costs to hire you, even at $8 per hour. The farmer is doing the natural, free-market thing and hiring the cheaper labor. The illegals are doing the natural free-market thing and taking the work. You could take the work too, but you'd have to lower your wage and expectations.

      I'm always amazed people are upset about illegal labor but I never hear complaints when my local supermarket runs a special on chicken. Americans love cheap labor and as long as they want it, the market will provide it, no matter how illegal it is.

      We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal, instead of wasting effort criminalizing the very people providing the food we want for our families.

    108. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by cwgmpls · · Score: 1

      I think your proposal is very reasonable, but is missing one critical thing: what to do with the 40 million or so undocumented people that are already here, including your friend. A reasonable plan would be for them to acquire legal status as long as they adhere to the conditions you outline. That would be fine, but immediately gets labeled as "amnesty" by immigrant haters and we are back a square one again with no solution and thousands of people crossing the boarder every day to fill our demand for cheap labor.

    109. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Considering that he dealt with it enough to come here legally, remain here legally, and now become a citizen here legally despite his apparent frustration with the process I don't find it hard to blame those who just sneak across. If someone isn't willing to do it the right way perhaps they should reconsider how much they want to be here.

      People with college degrees don't have to sneak across. Likely Linus was sponsored by his company to come in on an EB style visa, had kids, and applied for a visa because his children were US citizens.

      An unskilled worker in Mexico or Central America without family in the US has no way to become a US citizen.

    110. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Americano · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and basically, you would have to grandfather in people who are already here - probably offer a blanket amnesty along the lines of, "If you're here, and you meet these conditions, come fill out some forms, you and your employer both pay a small 'fine' (waivable for the immigrant for hardship reasons, not waivable for the company) and we'll move on."

      If it's about security, you gain NOTHING by forcing 30+-million undocumented people to remain undocumented and hide their presence. By comparison, you gain quite a bit by knowing that 29.7 million of them are decent folks who just want a job and a better life than their home countries were affording them, and then you can start deporting the other 0.3 million who are here for illegal purposes, or to simply sponge off the system.

      Unfortunately, I agree with your comment - a pragmatic plan of this sort would probably never be implemented because a bunch of fools would shout about "amnesty." Unfortunately, those same people are pretty quiet about offering to properly fund and enforce deportation of the millions of illegals already here. So by refusing to change the broken system, they're offering a tacit amnesty anyway, and simply using the issue as a wedge issue to get some votes from border states struggling with the problem.

      What it boils down to, in the words of Lt. Lockhart, in Full Metal Jacket: "It's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite."

    111. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      seconded

      --
      WALSTIB!
    112. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.

      You are correct. Linus likely used an EB visa for highly educated workers, then had kids, then applied for citizenship based on being the father of the US citizen kids.

      "Jose Gonzales" does not have access to the EB visa program, and if he is from Mexico or Central America, he also doesn't have access to the DV visa program either. If he does not have direct family in the US (father, spouse, children), there is no way for him to ever become a US citizen.

      He might get lucky and be chosen by a company to be one of the few in an H2-A or H2-B seasonal agriculture/temporary unskilled worker visa program, but he cannot apply for citizenship on those visas, and has to return to his native country.

    113. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by toadlife · · Score: 1

      This is so ridiculous I am undoing moderation to reply.

      Congratulation. You wasted your mod points so you could expose your own ignorance.

      You are also forgetting the burden illegal immigrants put on our welfare system. Since they often work for low wages and live below the poverty line they qualify for all sorts of benefits. In Wisconsin they get excellent health care (better than my current employment benefits and they pay nothing for it), housing assistance, heating assistance, food stamps, etc... all on the American taxpayer's dime.

      Bullshit. With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants genreally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance. Regarding health care, studies have shown that illegal immigrants place a lower burden on our health care system than citizens of the same socioeconomic class. Here is a second study which came to the same conclusion. Here is a third. A fourth.

      Interestingly it seems that these programs were tailored for illegal immigrants as you do not need a social security number to qualify--meaning you don't have to be paying taxes to get the benefits.

      I've never heard of a state giving illegals welfare-type benefits. I'd love a link to these programs in Wisconsin you speak of. Got one?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    114. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?

      How many people with Ph.D.'s are sneaking across the border when they can simply obtain an EB visa?

      The people who are sneaking across the border are the people who have no legal path to citizenship - unskilled workers from Mexico and Central America without direct family in the US.

    115. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by toadlife · · Score: 1

      We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal,

      We actually have made it legal - or as legal as we can under federal law. Most states have labor laws that exempt farm workers from protections afforded to other workers.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    116. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by TheSync · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The second they break our laws to be here they demonstrate a belief that we owe them something.

      Tell that to Rosa Parks...

      Of course the truth is it isn't THEIR right to freedom of movement we should be most worried about, it is OUR economy they will improve, directly through their hard work and indirectly through the hard work of their progeny. One of their children could be the world's next Linus. It is unlikely their children could be the next Linus if their kid is born in a small town in Mexico.

    117. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by eht · · Score: 1

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/mexicoangry.asp

      A little old, but... Mexican leaders are apparently mad at the US leaders for making Mexicans go back to Mexico.

    118. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Anchor babies count squat toward one's own immigration/citizenship chances.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    119. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I lived in Texas while a legal non-immigrant on a work visa.

      I had no trouble, and was missed when I had to return to Canada because of a lay off.

      Maybe it was my NRA membership.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    120. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants genreally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance. Regarding health care, studies have shown that illegal immigrants place a lower burden on our health care system than citizens of the same socioeconomic class. [reuters.com] Here is a second study [ama-assn.org] which came to the same conclusion. Here is a third [arizona.edu]. A fourth [healthaffairs.org].

      You are the one being ignorant. I't obvious that illegal immigrants put less of a burden on our health care system. They don't want to risk deportation so they are less likely to go to a hospital or clinic when injured or sick. Simple logic dictates that if said illegal immigrants were not here in the first place their impact on our health care system would be zero. This would free up resources to help unemployed and underemployed Americans who cannot afford health care. It would also free up low paying (better than nothing) jobs for unemployed Americans.

      I've never heard of a state giving illegals welfare-type benefits. I'd love a link to these programs in Wisconsin you speak of. Got one?

      Sure. Look at Badger Care for health care. Check out this link has a pretty good description of available benefits.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    121. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Weird isn't it how some people can actually navigate the Byzantine immigration process instead of just sneaking across the boarder?"

      Yes. It is pretty baffling to me that anyone cannot simply become an OS expert, start a project that takes on the establishment and plays a major role in the complete reshaping of an industry, and then do what else is needed to get into the country legally. I am not pro-illegal immigration, but failing to recognize that there are other Linus Torvolds types who are not realizing their true potential simply because they were unfortunate with regard to where they were born is a bit ridiculous. Do you really think that if Linus was born in Mexico he would have still gotten into the country the same way?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    122. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I may disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might really, very strongly, in the most heartfelt way disagree with a foreign country's immigration policy. I might think they're a bunch of jackasses for having such a policy. None of that gives me the right to break their laws.

      This is meaningless. "The right to break their law"? What does that even mean? Look, human beings break bad laws. We do it all the time. In fact I proffer that frequency of violation of a law is a decent indication of how good or bad that law is. Driving faster than the posted limit, smoking weed, living peacefully and contributing to society in a place where the people in power don't like you -- these are occasions when millions and millions and millions of people break bad laws every day.

      I might have a modicum of sympathy for the anti-immigration folks if our immigration laws weren't a travesty. But they are, so obviously those laws are broken. Duh. Any person who demands strict adherence to a law which can not be strictly followed is pushing a cover for some kind of ulterior motive, which is apparently too unsavory to push directly.

    123. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Rosa Parks...

      Is this a joke? Because I can't believe you think an analogy to Rosa Parks is good argumentation. It's just emotional fluff.

      I'll easily explain that for you. Racism is inherently wrong. There is no justification for it. A country protecting its borders is not inherently wrong. There is plenty of justification for it.

      Of course the truth is it isn't THEIR right to freedom of movement we should be most worried about, it is OUR economy they will improve, directly through their hard work and indirectly through the hard work of their progeny. One of their children could be the world's next Linus.

      We can "what if" all day. For that matter, what about all the illegals who are involved in the drug cartels and conducting drug, gun, and even human trafficking? We should tolerate that because the next good programmer *might possibly* come about? Please. I can make up scenarios with no evidence too, I just don't use them to justify my arguments.

      It is unlikely their children could be the next Linus if their kid is born in a small town in Mexico.

      If that's true, then Mexico has serious problems that the Mexican people need to solve. That doesn't give them the right to break our laws.

      You're doing a good job of exposing the lack of rational basis for the supporters of illegal immigration. This is the kind of faux "reasoning" that justifies such a belief because there is no real justification for it. If there were a solid basis for supporting illegal immigration you'd use that instead of wasting time with this non-logic. It's a great example of people who form an emotional belief and then try to rationalize it, rather than letting solid rationality determine what they believe. Cart before horse.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    124. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Myopic · · Score: 1

      If you aren't aware of groups that have problems with legal immigrants, you aren't well informed. Look a little harder. And I also disagree that "most" or even "many" of people who oppose "illegal" immigration favor loosening immigration requirements. I actually have never heard of such a person, although you could claim to be the first.

    125. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by StayFrosty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $8-$10 per hour plus minimal benefits, employment tax, workers comp. and reasonable working conditions is *way* more than most farmers are paying illegal immigrants.

      This was in 2004. I was making $6.50/hr. Minimum wage was $5.15. I had no benefits of any kind including workers comp as farm labor in Wisconsin was exempt at that time.

      My question to you is: If farmers aren't paying employment taxes, how is illegal labor going to pay for my social security as you stated in your previous post?

      The jobs you lost to illegals are still there, it just costs the farmer less to hire illegals than it costs to hire you, even at $8 per hour. The farmer is doing the natural, free-market thing and hiring the cheaper labor. The illegals are doing the natural free-market thing and taking the work. You could take the work too, but you'd have to lower your wage and expectations.

      I didn't have a choice. Like I said in the previous post the farmer just cut my hours to nothing. I ended up taking the pay cut by getting a different job that only paid minimum wage. I would have preferred to continue doing the farm work for minimum wage. My friend who has been looking for farm (and other unskilled) work lately isn't even considered for minimum-wage jobs of this type because he's here legally.

      We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal,

      I like cheap clothing. Should we legalize slavery to produce the cotton more cheaply? Should we legalize child labor so the mills can make more of a profit? I bet it that would be even cheaper than outsourcing our textile production to China or somewhere else where labor is cheap and human life isn't valued. My point is that government regulation is there to keep the free market in check. This is a good thing for laborers and consumers.

      instead of wasting effort criminalizing the very people providing the food we want for our families.

      Americans and legal immigrants are perfectly capable of producing this food without illegal immigration. My solution is to criminalize those who deliberately hire illegal workers--I'm talking jail time, not little fines. If there wasn't work, we wouldn't have the immigration problem. Wages (and probably prices) would go up a bit and unemployment would go down.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    126. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Honestly? How about conducting a quick poll on what people around think about H1B process. You may want to revise your statement after seeing results.

      While I agree in that there are many who do consider issues to be separate the way you say, I claim that there are many who are more generally against immigration (of at least some etchnic and/or socio-economic gorups (as in "poor illiterate people from third-world countries")). Sometimes alleged positive attitudes towards legal immigration are just sort of excuse to have strong feelings against illegal immigration. As in feeling somehow bad for being against illegal immigrants and compensating by saying how much they love the fact that one can become american citizen legally; like "hate the game, not player".

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    127. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      They did this, and all it produced was another wave of illegals... more this time, waiting, no doubt for "their" amnesty.

      Having immigrated legally, I have no sympathy for illegals.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    128. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Because I can't believe you think an analogy to Rosa Parks is good argumentation.

      Rosa Parks violated a stupid law. So do illegal immigrants.

      For that matter, what about all the illegals who are involved in the drug cartels and conducting drug, gun, and even human trafficking?

      I can assure you that there are far more US citizens involved in illegal drug and gun sales than illegal immigrants! Of course, without our stupid drug laws, we also would not have violent drug cartels.

      Moreover, if we have more open legal immigration, there would not be a need for "human trafficking", people would simply do what they did before 1930. Show up, have someone sponsor them, live three years in the US peaceably, become a citizen. That is the way it worked for my great-grandparents.

      Obviously YOU are the product of immigrants. Perhaps we should have kept YOUR family out because they were "dangerous foreigners"? Plenty of people were talking about the "drunken Irish" or "diseased Russians" or "dirty Eastern Europeans" 100 years ago, just like you are trying to conflate illegals with your racist views.

      Racism is inherently wrong. There is no justification for it

      Then why do we prohibit Mexicans and other people from Central America from the DV series immigrant visas? Let's be honest, our country-of-origin based immigration system is actually racism in disguise.

      By the way, while I'm ranting, I'll say that most people who argue "why can't they just follow the laws" regarding immigration generally have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE themselves.

      If that's true, then Mexico has serious problems that the Mexican people need to solve.

      That would be a great idea. Why exactly you want to continue to sentence poor Mexicans to poverty until that occurs instead of letting them come to the US and contribute to our economy is beyond me.

    129. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, I am unaware of any group that has a problem with legal immigrants.

      Off-hand, I'd say a lot of workers have a problem with any increase in the labor pool as they fear it'll reduce their wages.

      Most of the people I have seen who have a problem with illegal immigrants favor reducing the difficulty of legally immigrating into this country while increasing the enforcement against illegal immigration.

      Well, I've got a great system for you then, cut-and-paste from Michael Badnarik (Libertarian candidate from 2004): "I advocate open immigration for individuals who are willing to enter at a Customs station and submit to a quick background check to ensure that they aren't criminals or terrorists. And I advocate treating people who cross the borders elsewhere as what they are: invaders."

      Since we're so far away from that now, with the whole quota system favoring extant American families and skilled workers, I'd have to say our current distinction between illegal and legal immigration is pretty much a joke. But, then, I'm one of those crazy people who realizes the "move if you can't find work" really shouldn't limit yourself to national borders, no matter how "skilled" you are. If companies are globalized, workers should be too.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    130. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Simple logic dictates that if said illegal immigrants were not here in the first place their impact on our health care system would be zero. This would free up resources to help unemployed and underemployed Americans who cannot afford health care. It would also free up low paying (better than nothing) jobs for unemployed Americans.

      While it's true that it would be optimal for citizens to be doing the jobs that the immigrants currently do, the fact is that the group of Americans who could be doing these jobs feel entitled to a higher standard of living that these jobs provide. Anger toward immigrants is misplaced. They are filling a market demand.

      Sure. Look at Badger Care for health care. Check out this link [wisconsin.gov] has a pretty good description of available benefits.

      Thanks. Did some digging and found this, and according to it my original assertion is correct. Outside of pre-natal care and benefits for children, (two things of which the state will ultimately pay for in one way or another) illegal immigrants do not qualify for any of the benefits afforded by Badger Care.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    131. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by toadlife · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all I'd rather my children be contributing to the economy and social security when I retire.

      Illegal immigrants are bankrolling your SS right now.

      "Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.

      That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said. "

      SOURCE.

      The illegals were willing to work for minimum wage and I couldn't. I have a few unemployed friends who would be more than willing to work on a farm or something similar for $8-$10 an hour just so they can get by.

      Sounds like an more of a indictment of our countries ridiculously low minimum wage than anything else.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    132. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      While it's true that it would be optimal for citizens to be doing the jobs that the immigrants currently do, the fact is that the group of Americans who could be doing these jobs feel entitled to a higher standard of living that these jobs provide. Anger toward immigrants is misplaced. They are filling a market demand.

      If the immigrants were not there either Americans would work for less or wages will go up. That's the way the free market works. Because illegal immigrants are willing to work for less it's driving wages down. That's the way the free market works.

      Thanks. Did some digging and found this [wccf.org], and according to it my original assertion is correct. Outside of pre-natal care and benefits for children, (two things of which the state will ultimately pay for in one way or another) illegal immigrants do not qualify for any of the benefits afforded by Badger Care.

      You listed two benefits (pre-natal care and emergency care) and then said illegals don't get any benefits. That's quite the contradiction. They may not qualify for the entire Badger Care program but they are still getting benefits. Since hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment, ultimately the citizens of the US are stuck with the bill. Illegal immigrants have also been known to use the identities of their US-born children or the children of others to qualify for benefits.

      People need to realize that America is not here to provide charity to the rest of the world. While giving to charity is noble, it's irresponsible when you don't have enough to feed your own family.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    133. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigrants are bankrolling your SS right now. "Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants. That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said. " SOURCE [washingtonpost.com].

      If the 9.6% (Source) of Americans who are currently unemployed were doing these jobs instead of the illegal immigrants, they would be contributing an astounding 5.4-10.7% of our social security trust fund's assets. Since Americans generally get a higher wage, theoretically they would be contributing more to SS than illegal immigrants. My point is that there are plenty of American workers who are capable of doing the same work as illegal immigrants. If you replace every illegal immigrant with an unemployed American, the amount of money going in to SS would remain the same and the amount paid out in benefits (Health care, housing assistance, disability, etc...) would decrease.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    134. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is that those people weren't breaking our laws to be here.

      Of course they weren't breaking our laws to be here. We had an open immigration policy then. As long as you weren't a member of a disfavored race, anyway.

      The selfish ones are the people who insist on being here against our wishes.

      Who is this "our"? Do you own the land illegal immigrants are standing on?

    135. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      Then they can stay the fuck out! How hard is this to understand?

      Wow, you could say the same thing about every law your totalitarian Govt. comes up with. You don't like it, then get fuck out!

      The simple fact is that you have arbitrarily decided that this chunk of dirt belongs to you. You have pissed in all the right places, and your gonna bite anyone who tries to share it with you.

    136. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm an American and I am fully aware of how stupid and asinine the process is. My girlfriend is Indian and is dealing with the process now - and has legally lived in this country since she was 13. I lived with a Nigerian guy who had to deal with it. I work with a Chinese woman who is dealing with it now for her and her family. A friend of mine from Turkey (with a phd in Physics from an American University) had one hell of a time. A good friend of mine's wife is from South America and is dealing with it as well. I never claimed it was fair or easy or logical, only that it can be done.

      I fully admit our immigration policy needs to be fixed but until then the law is the law. If you want to come to the USA, you do it legally. It is precisely because I know so many people who have done it legally that I have no sympathy for those that do not. Any idea what would happen if I illegally entered and stayed in most central or south American countries? Or the countries in the middle east? I suggest googling it and finding out.

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    137. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by causality · · Score: 1

      Who is this "our"? Do you own the land illegal immigrants are standing on?

      Are you dense? "Our" is the majority rule of the citizens and taxpayers who have expressed their will through electing representatives in our republic. "Our" is the overwhelming popular support laws like Arizona's have every single time they are put to a referendum (that is, a vote in which citizens can participate), laws that by the way only seek to enforce existing federal laws.

      If it isn't our land then you don't own your home, since after all it is the government and its police power that would protect your home from anyone who tried to take it away from you. Likewise it is the government and its police power that is supposed to protect our national borders.

      If you can get over your emotionalism long enough to stop asking me stupid questions, you might start advocating that our immigration laws be changed. Until then, yes it's our land and yes I don't want criminals coming here.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    138. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Americano · · Score: 1

      They did what? Vigorously enforced the existing laws? No, they did not, at least if you're referring to the 'amnesty' offered in the late 80's by the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1986 under Pres. Reagan?

      They offered amnesty, and continued turning a blind eye to the companies hiring illegals for another nearly 25 years, producing the problem we see today. This is equivalent to mopping the floor furiously, while neglecting to turn off the broken tap.

      As someone fortunate enough to have been born here, do not misunderstand me: I appreciate that you came here through the legal channels, and I thank you for respecting the laws of the land in doing so.

      We're led to believe that illegal immigration is both a security issue and an economic issue. Both of these constrain the possible solutions available to us. If it's purely security issue, we have three options:
      1) We round up every last illegal and deport them all;
      2) We turn a blind eye to illegals and hope none of them are here to do us harm;
      3) We offer incentives for people who are here illegally, but not for *criminal purposes* (i.e., just working and raising a family) to come forward and be granted amnesty, while letting us know who they are and where they're from.

      Now, since this is also an economic issue, deporting every illegal is not feasible -- it would be costly, we would vastly disrupt our own economy, and it would literally be impossible to prevent the people deported from coming back. So our options are reduced to:

      2) Turn a blind eye;
      3) Offer incentives;

      Of the two, turning a blind eye does nothing to increase our security, leaving us with #3, which is more or less win-win - we know who's here, and why; we can then start pursuing & departing the relatively small number of people who've refused to come forward, and find out why they've got no interest in taking advantage of legal status.

      If you couple that with penalties: no public services for non-documented people; detention and eventual deportation if you ever run into a legal problem (e.g., give police the power to detain someone if they are unable to show proper immigration documentation, or a government-issued identification), and make it very painful for companies to hire people who are not properly documented, then you have a sustainable system which will improve security & not completely disrupt the economy.

      I understand that you have 'no sympathy' for illegals. What I don't understand is what your practical solution is to the problem of illegal immigration. Shipping them home is simply a time & money drain if you don't eliminate the incentives to bring them here illegally in the first place. And eliminating those incentives by fiat is simply not workable - you have to allow for a way for these people to stay here, in their jobs, or you will trash the economy.

    139. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by toadlife · · Score: 1

      If the immigrants were not there either Americans would work for less or wages will go up.

      This is a circular cause and consequence. You can just as easily argue that if Americans would work for less or wages would go up immigrants would not be here. The immigrant population regularly ebbs and flows due to market conditions, and has been shrinking for the last three years.

      It would cost billions to get rid of illegal immigrants that are currently here via the border enforcement/deportation process. It would be much more beneficial to our economy to address the market conditions which cause to businesses to prefer hiring immigrants.

      You listed two benefits (pre-natal care and emergency care) and then said illegals don't get any benefits. That's quite the contradiction.

      It hardly contradicts my original statement. I said, "With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants generally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance." I touched on the separate issue of emergency health care, which as you and I both know is guaranteed to anyone no matter what. Wisconsin is actually being financially prudent in setting up a system where emergency care is paid for via normal channels, as the alternative is cost shifting.

      People need to realize that America is not here to provide charity to the rest of the world.

      It's not charity when their value of their labor exceeds their cost to the state. This is the case with immigrants. Removing them would not magically improve our economy. It would simply shift costs around and it most certainly would lower overall productivity in the short term.

      Some telling demographic differences between WI and CA:

      Wisconsin: 3.6% foreign born population
      California: 26.2% foreign born population

      I've found that natives who live in areas with higher immigrant populations have much more sympathetic view of immigrants that natives in areas low immigrants populations.

