Slashdot Mirror


What Employee Lock-In Means At Facebook

theodp writes "In the early days of Facebook, the company would go into what CEO Mark Zuckerberg called lockdown, where no one is supposed to leave until the task at hand is done. Speaking on Saturday at Startup School 2013, CNET reports, Mark Zuckerberg remarked that the practice persists to this day. Facebook doesn't lock people in the office, but it comes "as close to that as we can legally get," Zuckerberg said to an eruption from the crowd. The lockdown isn't the first at-home-in-a-Bangladesh-garment-factory management technique Zuck's touted at Startup School. Back in 2007, Zuckerberg drew fire for advising company founders "you should only hire young people with technical expertise" if they want to be successful. And while there are no reports of Facebook hiring 9-year-old bosses yet, the LA Times reports that only young undocumented immigrants are welcome at the hackathon hosted by Zuckerberg's FWD.us next month where "tech CEO's like Mark Zuckerberg, Reid Hoffman, Drew Houston and Andrew Mason will be sitting side-by-side with undocumented youth [with technical expertise] creating tech products to help the immigration reform movement" (invitation to 'day (and night) of working')."

391 comments

  1. Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are illegal immigrants being called undocumented? The are documented, by their countries of origin. The reason they are undocumented in the US is because they are here ILLEGALLY. They have no right to claim legal status when they did not go through the proper legal process. IMO, these people are brazenly flouting our immigration laws without any fear of prosecution which only encourages more illegal immigration. This has to stop.

    Illegal is illegal.

    1. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is to obscure the fact that they are in the USA illegally. One way to win an argument is to change the terms or the definition of the terms. If the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" were to persist the anti-amnesty position would prevail. Since the the accepted term is now "undocumented immigrant" has become the term used, the pro-amnesty position will win on this issue. The actual and most dramatic losers will be the legal immigrants--those people who applied for permission to enter the USA and applied through the system to become USA citizen. (And they are typically against illegal immigration.)

    2. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by nashv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No AC , 'Undocumented' means status cannot be determined. For example, family moved here illegaly but baby is born within US borders in a shack without a birth certificate. The baby is then 'undocumented'.

      Naturalised US citizen who lost passport, then became homeless and ended up the other side of the country with amnesia = Undocumented.

      There is a difference. Unless, any immigration is proved in court to be illegal, it is undocumented. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    3. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Undocumented' sounds like there was a clerical error by the immigration department.

      People in country against the law are trespassers.

      If you want to work in this country and become a US citizen, stand in line and do it legal.

    4. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps that rule should be applied fairly to all. Deport everyone (perhaps at their 18th birthday if not at birth) to a specially created territory, and only allow people to come back as US citizens by standing in line and earning it. Having accidentally been born somewhere shouldn't give you special privileges.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I might be wrong, but I suspect the vast majority of the people called "undocumented" in the mass media were not "born without a birth certificate" or "lost their passport".

    6. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Laws can't work without the support of the general population (re: drug war). The question is, why is it illegal to wander across the face of the planet if it takes my fancy and make an honest attempt to pay taxes and abide by the local laws? Think about it, did the Mongols ask Marco Polo for his passport or did they proudly show him a nifty navigation device called a "compass" to help him on his journey?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having accidentally been born somewhere shouldn't give you special privileges.

      I'd say being part of a nation and its culture should.

    8. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great idea!

      I'm quite certain the Native Americans would love to have their country back and see all the descendants of those assholes who slaughtered their people and took their land deported. I wouldn't hold my breath on that readmission line moving too fast, though.

    9. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your ancestors did get permission from the original American Indians to come and settle in America?

    10. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So since part of me is Native American and part of me is French Canadien does that mean I get to stay or do I just straddle the border as a self hating person?

    11. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm quite certain the Native Americans would love to have their country back

      NO Human is native to the american continent. The term "Native" american is bull shit.

    12. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One way to win an argument is to change the terms or the definition of the terms.

      Nothing "won" that way ever turns out well in the end. The practice is one reason the US has so many batshit insane laws like the War on Some Drugs that don't stand up to analysis, and continues to keep these laws even after this is well known.

      The lack of rationality will have been the root cause of our downfall.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    13. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No but they had guns; that was permission enough. Might makes right, you know.

    14. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by demon+driver · · Score: 0

      "Why are illegal immigrants being called undocumented?" Because, if to use correct language is more than just a pretense for anti-humanist, misanthropic political propaganda, there is no such thing as an illegal person, which is what the term illegal immigrant amounts to. There may be an offense called illegal immigration, but that doesn't make the offending person any more illegal than theft, speeding or tax fraud.

    15. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      I could agree with your terminology for the word 'Undocumented' (and there are more reasons for that), but that is not the point for this article. It seems that the article is mentioning the majority -- those who immigrated into the country (may be legal at first) and now are illegal (most likely by intention). To me, the intention of the word used in the article is to attempt to avoid discrimination but it raises other questions. The GP post shows that the word used is less aggressive, underrated, and sort of misleading, and that I could agree with as well.

      Anyway, I do not have a strong feeling toward either word, so I cannot make further comment on the word used in the article.

    16. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by tgd · · Score: 2

      Why are illegal immigrants being called undocumented? The are documented, by their countries of origin. The reason they are undocumented in the US is because they are here ILLEGALLY. They have no right to claim legal status when they did not go through the proper legal process. IMO, these people are brazenly flouting our immigration laws without any fear of prosecution which only encourages more illegal immigration. This has to stop.

      Illegal is illegal.

      Not in the US. Illegal is only applied when there isn't an upside for those assigning the labels not doing so. Illegal war? Nope, those are opportunities to increase employment across a suite of contractor companies! Illegal immigrants? No! They're undocumented workers! (With legal family members who can vote!) Or maybe they're migrant workers! (Everyone likes inexpensive strawberries, after all!) Illegal financial transactions at megabanks? No! They're financial irregularies that will be investigated, after all taking action could badly damage the financial sector!

       

    17. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Time to relocate all humans to the exact part of Africa where the species first evolved, then. Everyone elsewhere is an undocumented immigrant who the native species did not welcome.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    18. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So? Already in the place is already in the place. Nobody is going to send them all elsewhere especially since so many of those who make the rules are already benefiting from a shadow economy of people that can be paid less and treated worse than a "legal" employee. Pretending otherwise is not going to make it all go away by magic and treating these people like subhumans is only making things worse, making that shadow economy even more attractive and reducing the conditions for the "legal" employees.
      The USA cannot afford to send them "home". Just getting angry about it hasn't helped for the last century+ either.

    19. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is tht it's bot illegal. The issue is with people that don't abide by all local laws and pay taxes.

    20. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by runeghost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you're so concerned with illegality, why not focus on those corporations who directly or indirectly benefit from illegal labor (and associated working conditions)? The prime reason we have illegal immigration (instead of simple and straightforward work visas) is because the 0.1% love having a pool of labor available who don't have to be treated lawfully. I have nothing but sympathy for undocumented/illegal workers, and nothing but loathing for the corporations and the wealthy who abuse them and who use their existance as leverage against citizens lawfully in the labor force.

    21. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days, just about everything is illegal. Must we prepend this adjective in all caps before every topic of discussion?

    22. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      For example, family moved here illegaly but baby is born within US borders in a shack without a birth certificate. The baby is then 'undocumented'.

      And then the baby is not an immigrant, so the term "undocumented immigrant" doesn't apply.

      Naturalised US citizen who lost passport, then became homeless and ended up the other side of the country with amnesia = Undocumented.

      That happens so frequently that the number of such people is far greater than the number of people who knowingly come to the US illegally.

      