      We both fit the stereotype.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    140. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      My solution? You kill them. They are trespassers. Texas, at least allows for killing adult trespassers after dark. So, why not adult illegal immigrants any time of day?

      Sure, round them up, make sure they are illegal first, and kill them.

      Now, if you want to provide affirmative defenses against illegal immigration that involve voluntary disclosure, petition for amnesty, and deportation if not granted, do that. You can also grant a grace period before such a draconian law goes into effect.

      Illegal immigrants are trespassers, pure and simple. They should be treated as such, and, at least in some jurisdictions it is legal to kill trespassers in very broad circumstances. So, what's the problem with the harsh penalty?

      Amnesty should be granted based on whether the individual is a net benefit or a net drain on the local and wider economy, and is likely to continue to be a net benefit.

      The big problem with this is determining who is here legally and not: citizens have a right to privacy, and current law forbids asking one's immigration status. That needs to change. Anyone seeking a government service, for example, should be required to prove they are entitled to it based on their legal status in the country.

      To me, as a foreigner, it is simple: citizens make the rules regarding immigration, and foreigners have to follow them.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    141. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Americano · · Score: 1

      Okay, so your solution is largely similar to mine, except my proposal doesn't go as far as summary execution, instead it would just deport them, and prevent them from coming back illegally because they'd have no incentive to do so. If you look at the points I outlined previously:

      1) Companies that hire illegals in order to bypass paying market wages get fined out of existence, with managers all the way up to CEO personally liable for penalties and prison time. If you enforce this single item, suddenly nobody's hiring illegals. Offer a grace period of 6 months for companies & employees to "get right" with the government, after which companies are subject to penalties & undocumented employees are subject to deportation.

      2) Companies that need employees and cannot find them (and can demonstrate a prior good-faith effort to have found them locally) may sponsor immigrants for work visas, and must also pay them prevailing market wages for the job in question. This eliminates the temptation for companies to try and game the system, and neuters the "illegals steal our jerbs" argument.

      3) Any immigrant coming here legally will be given an identification card, which must be presented if they are going to take advantage of government services. If you don't have that ID card, sorry, no driver's license, no educational benefits, no universal healthcare, etc. etc.

      4) Any immigrant coming here who runs afoul of any of our laws faces possible deportation & revocation of their ID and ability to take advantage; this includes tax status, criminal statutes, and everything else.

      No matter how we approach it, there's going to have to be a "grace period" or "amnesty" offered. Rather than killing millions of people, let's acknowledge that the people who are here are largely here because they wanted to make a better life for themselves, and are often working in dangerous conditions for sub-standard wages, because we largely turn a blind eye towards industry that is hiring illegals for this type of work, and paying them substandard wages.

      If you eliminate that draw, then there's no jobs to lure them here illegally, and no companies willing to hire them; Plus, you can offer companies the opportunity to hire immigrants legally, provided they pay prevailing market wages, giving immigrants a way in that's not dependent on sneaking or a hard quota, and companies a way to hire people if they *legitimately* cannot find someone to do the work locally.

      Then you say "For those of you here, you're welcome to stay if you come forward, get documented, and get an ID." And then the small proportion of people who don't do that can be hunted down, and deported after a short trial with no appeals, and given a permanent entry ban.

    142. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      (1) Yes.

      (2) Yes. This is the situation today, but the paperwork is horrendous. It really is what year over year NAFTA visas were for.

      (3) Yes. In fact this is currently post-9/11 law: adult non-citizens have to carry proof of status at all times. But, the catch 22 is that police can not inquire if you are a citizen or not. Still, proof of status should be required to get government services. The trouble is that large numbers of citizens don't even have birth certificates. I suppose affidavits from notaries could do in a pinch, or for some grace period.

      (4) This is currently the law. In fact the law is very harsh on this: conviction of a crime with a maximum sentence of one year or more, regardless of what the actual sentence was, whether prosecution was deferred, sentence suspended, etc. is grounds for deportation. Any crime of "moral turpitude" can result in deportation regardless of sentence (public drunkenness, for example). But, the immigration department really doesn't have the resources to hunt down drunks.

      But, you can't say, "For those of you hear, you're welcome to stay..." You can't offer a blanket amnesty for breaking the law. You can offer hope that they might be granted amnesty if they (a) come forward, and (b) demonstrate that they have been a net positive influence, and (c) agree to pay a fine (which, a judge may have the discretion to suspend in cases of hardship, etc.). But, the risk of deportation for coming forward must be present along with the prospect of possible amnesty.

      The greater issue is the expense of deporting those who agree to it: you can't go killing people because they can't afford to leave but are willing to. However, you can enact laws that permit seizing any assets to cover somewhat more than 100% of the costs of deportation to fund the program for those who are too poor to leave.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    143. Re:WOAH WOAH WOAH by russotto · · Score: 1

      Are you dense? "Our" is the majority rule of the citizens and taxpayers who have expressed their will through electing representatives in our republic.

      Right. The same ones who want jail sentences for marijuana possession, copyright restrictions out the wazoo, amnesty for warrantless wiretapping, bailouts for big banks, etc. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it is the expression of majority will.

      If it isn't our land then you don't own your home, since after all it is the government and its police power that would protect your home from anyone who tried to take it away from you.

      Since the government is actually the most likely party to take it away from me, that sounds an awful lot like a protection racket.

  7. And the real news is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's an American citizen. Now what? For the larger community it simply means he hails from a different nationality. Nothing to see here, move on.

  8. socialist software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! That's all we need. One more socialist giving away his socialist software coming to America. Sell your software like an 'merican capitalist!

  9. More importantly by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Linus secretly from Kenya? I find his source code to be socialist and anti-colonialist.

    1. Re:More importantly by wsanders · · Score: 4, Funny

      Linus can get rid of the "Calvin Pissing on La Migra" sticker on his rear window. Or cover up "la Migra" with a BSD Devil.

      http://vehiclevinyls.com/estore/html/page-view.asp?menuid=4106&gotorec=40

      --
      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    2. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you use the Glenn Beck meme here, you can avoid being tagged flamebait.

      I just heard on the internet that {Person's name} {did something horrible}. Now, I'm not saying that {Person's name} {did something horrible}. But it does strike me as a little suspicious that {Person's name} has never denied {doing something horrible}. Really, I'm not accusing {Person's Name} of {doing something horrible}. But if {Person's name} didn't {do something horrible}, why hasn't he denied {doing something horrible}?

      For some reason, It's ok as long as you are making fun of the right here.

    3. Re:More importantly by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have heard rumors that not only is Linus secretly Muslim, he is also secretly black.

    4. Re:More importantly by kgibbsvt · · Score: 1

      Its a reference to that other nut job Newt Gingrich. But admittedly its hard to keep track, there are so many to choose from. - kg

    5. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you use the Glenn Beck meme here, you can avoid being tagged flamebait.

      I just heard on the internet that {Person's name} {did something horrible}. Now, I'm not saying that {Person's name} {did something horrible}. But it does strike me as a little suspicious that {Person's name} has never denied {doing something horrible}. Really, I'm not accusing {Person's Name} of {doing something horrible}. But if {Person's name} didn't {do something horrible}, why hasn't he denied {doing something horrible}?

      For some reason, It's ok as long as you are making fun of the right here.

      The right-wing is more acquainted with logic and therefore less likely to start frothing at the mouth and looking for a way to silence the speaker (however underhanded or childish) in response to any perceived slight or insult. It's part of why Glenn Beck may be admired or respected among right-leaning people for so long as his views make sense to them, but he is not the Messianic savior that many leftists seem to think Obama is.

      Any good that leftism has done has been in spite of the general immaturity, emotionalism, and misplaced trust in the benevolence of government that it attracts. It's why they pretend like criminals obey gun-control laws, they pretend like lowering taxes doesn't increase the federal government's revenues, they pretend like appeasement works and that our President bowing and scraping to other heads of state won't be perceived as weakness.

    6. Re:More importantly by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard Linus is secretly an ice bear!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    7. Re:More importantly by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The right-wing is more acquainted with logic

      You lost me.

      "More acquainted" than whom? Everyone else? Does "the right-wing" have some sort of monopoly on rational thought?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:More importantly by Nimey · · Score: 1, Troll

      You'd never know it from watching their talking heads.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:More importantly by llamapater · · Score: 3, Funny

      he has a penguin logo because as an ice bear that is his favorite food :p

    10. Re:More importantly by bmo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This comment is write only, but I need to vent.

      Newt Gingrich has done nothing but pour gasoline and a lit match on the whole "Islam is invading our country!!" stupidity.

      It's one thing for some douchebag TV "Personality" like Glenn Beck to produce verbal diarrhea, but when a supposedly rational (for loose definitions of such) people of power Godwin themselves on the Sunday morning political shows is entirely another.

      People like him seriously frighten me.

      I have wrapped coils of wire around the petrified spinning dust of Roger Williams and I plan to power the whole of North America just as soon as I get the contract signed with National Grid.

      --
      BMO - "When they come to ethnically cleanse me, will you speak out, will you defend me?" - PWEI

    11. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The nice thing about the Left is that they keep their loons on the fringe. The Right is currently embracing theirs.

    12. Re:More importantly by Tiger4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      For some reason, It's ok as long as you are making fun of the right here.

      Of course. On the left it is expected and not particularly notable. On the right, it points out the hypocrisy they both trade on for power and engage in when our back are turned.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    13. Re:More importantly by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      The right wing is more acquainted with logic, and has decided it's unpatriotic and evil, you say?

    14. Re:More importantly by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Depends on the kind of logic.

      Alternate realities require their own logic so that people keep believing what is ultimately nonsense.

    15. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's no secret. Linux came out about being black some time ago.

    16. Re:More importantly by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      I've heard that a world in which Sarah Palin makes sense is one of the many things proven possible by string theory.

    17. Re:More importantly by kgibbsvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that the likes of Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are admired by the right wing is just about all you need to say about the right wing. - kg

    18. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "-1, Troll" mod does not mean "-1, I Disagree".

      FFS mods...

    19. Re:More importantly by jgagnon · · Score: 2, Funny

      About the same time Michael Jackson did? :p

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    20. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you've not read the Koran or watched the documentary "What the West Needs to Know about Islam".

    21. Re:More importantly by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies.

      -Sarah Palin

      The French didn’t give it to us because it was – oh, look at us, we want to say hello to our friends and give them this enormous statue. What is that? The French did it – and see if you can get your arms around this concept – the French did it to mock, but not us. EuropeThe Statue of Liberty was mocking the old system. The Statue of Liberty was used to ignite inside the French, liberty. Look at America. Look what they’re doing.

      - Glenn Beck

      I thought it was put there to scare illegals away.

    22. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh... Define "logic" from your perspective.

      Logic is a system of thinking that applies facts as the grounds to use a premise to arrive at a given conclusion. It's part of the underpinnings of epistemology- the thinking of HOW we know something to be true or not.

      It REQUIRES careful adherence to that which is a fact, an observation of something from reality. You know something like a measured or observed detail about something.

      Oh, say, like the information distilled from the official INS information on just how much money was spent on Illegal Aliens' education over the last year.

      Something like THIS:

      California $3,220,200,000
      Texas $1,645,400,000
      New York $1,306,300,000
      Illinois $834,000,000
      New Jersey $620,200,000

      For all 50 states $11,919,900,000

      Not really "not impacting us and improving our economy," now is it? Most from the left will dismiss these figures (even though they are from out of the mass of data that the INS has managed to collect) as being fabrications or make appeals to emotions, calling me or anyone else that points this out as being racist, etc.
      Now, if I were to have someone actually find information, facts, that contradict the stuff above, I would say that they've taken my grounds away and I'd have to rethink my premises- namely, that illegal immigration IS causing us SERIOUS economic problems (And this doesn't go into any of the other drags on the economy- this is JUST education alone...). However, you'll have the people that're left leaning go and say I'm just crazy, I'm a racist, a demagogue, and a whole litany of other "arguments" and "logic" that have only reason and logic if you're using feelings instead of facts to think with.

      Yes, there's our fair share of nutballs on the "right". However, I think you're going to find that there's much, much more "talking heads" on the right that're using the aforementioned thinking and reasoning than calling people names like the Left is WAY to oft to doing. Convince me and I'll change my mind- but I'm swayed with logic and reason, NOT feelings.

    23. Re:More importantly by KingAlanI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm not discounting freedom of religion as a key value in America (and many other places of course).

      However, in a touch of irony, those who don't believe in American values will likely still be ruthless enough to exploit it against us. They ask us to tolerate their intolerance. (Okay, it's also ironic that Christian fundies do some of this too, but that doesn't excuse other groups.)

      I'm not sure if the guys behind the Ground Zero mosque actually fall into that category, I'm just saying that I see a potential values conflict/tradeoff.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    24. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Try reading the Bible sometime; some of the shit in there will blow your mind.

    25. Re:More importantly by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the kind of logic..

      Logic, going wrong, with confidence.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    26. Re:More importantly by gorzek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What "Ground Zero mosque" are we talking about here? Last I heard, no one is building any mosque at the former World Trade Center site.

    27. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you'd be swayed by Obama's big black cock in your ass.

    28. Re:More importantly by KingAlanI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      okay, it's two blocks from the site, I know. lots of /.'ers love being pedantic...

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    29. Re:More importantly by gorzek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's not about being pedantic, it's about being honest. I am sick of hearing about the "victory mosque being built at Ground Zero." There is no such thing.

    30. Re:More importantly by gwayne · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you EVER listened to what DR. Glenn Beck has to say? I've never heard him denounce Muslims or Islam in a derogatory context. This is the far left making such accusations. He's not a racist or Islam-aphobe. He frequently has guests from different backgrounds. He honored the work of MLK for an entire week or so, having his daughter (I think) as a guest.

      Beck is not preaching hate. He has simply connected the dots to show all Americans that the federal government, and particularly the Democratic party, has been infested with Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, etc, leading our whole nation to no good end. The federal government is out of control. It has it's OWN agenda - not that of THE PEOPLE.

      How many Socialist/Communist regimes do we have to see fall to understand that they simply don't work.

      Beck advocates people to stand up for themselves, be responsible and self-sufficient -- to stop the government "entitlements" that chain people to wellfare and excessive government spending. That doesn't mean throwing people under the bus - it just means finding another way for them to earn a living, such as education and skills training programs, small business loans, etc. That isn't racism. It's common sense. You can't spend more than you earn -- just look at the debt crisis in America. The Progressives are trying to bury the U.S. economy in debt using the Cloward-Piven strategy. Current political issues are simply a side-show distraction while they continue to manipulate the country into failure. This is not good for any American, rich or poor, Republican, Democrat or other.

    31. Re:More importantly by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For some reason, It's ok as long as you are making fun of the right here.

      It's because most of Slashdot works for a living. Right is for the owning class, left is for the working class. Unfortunately the left in most countries seems to be willing to work with the right for the latter's benefit, so I think I'll have to vote for Communists in the next election to retain at least a bit of my rights and freedoms.

      And no, the irony doesn't escape me.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:More importantly by KingAlanI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I meant it as shorthand that i thought people would understand. "Ground Zero mosque" versus "Islamic community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site".

      To bring up Orwell outside of the usual 1984 references, I'll admit that he does talk a lot about the manipulative power of language

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    33. Re:More importantly by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      they pretend like lowering taxes doesn't increase the federal government's revenues

      Um....by definition, if you lower taxes the government gets less money. It's kinda how taxes work. I'm not saying whether money going to the government is good or bad, but logically the government doesn't get as much money if it isn't taking in as much taxes. It might make up for this elsewhere, but it still lowers the revenue. So where was this logic you said the right-wing had? Obviously you don't have it.

    34. Re:More importantly by zx-15 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      DR. Glenn Beck ???!

      You must be joking.

    35. Re:More importantly by gwayne · · Score: 1

      Do we not customarily call one who has earned a PhD doctor?

    36. Re:More importantly by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The same could be said about charlatans like Barry Sotero.

    37. Re:More importantly by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Pedantic? The entire controversy was initiated and fueled by dishonest claims that the mosque was to be built on top of where the WTC stood.

    38. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get a Calvin pissing on Calvin pissing on something? That shit was old when it came out in the 80's. Of course round these parts it's mostly the red necks with them on their truck.

    39. Re:More importantly by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Wow. How bad can an argument be?

      The less you tax the citizenry the more disposable income a person has to spend. The more they spend, the more money there is in circulation in the private sector. That means there are more jobs created to produce the increased goods the citizens are buying. That increases overall tax revenue as well as decreases government spending on entitlement programs as more people are supporting themselves rather than relying on government hand outs.. That's a win-win proposition for the entire country. Those who now support themselves once again also get the added value of increased confidence in themselves.

      The reverse of that argument is that for every penny the government spends they take that penny out of your pocket and mine. If they spend a few trillion dollars those "few trillion dollars" have to be paid for by you and I, the citizenry. That means when the government goes deeply into debt you and I are deeply in debt too. Do you consider being deeply in debt a good thing? Do you consider that wealth? That debt is what those high taxes are for, to pay off that debt the government created. Also, the more the government goes into the debt the less credit/money there is available for businesses to spend on creating more/better business opportunities, and businesses as a result of this normally either contract or sit on cash because times are hard and they must have cash reserves to operate on if things get even worse. This scenario is a lose-lose for the entire country.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    40. Re:More importantly by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      Yes we do, Glenn Back hasn't, so I though you were trying to humor us.

    41. Re:More importantly by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Beck advocates people to stand up for themselves, be responsible and self-sufficient -- to stop the government "entitlements" that chain people to wellfare and excessive government spending.

      BTW "wellfare" is not an example of "excessive government spending", just because you disapprove of it. It's a minor public expenditure. You are more concerned about moral hazard, and to put it bluntly, it's quite obvious that your racism is what fuels your concern.

      That doesn't mean throwing people under the bus - it just means finding another way for them to earn a living, such as education and skills training programs, small business loans, etc.

      I'll go tell my grandmother. She'll get incentivized to support herself with her quilting.

      That isn't racism. It's common sense.

      Typical white conservative comment.

    42. Re:More importantly by GauteL · · Score: 2, Informative

      "earned a PhD"?

      As far as I can tell (and please correct me) Glenn Beck was given an honorary PhD from a not very well renowned evangelical university. That is not the same as earning a PhD.

      To bring things slightly back on topic, far more deserving people, such as Linus Torvalds, have received honorary degrees from far more established universities (1 and 2).

      Yet, only pompous people, and certainly not Torvalds, would refer to themselves as Dr. on the basis of an honorary degree. Torvalds, who is educated to a Masters degree (unlike Beck), which in Scandinavia used to be quite close to some countries' PhD, knows better.

    43. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet those illegal aliens serve your food, clean your toilets and do all the jobs no "good American" wants to do.

    44. Re:More importantly by Intron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Glenn Beck dropped out after one semester of college and became a DJ. His honorary degree was awarded by Jerry Falwell's college. Calling him Dr. Glenn Beck is hilarious.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    45. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      that's why smart governments have a negative tax rate, then they have infinite income!

    46. Re:More importantly by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really "not impacting us and improving our economy," now is it?

      Not really, no. It's just because you're caught up in 12 billion being a really big number, which it is. For some perspective, it's around 1%[1] of the budget just for the federal Department of Education and about one third of one percent of the total federal budget. For comparison, illegal immigrants would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5% of the population and about 6.8% of the school population[2], so it seems to me that they're even under-represented in your sample. Most education funding does not come from the federal level, so its impact is actually even smaller than that.

      Illegal immigrants in total are estimated to number about 11 million[3]. Even if they don't pay taxes (which I'm not defending, merely removing from the calculation for ease) do you really believe that they don't spend $1000 per person per year on average into our economy? Because if they do, they've already paid more in economic gains than we've lost in tax dollars spent educating their children. Children who are not responsible for the immigration status of their parents or themselves, by the way. It may be "leftist" of me to consider what effect these things may have on the lives of innocent children who will, in all probability, grow up to be tax-paying American adults and further work to repay their education costs, but I'm perfectly okay with that.

      Of course, unless you're claiming that they are all thieves they are also paying other taxes even if they're not paying income taxes. If they're living somewhere other than under a bridge, they're either paying property taxes or rent that goes, in part, toward paying property taxes -- the main source of funding for schools. They're paying sales taxes and fuel taxes and buying things from those stores and restaurants that employ all those nice white people.

      I'm not claiming that there aren't other expenses other than educating illegal immigrants. There will be health care costs and economic opportunity costs, among other things. I am stating that even if they create a deficit in terms of taxes paid versus burdens imposed on government, they may very well still be a net positive economic factor, even without factoring in the children of illegal immigrants who are now American citizens and will contribute positively in their lives to a very similar or identical extent as other Americans. Especially if we give them things like education so they're not forced to live the same conditions as their illegal immigrant parents.

      Honestly, if I asked you how much illegal immigrants contributed economically would you know? Could you even give me an educated guess? Isn't it the exact opposite of your argument that they're an economic drain on society? Facts are great, but if you're claiming to make your decisions based solely on the facts you should have all of them -- including the ones that go against your own argument. Otherwise it's nothing more than emotion concealed as facts.

      For what it's worth, I reject your implied argument that the only proper way of evaluating the situation is economics even though I think "lefties" could make a really strong case on that basis as well. Emotions and humanity may not be quantifiable, but they're certainly logical. In fact so much so that taking care of one another is practically hard-coded in our DNA; it's why we form societies and have instincts to take care of the weak to begin with. You're begging the question that they're one in the same or that anything that can't be measured is without (logical) value.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States (the exact source you got your table from, it se

    47. Re:More importantly by billius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The right-wing is more acquainted with logic and therefore less likely to start frothing at the mouth and looking for a way to silence the speaker (however underhanded or childish) in response to any perceived slight or insult. It's part of why Glenn Beck may be admired or respected among right-leaning people for so long as his views make sense to them, but he is not the Messianic savior that many leftists seem to think Obama is.

      Which is why Glenn Beck has an online "university," was able to get thousands of people to attend a rally with to "restore America's honor" and "take back the Civil Rights Movement" and has millions of adoring fans who tune in to watch him scream, rant, play his weird word games on the chalkboard and cry? Or why Bill O'reilly has books for children? I am always puzzled by people who seem to think that one political "wing" is composed entirely of mature, intelligent people who have thought out their positions and the other is made of emotional, illogical sheep. The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of people from the latter category in both parties. I *wish* that the problem was just one party, but unfortunately that's not true. Some people were cynical enough to vote for Obama just because of his race, others were naive enough to believe he was some kind of messiah, but some of us didn't want to vote for a 72 year-old cancer survivor who might die and leave us with President Palin *shudders* nor vote for someone who had basically sold out everything they believed in on the campaign trail (although all candidates do at least a little selling out).

    48. Re:More importantly by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

      And his open sores project is un-American Communist!

    49. Re:More importantly by norminator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because he offers the "Glenn Beck University" to people who pony up to join his fan club doesn't mean he is a Dr. in any sense of the word.

      Glenn Beck puts forward some good concepts, like truth, integrity, hard work, and believing in America. Unfortunately, he is also a liar and a hypocrite who uses most of the immoral smear tactics that he accuses his enemies of using.

      I don't read HuffPo or Media Matters, and I don't watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. I actually listen to Beck's radio show so that I know what appalling stuff he's saying. Occasionally I see parts of his TV show (although I really don't like having his face on display in my house), and I'm usually pretty shocked at what he gets away with saying.

      I listened to his astonishment at what a racist Shirley Sherrod is, and how no human should treat people like she was treating those poor white farmers, then for two weeks after that, he and his buddies talked about how she should thank him for defending her, and how ungrateful she was, while he rode his high horse all over TV claiming that he "happens to believe that context matters".

      Have you ever watched his show on Net Neutrality? He doesn't actually talk about Net Neutrality, he strings together a bunch of "Marxist" plots with little to no basis in reality, and says they're what Net Neutrality is all about.

      A few weeks ago I was flipping through channels and saw him talk about a patent that Fannie Mae supposedly has for an outlet cover that can only be removed with a special tool, and how that's a part of the cap & trade agenda and this progressive administration wants to put them in your house. I literally felt dumber for having seen it, because it makes so little sense in the real world -- but that was part of how he provokes outrage: "Can you believe they're trying to do this?" Then, after doing further research, I found out that patent expired in 2007 and was never renewed. Also, it was developed by an in-house electrician based on work he had done to protect the computers in the offices of Fannie Mae. The patent makes no mention whatsoever of residential applications.

      Your Doctor is a quack. Better get a second opinion (and not from someone educated by Glenn Beck University), before he gets you seriously sick. We'd probably all be better off with Bovine University.

    50. Re:More importantly by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1, Funny

      Try reading the Bible sometime; some of the shit in there will blow your mind.

      But, I liked the incest parts! Come on, how many religions actually call men who knock up their own daughters "righteous"? That's why there is so much incest in redneck parts of the U.S. They aren't simply horny perverts. They are following the dictates of their religion!

    51. Re:More importantly by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigrants in total are estimated to number about 11 million[3]. Even if they don't pay taxes (which I'm not defending, merely removing from the calculation for ease) do you really believe that they don't spend $1000 per person per year on average into our economy? Because if they do, they've already paid more in economic gains than we've lost in tax dollars spent educating their children.

      I've (unintentionally) overstayed a resident visa in the past, so I don't have a bias against illegal immigrants—I actually was one.

      With that said, your argument is rubbish. Spending doesn't represent contribution to the economy, earning does. Workers are paid for their production at it's market value, which is the actual value of their contributions.

      A consumer who doesn't pay taxes and receives government services free of charge is NOT making a net contribution. This consumer's total economic impact can be seen as:

      1. Production (wages)
      2. Consumption (spent wages)
      3. Government Services

      Assuming that the consumer in question doesn't burn or bury money, they will eventually spend their income and consume resources equal in value to their wages. Unfortunately, in this situation, the consumer also continues to consume resources in excess of their contributions. All consumers pay sales tax, but to the extent that illegal immigrants don't pay income tax or property tax (contrary to your assumption, illegal immigrants also contribute significantly to illegal housing), they are effectively benefiting from services that they haven't paid for.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    52. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No its just like the guy that was asked if he had put on deodorant that day... "Pfft, No. I don't use the stuff."

    53. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That isn't racism. It's common sense.

      Typical white conservative comment.

      I am a Black man and I approve of this comment. I also approve of your "grandmother comment". Not only is the comment a racist comment but it also hilites the present spirit of a lot of white people. I call on Commander Taco to create a -1 Racist moderation so we can keep such biggotry out of these forums and have clean ontopic-discussion and RESPECTFUL for a change.

    54. Re:More importantly by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      And, unfortunately being out of status even accidentally can be a big problem. Non-immigrant workers who's status depends on continued employment have to get requests to change status to B-2 postmarked the day they are laid off.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    55. Re:More importantly by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      The right wing is more acquainted with logic

      It's not enough to wave at logic when you pass it in the street. It's far better to employ it.

    56. Re:More importantly by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Luckily, my problem wasn't in the U.S.,* but the country where I was living at the time has similarly strict immigration policy and not dissimilar popular sentiment about immigration. However, in that culture, there was never an African-American Civil Rights Movement or an analog of it, due to the racial homogeneity that is common in many old, stable countries. Accordingly, there still exist unchallenged popular views on race that would have already been considered antiquated and bigoted in the U.S. of the 1970s.

      My status change was related to a change in my family structure, which is by some accounts the duty of the visa-holder to report. I heard different interpretations on the legality of such visas, but I didn't overstay the expiration date of the visa itself and only one source (though one within the immigration department) told me that I needed to file for a new visa immediately. I was certainly paying income, residence and sales taxes for the entire duration of my residence, not to mention that I was providing partial financial support for three citizens.

      My efforts to comply with foreign immigration law on my own behalf and like efforts to comply with domestic immigration law on behalf of my foreign family members certainly provided me with a new perspective on immigration-related issues. I still believe that control of immigration and citizenship is a significant aspect of national sovereignty as an extension of the rights of citizens to decide who will be their fellow residents and citizens, but I have questions about the baroque, arbitrary and seemingly punitive procedures that must be followed by those who have already been deemed beneficial residents or citizens by the law. I don't see any benefit to making life miserable for legal immigrants, save as a consolation to those who only grudgingly accept non-zero immigration rates.

      As an aside, I always appreciate your thoughtful, informative and thought-provoking posts. (I seldom appreciate your thoughtless, redundant and dull posts. ;-)

      *There are some details I would rather not post explicitly, since it might be seen as an admission of wrong-doing that could potentially affect my future visa and citizenship applications.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    57. Re:More importantly by gwayne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My bad - I only realized after further research that it was an honorary title. Still, doctor or not, the stuff he comes up with makes you wonder WTF the federal government is up to. Where does my tax money go?

    58. Re:More importantly by gwayne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Where do you come up with racism fueling my concern? I am brown, btw, and I find your comment highly inflammatory -- just because I would rather not piss away my hard-earned money to people who WON'T work for it -- not people who are legitimately unable, too old, or infirm to work. Just because I am conservative doesn't mean I am not charitable. People should take care of each other. We don't need the government to take care of us.

      What does race have to do with welfare expenditures? I certainly am not advocating cutting off benefits that your grandmother and/or grandfather earned by paying into the system most of their lives. But you must realize the Social Security system is a literally government-sponsored Ponzi scheme that will eventually go broke because it cannot keep up with the rising costs of maintaining the Babyboomer generation. There simply aren't enough of us paying into it.

      So what's that you say? Raise taxes? For benefits we will NEVER receive? No thanks. Unless we reform this system, we will never be free of ever-increasing liabilities. It's the same problem with government and union pensions. How do YOU like the fact that the President and Congress-critters can serve only ONE term and receive their salary for life? Did they really earn that? What about government employees that pay 10% of their salary into a retirement system for 20 years, retire at age 50 and continue to receive 90% of their salary for 30+ years? Did they earn that? One reason most corporations have phased out pension systems, besides greed, is that these "entitlements" are simply unsustainable.

      I would rather invest my own retirement savings into a 401K or similar vehicle, instead of continuing to fund a system that will likely never pay out one cent to me. Current working generations have both burdens - save for retirement AND continue paying for SS to support retirees.

    59. Re:More importantly by darkpixel2k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'll go tell my grandmother. She'll get incentivized to support herself with her quilting.

      Right--so instead, because of your grandfathers poor planning and your grandmothers apparently inability to do even menial tasks like being a receptionist, you want the government to take some of my money by force, pass it through the hands of tons of bureaucrats at the IRS, and give her pennies on the dollar that was stolen from me?

      How about your grandmother goes and finds a decent and caring church? My money *willfully* goes to a church that assists widows and orphans. And the amount of money that makes it down to actually help those in need is much better than pennies on the dollar.

      What do you think came first? The IRS, and the government taking your money to put into these programs, or human decency? Was there really no 'charity' before the IRS came into existence?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    60. Re:More importantly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      He was the racist. He implied that black people are poor.

    61. Re:More importantly by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      You'd never know it from watching their talking heads.

      I see your problem. You can't figure out if the talking heads are rational simply by watching them. You have to listen...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    62. Re:More importantly by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Um....by definition, if you lower taxes the government gets less money. It's kinda how taxes work. I'm not saying whether money going to the government is good or bad, but logically the government doesn't get as much money if it isn't taking in as much taxes. It might make up for this elsewhere, but it still lowers the revenue. So where was this logic you said the right-wing had? Obviously you don't have it.

      If you have $100, and you buy a widget for $45 and pay a tax of $5, you can afford to buy two--giving the government $10.
      If the government raises the tax on a widget to $10, you can no longer afford to buy two, so the government only gets $5.

      Neither extreme (very high or very low) works. If the tax is 1%, that's not very much revenue for the government. If the tax is %99, there's no incentive to work because you don't really keep any money. Go read up on the Laffer Curve.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    63. Re:More importantly by SandiConoverJones · · Score: 1

      This old story is rubbish. Allowing starter jobs to only go to adult illegal aliens who will stay in the starter jobs removes the bottom rungs of the job ladder from the next generation. Stop being so short sighted.

    64. Re:More importantly by SandiConoverJones · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Communists got in on the last election, and we can see the results of that.

    65. Re:More importantly by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      If you have $100, and you buy a widget for $45 and pay a tax of $5, you can afford to buy two--giving the government $10.

      If the government raises the tax on a widget to $10, you can no longer afford to buy two, so the government only gets $5.

      Math, you don't have it. If the government raises the tax to $10, and you buy one. Then the government gets....lets see....$10. Your example is wrong on it's face, both examples the government gets the same amount of money. So really, this argument is more about raising taxes doesn't increase revenue, rather than lowering taxes doesn't lower revenue.

      I agree with you that neither extreme works, but lowering taxes isn't the automatic increased revenue that you think it is. Otherwise all those economists wouldn't be saying that the tax cuts don't help. There are more variables than simply what the tax rate is. Such as the rate of people to save vs spend. If you lower taxes and everyone just saves the extra money, now you've just lowered the revenue with no benefits.

    66. Re:More importantly by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Wow, lets see if we can't shed some light here.

      I can agree on principal that yes, the less you tax the citizenry the more disposable income a person has to spend. However, when you're in a recession, people don't spend as much. When you lower taxes, the vast majority of people just SAVE extra money rather than spend it. Which decreases tax revenue, while giving no benefits to the economy. This is why tax cuts aren't the solution to a recession, they weren't the solution in the 20's and 30's they aren't the solution now. Go ask an economist. The problem with your argument here is you assume that the only factor is the tax rate, but there are many more factors than this.

      The reverse argument is equally flawed because government debt is not the same as private debt. The point of government spending is to move numbers on a spreadsheet to numbers on a different spreadsheet. Or in better terms, to move money from the public sector into the private sector.

      The example you talk about, businesses sitting on cash, etc., why do you not bring that up in your first scenario? Again, there are many more factors than simply how much comes or goes in taxes. When you're in a recession, businesses and families are the same. If you lower the taxes, they just save the excess money. Sure, SOME of it will be spent, but, as mentioned in many economic analysis', for every dollar in tax cuts (as of a few months ago) the government would get back I think it was around 65 cents. Whereas for every dollar in stimulus, the government was getting back around $1.20 or something. The problem is that people were saving the extra money from the tax cuts, not spending it. Now if we weren't in a recession, I might agree with you more. The difference is I am taking into account much more than just the tax rate.

      Once again, lowering taxes does not magically increase revenue. If the other factors are in alignment then it's possible that it can. But currently, right now, it wouldn't.

    67. Re:More importantly by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Another conservative; geez. Are you out of your mind? Statistically, black people in the U.S. are poorer than white people. It may be "racist" to point that out, but that statistic is due to racism that they encounter in the culture, since this isn't the perfect country you seem to imagine. It's not like saying their average IQ is lower, like conservatives previously got in trouble for claiming.

    68. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so I think I'll have to vote for Communists in the next election to retain at least a bit of my rights and freedoms."

      Like being forced to buy health insurance? Or by appointing judges that cannot state where the limits of power of the Federal Government lie? I'm not sure what freedoms you've lost from the right, but the left is FAR more about controlling people's lives. The right is about controlling abortions and some Christ-y stuff. The left is about controlling how much I can earn. Which do I encounter on a daily basis; needing an abortion? or earning money (and keeping it)?

    69. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How many Socialist/Communist regimes do we have to see fall to understand that they simply don't work."

      Was that a question? Given that this are broad terms based on philosophical ideals, this, as a question, makes no sense.

      To give examples of systems that borrow from said ideals: North USA subsidising South USA, UK's NHS (largest employer in the world) and Sweden.

    70. Re:More importantly by Intron · · Score: 1

      It is certainly an important function to keep an eye on the government and blow the whistle when they are wasteful and wrong. My only complaint with GB is that he uses a steam whistle. I used to enjoy Wm. Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    71. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Linus secretly from Kenya? I find his source code to be socialist and anti-colonialist.

      I'm prejudiced enough against USians, to belive that you don't know what Socialism or Communism is and I will continue my ramble starting with the Soviet Bloc Finland (Soviet being a Communist state, Communism is a sub-ideology of Socialism, Socialism include a lot of very different ideologies (including a lot of Liberal (from the point of individual freedom) and Democratic ones)).

      He did grew up in Finland when it was part of the Soviet Bloc (the YYA Treaty). Altough Finland was never a Communist state, they always had to tip-toe around Soviet politics and bend forward and take it like a man every time Kreml demanded so.

      I don't actually know anything about Linus Torvalds political background, so I'm speculating, but it is not unlikely that he is a Socialist, or that he grew up in a family of Socialists, but very unlikely that he is a Communist (many Finns associate Communism with Soviets mistreatment of Finland). The Social Democratic Party of Finland is one of the most popular political parties in Finland (all real democracies have more then two political parties to choose from, just to explain how things are outside the USA), but as Finno-Swedes his parents may have supported the Swedish People's Party of Finland. But then, a real democracy (where people are not brain washed to blindly follow certain ideologies from their birth) has a lot of popular political parties to choose from, based on a very broad spectrum of ideologies (not just Conservative Market Liberal and Market Liberal Conservative, I realize this amount of ideological freedom is a scary concept to an US-American).

      By the way, USA is one of the top states in the world when it comes to the state owning (or by other means equally controlling) means of production and allocation of resources. The only thing that difference USA from being a Socialist state (other then Socialist being a dirty word in USA), is that in a Socialist state, the state is trying to equally distribute its wealth among its citizens (or at least pretend to do that).

  10. The Real American System by ponraul · · Score: 1, Troll

    How will this allow him to "participate directly" in American politics more so than before? Citizenship doesn't change the way you write checks.

    1. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US has this thing called "voting". It's not just about the 4 year change of president, there's a huge amount that can be voted on locally, particularly on local positions in govt, school boards, firecheif, sheriff etc. As a tax payer, you have no say, as a citizen, you can get involved.

    2. Re:The Real American System by cygnwolf · · Score: 1

      I think the GP was referring to 'Campaign contribution' checks...

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    3. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, what's cute is how naive teenyboppers think tossing around terms like "brainwashed" make them come off as world-weary cynics.

    4. Re:The Real American System by mlts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US is lucky in one respect: Unlike most of Europe where citizens 18-20 have to go into the army or other duty for two years, US citizens really only have two duties: Jury duty and voting. No, there is no law forcing people to the polls, but by not voting, people are letting people who are likely dumber than themselves, or the lobbyists and their ad firms behind the attack ads decide the election.

      If you are a US citizen, vote. If you like neither candidate, write someone in. It doesn't matter what side you are on, just go, do your research for the candidates, and go vote. /rant.

    5. Re:The Real American System by JacTheSandAngel · · Score: 1

      Make me.

    6. Re:The Real American System by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      It would if enough people voted for a candidate who meets the right qualifications: reasonably intelligent, genuinely wants to benefit the country, and can't be bought. Sadly that seems to be a nonexistant combination of traits in politics.

    7. Re:The Real American System by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's frustrating how many Americans think their vote *doesn't* count.

      Why does the conservative right in the USA pander to evangelicals who think stem cells are people, Fred Flintstone lived alongside T-Rex and that it's just coincidental that chimps and humans share DNA? Because those evangelicals VOTE and vote in numbers... Does campaign financing count for a lot? Sure - But ultimately it comes down to voters, and your representatives pander to those people who go out and put an "X" in the box next to their name.

    8. Re:The Real American System by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unlike most of Europe where citizens 18-20 have to go into the army or other duty for two years

      I call bullshit. Please enumerate this list that encompasses "most of Europe" that has such a requirement.

    9. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unlike most of Europe where citizens 18-20 have to go into the army or other duty for two years

      That's not true. In the European Union, out of 27 member nations, the only ones that have conscription are Germany, Austria, Finland, Greece and Estonia, and in Germany, the scales have just tipped towards its abolition, something that's all over the news right now. So, if you'll allow me to remove Germany from the equation already, that's 4 nations left out of 27, representing barely more than 26 million people out of 500+ million.

      That's hardly "most of Europe".

      Outside of the EU, conscription still exists (with no plans to get rid of it) in Norway and Switzerland in western Europe, and Belarus and Moldova in Eastern Europe. Still not exactly "most of Europe".

    10. Re:The Real American System by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Voting really doesn't mean shit with a universal "right" to vote and a lack of limited government.

      I'd wager that for every informed vote that gets cast there are 5 votes by people who don't even know what they are voting for but vote automatically for a republican/democrat because thats what they've always voted for.

      Hell, my guess is there are even more people who vote who were just told by their union who to vote for and they do it.

      Democracy is a good thing, but it only works with informed voters along with limited government. Otherwise, its no better than mob justice.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    11. Re:The Real American System by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

    12. Re:The Real American System by Marcika · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unlike most of Europe where citizens 18-20 have to go into the army or other duty for two years

      I call bullshit. Please enumerate this list that encompasses "most of Europe" that has such a requirement.

      Not most, but about half, not all citizens, but only men, not for two years but only 6 to 12 months. However, the list includes: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Greece, Denmark and Serbia

    13. Re:The Real American System by ACS+Solver · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't suppose you're European, as your statement on conscription in Europe is blatantly false. Most European countries have abolished conscription. Austria has military service that lasts less than a year, Albania is in the process of abolishing conscription, Finnish service is 6-12 months. Norwegian service is a year and German service is 6 months. Oh yeah and Greeks have a 9 month draft. Hell, Ukraine is schedules to end its mandatory military service program.

      I probably forgot a couple countries but certainly most do not have mandatory military service, and I'm not sure if there's any country remaining with a mandatory 2 year service. Which is certainly a good thing in my understanding.

    14. Re:The Real American System by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I'd wager that for every informed vote that gets cast there are 5 votes by people who don't even know what they are voting for but vote automatically for a republican/democrat because thats what they've always voted for.

      I don't have a problem with people voting automatically because a particular party agrees better in general with their view of politics. I do have a problem with the regular "Get out the vote" campaigns which precisely target people (young, uneducated, stupid etc) who otherwise wouldn't even know there was an election on. What exactly is gained by having people who have no interest in the political process or any knowledge of who the candidates are go out and vote. Unfortunately, Democrats are the most guilty of this because they know that they will gain most of such votes.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    15. Re:The Real American System by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      And until recently, Sweden...
      Having a draft is probably a good thing, even though I would prefer not to go into the military. The people who actively seek out a military life are often not the most mentally stable people in the world, and although there is (should be) a review process, it's probably not that hard to get through it, especially if the military is desperate for people willing to join.

    16. Re:The Real American System by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      With a professional army there's also a significant risk of getting an army of the lower classes, where the military is seen as a last way out for the underprivileged, but which the wealthy can avoid entirely. It may create a dissonance between the ruling class (generally wealthy) and the soldiers (generally poor).

    17. Re:The Real American System by frn123 · · Score: 1

      Well - one could argue that Russia might not be in Europe anyway, especially culturally.

    18. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid I don't follow:

      > Democracy is a good thing, but it only works with informed voters along with limited government. Otherwise, its no better than mob justice.

      A common definition of democracy: Government by the people. If 90% of your countrymen agree that the government will tell you what color clothes to wear every Monday thru Friday, and the government does so, and enforces this with the full power of the fashion police, that's not (IMHO) "limited government", but it is democracy. Although the founders saw fit to enshrine certain protections against "mob-rule", in the bill of rights, "Justice", is a concept completely orthogonal to democracy, and neither promoted nor denied by universal suffrage.

      > Voting really doesn't mean shit with a universal "right" to vote and a lack of limited government.

      This sounds a lot like you think that "you" should vote, but us other ignoramuses (ignoramii?) shouldn't. What, exactly, do you think the litmus test should be?

      > Hell, my guess is there are even more people who vote who were just told by their union who to vote for and they do it.

      LOL. Just how many workers in the US do you think are still members of labor unions?

    19. Re:The Real American System by olau · · Score: 1

      These days, it's not that many in Denmark, and it's generally only 4 months unless you choose one of the weirder regiments. I think if you go here today and have a son, it's not unlikely conscription will be completely abandoned before he reaches the age of 18.

    20. Re:The Real American System by oxygene2k2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's 11 countries of geographic Europe, which covers 46 countries, so that's not "about half", but "less than a quarter".

      Taking only the EU countries into account, your list of 11 shrinks to 5 (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Switzerland, Norway, and Serbia aren't part of the EU), while there are 27 EU countries (one of them, Cyprus, outside geographic Europe). That's less than a fifth.

    21. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Portugal until about 6 years ago.

    22. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women shouldn't be citizens, they should be married off young to men.

    23. Re:The Real American System by Jainith · · Score: 1

      In addition there is the fun difference between the enlisted ranks and the Officer Corps.

      For even more fun the Officer Corps is made up in parts of
      Military Academy Grads
      ROTC Grads
      OCS (Former enlisted or other willing college grads)

      I don't know the relative percentages of each, but I can tell you each group has their own demographics.

    24. Re:The Real American System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike most of Europe where citizens 18-20 have to go into the army or other duty for two years

      I call bullshit. Please enumerate this list that encompasses "most of Europe" that has such a requirement.

      Not most, but about half, not all citizens, but only men, not for two years but only 6 to 12 months. However, the list includes: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Greece, Denmark and Serbia

      You forgot Cyprus. 25 months .
      When I did my time it was 26 months.

  11. OTOH, there's jury duty... by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've thought of it myself (given I've had a green card here for a while), but it seems every second week someone is off for jury duty over here. Back in the UK, the only person I know who was called was my dad, once, in 45 years as an adult.

    Personally, I'm not sure the whole 'WooHoo, I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.

    Plus, IIRC, the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport (although, from various friends, I've heard that the UK just send your passport back to you with a "you appear to have misplaced your passport" note :)

    So, whatever floats your boat, Linus, but I don't think it's for me.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So become a citizen and don't register to vote--in most states the jury duty pool is the population of registered voters.

    2. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, jury duty is important.

      Smart people are smart enough to get out of jury duty if they want to, but ask yourself: if falsely accused of a crime, wouldn't I want someone on the jury to be at least as smart as me?

    3. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by joelsherrill · · Score: 1

      In know in Alabama, it is from the driver's licenses since that is a larger pool.

    4. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hey, jury duty is important.

      Smart people are smart enough to get out of jury duty if they want to, but ask yourself: if falsely accused of a crime, wouldn't I want someone on the jury to be at least as smart as me?

      Wrong. Assholes may be smart enough to avoid fulfilling their obligation as a citizen to participate in a vital part of our society. Coincidentally, I think the same assholes (liars, cheaters, scammers) should be physically and emotionally punished in public.

    5. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by gid · · Score: 1

      In Ohio, it's registered voters. I've been called up 3 times now and I'm only 35. My father in law has never been called up and surprise surprise, he's not registered to vote.

    6. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, what I actually don't understand is why he went to live in the states. I mean, he's from fucking Finland. It's a fucking awesome country, and it's surrounded by Sweden (Tits), Norway (Awesomest place on earth, full of church-burners), and Russia (Best women on earth). So, he left an amazing country with a huge cultural heritage and an educated population in Europe, to go the New Rome, land of mcdonalds? That sounds like a stupid move to me.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    7. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about where you are, but I've been called for Jury duty 4-5 times in the last decade. And exactly zero times have I had to actually go. Only once was it my excuse, me being out of town, the other times they canceled the service.

    8. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (although, from various friends, I've heard that the UK just send your passport back to you with a "you appear to have misplaced your passport" note :)

      oblig. xkcd

    9. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, most people charged with a crime actually did it, and in those cases, the defense's motivation is to get people on the jury who are even stupider than the defendant.

    10. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, he left to go to the United States, land of companies willing to pay him for working on things related to his hobby, because large segments of the economy have become dependent on him. Last I heard, wasn't he living in Oregon? You sounds like your judging the entire country based on Kansas.

    11. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Runacta+Munac · · Score: 1

      "the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport" Probably not anymore, if the UK allows dual citizenship, as the US finally allows it if the other country reciprocates.

    12. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Same for Florida.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    13. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Of course, most people charged with a crime actually did it, and in those cases, the defense's motivation is to get people on the jury who are even stupider than the defendant.

      Sure -- I'd argue that it's in a smart person's best interest to be on that jury, too.

    14. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is married with kids. There are huge tax implications and differences for inheriting property, etc between a citizen and a foreigner.

    15. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Yup, he lives in Portland.

      It's still not Europe, but it's not as bad as Jersey ;)

      I'm just trolling. Get over it.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    16. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by faraway · · Score: 1

      Uhm, the US allows dual citizenship?  I have US-EU citizenship?  What are you talking about US insisting you give up your UK citizenship?

    17. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      In California it is the driver's licenses

    18. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Smart? I want someone who can look at the facts and recognize outside bias when it presents itself.

      Smart doesn't cut it alone.

      And yes, Jury duty is critical to the system. I think there should be a tax right off for Jury duty.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Flypaper42 · · Score: 1
      The USA doesn't recognize the dual citizenship crap that a lot of other countries have. In the eyes of the USA, you're either a citizen or not. If your birth country wants to keep you on their muster sheet, thats between you and them.

      Plus, IIRC, the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport (although, from various friends, I've heard that the UK just send your passport back to you with a "you appear to have misplaced your passport" note :) Simon.

    20. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do the taxes work? In most other countries (I'm typing this in Canada), when I work under a visa somewhere else, I pay taxes to that other place, but not to here (for income earned there). I've heard nasty stories about Americans having to pay taxes to the local country (income tax for income earned in the other country) ....PLUS income tax to the US (which to me, sounds entirely unfair). Its like "You are one of ours now. So long as you make the smallest penny, anywhere in the world, you must pay us." If Linus were to move back to Finland and do some work there, he pays taxes there, but also to the US IRS. Its like a double-whammy. Its a bit like when I did a co-op term at university. The term didn't count as a course, (I still needed 120 credits for a degree, and the coop term didn't count for the 120), but I had to pay (actually pay more than a regular course), for the term, even though I wasn't at university at the time. It too seemed like a double-whammy, having to pay for something without any real service being given. Any Americans have any comments on the American system as it is? As stated before, as a Canadian, if I were to work in the US on an H1B, I would pay US income tax, but wouldn't have to pay a penny to Revenue Canada for income earned in the US.

    21. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm not sure the whole 'WooHoo, I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.

      As a GC holder if you commit a crime you can be deported. Once you're a citizen, no problemo.

      No idea how crimes committed before the citizenship is granted are handled. I don't know if a citizenship can be retroactively revoked.

      Maybe he knows that MS or some MS financed corporation is planning/paying to get him charged with some totally bogus criminal copyright violation (criminal patent violation?), and he wants to stay in the USA instead of getting deported?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    22. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I found jury duty a nice break from normal, boring, work. I got paid at the same rate, plus the commute was shorter. Plus a little stipend for lunch, $50 IIRC for three days of service. There are some boring patches of waiting, but nothing a laptop or book can't solve.

      Of course, the problem in my state is that if you're chosen Foreman of a jury, your name goes down on the record of the verdict. We don't have anonymous juries... so that's a little disconcerting if you help to put someone away, and he can find your actual name trivially.

    23. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Petaris · · Score: 1

      According to the the US Consulate in Japan, the US does allow dual citizenship. Not sure if there are restrictions on country or not though. Japan by the way doesn't allow dual citizenship (of adults).

      --
      ~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
    24. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Of course, most people charged with a crime actually did it, and in those cases, the defense's motivation is to get people on the jury who are even stupider than the defendant.

      If the case goes to trial (most cases where people are charged with a crime don't, they usually plead out), the defenses interest is to get people who (aside from biases toward or away from people like the defendant, or law enforcement) are likely to see "reasonable doubt" broadly even within standardized jury instructions, and the prosecutions interest (aside from the saame kind of biases set aside for the defense) is to get jurors who are likely to see it very narrowly within those instructions.

      Intelligence isn't really a big factor (more intelligent people, all other things being equal, may more readily see the significance of prosecution evidence, but they may also be more able to see tenable alternative explanations for the evidence presented and recognize reasonable doubt; remember that the question before the jury isn't whether they think the defendant is guilty, but whether the prosecution has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), though people who have such an inflated sense of their own cleverness that they are unlikely to listen through all the evidence and instead may be inclined to build their own mental story early based on their own biases and the parts of the testimony that confirm their own biases are probably, unless their biases seem to clearly align completely with one side (in which case, they'll certainly be unacceptable to the other) likely to be undesired by both sides.

    25. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Many states go by license, but once you receive your summons, you can just main a photocopy of a foreign passport to get out of it.

    26. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even think you live in the USA, or just don't know the rules of the place you live in. If you're a resident you need you don't have to do jury duty. When you call the phone for the qualifying you an just choose the option that you're not a citizen. See statutory disqualifications Also USA allows for multiple citizenship, as it happens I got triple citizenship I was born in Mexico to a USA mother automatically I got 2 citizenships, and while living in Canada I married a Canadian girl and naturalized myself there so now I hold 3 citizenship. I actually have 3 passports which comes in handy when traveling certain parts of the world. The UK also allows for dual citizenship.

      http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

      I've thought of it myself (given I've had a green card here for a while), but it seems every second week someone is off for jury duty over here. Back in the UK, the only person I know who was called was my dad, once, in 45 years as an adult.

      Personally, I'm not sure the whole 'WooHoo, I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.

      Plus, IIRC, the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport (although, from various friends, I've heard that the UK just send your passport back to you with a "you appear to have misplaced your passport" note :)

      So, whatever floats your boat, Linus, but I don't think it's for me.

      Simon.

    27. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.

      I would argue that that difference isn't there. As a green card holder, you can contribute federal (and most if not all state) political campaigns.

      For many campaigns, the calculus works out to $75 per vote. That is, once the election is over, each vote cost about $75.

      So get our your checkbook and use $75 as a starting point for your favorite candidate(s).

      As for giving up your UK passport, eh, that's not really enforced.

    28. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but smart people are dropped from the jury by lawyers of both sides usually.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    29. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by abucior · · Score: 1

      One of the financial disadvantages to US citizenship, compared to other citizenships around the world, is that you have to pay taxes to the US, regardless of where you live in the world. Often you don't end up paying anything due to credits for foreign income tax, but regardless, you have to at least declare it, which can be a pain. Most other citizenships don't have this requirement.

    30. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by martas · · Score: 1

      that works fine, assuming your country of citizenship is actually a, ahem, country, not a protection racket run by people who'd sell their own mama for a smoke. not all of us can say that, though...

    31. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Smart people are smart enough to get out of jury duty

      How, exactly?

      Seriously. I always see this claim, but have never heard anything that does not run the risk of perjury charges.

      Maybe it's just California. Calling in and saying "I just lost a leg in a car accident" or "I have Ebola" just *might* get you excused here.

      I'm always excused by the defense, though. Either because I give my occupation as "satellite communications engineer thinking of pursuing my PhD" or I admit that if the defendant does not take the stand, I vote guilty.

    32. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport

      Think that they have changed that. The US didn't use to recognise dual citizenship, but now they do. A lot of my
      American chums have got British passports now that they can have both.

    33. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that smart and honest people may be kept off of the jury even if they are ready and willing to serve.

    34. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by MightyTribble · · Score: 1

      There's no insistence from the US to give up your previous citizenship when you become a US citizen. The State Dept even has a page about it:

      http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

      This is really just a matter of practical policy ; it's impossible to police and some countries have no process for renouncing citizenship (others, such as Singapore, require you to give up your Singaporean citizenship if you ever take citizenship of another country). The only requirement the US has is that US citizens enter and leave the country on their US passport.

    35. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I've thought of it myself (given I've had a green card here for a while), but it seems every second week someone is off for jury duty over here.

      I've been called exactly once in over 20 years of eligibility. I showed up, the judge came in and told us that the case was postponed, thanked us for doing our civic duty, and sent us all home.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    36. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if falsely accused of a crime, wouldn't I want someone on the jury to be at least as smart as me?

      I'd prefer a dumb jury and a defense lawyer smart enough to manipulate them into an acquittal. While that answer makes it sound like I'm assuming my own hypothetical guilt, that's not the case. If a false accusation against me gets to trial, I'd be more than happy to take any acquittal I can get. I'd ideally prefer that they recognize my inherent innocence, but ideally, I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place.

    37. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like your juding all of Kansas based on Hill City, KS!

    38. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finland sucks actually.

    39. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And yes, Jury duty is critical to the system." Wrong.

      Without juries, judges decide cases. Seasoned, professionally trained judges. Are they perfect? No. Are they wildly better than a toally broken jury system? Yes.

      If you're rich, you hire expensive lawyers to manipulate the system and get away with murder... literally (OJ Simpson). If you're poor, a public defender may not get you acquitted even if you're obviously innocent.

      Science now knows how to manipulate people pretty well (and so do the expensive lawyers). A judge is far less likely to fall for those tricks.

      80% of all jury trials worldwide are in the US. In the UK, they are only still used for murder trials. Some countries use professional jurors; again, a great improvement over Joe-off-the-street who is clueless about the complex legal system.

      But here, you can get called for jury duty because some self-absorbed idiot thinks he deserves an expensive jury trial for going 5 miles over the speed limit. This happens all the time and is a complete disgrace to everyone involved.

    40. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Ea · · Score: 1

      I think the frequency of jury duty in the USA is less than Space cowboy suggests. I just turned 46 yo, have always been registered to vote (in various jurisdictions), and have served on a jury once. Obviously, I know other people who have done so, a couple of them more than once. But it's hardly like being called up every year. Of course, jurisdictions are bound to vary somewhat depending on how many cases come up, but it's a pretty minimal obligation of citizenship.

      FWIW, you really cannot give up UK citizenship by getting US citizenship. I know a number of dual (or multiple) citizenship people between those jurisdictions. None of which, of course, means that there's any particular reason for the commenter to seek US citizenship if it doesn't have any particular benefit in his/her case.

    41. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by purplepolecat · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm not sure the whole 'WooHoo, I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.

      Green card holders can be deported for committing a felony. Citizens can only be deported if you can prove that they obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

    42. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but smart people are dropped from the jury by lawyers of both sides usually.

      This meme gets repeated on Slashdot all the time, but strangely the people I know that are "smart" by every objective measure (IQ test, other standardized tests that correlate well with IQ tests, successful in career, college educated, etc.) don't seem to have gotten "dropped" from juries on peremptory or for-cause challenges. Could you perhaps cite some kind of evidence for this claim?

    43. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      There's no insistence from the US to give up your previous citizenship when you become a US citizen.

      Yes, it does. See, e.g, p.28 of the Guide to Naturalization produced by US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

      The State Dept even has a page about it:

      http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

      This does not contradict the US requirement to renounce foreign citizenship as part of the naturalization process. It just recognizes that foreign countries don't automatically give effect to that renunciation and that the citizenship that still exists (under the laws of the country at issue) may have consequences for the traveller.

      Note that the State Department is responsible for providing assistance to Americans travelling abroad, and this is travel information about the effects of status as recognized by other countries. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for the process of people becoming US citizens.

    44. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Hehe. Not to mention, left land that was ranked #1 by Newsweek (surrounded by a few other top-10 countries, like you correctly point out).

      I, too, feel like a dummy, having made very similar move meself... greed makes you do funny things. :-)

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    45. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by JamesP · · Score: 1
      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    46. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by allusionist · · Score: 1

      If you think relying on judges is such a better alternative, I suggest you do some research into Japan's legal system.

    47. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      In the UK, they are only still used for murder trials.
      wikipedia claims:

      In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), minor criminal cases are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. Middle ranking ("triable either way") offences may be tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable") offences, however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. Juries sit in a few civil cases, in particular, defamation and cases involving the state. Juries also sit in coroner's courts for more contentious inquests

      I consider wikipedia more trustworthy than a random AC on /. If you have a better source confirmin or refuting this please post it.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    48. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, IIRC, the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport

      That was once true (as it was once true for most countries), but it has not been the case for a long time.

    49. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Intelligence isn't really a big factor (more intelligent people, all other things being equal, may more readily see the significance of prosecution evidence, but they may also be more able to see tenable alternative explanations for the evidence presented and recognize reasonable doubt; remember that the question before the jury isn't whether they think the defendant is guilty, but whether the prosecution has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), though people who have such an inflated sense of their own cleverness that they are unlikely to listen through all the evidence and instead may be inclined to build their own mental story early based on their own biases and the parts of the testimony that confirm their own biases are probably, unless their biases seem to clearly align completely with one side (in which case, they'll certainly be unacceptable to the other) likely to be undesired by both sides.

      Ladies and gentlemen, that was one sentence. Come out and take your bow, Herr DragonWriter; your verb separation in that last sentence was of truly German proportions :-)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    50. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Your ideal peer group involves women, women, and burning churches? Which of these things does not belong...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    51. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Finland is dark for half a year?

    52. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      A blog post with an anecdote from one person from one experience being called to jury duty who generalizes from that to a conclusion which doesn't match the proposition you suggested. How is that evidence?

      You claim that both prosecution and defense work to remove intelligent jurors. The blog post you point to as evidence has one person, on the basis of their one personal experience with jury duty in one place that "juries for short cases are mainly professionals, juries for long cases are state employees and the idle rich, and homemakers with young children are almost completely unrepresented."

      The only thing that even approaches the point you claim are two of the comments, one which simply asserts the same conclusion you assert, again without any support (and is anonymous) and another which again is a singe anecdote based on one person's experience being dismissed, where he guesses that "sounding to smart" was part of the reason.

      Even if we assume this guess is correct as to the reason he was dismissed, which is a pretty big assumption, it doesn't support the idea that both sides generally work to remove intelligent jurors, it would, at most, support the idea that there are some circumstances under which one side or the other might do that.

      I'm not sure you have even the slightest understanding of the concept of "evidence", so I encourage you -- for the sake of justice -- to do everything you can to continue to avoid jury service.

    53. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be "write off" not "right off".

    54. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Well do you have ANY evidence?! In favor or against?

      Do people keep stats on this I wonder?!

      BTW one thing is evidence, other is scientific proof, you seem to confuse them.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    55. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have thought he could do his job from pretty much anywhere in the world that has a decent internet connection, it's not like all the other kernel hackers he works with live near him. Though maybe it was a condition for working for Transmeta and he decided to stay after that.

  12. He can do whatever he wants... by Qubit · · Score: 2, Funny

    In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly."

    ...but just don't email the POTUS and call him a p***k!

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  13. So, now he's ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    to have his BMI and IQ numbers interchanged.

    1. Re:So, now he's ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen what his stay in the US has already done to his BMI? Looks like the process was started eons ago already. Makes you wonder how he managed to keep Linux alive for so long...

  14. Matti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Tekemätöntä ei saa tekemättömäksi" -- Matti Nykänen

  15. trust me, a lot of born citizens feels the same by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    I can't stand American politics.

  16. Re:Welcome Aboard by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, I'd say welcome aboard, and wonder any more why anyone would want to do that, with the country rushing headlong toward socialism and therefore an impending economic collapse. We have all the making of a disaster that will dwarf the Great Depression, and there doesn't seem to be much of anyone who wants to do anything about it.

    Amazing. Just three years ago, people were saying how they couldn't imagine why anyone would want to come to a country rushing headlong into fascism and therefore an impending social collapse, with all the making of a disaster that would dwarf McCarthyism, and that there didn't seem to be much of anyone who wanted to do anything about it.

    The only conclusion I can draw is that both sides are wrong, and/or both sides are right. In any case, if we were doing something so terribly wrong Over Here, I can't imagine why we'd still be attracting so many folks from Over There.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  17. Re:Welcome Aboard by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Comments like this wish that this was filed under politics.
    2. Dude he is from Finnland. I doubt that he feels the US is rushing toward socialism.

    Other than that welcome to the list of great Americans that includes Albert Einstein and Alexander Gram Bell.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  18. Re:Welcome Aboard by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, it's "socialism" that's hurting our county. Not the constant erosion of citizens rights, nope. Not the constant and gratuitous government spending. Not the off-shoring of nearly all our industry because we'd rather have a cheaper item regardless of the human cost overseas. Not the constant War-State mentality where we have to fight "Terrorism", "Drugs", "Copyright", etc, etc, and again, pay for it. Not the fact that our country is basically being run _by_ corporations _for_ corporations (heavy lobbying).

    No, it's the thought that maybe, just maybe, some of the spending government does should actually help _citizens_ that's hurting us.

    Seriously?

    P.S. Sorry for the OT comment. I just get so tired of hearing this BS Glenn Beck inspired bullshit.

  19. "he will now be able to participate directly"? by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

    Oh you poor, stupid bastard Linus.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:"he will now be able to participate directly"? by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      That pretty much sums up my own initial mental response, yes.

  20. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You're confused because you think socialism is designed to benefit you instead of the oligarchs.

    The government uses a variety of methods to redistribute wealth from the population to the corporations and throws the peasants just enough to chain them to the system so that they don't revolt.

  21. Tax purposes by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    My mother did the US citizen thing, because my parents' lawyer advised her to do that. Something about taxing inheritance more on foreigners, or something like that.

    Maybe he ran in to a similar situation?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  22. Oh stop by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are trying to make an issue where there isn't one. Torvalds was here legally, he had his green card. You can live in the US permanently and never get citizenship, legally, if you wish to.

    Thus far I have yet to encounter someone trying to make an issue of people who are legal permanent residents. You seem to be building a straw man ot pick a fight where there is not one.

    When you start shouting and being absurd just to start a fight you are no better than those you are trying to attack.

    1. Re:Oh stop by Kufat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please learn to recognize sarcasm. This wasn't even a difficult one; the second line of the GP made it clear that the first line was said in jest!

    2. Re:Oh stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are trying to make an issue where there isn't one.

      Not at all. The GP was clearly mocking the people who are actively trying to make an issue where there isn't one in a play to brainwash stupid people through fear.

    3. Re:Oh stop by confused+one · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You beat me to it. My mother never applied for U.S. citizenship. She lived here for 35 years before she went home to care for her elderly mother. Now, my father, a U.S. citizen, lives overseas. These things happen and it's not a big deal.

    4. Re:Oh stop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Actually, all of the nonsense going on in Arizona and elsewhere about "anchor babies" is exactly on point.

      Linus is exactly the sort of person this nonsense impacts. INS could have done something stupid and his children (who are infact Americans) would be caught in the crossfire.

      This rush by some people to dis-enfranchise other Americans could have ghastly unforseen consquences. The effective deportation of underage Americans is just the tip of the iceberg.

      It's a Pandora's box you really really don't want to open.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Oh stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if he was from Canada? I bet some people would have an issue then.

    6. Re:Oh stop by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was just a satirical comment on the problems with the US immigration system and the worse problems with US socio-political discourse. I had no idea it was an attempt to make an issue where there isn't one. I even thought that the post was made with an understanding that Mr. Torvalds complied with all of the applicable laws and regulations, and used that fact for ironic comparison with the situations other less "valuable" immigrants are in, and the things people say about them for political gain. Thanks for pointing out my misconceptions, and shame on this devious attempt to lure me into thinking about things. Who knows where that might lead?!?!

      --
      WALSTIB!
    7. Re:Oh stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct here, although I would also observe that quite a few participants here (and many more outside) are critical of H1B visa and related policies, which is something that allowed Linus to work in the US. So while misconstrued, it is not completely unrelated to the general question of immigration policy, law and practices.
      Put another way: there are many who would want to close "loopholes" that have made it possible for millions of immigrants like Linus to move in, "steal jobs" and become americans; and illegal ones are just the tip of iceberg for some (not all by any means, and I don't suggest you think this way).

    8. Re:Oh stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      critical of H1B visa and related policies, which is something that allowed Linus to work in the US.

      But he is white, so its OK. It is only brown skinned H1B holders that rob God fearing Americans of their jobs.

  23. Re:Welcome Aboard by rotide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't consider government funding of private/public businesses socialism. That's just a feedback loop due to corporate lobbying, in my mind at least. A "we'll help fill your pockets if you fill ours and also make us CEO's and/or some other high paid employees afterward" sort of deal.

  24. Re:Welcome Aboard by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    Neither side is fundamentally disinterested, and therefore is given to hyperbole. Whatever the greatest evil they can muster (for the right, socailism/communism, for the left, fascism/trotskyism (neo-cons are basically just disgused trotskyists -- it's all about the perpetual revolution/spreading democracy)), that's the label they slap on their opponents without any hesitation in order to stop and think whether or not its really warranted.

    Its not that both sides are right or wrong, its that both sides are pretty much just kind of dumb.

  25. He took by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ur jerbs!

  26. Atleast he plans to vote by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the last US presidential election only about 60% of the people eligible to vote, actually did. However, I bet a much greater number of people complained about the president/candidates. I remember reading somewhere that even though Hollywood (Puff Daddy etc..) started the whole "Vote of Die" campaign to get young people (age 18-24) to vote, approximately 1 in 10 actually did.

    I always tell people, if you didn't vote in in the election, don't complain.

    1. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps in some of those who didn't vote there are some who feel that the two options that are given are not enough, and are really the same thing in the end.

    2. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by satoshi1 · · Score: 1

      Isn't getting 1/10 of that demographic to vote a HUGE improvement over previous years? I mean, I realize it's still an abysmal amount, but it's growth, right?

    3. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      You know, I was one that never registered to vote before this past election. I felt strongly enough about both candidates that I thought it was time I made my contribution to the decisions of my countries future, just like everyone should.

      I voted for David Hasselhoff

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by el_gato_borracho · · Score: 1

      I wish the percentage were smaller. If you make your voting decisions based solely on TV commercials, please stay home on election day. Let those who pay attention make the grown-up decisions.

    5. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the last US presidential election only about 60% [gmu.edu] of the people eligible to vote, actually did.

      And what of the opposite? (People that were not eligible, but did.)

    6. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      young people (age 18-24) to vote, approximately 1 in 10 actually did.

      Good enough reason to raise the voting age to 24. Plus, politicians won't have to pimp for money to cater to those young punks who won't vote anyway. Double plus, we won't have to see them making cringeworthy appearances at Jay-Z concerts in a futile attempt at looking hip.

    7. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by jonescb · · Score: 2

      Apparently you haven't listened to George Carlin. You can't blame the people who didn't vote because they weren't the ones who picked the awful politician who is screwing everything up. The people who don't vote can blame the ones who did. And really, in most elections both mainstream candidates are awful, so voting is mostly a waste of time. The ones who don't vote have all the right to blame the ones who do for propagating such a terrible system.

    8. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 1

      I went the Brewster's Millions method and wrote in None of the Above. The fun thing is if no one voted someone would still be declared the winner and nothing would change (as far as presidential candidates go). So I agree with you, I didn't want EITHER of them, so I'm going to complain all I want to. The fact that we will never see anything better is the saddest part of the whole situation.

    9. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      I disagree. What does more voting help? I think the 17th amendment weakened the republic.

      If you voted, you bought into and legitimized the system.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

    10. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      In the last US presidential election only about 60% [gmu.edu] of the people eligible to vote, actually did. However, I bet a much greater number of people complained about the president/candidates. I remember reading somewhere that even though Hollywood (Puff Daddy etc..) started the whole "Vote of Die" campaign to get young people (age 18-24) to vote, approximately 1 in 10 actually did.

      Wherever you read that is wrong. 18-24 turnout was 49% in 2008, and 47% in 2004. This is (to say the least) quite a bit more than "1 in 10".

      I always tell people, if you didn't vote in in the election, don't complain.

      The US consistently has very low turnout among advanced democracies, which is well-explained by its electoral system which does not elect governments which are effectively representative of the opinions that motivate voters.

      More people would vote if the electoral system produced results that they perceived as being worth the effort of voting.

    11. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I always tell people, if you didn't vote in in the election, don't complain.

      What sense does that make? If you expect other people to respect your choice if you win, you have to respect their choice when they win. In other words, if you vote don't complain.

      On the other hand, suppose the process is entirely rigged. Wouldn't participating only legitimize it? Does refusing to participate in an unfair system really deprive you of the right to complain about that system?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Isn't getting 1/10 of that demographic to vote a HUGE improvement over previous years?

      1 in 10 would have been much worse than the usual turnout in that age group, but the actual turnout was ~47% in 2004 and ~49% in 2008, which was a significant increase from the ~36% in 2000.

      Sources: (2004/2008, 2000)

    13. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Danathar · · Score: 1

      And did they listen?

      You may think they have no moral right to complain if they did not vote, but unfortunately they don't agree with you and will continue to do so despite your proclamation.

      Which means your complaint about their complaining is absolutely worthless.

    14. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      60% was *very* high. I was impressed (and sad for being impressed) that it was a non-trivial amount over 50%.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    15. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I haven't voted for someone who won national election since probably Reagan (my first president after 18). I've often wondered "why bother" to vote, since I'm part of the less than 10% that is so fed up with (D) and (R) duopoly that vote for third party.

      On some level, I hope to hell that the TeaParty, Greens, Libertarians and all the other third party candidates all continue to make significant progress in eroding the base of the (D)/(R) that one day we have a president that only garners enough national votes to win by less than 33% of popular vote, and perhaps just enough to get plurality of Electoral College and congress to cause huge problems getting a government seated.

      In fact, I'll propose that the third parties get together and have a REAL open debate (discussion) of Presidential candidates, not the scripted press conferences that don't prove anything. Shouldn't our political reality represent the political will of people. We have such a wonderful diverse set of views, many of which I disagree with, but with whom I love discussing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by kindbud · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always tell people, if you didn't vote in in the election, don't complain.

      And I always tell people, if you voted in the last election, it's all your fault.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    17. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you didn't vote in in the election, don't complain.

      If you don't agree that the system works, you shouldn't have rights.

      Explain to me the difference in meaning between these two statements. If you can.

    18. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      I always tell people, if you didn't vote in the election, don't complain.

      Stop trying to make people feel they should vote, or they actually will. That's a very bad thing.

      If you convince somebody that doesn't have enough interest to actually go vote, that doesn't mean that they will suddenly start caring about politics and start studying the issues and the candidates. It means that they will get up that day and press the button for the candidate of the party they've been fooled to believe is on their side. In other words, you're creating uninformed voters that will offset the vote of the informed voters. Considering informed voters are already a minority, you shouldn't work to make the problem worse.

      Civic responsibility isn't about voting. That's part of it, but if you skip everything else and just do the voting part you're doing more damage than the alternative.

    19. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My folks said the same thing to me - if you don't vote, then you have no the right to complain.... I'm registered and I vote. I also have issues with the current system, but believe that my vote is one tiny step in the path to improve things.

    20. Re:Atleast he plans to vote by Nesman64 · · Score: 1

      112%, including the deceased and dogs

      --
      coffee | nose > keyboard
  27. we're ALL immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The would be news to the native Americans - who also didn't get to vote for quite a while after constitution was written...

    1. Re:we're ALL immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually they're descendants of immigrants as well. Just you try to study their DNA and see how far you get!

  28. Re:Welcome Aboard by burnin1965 · · Score: 3, Interesting
  29. Re:Welcome Aboard by east+coast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not the constant erosion of citizens rights, nope. Not the constant and gratuitous government spending. Not the off-shoring of nearly all our industry because we'd rather have a cheaper item regardless of the human cost overseas. Not the constant War-State mentality where we have to fight "Terrorism", "Drugs", "Copyright", etc, etc, and again, pay for it.

    Well, in all fairness, Neither side is willing to do anything about all of that either.

    I just get so tired of hearing this BS major party inspired bullshit.

    Fixed that for you. It's already pretty easy to see that both sides are pretty much doing the same thing but using different excuses as to why they do it. Why bother acting like this is a right wing vs left wing problem? The powers that be, regardless of their party, have a common goal and, unless you're one of their power elite, you're not included on the winning side of things. Anyone following a major party at this point is fodder to the parties' leadership and a betrayer of the country's citizens.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  30. Re:Welcome Aboard by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, to be fair, the Soviet Union had constant and gratuitous government spending, an erosion of citizens rights, and a constant war-state mentality. Socialism with the Big S is generally not the same thing as Social Democracy. The "Socialism" of Western Europe was Social Democracy, not the Socialism of the red flags; the Marxist "Scientific Socialism" of the Internationale that most people call Communism today. Except the people who think they're being cleaver and claim that "pure communism" was supposed to be Libertarian Socialism, aka "Anarchism." it wasn't. Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx were arch-rivals in the First Internationale over this issue, and Marxism, slightly refined by Lenin and Trotsky, and established by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was the real McCoy.

  31. huh by nomadic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly.

    Then move back to Finland.

    1. Re:huh by drcheap · · Score: 1

      Why, so that he can't participate? Nobody said he had a dislike for participation.

      In fact, it's A Good Thing(tm) that he can how participate as that gives him is very small amount of force to help sway/direct the future of the country.

      If everyone liked "the American style of politics" this country would exceed terminal velocity on its way down the crapper. Fortunately there are a few people left with a clue to slow the decay ;)

  32. Re:Welcome Aboard by rotide · · Score: 1

    Too True.. I voted for the current politician in charge and frankly, I only did so because the other guy scared me more. Even if I was a Republican (not that I consider myself a Democrat) I think I'd hate Glenn Beck just the same. Damn he's a moron, or more to the point, those that eat up everything he says.

    Our political system is a joke. Both sides want basically the same things. They are just different flavors of suck.

  33. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Citizens Rights -> Drug War
    Gov't Spending -> Aforementioned socialism
    Offshoring -> Income Tax
    Constant War State -> Weak response to acts of terror by Clinton Adminstration

    And agree that lobbying should be outlawed.

  34. Or Maybe... by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Or maybe we are going to hell in a hand basket, and Linus is just to lazy to move? It took him this long just to sign up for citizenship.

    "Oh look, the four horsemen are outside my window, maybe it's time to go back to Finland."

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  35. What about Tove? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Is she also becoming a US citizen? And if so, will she have her Finnish karate title revoked?

    But in any event, welcome to the US, Linus, but you've shown you can kick butt anywhere in the world.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  36. Stupid and Ugly by magma · · Score: 1

    For some reason this reminded me of one of his quotes, "Democrats are stupid and ugly." No wait, maybe that was "CVS users" Well, no matter, they're probably the same anyways.

  37. Citizenship Test by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quizzer: what are the three branches of government?

    Linus: Why have three branches? I'd do a git merge legislative executive judiciary into a single monolithic government over which I'm benevolent dictator. Screw those crazy microgovernment people!

    1. Re:Citizenship Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a benevolent dictatorship sounds kinda nice.

    2. Re:Citizenship Test by sc00p18 · · Score: 1

      Greatest post ever. Can we mod you up to 11?

  38. USA citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    correction he became a USA citizen. He'll never be an American. Only people born in the American continent can be Americans.

  39. WTF was he smoking?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He WANTED to become a citizen? HERE!!??

    Good God, this is the equivalent of a black man actively petitioning to become a citizen of South Africa BEFORE apartheid was legally abolished, or an open practitioner of Judaism trying to join the Nazi SS, or, or, or, an Arab-American actually freaking voting for freaking Sara Palin for President!

    Has he finally, completely, utterly, lost his mind!!???

    1. Re:WTF was he smoking?? by halivar · · Score: 1

      This word, "equivalent"... I do not think it means what you think it means.

  40. Re:Welcome Aboard by russotto · · Score: 1

    Right, it's "socialism" that's hurting our county. Not the constant erosion of citizens rights, nope. Not the constant and gratuitous government spending. Not the off-shoring of nearly all our industry because we'd rather have a cheaper item regardless of the human cost overseas.

    Much of the constant and gratuitous government spending is socialist. As many who use the term include nanny-statism as part and parcel of socialism, some of that erosion of rights goes there too.

  41. Linus & Arnold for 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The prophecy is about to be fulfilled!

    Penguinista Terminator Revolucion por favor! Hasta la vista donde la sauna! Your vote for pure unadulterated uninhibited fragging fantastic Finno-Austrian tag team kick-ass awesomeness!!!11!"11

    Torvalds the Brain is el Presidente and Schwarzenegger the Pinky (muscles are pink! This is no girly-pink but manly man muscle pink man!) is literally --not figuratively-- the most powerful Vice Presidente ever in the history of Life itself.

    Time to get the campaign rolling peeps! It's the only way to Save America! It's the only way to Save the Universe!

    Also: every future member of Congress must henceforth either be a sofware guru or body builder, by the future prophetic retroactive 2012 Intergalactic States of America decree :D

    Can you see the Awesomeness!? Can you hear the Awesomeness!? Can you smell the Awesomeness!? YES YOU CAN!!!!!111!"!#""3et53g4rbnj b.,

  42. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    See, your post is why people in the US have a knee-jerk reaction against any and all socialism. The distinction between sensible socialism and whackjob socialism is too difficult to follow without intensive study. I'm a college-educated average Joe, and I can't make heads or tails of your post without resorting to Wikipedia.

  43. BIG Mistake!!!! by gabrieltss · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now he is offically a serf - serving the ruling elite and a SLAVE to the bankers. He thinks he is now a citizen of the land of the free home of the brave....... He obviously didn't read current history...

    "America... land of the free." **

    ** All activities must be approved prior to execution. Any deviation from State-defined methods of administering said activities may result in public censure, fines, physical punishment, confiscation of property, imprisonment,
    death and/or any combination thereof. Participation in "Free Speech", "The Pursuit of Happiness", "Freedom of Religion", "Freedom of Assembly", and other exclusive "Rights" subject to the prior approval of local, state, and
    federal governing bodies, and such entitled privileges may be revoked at any time, without notice, for any reason.

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
    1. Re:BIG Mistake!!!! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Now he is offically a serf - serving the ruling elite and a SLAVE to the bankers.

      Please point out the country in which your statement is not true.

  44. Re:Welcome Aboard by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except what you describe is crony capitalism not socialism.

  45. Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by unity100 · · Score: 1

    this is what is basically getting american citizenship over finnish citizenship. one is a donkey, the other is an arabian race horse.

    1. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I was going to say "But Finland has much higher taxes!" Then I checked... the highest tax bracket there is 30%. The current highest tax bracket in the US is 35%, about to go up to 39%. Damn you, you socialist countries with your lower taxes!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Man... after reading about it, I just wish I spoke Finnish or Swedish...

    3. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt you have counted everything in it. Government taxes might be close to 30%... but: communal taxes are typically a tad below 20%. VAT for many products is 23%, cost of non-luxury alcohol is entirely dominated by taxes. And on top of that: before you even see your "salary", the company has paid something like a third out of it as various more or less governmental or system expenses. So, in the end, the effective tax rate may well be over 70% for those with high income.

      Then again, there's not much of a need to think about schooling, university education, healthcare or unemployment or even avoiding the risky areas to avoid when choosing next home (well, at least until the overly liberal branches of the government became obsessed of importing illiterate, fundamentalistic somalis to the capital area). All those are funded from either taxes or other publicly financed funds.

      Still, I can say one thing: not all places are like US (nor many places are like Finland!) but they neither need to be so.

    4. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was going to say "But Finland has much higher taxes!" Then I checked... the highest tax bracket there is 30%.

      You've been misinformed. Not a quantitative error but a process error.

      True, their income tax is only about 1/3. But....

      In the us, we (mostly?) have low sales tax, no VAT, and high income taxes.

      In finland, their "sales tax" aka V.A.T. is roughly 1/4, although lower for some things. I specifically remember books had a relatively low VAT, only like 10%.

      So, if you're a wage slave, spending about what you earn, your total tax burden in finland is well over 60% by the time you add sin taxes and such. I suppose if you don't own a car or drink or smoke or earn much money it might only be 40% or so.

      Similar amusements happen in the USA, where some places use income tax, some use sales tax, and some use property tax to fund their operations.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you forgot to factor out the amount of money that an American will be paying to a private health insurance company.

    6. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There are reduced rates in Finland for food, transportation, books, medical expenses. If you go live in some place like California, often the state and county sales taxes combined are higher than the VAT in most EU countries. Plus US sales taxes are usually hidden from the price you see in the store. So you may think you are paying less when really, you aren't.

    7. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is what is basically getting american citizenship over finnish citizenship. one is a donkey, the other is an arabian race horse.

      Five minutes after you posted that, you posted this:

      ignorant people like you are easy to keep in servitude by getting fed the bullshit that is 'greatest nation on earth'. good going !!

      I guess it's only "bullshit" when it conflicts with your opinion, huh?

    8. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you leave the store, you know what you are paying. State sales taxes are well known. Airplane/Cellphone taxes on the other hand...

    9. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by vlm · · Score: 1

      medical expenses

      I thought they were a fully civilized county, aka they have socialized medicine... or is this tax only for the cost of optional cosmetic work?

      Something I never understood about immigration, is why it is so profoundly non-capitalistic at the low end. Set up a market where I'll trade my US citizenship for Linus's Finnish citizenship plus some extra money on the side.

      I suppose, from a "consensual identity theft" standpoint, this market could, very quietly, already exist.

      At the high end, many countries like Canada, Ireland, and some Caribbean nations will let you walk right in and purchase citizenship for about a quarter to half mil. Its just the low end market that is non-capitalist.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    10. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by erikvcl · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The sales tax is always broken out (not hidden like in many European countries). In the various places I've lived in California, sales tax between 6.75%-8.75%. Various states across the US have different sales tax rates typically ranging from 0-9%.

    11. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Precisely. You cannot do comparison shopping before going to the cash register.

    12. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      I do not know where in the EU you have gone to. But in everywhere I have been to, in the product shelf there are two prices: the price including tax in a larger font, and the price before tax in a smaller font. It makes sense to have the price with tax in a larger font since it is what I am actually going to pay at the cash register.

      The receipts I see in the EU include the tax percentage paid on every article you purchased. It is not "hidden" in any way.

      In the US I might go shopping in two separate counties, with different tax rates, and I will only know where I pay less after I actually go to the cash register. How is that better?

    13. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You don't even have to "purchase" Canadian citizenship -- you just need to deposit 6 figures in a Canadian bank and agree to keep it there. Not sure about the other countries, but allowing people to immigrate who a) are not criminals and b) can definitively demonstrate that they have the ability to support themselves, sounds like win-win in my book.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    14. Re:Jump off the racing horse, get on the donkey by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It's better in the US because you can live in Washington State (with no state income tax) but still buy everything in Oregon (with no sales tax).

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  46. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Degradation of income? You bet - its caused by the income taxes in the USA making this one of the least profitable places to build your business. Anyone that wants to make real money closes their factories here and moves them overseas, or cross-border to Mexico or Canada. Jobs go with them, and good-paying jobs are replaced by crappy-paying "service sector" jobs that largely mean "retail" unless maybe you have a degree. Most people don't have degrees, so make poverty level wages, suck up the food stamp money, and lower the quality of life for all of us.

    To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign slogan from 1990, "Its the income taxes, stupid." Pass the Fair Tax, which repeals the income taxes, and watch the economy boom. IOW, there _is_ a silver bullet for this, and it is the Fair Tax.

  47. moron. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    he retains his finnish citizenship. had you known zit about the life standards and amenities in finland, you would go crying in a corner.

    http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

    ignorant people like you are easy to keep in servitude by getting fed the bullshit that is 'greatest nation on earth'. good going !!

    1. Re:moron. by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard Finn's live in giant wooden shoes, which seems kind of cool. They also fought back the Soviets with nothing but live fish for ammunition, so they've also got huge balls. I would like to marry a Finnish girl, maybe, but I would be intimidated trying to explain to her father why I'd be a worthy son-in-law when I have never, in fact, raided the English coast. Yeah, Norfinswedewayland sounds like an awesome place.

    2. Re:moron. by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      You keep posting this like it's some huge smackdown. Per that listing, Finland ranks 12th in the world. The US ranks all of 13th. I'm sure there are individual categories in which they far outrank us, but overall, your point isn't worth much.

    3. Re:moron. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They also fought back the Soviets with nothing but live fish for ammunition

      That's a myth. It wasn't live, it was frozen (you know Finland is like a couple degrees above absolute zero, right?). You'd be surprised at the depth of penetration of those things!

    4. Re:moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem, just kill one of the random street-roaming polar bears with your bare hands and you will have proven yourself.

    5. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      its a huge smackdown. 'the best place on earth', with all the immense natural resources, (actually even monopolizes entire helium resource of the world), all that energy, all that production capability, comes BEHIND a tiny, 3 million nation on earth, in regard to life standards and security and education of its citizens.

      had the resources in america been in finland, it would be much much worse in the statistics. even in a frozen barren land, they rank over america.

      by the way, you should check other 'socialist' countries in that list. you will see that the top 10 is monopolized by them, and america being the 13th, in all its glory.

    6. Re:moron. by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      I really don't give a rat's ass who's where in the top 20 or so. I'd wager they're all pretty nice, and I'm fully aware of the difference between socialism and democratic socialism. It's still not my preferred style of government, but if it works for you, more power to you. Heck, if I could get my husband to leave the city he was born in, I'd love to put in for a transfer to that area of the world.

    7. Re:moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know even less about America than a stereotypical American knows about Finland.

    8. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      ooh geee. do i ...

    9. Re:moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you do. Your bigoted accusations about Americans are all, without any exceptions, 100% true about yourself personally. Like any other bigot, you project those failings onto a convenient scapegoat group because you're unwilling to face them in yourself.

    10. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yeaaah. generalizations and bigoted accusations eh.

      the ones that stem from the endless manipulation, domination, oppression of the world through use of innumerable means in the last 50 years you mean. installing 10 dictators who committed hundreds of genocide crimes in africa and around the world, funding guerillas through drug trade by cia, going even lower than medieval income distribution and creating a supposedly 'free' society in which people have to work for even less than a medieval serf would work for, with NO guarantees of subsistence, coercing it onto all the other nations through political and military pressure, and then coming up like fucktards and not only ignoring and advertising it, but talking about accusations generalizations and bullshit.

      if there is ANY kind of accusation that needs to be done on the surface of this planet, if there is any generalization to be talked about, this is it.

    11. Re:moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say these things as if they apply to all Americans across the board, like a nation of 300 million people is a single homogeneous entity. That is not true, and you know it, but you tell yourself the comforting lie that it is.

      You do this because you want to believe that the world is a simple, black-and-white place; the complexity of the real world terrifies and confuses you. Your bigotry (like that of all bigots) is a retreat to an infantile fantasy world.

      You're trying to tell yourself that you don't agree with me 100%, but you do. The nervous chuckle that you just awkwardly forced out of your throat was an attempt to convince yourself that you are "amused" instead of badly rattled by the undeniable truth of what a complete stranger has just told you about yourself. That attempt did not work; you're shaking right now with shame and impotent rage, magnified by your own futile attempts to hide it.

    12. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      i say these because PRACTICAL END RESULT is what matters.

      oh yeah, every american is not the same. oh yeah, there is always 40-50% americans who vote differently than these policies. oh yeah every person is not the same.

      and then what is the end result ? this. what we have. petty dictators in innumerable countries for 50 years, genocides, oppression, religious islam coming to prominence because of support from american policies as a control tool for profit, worse than medieval income distribution in a modern slavery situation, and that being tried to export to every country in the world.

      excuse me, but it doesnt matter flying fuck if every american is not the same. this is the end result. end result, matters. you americans, and all the world are suffering due to this end result. the distinction is that, you americans are not even aware of that, and that is the problem.

    13. Re:moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as "You Americans". And by moving the goalposts you shrieked your graceless but unconditional confession that everything I've said about you is absolutely and indisputably correct.

    14. Re:moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      there is something as 'you americans'. it doesnt matter how much you distance yourself from the others, in the end your individual governance unit which you call a 'nation' is governed by the end result of that 'americans'. whatever is done through it, is responsibility of you all. like it or not.

  48. Torvalds for president! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2008 we proved that one no longer has to be a native-born American to become the President. Therefore, it is time that we sent Mr. Torvalds to the White House! Torvalds for president!

    1. Re:Torvalds for president! by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Oh sure.

      You've got some complicated legal dispute involving Interstate commerce, anti-trust and tax. He just says, "you've got the source, figure it out yourself or hire somebody who can".

      Hmmm.... really no change. Yes. Linus for President.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Torvalds for president! by bwintx · · Score: 1

      So, Mr. Gingrich, you're not running after all?

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
  49. government spending ? by unity100 · · Score: 0, Troll

    government spending is good if it is done to better the lives of people. check the place linus is from. average education and life standard of the average finnish youth would make your rich kids go weeping. that is, if they can actually understand the difference.

    in us, however, government spending is done to appease corporations. which then also demand tax cuts for themselves and wealthy, and make the people pay taxes.

    no sir. you americans are doing everything from butt end, and suffering as a result.

  50. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    Put whatever label you want on it - it's the forcible redistribution of wealth from the masses to whomever the elites deem worthy (typically themselves). It's an ancient scam that's fundamentally the same no matter what flavor of it is practiced in any particular country.

  51. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you believe in the "income gap" bullshit. It's a mdae up statistic, to make the masses feel wronged. It's a complete lie. Teh standard of living in the US for the poorest people has been increasing for the last 200 years. However, by saying the "income gap" is growing, you make people feel shitty about their growing income, and manipulate politics. You, sir, have fallen for a media lie.

  52. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    You're begging the question just by using the term "sensible socialism".

  53. Re:ahaha ahaha by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    Wrong. The post was funny, you just don't get the joke. It doesn't have anything to do with Finland at all except in the most tangental sense.

  54. yes moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1, Troll

    despite the fact that united states of america, in the words of the chinese representative to wto, 'is a bankrupt nation', and your wall street scammed ENTIRE earth, and your income distribution is WORSE THAN the medieval times in which feudal lords ruled the land, europe is going to go bankrupt.

    yes, the europe which provided bailout money to all the banks in a blink, WITHOUT printing money, DESPITE the fact that it was american wall street that caused the intoxication of world financial assets and hence american's responsibility.

    moron.

    that is the difference in between the europeans, and you americans. you do not get enough 'socialism' in your supposedly free country, dont have culture, education enough as a result, you do not know what kind of shit you are living in, and then you come up advertising the shit you live in to other people.

    http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

    behold, and weep.

    its you idiots' brainwashed minds that keep you in corporate servitude, make everything scarcer, ranging from education to jobs, and then ending up poorer and indebted to china. is there ANY other country in the world, which is being financed by china ? huh ? NO.

    1. Re:yes moron. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Please step away from the crack pipe.

      yes, the europe which provided bailout money to all the banks in a blink, WITHOUT printing money, DESPITE the fact that it was american wall street that caused the intoxication of world financial assets and hence american's responsibility.

      Would they have been able to do that with American money funneled through the IMF and the Federal Reserve? Do you know what percent of the TARP money went to Europe?

      Why did Henry Paulson lobby so vigorously to repeal the leverage limits on US banks? Because he argued that those limits were keeping American banks from competing with European banks which were already operating with leverage many times higher than what our laws allowed.

      Speaking of the "Too Big to Fail" banks, how many of them are actually American institutions in the first place? How many of the primary dealers and the stockholders of the Federal Reserve?

      europe is going to go bankrupt.

      If you think that your crisis is confined to Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and the UK you're a fool.

    2. Re:yes moron. by faraway · · Score: 1

      Also, it is interesting to point out that the "weird May 6th market crash" where the market lost 1 trillion in value was followed 2-3 days (May 9th I believe) later with an announcement by the EU of a 1 trillion dollar bailout package; despite only a few days earlier having said there is -no way- they would do a bailout.

      But /. and all other propaganda sources had a story ready for the May 6th crash the second it happened: someone's fat finger hit B instead of M......... sure.  And they're still "unsure" of what the root cause of the flash crash was.....

    3. Re:yes moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      no percent of TARP money went to europe. thats all right wing bullshit. right wing propaganda by the very sources which brought you the wall street flop.

      the money in swiss banks, is already a few times over the total value of goods and services existing on the world. that is why its not being spent. that is why, germany, france, switzerland were able to provide bailout money without fuss, and in a blink of an eye.

      thats why i called you a moron. im using that word, because there is no griever word to use than this. even that fails to paint a picture of the situation.

      you think that world revolves around america, somehow, america is 'the' shit, everything has to come from america and this and that, STILL, despite your banks are bankrupt and scammed the world, despite china is financing all your government debt, and probably a lot of the funds in your wall street, despite the fact that you dont produce shit anymore, and just borrow from overseas and import.

      wake up pal. wake up.

    4. Re:yes moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed] on pretty much every single sentence you wrote.

    5. Re:yes moron. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      is there ANY other country in the world, which is being financed by china ? huh ?

      Yes. At the very least, China is.

    6. Re:yes moron. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      the money in swiss banks, is already a few times over the total value of goods and services existing on the world.

      I don't say this often but you are a fucking moron and unworthy of further conversation.

    7. Re:yes moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yea and because you know how much wealth is stored in swiss banks, moron ? you DONT. do more research before talking like an ignorant fool.

      americans. always thinking world revolves around america. clueless about what is going on elsewhere.

    8. Re:yes moron. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      If you think that wealth is stored in banks you are dangerously deluded and should be locked up as a danger to yourself and others.

      Banks store currency, not wealth.

      Currency has absolutely no value apart the goods and services that can be purchased with it, so the statement that a bank has more wealth stored in it than the entire GDP of the world is nonsensical.

      Think about it - an infinite amount currency can be created in an instant with a few keystrokes but will this increase the amount of food that exists on the planet? What about the amount of energy or housing?

      Its absolutely true when you add up the financial instruments circulating around the globe they total the entire GDP of the world several times over. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

      It means that more promises have been made than the actual productive output of the globe can fulfill.

      Since it's not possible to keep those promises unless you think we can quickly increase world GDP by a factor of 10 without incurring any new debt, the unfulfillable promises will be broken.

      As far as the Swiss go, their central bank blew their wad already propping up the euro.

      You can keep believing that wealth is created magically by creating new financial instruments instead of being produced by human effort but reality is going apply a cluestick to the back of your head in short order.

    9. Re:yes moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      idiot. banks store wealth. in funds, in investments, in this, in any kind of tool that is available. it is even that some of the wealth is stored in paper form in vaults that are accessible through by giving a certain number, and nothing else. this is a reason why usa has issues with swiss banks. you shouldnt be talking on things you dont know about like idiots.

      ill stop responding you. for you dont know shit, unwilling to research, yet still blabbering right wing bullshit you have been fed. keep on believing, hallelujah.

  55. Re:Welcome Aboard by faraway · · Score: 1

    Don't forget America's love with Socialism: Privatize profits, socialize losses.

    Did you know PG&E is trying to get the PUC to approve rate hikes to cover losses due to fires?

    They had millions to spend to install new Smart Meters, MILLIONS to spend trying to enshrine into the California Constitution a protection for them to be the sole energy suppliers, millions in bonuses for executive.. but somehow no money to maintain their existing infrastructure.

  56. Immigration. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process. Going from green card to citizen was just as trivial, although it wasn't cheap and got even more expensive shortly after we applied. Often times it comes down to the individual you're dealing with. We have friends who were in a similar situation, but were married longer, and they had to deal with a jerk who gave them a hard time, partly due to them having a baby. But the process was generally the same otherwise. But this is probably one of the easier ways to immigrate.

    On the other hand, an uncle of mine wanted to come to the US with his family and had to wait 7 years before he got the papers. There was a ton of paperwork, some expense and having to deal with lotteries to get a place in line. Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally. Illegals aren't only coming from Mexico. It's relatively trivial to get a visitor's visa and just not go back. In certain communities it's not that difficult to get fake paperwork.

    From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries. And, the US is far, far less restrictive about what you can do when you're here. In some countries, on a work visa you can't even get a mobile phone. You have to purchase one under a citizen's name. Good luck trying to buy a car and getting it registered, or owning property.

    But too many people, Americans ironically, are intent on perpetuating this notion that America is hostile to foreigners. Foreign immigration, unlike anywhere else in the world comprises the backbone of the country. That said, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration. Countless people have made the effort to go through the process legally. And we have this huge group of people who have decided they don't want to deal with those hassles. So instead, they open themselves up to exploitation, both from those helping them across the border and those who ultimately decide to employee them in the States.

    Even more offensive is the suggestion by many that we should accept illegal immigration and that we're bigots by not doing so. We can't deport those already here. We have to give them green cards. But, it should have a few conditions. First, they have to have clean records and they have to be able to find work. Secondly, depending on age, they have to learn a reasonable level of English within a few years. I don't think that's unreasonably at all. But also important, and this should happen first, the borders have to be closed. Build a proper wall and put national guard troops along the border. And the Mexican border isn't the sole problem. Employers who hire illegals need to be dealt with harshly. Not just fined, they should be put out of business. Period. We need to deter illegal immigration as much as possible while embracing legal immigration.

    Torvalds did it the right way.

    1. Re:Immigration. by radtea · · Score: 1

      Foreign immigration, unlike anywhere else in the world comprises the backbone of the country.

      And ignorance of anywhere else in the world, that too.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:Immigration. by TheSync · · Score: 1, Insightful

      From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries

      Let's be honest though, if you are an unskilled worker from Mexico or Central America without direct family in the US, there is ZERO way to become a US citizen. ZERO.

      If you are super-lucky you might get to work in the US on an H2-A or H2-B visa if a company will sponsor you for temporary work, but people on those visas cannot try to apply for citizenship or get a non-work-based visa.

      I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process.

      Yes, you have found the one easy way to become a US citizen - marry a US citizen overseas.

      Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally.

      No, this is 100% because the US is not as open to immigration as it used to be.

      When my (unskilled) great-grandparents came to the US, they got off a boat, lived here for three years, and became citizens. Period.

  57. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, Alexander Gram Bell was a Canadian born in the UK. Stop taking Canadians and making them into Americans you prick! Next thing you would say Celine Dion is an American!

  58. Re:ahaha ahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    wow. just wow.

    Someone has issues.

  59. You are a little confused by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    For one, no you don't have to give up your UK citizenship. The US is very easy about other citizenships. Basically, they don't recognize them. Once you become a US citizen, that's all you are in their eyes. Any other citizenships you have are not their business and they don't care, other than that you'll need to use your US passport when you come to the US (though as a practical matter they'll just yell at you if you don't, my sister got scolded for using her Canadian passport but they let her in). They also warn you that the US embassy may not be able to help you if you get in trouble in a nation in which you are a citizen.

    Also please remember that citizenship is ALWAYS a matter of the issuing country. Even if another country says you have to give it up they can't make that stick if the issuing country doesn't agree. For example if a country took your US passport and said "You've renounced US citizenship," they would be fooling only themselves. You could contact the US embassy and get a new one. You can only renounce your US citizenship in certain defined ways, more or less by doing it before a US consular officer and doing it knowingly with the intent of renouncing your citizenship.

    Then, as to reasons to want to get citizenship. There are more idealistic ones like wanting to vote or serve on a jury, however there is a very concrete one: Once you have US citizenship, they can't keep you out. If you are an immigrant they can decide to toss you out for various reasons. Immigrants stay in a nation because the nation wants them to. However once you are a citizen, you have an absolute right to live here. They might give you shit at the border, but they can't keep you out.

    I hold dual citizenships, in the US and Canada, and neither side gives me any grief.

    1. Re:You are a little confused by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      You make an important point:
      US citizenship does give you the right to enter[1], and a presumed but not absolute right to leave.

      That said, the country you are trying to leave to enter the US may prevent you from leaving their country, and generally it is not possible to enter the US without leaving the country you are currently in.

      [1] Also the right to reside and work[2] in the US.
      [2] Assuming you can find work that other laws don't forbid you from performing.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  60. Congrats...now.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now turnover all your pirated copies of Windows 3.0, lol.

  61. Re:Torvalds children are NOT citizens. by Jon_Hanson · · Score: 1

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

  62. Re:ahaha ahaha by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2

    had you known shit about finnish citizenship and the life in finland, you would eat your words about that 'monolithic single government'

    This is why the world is unfair. You have a lower UID than me, yet failed to get an obviously-about-Linux joke. On Slashdot. Please turn in your geek card at the door.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  63. Also it can be interesting by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I'd love to serve on a jury. Unfortunately I get identified as an armchair lawyer and excluded (well so far at least) but I'd serve if asked.

    If you are a professional, there's really little reason not to. You company almost certainly gives you paid leave to serve on the jury, so why not?

    Also when you look at it, it seems that smart people don't try to get out of jury duty, self important people do. I mean look at the Terry Childs trial, one juror has a CCIE. Most of the smart people I know, that I respect, are quite willing to serve on juries (and some have served). It is the self important types that think it is "a waste of time" and try to find loopholes to get out.

  64. Re:More importantly ...taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    He's so screwed.

    Us collects taxes no matter in wich country he makes, stores the money.

  65. Oh noes hes gonna take us to socialism! by voss · · Score: 1

    Were gonna have 100mbps fiber to our houses, free health care, and awesome cell phones ....wait that doesnt sound so bad :)

  66. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus has given us a really nice OS in the form of Linux ... but I really wish he would grow a pair and stop crying. Perhaps this is what happens when you get fat and arrogant.

    "Oh, I wanna live here. Oh, I get alot of money being here. Oh, I don't feel like participating."

  67. So he's defected... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... to the land of bad food and poor healthcare? Oh well, I suppose he has his reasons.

    1. Re:So he's defected... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's only bad food and poor healthcare for those unable to pay. Somehow I don't think that Linus is going to find himself in financial troubles anytime soon.

  68. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Yeah, everyone that sees the truth and calls it for what it really is, is a troll. Not.

  69. Welcome to America, Linus! by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    High-Five!

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  70. Re:ahaha ahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    had you known shit about finnish citizenship and the life in finland

    And had you known shit about Linux and source control systems, you might have actually gotten the joke.

  71. Participate in politics? by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1

    I assert with arrogance, certainty and confidence, that any person who dares believe they have influence in politics due to casting a vote is not only a fool but a moron, dumb and gullible. When the stage is set and the show begins, at that point, doesn't matter which actor you prefer. This is the part about democracy that people truly misunderstand; they'll be no person to land on the ballet that doesn't pose a benefit to those already in power. The fact you might have a technical choice between one person or another, makes no difference at all to the direction those people what this country to go in. Obama or McCain, either a controversial black president, or a first time female vice-president... you see, "change" was inevitable as either likely candidate would have presented "controversial change" no matter who you voted for. I always admire the Soviets for their blunt honesty, in the Soviet Union everyone had to vote but there was only one check box on the ballot; you see, that's honesty coming down from their government. Here in America, you're given two check boxes, and those in power laugh at you as you trot about thinking you had a "choice". To see the absurdity here, one has to realize that for any given role, one can find more than a handful of people who comply and agree. So you grab a couple of your "friends" who both agree with how you want to run the country then you offer them to the public, it's a canned operation from the get-go with the benefit of people believing they somehow are able to influence the direction of politics! Aside from the obvious that I have pointed out, there also exists a most arrogant approach to resolving civil dispute and unrest of the masses; and this only ads icing to this cake made of bullshit you call voting. The powerful people, think so highly of my ideas, or yours, that all of our complaints, wishes and visions can be reduced to a single digit representation; no need to explain to me what you want, I don't care for your petty beliefs, I'll tell you what you need and force you to make a choice in the form of a check mark. You think it's sweet and simple, a check mark that can change the world... nothing that can change the world is ever so simple.

    The only real way to "vote" or influence politics in democracy, is to donate funds to an organization of your liking; or pay fees either or. Only the combined wealth of a group of people can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to wine and dine the legislators and delegates, politicians and the wealthy elite.

    Do I vote? No. I don't participate in bullshit. When I have a complaint, I write letters to congressmen, sheriffs, judges. I'll voice my opinions on public forums in hopes of influencing others. I find organizations that I am in-line with and make financial contributions. All of these combined has far more political impact than any amount of voting. For this, Torvalds could have participated most effectively in American politics without ever having made a single checkbox irregardless of his legal status.

    1. Re:Participate in politics? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You can always write someones name in on the ballot. Even though what you say is true, I still think its irresponsible to give up on voting if you ever want it to matter again. When voting apathy gets out of hand the government may decide that "Hey, no-one is voting anyway, maybe we should just have property owners be the only people allowed to vote", then the only people who would be voting on this would be people who didn't give up on it.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Participate in politics? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      When voting apathy gets out of hand the government may decide that "Hey, no-one is voting anyway, maybe we should just have property owners be the only people allowed to vote"

      Actually that's a pretty good idea, certainly for any election that involved property tax revenue. Why should I as a non-property owner be able to vote on how much you will be forced to pay in taxes on your property to provide me with services?

    3. Re:Participate in politics? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Simple solution : make it easier for people to afford property.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    4. Re:Participate in politics? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Property taxes and excessively-low interest rates are at the root of that problem.

    5. Re:Participate in politics? by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      The fact you might have a technical choice between one person or another, makes no difference at all to the direction those people what this country to go in. Obama or McCain, either a controversial black president, or a first time female vice-president... you see, "change" was inevitable as either likely candidate would have presented "controversial change" no matter who you voted for.

      Those weren't the only candidates on the ballet in my state.

      --
      -Dave
    6. Re:Participate in politics? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      You can always write someones name in on the ballot. Even though what you say is true, I still think its irresponsible to give up on voting if you ever want it to matter again. When voting apathy gets out of hand the government may decide that "Hey, no-one is voting anyway, maybe we should just have property owners be the only people allowed to vote", then the only people who would be voting on this would be people who didn't give up on it.

      Well here is the problem or at least the essence of it:

      The people in the Soviet Union got to vote just like we did in the US, but they only go to vote for one candidate.

      In the US we get to vote for one more candidate than they did, who often more than not is pretty close to the ideology of the person they are running against.

      Sure you can write in a 3rd party candidate, but without proportional representation your vote is mathematically wasted on a 3rd party candidate. The is a very large major flaw in "First Past the Post" election systems which although seem to foster democracy, actually simply create a "Coke vs Pepsi" syndrome which make sure the establish powers never really change much other than name.

      Arguably if you want change, you need to educate and put for an interest in proportional representation.

      In fact, the UK has finally got their head out their proverbial butts after the last election to actually put for a referendum on the matter:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11192939

      So if you are a US citizen, then you really ought to read up on these and start talking to other people.

      It may catch on...

      Until then, the current system is basically just as good as weighted-landed 3/5ths person and all the other 1800s voting schemes.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    7. Re:Participate in politics? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "I assert with arrogance, certainty and confidence, that any person who dares believe they have influence in politics due to casting a vote is not only a fool but a moron, dumb and gullible."

      There's always those 250 million privately owned fireams in American society, too...

    8. Re:Participate in politics? by mikechant · · Score: 1

      Arguably if you want change, you need to educate and put for an interest in proportional representation.

      In fact, the UK has finally got their head out their proverbial butts after the last election to actually put for a referendum on the matter...

      The proposed 'simple AV' system is not regarded as a form of PR (unlike e.g. AV+), because it may produce a more or *less* proportional result than the current FPTP system depending on the circumstances.

      Not to say that AV is a bad thing, for example it eliminates the need for tactical voting based on guesswork.

  72. You appear to be misinformed by Calibax · · Score: 2, Informative

    Neither the UK nor the USA require that you renounce your UK citizenship when you take US citizenship. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html and http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/dualnationality.

    In fact, until 2002 there was no way to give up British citizenship - now you can get a form from the British embassy, fill it in and send it to the UK government. It doesn't even have to be permanent as you can reacquire your UK citizenship by filling in another form and sending that one in.

    There is one good reason to become a US citizen - to protect your social security pension. If you have spent (or expect to spend) a significant number of years in the USA, enough to be eligible for a US pension (40 credits = 10 years, as I recall) then you might want to protect your investment in the social security system i.e. the 6.2% of your income you have paid and continue to pay. However, in my view, that's certainly not the only good reason to be a citizen of the USA if you have permanently moved here.

    I've been a US citizen for some years now and have never been called for jury duty.

    1. Re:You appear to be misinformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably comes down to how you see citizenship. Is it what you do, or who you are.

      You live on a long term basis in a country, you are a member of that countries society. Everything you do on a daily basis is about participating in that society. ergo you should be a citizen. You are one in all but name anyway.

      or

      You are born and grow up somewhere, it forms your identity. You are "your country name here"-ish, along with your father and mother and everyone in your family, and no amount of working in some place foreign with their crazy customs and way of doing things is going to change that. Not that you plan to leave anytime soon mind you.

    2. Re:You appear to be misinformed by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Neither the UK nor the USA require that you renounce your UK citizenship when you take US citizenship. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html [state.gov]

      That page has nothing to do with citizenship and naturalization, it has to do with travel and entry requirements.

      However, you should note that the first thing you swear in the signed oath of allegiance required for naturalization is that "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" (emphasis added)

  73. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, honestly. Being a naturalized citizen has a big advantage.

    They can always leave later.

    Meanwhile, they have the chance to profit greatly from our crazy inflation issues and serious lack of properly educated labor.
    (just look at engineering, how many american youth manage to get an iron ring compared to oriental and arabic students? Our state college's last grad ceremony should have been performed in chinese.)

    Those of us born here are pretty much stuck. Most countries don't want american immigrants.

  74. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're begging the question just by using the term "sensible socialism".

    And you're proving my point.

  75. Re:Welcome Aboard by webminer · · Score: 1

    'Arabic' students? you must have meant Indian students! there aren't that many 'Arabic' students compared to Indians and Chinese in engineering.

  76. Re:Welcome Aboard by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

    Actually, no, it is not caused by income taxes. There is a slide in that presentation that shows some trends in effective tax rates and if anything they are lower than they have been in a long time. And when you consider that federal spending as a percentage of GDP has fluctuated around 18% and 22% for the past 30 or so years yet the debit is increasing it makes sense, flat spending but falling tax rates equals debt.

    And on factories moving over seas, absolutely, that is one of the forces affecting median income. But again it is not taxes. As an engineer I've spent my share of time going over factory finances and the largest expense, and easiest to adjust through layoffs and closing factories, is head count and salaries. Companies have done a very good job of working out deals to get tax cuts both federal and state but your average U.S. worker can't do much to compete with crap wages over seas except perhaps live in a cardboard box or move the U.S. back to the old days of the company store where you pay your employer for housing, groceries, even your church.

    And I probably should not say degradation of income, its more like flat income, but I'll comment on that in a response to the coward below. :)

  77. Old Chap by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "you appear to have misplaced your passport"

    Made me chuckle a bit. I seem to get an image of a brit with a bobby hat, and a sly wink, saying the same thing, and following it up with an "old chap", and then saying cheerio and walking off into the sunset.

    Then again, I'm mad.

  78. Can he run for president? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mwahahahaha... world domination... mwahahaha...

  79. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    I've just pointed out your logical fallacy. You're also assuming that everybody who does intensively studied the subject will conclude that there is a such thing as "sensible socialism" in the first place.

  80. Re:Torvalds children are NOT citizens. by magarity · · Score: 1

    Due to misinterpretation of the fourteenth amendment, specifically "subject to the jurisdiction", Torvalds' children are NOT United States citizens
     
    Since the family is here legally then they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. What part of that argument against the 14th is so hard to understand even if you don't agree with it? Dolt.

  81. Dear Linus by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

    May I please have your spot in Finland, since you're no longer using it?

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Dear Linus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I please have your spot in Finland, since you're no longer using it?

      I'm keeping my bag in that spot now. Sorry.

  82. The right way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're way out of perspective. Let me guess: you've never been in a situation where you can't provide food, water, and shelter for your family. And you certainly don't know what it's like to be in that same situation, day after day, year after year. Furthermore, in all probability you never will be in that situation as long as you live. Finally, you've never been out of the country and observed for yourself what poverty really is. Am I right?

    Let's think about reality, not what the talking heads on TV are saying. The people who sneak across the US border don't do it because they aspire to be a US citizen. They don't do it because they think the immigration process is too much hassle. They don't do it because they're looking for a free ride. They don't do it because they want your job. Most of them don't even have the goal of eventually becoming a US citizen, or even staying here permanently.

    They do it because they are trying to survive. Period.

  83. The law, and people breaking it by DragonWriter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Does that mean Jose can break the law by living here illegally?

    Does the fact that copyright law restricts people's freedom to share more than they think it should make it okay to circumvent DRM and other protections to copy material for personal use and/or distribution? No, it doesn't mean that. If they can do so, its because they have the resources at hand to do so.

    The fact that the law conflicts with their expectation of what they should be permitted to do doesn't cause them to be able to do it, it just makes them more likely to break the law than they would be to if the law comported with their ideas of fairness, and the fact that the law, in certain of its effects and applications, conflicts with lots of people's ideas of what should or should not be allowed means that there is quite a wide availability of tools and assistance in doing so.

    The high demand plus illegality also means that criminal gangs involved in activities that are far more universally condemned can leverage the demand and the fact of illegality to use people's desire to circumvent the law to further existing criminal enterprises (e.g., in the copyright case, by distributing software that purports to crack DRM or other protections -- or which purports to contain content liberated from existing protections -- and which, whether or not it does what is advertised, also turns the computers its used on into botnet slaves or otherwise subverts them; in the immigration case, the analogous practices involve using prospective immigrants as labor for illegal sweatshops, in sexual trafficking, and using the fact of their illegal status as leverage to get them directly involved in criminal activity.)

    1. Re:The law, and people breaking it by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      You're comparing:

      a.) a civil matter to a criminal matter

      b.) digital files to people

      Other than those bits of silliness, does your post have a point? Cause I'm not seeing nor can I even tell which side you are trying to argue for.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:The law, and people breaking it by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      You're comparing:

      a.) a civil matter to a criminal matter

      No, I'm not. Both copyright violations and illegal presence are generally not criminal in and of themselves, though quite often they become criminal in certain circumstances, or when certain means are used to effect them.

      b.) digital files to people

      No, I'm not comparing digital files with people.

      Other than those bits of silliness, does your post have a point?

      Yes.

      Cause I'm not seeing nor can I even tell which side you are trying to argue for.

      My point is, well, exactly what the post says. If you want a short version that captures the main point without the analogies and examples, read just the second and third paragraphs, excluding the parenthetical in the latter.

      If this doesn't fit into neatly your preconceived notions of what the "sides" are on this issue and the preconception that every comment must somehow relate to one of those "sides", perhaps you should reconsider your preconceptions.

    3. Re:The law, and people breaking it by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Oh I see, you are nitpicking my choice of the word "can". Very cute & not really worth a response.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:The law, and people breaking it by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Oh I see, you are nitpicking my choice of the word "can".

      Again, no, your use of the word "can" is not the central point of my response.

      The central point of my response is that laws don't magically transform behavior, especially where they conflict with widespread ideas about fairness, and laws that outlaw something without actually effectively controlling it not only create lawbreakers in the area they outlaw, but also create opportunities for more general criminal organizations. Besides the examples at issue in GGGP, other prominent and illustrative examples are Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

      Does this mean that the copyright regime, the existing immigration regime, the War on Drugs, or Prohibition are categorically wrong? No. I'd say the list there includes somethings that are basically wrong, and some things that are basically right but need reform in (operationally critical, but not necessarily conceptually fundamental) details to work well and best control the unintended adverse consequences and social costs associated with the policy.

    5. Re:The law, and people breaking it by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Ah ok, I understood you that time. Well said & you do have a very good point with your 3 examples.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  84. Re:Linus for President! by jgagnon · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, but he could become governor of California, though...

    --
    Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  85. Linux socialism? by KingAlanI · · Score: 0

    Either Linux and other FOSS is an example of socialism done better or capitalism done better (by the latter, I mean closer to Adam Smith's idealistic vision of market economics)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  86. Re:Welcome Aboard by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

    So you believe in the "income gap" bullshit.

    No, I have done some research in the past using real economic numbers and came to the same conclusion before all these articles started hitting the news. Much of the economic data collected by the federal government is readily accessible for anyone to analyze. Well unless of course its all just a big conspiracy. :)

    a mdae up statistic, to make the masses feel wronged. It's a complete lie.

    Well, it is definitely not a lie, I have witnessed some of the financial gaming first hand. But I agree that it can make the masses feel wronged and becomes a political bullet point.

    Teh standard of living in the US for the poorest people has been increasing for the last 200 years.

    Yes, and since you called me on it I will also admit that the title in my comment is inflammatory and not 100% accurate. :)

    There have only been a few years here and there when median income has dropped and you are correct that for the most part the standard of living in the U.S. has improved in the long run.

    But here is a fact that you can verify by pulling the numbers yourself. From the late 1940s to the mid 1970s the GDP and median individual income increased at an average rate of 4.23% and 2.04% respectively. From the mid 1970s to 2008 GDP and median individual income increased at an average rate of 2.57% and 0.48% respectively.

    The past 30 or so years the average worker in the U.S. has not participated in the increases in wealth in this nation but there was a decade in there that wasn't too bad. From 1990 to 2000 GDP grew at an average of 2.80% and median individual income increased at an average of 1.26%.

    But the past decade or so from 2000 to 2008 has seen GDP growth average 1.89% while median individual income has actually dropped with an average change of -0.29%.

    Yes, I'm throwing out a lot of numbers without specific point and click references, that is because you will not find a nice point an click party politics web site with these numbers. You need to got to bls.gov, census.gov, and other sites that have historical data readily available to collect and analyse yourself. Well, unless it is all an evil socialist/communist conspiracy by islamofascists from planet X. :)

  87. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, but really who the fuck cares? Hero worship is so trite.

  88. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is the income taxes. The US corporate income tax is 35%, and is augmented to, on average, 39%+ by state corporate income taxes. This compares unvavorably with the rest of the world, except for Japan, who are folks with a corporate income tax a few tenths of a precent higher. That will change in January when the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

    About 22%, on avarege, of the price of American goods goes to pay income taxes incurred by US manufacturers. About 11.5% is recoverable by the companies if the income tax went away. Would a $25,000 Jeep Liberty selling for $22,125 sell better? I think so. It would be competititve with a $25,000 Toyota FC Cruiser that, if it is imported, would NOT have any decrease in price, since its factory overseas would not expereince any tax savings from US income taxes that they were not paying anyway.

    So, yeah, we could compete internationally in manufacturing if the income taxes went away. IOW, it _IS_ the income taxes.

  89. Re:Welcome Aboard by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fine, let's make things as simple as possible. "True" socialism is collective ownership of means of production. So long as you can privately own a factory in your country, it's not socialistic.

  90. Roger Williams by KingAlanI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian) I assume.
    Colonial minister who had had enough of various official religious abuses, and did something about it. His story focuses on wrangling between Christian denominations; I suppose that carries over to different contexts.

    BTW, congrats on the improved version of the standard "spinning in his grave" comment. :)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Roger Williams by bmo · · Score: 1

      This is late, but...

      Yes, that guy.

      See, I live in Rhode Island itself.

      It wasn't *just* about Christian denominations. He is the primary reason why we have religious liberty here in the US. There's a reason why one of RI's nicknames is Rogue's Island. We took all the Quakers, Jews, and really, everyone else who couldn't abide the theocracy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Back when the so-called "righteous" were hanging Quakers, RI took them in.

      And when the loons on the "right" start spouting off about "founding fathers" I have to laugh. You can't get much more "founding" than signing a treaty with the Narragansetts in 1636.

      Roger Williams was quite a dynamic individual. The deeper you dig, the more you have to respect his reasoning and how far ahead of his time he was. It's a shame what's happening to my country.

      --
      BMO

  91. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except what you describe is crony capitalism not socialism.

    I don't think there is much of a difference between the tactics employed by those two camps. There are aspects of politics in the US that smack distinctly of traditional Socialist vote buying tactics such as handing out entitlements and tax breaks to various special interest groups among the electorate. The funny thing is that the people handing out those entitlements in the US are bedrock right wing conservatives Democrats/Republicans and they are more crass at doing this than many European Social Democrats. Not that Americans generally have a clue what they are talking about when they use the word Socialist, they seem to use it mostly as a pejorative, as an insult which is amusing. There have been left wing (and I'm not talking about the US definition of left wing, I mean real left wing ) goverments that have arguably managed to show more fiscal competence than all the US administrations since Reagan put together. Others have proven them selves to be a bunch of morons. The same can be said about the right. Whether you are an idiot or not has nothing to do with your political leaning.

  92. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's worth noting in context of this article and in spite of all the problems the U.S.A. faces, people from all over the world continue to want to come here. The reason is simple - with a little ingenuity and some hard work you can go from having very little to having a lot, more than you can anywhere else on earth. We who are born here often fail to take advantage of this and whine and complain; Meanwhile, first generation immigrants seize the opportunity This is often the hidden reason we hate immigration and want to stop it, and absolutely the reason we never should. At the very least, we probably are thinking about kicking out the wrong people and should look at ourselves instead.

  93. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    By your definition "true" socialism has never existed on the national scale, anywhere.

    So long as you can privately own a factory in your country, it's not socialistic.

    If the State owns the factory yet an oligarch receives the lion's share of the wealth created at it then does it matter if you call the property "private" or not?

  94. Re:Torvalds children are NOT citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in your fantasy world where US v. Wong Kim Ark never happened, illegal immigrants and their children have diplomatic immunity? Because that's what that clause in the amendment refers to.

  95. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is that the people handing out those entitlements in the US are bedrock right wing conservatives Democrats/Republicans and they are more crass at doing this than many European Social Democrats.

    That's because the Republicans are actually a little smarter about their wealth redistribution than the Democrats.

    Democrats and traditional socialists want to redistribute wealth from people who are currently alive and producing. Those people tend to complain about having their wealth stolen.

    Republicans figured out that you can borrow the money instead, effectively stealing it from the future. Since the future tax-slaves that were expected to pay for all this hadn't been born they weren't around to complain.

  96. H1B is actually dual intent visa by iamr00t · · Score: 1

    It doesn't allow you to stay permanently, but it does allow you to change your mind and apply permanently.
    This is unlike other temporary visas, that specifically say that you have to return. If you break that promise, they may not let you in again on a temporary visa.

    This distinction is a huge deal if you want to get a visa into US. To get temporary visa, you have to have some reason to return. Education, relatives, business, work, property etc. If you are an unemployed young person, you are not getting a visa. If you are in the last year of school, it's a high probability too (YMMV of course).

    So... you failed to mention that you can in fact apply for green card just after being on H1-B for 6 years. You don't have to be in a special category. 5 more years to get a citizenship. From entering USA as H1-B worker to becoming a citizen you need a minimum of 11 years.

    1. Re:H1B is actually dual intent visa by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Well, no. H1B is a temporary visa. "Dual Intent" is a doctrine that has been established by immigration case law.

      See, you have to intend to be in the U.S. temporarily for the job for which the H1B was granted. But, you may intend to immigrate to the U.S. permanently for a different job.

      Of course, "different job" offers wide latitude. Is a raise for greater responsibility a "different" job?

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
  97. Re:Welcome Aboard by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the Wikipedia.
    "Bell was a British subject throughout his early life in Scotland and later in Canada until 1882, when he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. In 1915, he characterized his status as: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries."

    Alexander Gram Bell was an American by choice.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  98. citizenship by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, welcome to OUR nightmare.
    How do you say "tax audit" in Suomi?

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:citizenship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you say "tax audit" in Suomi?

      "Verotuslainsäädännön määrittelemä tarkastustoimenpide".

  99. Jury Duty! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Between that and military registration are some lame excuses I've heard for avoiding progressing to citizenship. I doubt whether this applied to Linus.

  100. Re:Welcome Aboard by houghi · · Score: 1

    I agree. That is why he probably fled Finland. There is a great depression there and an huge economic collapse.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  101. Second-oldest profession? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Mary: Before we get married, I must confess that I once worked in the world's oldest profession
    John: What, you mean you were a shepherd? :P

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  102. And His Secret Plan Unfolds by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1
    Linux.com was closer to the truth than they knew with their 2003 April Fools Story.

    Next stop, Sacramento!

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  103. Re:ahaha ahaha by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess you really didn't git it, did you?

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  104. Linus should stay away from Arizona. by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    He wouldn't want to get pulled over and deported to mexico now would he....

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  105. Criticism not allowed by PietjeJantje · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since critics are not allowed in this thread, I'm gonna post them in one single comment to be labeled as "troll" for everybody's convenience:

    - The "citizenship as an afterthought" is an insult to Americans and to people fighting for citizenship.
    - He immigrated to a country involved into various dirty wars with a corrupted corporate government, which is debatable except for the fact he came from a country which by fact is involved in less wars and has less corrupted government, for commercial reasons I suppose, and thus is morally corrupted.
    - He states he dislikes all kinds of American things, which shows a lack of respect for his new host, stating he will fix him from within like a true citizen etc., which will turn out to be yada yada, but I expect his mansions and cars to become bigger though.
    - Linux still has not penetrated on the desktop, which clearly is betrayal.

  106. Re:ahaha ahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loser. You missed the point entirely. The joke has nothing to do with Finland. Got a chip on your shoulder?

  107. Re:More importantly ...taxes by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

    That is actually based on international law. Taxes are paid to one country always, refunds or reliefs might be available for the taxes paid to other countries. The country that is your main taxing country is decided on various international treaties.

  108. He could have been here sooner if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...he had just come via Mexico.

  109. Not correct by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    To attain status as a legal permanent resident, you must enter the country on either an immigrant visa

    Not true. You may apply for a US "green" card while in the US on any visa. However you may not enter the US on a non-immigrant visa if you intend to apply for permanent resident status at the time of entry but you are free to change your mind after entry. It's a bizarre rule which can lead to trouble when you re-enter the US after a short drive to Canada, on a J-1, valid for 3 years, and they ask you "what do you intend to do after the visa expires" and you answer honestly "I don't know - I've only been here for 2 months and have not thought that far ahead". After this very unpleasant incident every time I re-entered and was asked the same question I was very careful to answer "leave the US and not return" which, as coincidence happens, was also a very honest answer.

    1. Re:Not correct by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      The problem with what you propose is that your non-immigrant visa likely requires you to intend to leave the U.S. when it expires, and a lawful permanent resident (green card) application is evidence contrary to that, which can very quickly lead to your visa being canceled.

      However, the doctrine of "dual intent" (temporarily in the U.S. for this job and permanently for a different job is well-established for H1B visas. Some have argued that it should be applied to NAFTA visas as well (TN-1 for Canadians, and TN-2 for Mexicans), but there it's more a case of getting the green card before having to renew the NAFTA visa -- an almost impossible task.

      The other "trip up" question is "Are you a U.S. resident". It is a felony to lie to an immigration officer and probably the IRS as well (tax fraud) and you might not be one for immigration purposes but might very well be one for tax purposes.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    2. Re:Not correct by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Also, the point was that you can not apply for citizenship as a non-immigrant. You can certainly apply to immigrate as one.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    3. Re:Not correct by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      You are of course right. There are many ways to adjust status under many different conditions, though my post was meant to comment exclusively on which visas permit you to enter with intent to adjust status. Apologies for the ambiguity.

    4. Re:Not correct by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      The concept of dual intent for non-immigrant visas exists mostly to let intending immigrants adjust status after meeting certain conditions that may only be met in the United States. Dual intent covers a lot of non-immigrant visas, most notably K-visas, which, while non-immigrant dual intent by status, are essentially immigrant visas with conditions that must be met before the holder is allowed to petition for adjustment of status. These visas, as you suggest, require the holder to leave the country upon expiration, but only in the event that the conditions on the visa have not been met, or no application for adjustment of status has been submitted to the USCIS.

  110. Re:OTOH, there's jury duty...and worldwide tax! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're missing the bigger disincentive for a Limey: the IRS taxes Yanks on their worldwide income - regardless of where they live. The UK only taxes UK earnings or sums brought onshore. Your pension will go a long way tax free in some nice warm developing country.

    Screw the INS & the IRS. I can't wait for my anchor babies to bugger off to college so I can hit the hammock.

  111. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said there had to be an "either/or"?

    Yes, you're right. Erosion of our civil liberties and rights is a big part of the problem.

    However, gratuitous government spending? You realize that such spending is the byproduct of excessive (unConstitutional!) social programs, compounded upon themselves over the decades, and an increasingly "social welfare" oriented government?

    Socialism is not incompatible with totalitarianism. In fact, they often go together, as socialism requires at least a degree of total control of the populace. Germany, Italy, Argentina, Russia, Cambodia: they all started their oppressive totalitarian regimes under the auspices of Marxist social change and societal redistribution, and look where they went.

    No, war-state mentality is quite common in a socialist regime (and, in the last 100 years, has been largely synonymous). Supporting social welfare type programs in a country where you've already got a disenfranchised class of people and that "war mentality" is prevailing is an exercise in ignorance and overt stupidity - "this won't work here" applies.

    Hell, considering human nature and the number of successful socialist states vs. those which have failed under their own weight should be enough evidence that they simply don't work except under very specific conditions. Things just turn out very, very badly in almost all situations where they don't quite work "right".

  112. Heh. by Benfea · · Score: 1

    It seems someone with points to give out lacks a sense of humor. Made me laugh, though.

  113. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only conclusion I can draw is that both sides are wrong, and/or both sides are right. In any case, if we were doing something so terribly wrong Over Here, I can't imagine why we'd still be attracting so many folks from Over There.

    Because civilian armies are formed only by volunteers that may come from anywhere and there is an ideological war on here. Can you imagine trying to wage low intensity asymetrical psy-ops on the Finnish population? It would be a war crime. Here it is a way of life.

    Anyhow, Torvalds would make a nice Lafayette. Now, for a general that seems a little too fond of pasty Finnish men and is willing to eat boots while sleeping in the cold...

  114. Good point by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I did say "needs both".
    And yes, I know Linus is more of a Linux project manager than a Linux coder at this point.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  115. Product and the Person by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you ought to keep respect for their work and personal celebrity involvement separate. The celebrity BS is especially galling for the talentless hacks, but does it makes any more sense if the person's contributing well to their field?
    This doesn't seem to be the case with Linus, but with entertainment celebrities, it seems that people who like the product tend to like
    Thus, in those cases, as someone who likes the product, you're looking at a mass of other fans that are also celebrity-worshippers.

    * This applies whether it's a Serious Product (TM) or entertainment

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  116. Stallman... by slapout · · Score: 1

    Now if only we could get Stallman to move to Finland...

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  117. Re:Welcome Aboard by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

    Oh come on! He comes from finland, they have free* hospitals and universities, the son of the banker has the same chances in life than the son of the fisherman. For a true socialist, that's centuries ahead of the US.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
  118. One of the biggest benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the freedom to live outside the U.S. without forfeiting your status.

    Within a year of being naturalized I returned to live in Finland. A Green Card would expire after four years, but a passport is forever.

    Yes, having to file U.S. taxes every June is a bitch but you never know when a get-out-of-jail-for-free card comes in handy.

  119. Re:ahaha ahaha by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    Hey I'm as anti-corporate (and part Finnish to boot) as anyone, probably moreso, but the GP was a reference to the monolithic kernel vs microkernel debate, in which Linus (obivously) favors the monolithic kernel approach.

  120. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and Einstein was German born. That was the whole point, Einstein. Er...

  121. Re:Welcome Aboard by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Except if you knew anything about history, unregulated capitalism helped cause the Great Depression, and FDR's rather socialist policies helped get the US out of it.

  122. nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but Barrack Obama definitely is:

    www.prisonplanet.com/michelle-obama-barack-obama-is-kenyan.html

    Sorry, good thing too. Americans are dumbasses but the vote's out on Kenyans..

  123. Re:ahaha ahaha by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's something wrong in your kernel. Please reinstall and configure whoooosh.c and try again.

  124. This is BRAIN DRAIN, and it is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are other countries going to find prosperity when greedy countries like the US pull their best and brightest workers away?

  125. Re:Welcome Aboard by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    By your definition "true" socialism has never existed on the national scale, anywhere.

    Why, of course it did - early in the USSR. Factories were actually run by workers' councils, which were actually elected in a democratic way (mind you, it wasn't a liberal democracy - no respect for minority rights etc - but it was nonetheless a democracy).

    If the State owns the factory yet an oligarch receives the lion's share of the wealth created at it then does it matter if you call the property "private" or not?

    It depends. If the state owns the factory, and the oligarch owns the state, then it's not really collective property. If, however, the "oligarch" is just a paid (perhaps vastly overpaid) manager who runs the factory but does not own it personally - i.e. cannot sell it, and can be stripped of his authority at any moment - then it's just mismanagement, and has no bearing on the classification of the economic system.

  126. Re:Welcome Aboard by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    either that or he's the one planning to become fascist dictator..

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  127. Interesting that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next month marks my 10th anniversay since emigrating from the US! It certainly has had its ups and downs, but honestly, I wouldn't trade it for anything. I'm a much happier person today. Good luck to him and I hope he finds the same! :-)

  128. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can have her.

  129. Not a proposal! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    The problem with what you propose

    I was not proposing anything - this is what the US currently does. I know it works because I applied and got a green card while in the US on a J-1 simply because it was so unpleasant to re-enter with a non-immigrant visa and then I simply surrendered the green card when I left (and boy was it hard to find out how to do that voluntarily!).

    1. Re:Not a proposal! by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      "Certain types of foreign visitors are allowed dual intent, and other categories of visitors are not. Persons with H-1B visas (for specialty workers and their spouses and minor children with H-4 visas), K visas (for fiancees or foreign spouses of US citizens and their minor children), L visas (for corporate transferees & their spouses and minor children), and V visas (spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents) are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act.[1] Federal regulations also appear to recognize dual intent O visas (for workers who have extraordinary ability and their spouses and minor children), P visas (for athletes, artists or entertainers and their spouses and minor children), and E visas (for treaty traders or treaty investors and their spouses and minor children).[2]

      Most other foreign visitors and workers, like those on H2-B worker, H-3 trainee/worker, B-1 business, B-2 tourist, VWP visitor, F-1 student, J-1 exchange visitor, M-1 student, journalism, and entertainer visas should not have immigrant intent, as discussed above. Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States (i.e., in pursuing a green card). Certain activities may appear likely to lead to U.S. permanent resident status in the belief of an experienced Government Official." [emphasis mine]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_intent

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    2. Re:Not a proposal! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States...

      This is exactly consistent with what I said: the condition ONLY applies when considering admission to the US it DOES NOT apply once you are re-admitted. I know this sounds crazy and I agree but those are your rules as told to me by a US lawyer.

      The other problem is that "reasonably" is not well defined. I had no such intent when being admitted and genuinely only changed my mind inside the US after having such trouble getting admitted that the university's international office suggested that I get a green card, even though I did not intend to stay there permanently, simply to avoid this problem.

  130. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's capitalism: jobs and work force are markets, with there being more people able to do work than jobs that request work being done. So prices for work (ie. income) go down.

    Socialism is different: income starts low and stays low.

  131. Re:Welcome Aboard by Americano · · Score: 1

    Not the constant and gratuitous government spending.

    Point of order: constant & gratuitous & ever-increasing government spending is frequently going to fund programs which are best described as 'socialist' in nature - universal health care, drug plan entitlements, and the like.

    If you're going to claim that 'socialism' isn't part of what's hurting our country, it's helpful to not cite 'socialist spending' as part of your argument.

  132. I wonder... by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Finland would take me in trade.

    Nah, they could probably get a better deal.

    --
    WALSTIB!
  133. Yippee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? I can't believe somebody bothered to post this.

  134. Re:Welcome Aboard by Haxamanish · · Score: 1

    Except the people who think they're being cleaver and claim that "pure communism" was supposed to be Libertarian Socialism, aka "Anarchism." it wasn't. Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx were arch-rivals in the First Internationale over this issue, and Marxism, slightly refined by Lenin and Trotsky, and established by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was the real McCoy.

    Communism is a "social system based on collective ownership". The word is originally French, existing since the 12th century. Victor d’Hupay was in 1785 the first (afaik) to use the word in its modern meaning. Marxism (19th century) is one form of communism, the form which redefines communism as "social/political system based on state ownership". "Pure communism" is the end goal of Marxism, a free state which they tried to reach by installing a dictatorship... (Sorry - as an anarchistic communist I had to try to be "cleaver".)

  135. Re:Welcome Aboard by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing about this impending socialism and how it will destroy my country. Can someone explain to me how, exactly, socialism would destroy my country? Also, how, precisely, it is making its inroads. I really want to understand. Especially if you can compare and contrast with capitalism.

    Please use specific, documented examples, and refrain from flowery but meaningless loaded phrases. Discussion of the anarchy/totalitarianism axis would be a good addition, too, since we're looking for accuracy in our discussion. The two axes are perhaps somewhat orthogonal, although anarchic socialism would be an interesting situation.

    Also, suggestions regarding exactly who should do something about it, and exactly what they should do would be very welcome. "Doing something about it" might also be termed "central planning", which is a basic tenet of socialism. The Capitalist/Anarchist answer is to let the market sort it out, i.e. who cares if there's a depression, I got mine, screw the rest of you. Uh oh, there go those loaded phrases again. See, I need help!

    --
    WALSTIB!
  136. How unfortunate. by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Why anyone would choose to live in the US is completely beyond me. The government makes the country suck, and the people won't stand up to the government.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:How unfortunate. by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      I rather like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, myself.

      Governments? They can be replaced.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
  137. Re:Welcome Aboard by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    Be careful not to confuse the theory of socialism with the practices employed by governments claiming to be socialist.

    There's a yawning gulf between the two.

    --
    WALSTIB!
  138. Re:Welcome Aboard by selven · · Score: 1
  139. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and george w bush and senator mccarthy , enjoy the ride!

  140. not everyone feels like you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I am glad they don't! I certainly don't feel that way.

      If my nation was going down the tubes, I would stay and make it better, fight if needs be, do whatever it takes, I wouldn't just abandon ship and let it rot. And I also wouldn't try to inflict my "old country" lifestyle and values on some new nation if I decided to emigrate to a new place, I would adopt THEIR culture if I thought it was better, I wouldn't insist on having things my old country way or having everything in my language, etc.

  141. Re:Welcome Aboard by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    That is why he probably fled Finland. There is a great depression there

    Seasonal Affective Disorder. They have beer and saunas though. They're cool.

  142. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Specifically, socialism is going to destroy this country by sucking money from the people via increased federal spending, resulting in an absolutely unsustainable national debt. Eventually, the interest on the national debt is going to be another giant expense for the nation, to go along with social security, mdeicare, and defense, which are currently the 3 biggest consumers of federal dollars. And the latest straw that is destined to break the camel's back is Obamacare, which will just add to the spending, and force the tax rates up. Of course, the taxes are already chasing jobs out of the USA, forcing people into less well-paid jobs, resulting in them not paying income tax or most other taxes. That deprives the gov't of tax money, and so it reacts by raising taxes again. Its a vicious circle, that will see the demise of the nation. Eventually no one will loan us money, the ever-increasing tax rates will have chased most of the manufacturing out of the country, and all we'll have to do is burger flipping, stock trading, and suing each other for income.

  143. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    FDR's socialism prolonged the depression that industy could have gotten us out of, if left alone. But we passed devastating protectionist legislation called the Smoot-Hawley act, that practically shut down trade, and prevented a recovery. What got us out of the depression was the FORCED economic activity of building weaponry for WW2, a tactic that would not work now, because we don't have the industrial base any more to make it work. Its mostly moved out of the country, to Mexico, Canada, or gone overseas, or completely out of business and been replaced by foreign competition.

    We're in a worse position now than we were in in the 30's, we just don't know it yet.

  144. Halfway there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when is Richard Stallman going to join American society?

  145. Citizen matters not. You are a true humanitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I point out to my children how much greater your accomplishments are then Bill's all the time. You are a true humanitarian.
    From my heart,
    Thank you for all you have done

  146. You don't need to be a citizen to make a living by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not in the USA at least.
    For example, this guy isn't in the USA legally. Been there for years. Makes a "living" suing, mostly hard-working immigrants, who are legal.

    Go figure. Summary: "Alfredo Garcia, a paraplegic who has been in a wheelchair since 1996 [fell out of an avocado tree while intoxicated], is a serial plaintiff [scam]. The 41-year-old illegal immigrant and convicted felon makes a living suing small businesses [small mom-and-pop-type] in Southern California for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and its California equivalent."

  147. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US corporate income tax is only high by international standards if you only look at the nominal rates. If you take into account the overall system (deductions, etc.), then in 2002 (PDF) US corporate income taxes were 1.8% of GDP, much less than the OECD average of 3.4% (OECD weighted average was 2.5%). In the OECD, only Germany and Iceland had lower values than the US.

  148. Re:Welcome Aboard by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    The theory is a myth that has never existed on a national scale.

  149. Re:Welcome Aboard by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is the income taxes.

    Actually, using your scenario and even real world data, no, income taxes are not an issue for manufacturing in the United States.

    About 22%, on avarege, of the price of American goods goes to pay income taxes incurred by US manufacturers. About 11.5% is recoverable by the companies if the income tax went away. Would a $25,000 Jeep Liberty selling for $22,125 sell better?

    I believe you and I will have a very strong agreement on the importance of manufacturing in the United States. It is not only important for the United States economically but also for our national security and future prosperity. But where we will disagree is on income taxes imposed on manufacturing corporations.

    First let me state that I think you are on to a very accurate and strong principle that has to do with global competition. Part of the cost in global competition is related to taxes and the cost of running the government of each nation. If the United States is bearing the burden of security costs around the world while other nations skimp on governmental security expenses then the United States will be placed at a significant economic disadvantage. All one has to do is look at French history before and after the American Revolutionary War to see how economic burden can destroy a nation.

    That said, corporate taxes are levied on Gross Profits, not Retail Sales Prices. Based on this fact it becomes readily apparent that the amount of tax dollars in the retail price of a manufactured good is completely dependant upon the Gross Profit Margin. So we end up with the following equation:

    gross % margin = tax % of retail price / corporate % tax rate

    You say on average U.S. manufacturers have a 22% income tax burden attached to the price of retail goods. So we can calculate the average gross margin and verify this with real world numbers. 22% / 35% = 63% Gross Margin.

    I am not sure where you acquired that 22% number but to me it looks like BS. From my personal experience with gross margins in electronics manufacturing a 63% gross margin profit is unheard of. In fact, based on recent data the highest gross margin for electronics manufacturers was 58.4%. From my experience the average gross margin is more like 20% to 40%.

    And while I understand you are only making a point with the auto analogy I must point out that auto manufacturers have abysmal profit margins and as a result the average cost of corporate income taxes on the retail price of a car is more like 1%.

  150. Re:Welcome Aboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In conclusion,

    Suck it, Canada!

    Sincerely,
    The U.S. of fuckin' A.

  151. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    The 22% of th price of American goods is not composed of strictly the corporate tax on profits. It is also composed of the employees individual income taxes, which, while paid by employees, must be paid to them by the manufacturer so that they can pay them. It makes labor more expensive. Also included is the both the 7.65% of employee's gross earning that are paid in social security and medicare taxes, as well as the "employer-matcing" 7.65% of the employee's gross wages that the employer supposedly pays, but really doesn't, because the employer just pays the employee that much less wages to make up for that. IOW, the employee is, effectively, paying 15.3% in social security and medicare taxes.

    And of course there are capital gains taxes that cost the businesses a lot of money, that would go away under the Fair Tax.

    The 22% is made up of a lot of things, and the employer, the manufacturing concern, can get back about half of that if the income taxes go away. They can't get back the employee's individual income taxes, and they can't get back the employee-paid part of the social security and medicare taxes, but they can get back a lot of the rest of it.

    The 22% figure comes from a study conducted by Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at, I belive, Harvard. This is mentioned in the Fair Tax entry in Wikipedia.

  152. cult of personality and politics by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I'd rather see cults of personality around entertainers than around politicians (assuming the star has no plans of entering politics; BTW, on that point, Tom Lehrer's "George Murphy" is a fine example of his penchant for political satire via music.)

    Sarah Palin worries me; Ke$ha does not. (They're both intelligent females who know how to make a point of appealing on grounds of lesser intelligence. :P)

    However, this reminds me - many stars are opinionated about their politics, like us average Joes, but with a bigger platform. Do people have a tendency to choose politics that match their favorite star's, or do people tend to choose stars that match their politics? The celebrity may not be right, as is any pundit.
    However, even if they are right and help steer fans their way, that raises the following questions:
    * Is the right thing done for the wrong reason still the right thing?
    * Are there unintended consequences?

    (Celebrities' opinions aren't *less* valid, though)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  153. Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matti Nykänen was a very successful ski jumper in the 80s. He's known for silly sayings like "50-60 chance" or "I'm moving to Copenhagen and getting Swedish citizenship". Above quote means "what's undone can't be undone".

  154. Re:Welcome Aboard by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that 6 year old study is a goto conservative argument against social programs these days. It is an interesting theory, but just because a couple of economists posit a theory doesn't make it true. For balance, here's a well stated summary of its flaws (that I'm sure the liberal camp likes to quote in response):

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/18/the_new_deal_and_right_wing_revisionism/

  155. Re:Welcome Aboard by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    I agree that we are in a worse position now, and that not all legislation of the 30's was helpful. But as bad as the Smoot-Hawley act was, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion (and in fact supports my original point), because it was passed under Republican pressure and signed by Herbert Hoover in 1930. FDR wasn't even elected until 1932, and he was completely against it.

    While WW2 obviously was the final push that ended the depression, it was clearly not the only thing. By the start of US involvement in WW2 unemployment had dropped from a high of 25% to 9%. Something worked...

    Anyway, I think it's impossible to speculate too accurately on what would have happened economically without WW2, and how much the New Deal set up the foundation for recovery. But as I said, I agree that we are not as well positioned for recovery as we were back then. But we are also not NEARLY as bad off as we were back then.

  156. Re:Welcome Aboard by drsquare · · Score: 1

    If taxes cause inequality, which is there more equality in countries with higher taxes?

  157. Re:Welcome Aboard by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    OK, economists argue incessantly about the causes and cures of the Great Depression, and so if they can't agree, I doubt we're going to figure it out, either.

    Yes, we're not as bad off as we were in the Great Depression _yet_, but I believe that there is a train wreck ahead in the economy unless the gov't does some extraordinary things, which is drastically cutting spending, and, I believe it is now necesssary, to pass the Fair Tax. I don't think that the nation can continue to survive the income taxes, they are nuking our industries, which are moving and have been moving out of the country since about the 1960's. We had a mighty manufacturing base, but it has mostly dissolved, and continues to do so. The stock market has been flat for the last 10 years, and in fact is quite a bit less than its high near the beginning of this decade. That, I believe, is telling, and I think that it will not be flat in the next decade, it will dramatically decline.

    I think the Fair Tax is the cure for it all, and would bring our industries back, and put us in the lead in manufacturing again by a wide margin. But we're probably not going to get it passed until the country has the train wreck, and things are so bad that even the politicians are willing to do anything that is required to get the country moving again. The Fair Tax removes a lot of their power to fiddle with social engineering, and, oh yes, worm in a gratuity or 2 (or 2 million) into the tax code for their campaign contributors. IOW, the current income taxes are an instrument of corruption.

  158. Re:Welcome Aboard by Myopic · · Score: 1

    Good one. You made me laugh.

  159. Re:Welcome Aboard by Myopic · · Score: 1

    It's true, you were modded improperly. The correct mod was "-1, Flamebait", not "-1, Troll".

  160. Re:See? Eurofaggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the parts of the world where people actually visit and occasionally live in other parts of the world besides the one they were born in, getting a citizenship is usually just a bureaucratic hurdle to jump to get some practical benefits, not a life-changing allegiance-switching semireligious tear-jerking pledge-show. It doesn't mean he's a 'fan'.

  161. Support the War on Copyright! by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Not the constant War-State mentality where we have to fight "Terrorism", "Drugs", "Copyright", etc, etc, and again, pay for it.

    Even as a zealous GPL freetard, I for one would love to support the War on Copyright ;-)

  162. Re:Linus for President! by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

    Offtopic? Really?

    In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly.

    What form of participation is more direct than running for office?

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  163. Re:Welcome Aboard by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    No most Canada is a fine nation and most of the people I have meet from their are very pleasant.

    It is just a few that grasp at any straw they can to try to show that they can to show how great they really are. Which is kind of sad because it really tends to diminish their real achievements and makes them look like a small emotionally insecure nation.

    Fortunately those Canadians are in the minority.

    BTW Scotland also claims Bell as well as Canada. Bell did keep a family home in Canada and is buried their. Can't say that I blame him since it looks like a beautiful area. But he became an American citizen and died as an American citizen.
    But I bet he loved Canada as well as Scotland and America.
    Hey I love Ireland where my grandmother was born and where I still have family. I love Victoria Canada where my wife and I spent our Honeymoon.
    And I love the US where I was born and I am citizen.
    So I can relate to Bell.
    And BE NICE TO OUR GOOD FRIENDS UP NORTH!

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  164. Re:Torvalds children are NOT citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That part of the 14th amendment was created to specifically address the issue of slaves' children, not other non-citizens.

    I suggest you read about the congressional debate and statements from the period and it will become more clear to you.

  165. Re:Welcome Aboard by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

    From another study on the costs involved in auto manufacturing completed at MIT Vehicle Manufacturing Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing Costs = 6.5% of MSRP

    From the Bureau of Labor Statistics the median wage for employees working in auto manufacturing is $58,400.

    Assuming an average family household and both adults work in auto manufacturing the gross income will be at least $116, 800. Looking at IRS statistics for the adjusted gross income level of $100,000 to $200,000 the average household income is $132,881 and after deductions paid $17,388 in income tax. The is an effective 13% tax rate on gross income.

    So on a $25,000 car with 6.5% going to wages and an effective 13% tax rate on those wages the portion of the retail cost is $211.25 and add to that the corporate gross profit of 6% from the Stanford auto manufacturing study and a 35% tax rate we have another $525 for a total of $736.25 of income tax in the retail price of a $25,000 automobile which is 2.9%.

    And yes, I know there are all kinds of other little taxes here and there you want to throw in to where we are no longer talking about income tax but it becomes so convoluted its not clear exactly how everything is associated anymore, but it doesn't matter. Even if the auto manufacturing workers paid 100% of their income in income taxes you still would not be even close to 22%.

    But setting all of that data showing the 22% is bogus aside and just assuming this fantasy world is real lets take a quick look at this Fair Tax. With the word "Fair" in its name it sounds great, we all like fair don't we, but reading Boortz he specifically states that "the FairTax plan was revenue neutral". Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting but it appears you want no taxes while the FairTax being revenue neutral is not a no tax plan but instead is just tax reform with the same level of taxation but shifted around so revenue for the government, corporations and employees remains the same.

    But even in Boortz' comments he makes some outlandish suggestions such as "When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax."

    HA HA HA!!! Now that is hilarious! Eliminate the payroll tax, which in layman terms means take away the Social Security and Medicare safety net that ensures a minimal level of support for U.S. workers when they reach retirement age, and let the corporations decide if they should keep all that money themselves or maybe if they are nice they will give the U.S. workers some crumbs. Sorry but in the real world history has shown over and over and over that given the opportunity the U.S. worker will get screwed. Scrap that "Fair" Tax plan and try working out something more realistic. :)

  166. Re:The US started it. by happyfeet2000 · · Score: 1

    The US are illegally intefering with Latinamerica, Latinamericans then have a moral right to come here illegaly. The US have to deal with the consequences of being an empire.

  167. Re:Welcome Aboard by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    Specifically, socialism is going to destroy this country by sucking money from the people via increased federal spending, resulting in an absolutely unsustainable national debt.

    Debt is definitely something which must be considered in the planning of budgets and the financing of government activities. I concur that of late the spending of the US government has far outpaced revenues, and continuing at the same ratio would not be wise. However, I've not heard anyone from any political or bureaucratic organization suggest maintaining the current ratios indefinitely. They are supposed to be emergency measures taken in time of need, to be rectified when economic factors allow. The debt is used to smooth over the bumps, just like a family uses a credit card and then pays it off to bridge over variations in current liquidity. At least, that's the idea. Sometimes politicians get shortsighted and spend now to gain popularity and obtain reelection, consequences not withstanding. That's a problem in a democracy.

    I'm not sure that language such as "sucking money from the people" and "absolutely unsustainable" are accurate enough, though. We need some numbers.

    Eventually, the interest on the national debt is going to be another giant expense for the nation, to go along with social security, mdeicare, and defense, which are currently the 3 biggest consumers of federal dollars.

    Definitely, we don't want debt service to reach levels that prevent the functioning of the economy and the government. Also, it would be good to keep as much of the debt as possible internal, so that the interest payments go to American citizens, rather than flowing into foreign economies.

    Social Security, Medicare, and Defense are all important. If you don't think so, try getting elected on a platform of removing one of them. Assuming that the purpose of government is to execute the will of the governed, we are probably going to need to figure out how to finance and operate those programs for the foreseeable future.

    And the latest straw that is destined to break the camel's back is Obamacare, which will just add to the spending, and force the tax rates up.

    Well, OK, definitely straying into "flowery language" here. The existing US health care system is a disaster which is headed for collapse. We pay double or triple the per-citizen health care cost of many other industrialized nations, while achieving at best equal and frequently worse outcomes. The costs are growing, and the results are lagging far behind. Something has to change. The reform package that congress passed (yes, the congress passes laws, not the president) may not be the best possible set of changes. Unfortunately, people simply cannot agree on exactly what would be better. Those who rally around the cause of "do nothing" seem to generally either be making bank on the existing disaster (a.k.a. sucking money from the people) or simply oppose anything Mr. Obama likes without any thought at all. You may not be one of those, and I welcome your suggestions for how to get at least equal cost-benefit as compared with other countries. If we're going to pay triple, I want triple the results.

    Of course, the taxes are already chasing jobs out of the USA, forcing people into less well-paid jobs, resulting in them not paying income tax or most other taxes. That deprives the gov't of tax money, and so it reacts by raising taxes again. Its a vicious circle, that will see the demise of the nation.

    Whoa, there, hoss. Americans still pay far lower taxes than folks in comparably advanced countries worldwide. Furthermore, in the last few years our tax rates have been going down, not up. The congress keeps passing (yeah, that congress again, not the president) laws to reduce taxes on middle and lower income people. The current "increase" on the table is not an increase, it's the expiration of a temporary cut, and it only affects

    --
    WALSTIB!
  168. Re:Welcome Aboard by iceaxe · · Score: 1

    The theory is a myth that has never existed on a national scale.

    You are absolutely correct. Just like the theory of capitalism.

    Everyone who lives in a country with a government lives in a state of compromise between a variety of opposite ideals. The trick lies in finding the right balance. Countries which attempt to go too far to one ideological extreme or another typically fail, often with great suffering.

    People who live in countries without a government are even worse off.

    --
    WALSTIB!
  169. 2008 style of politics by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics

    He wasn't alone in not liking the style of politics in from 2000 to 2008.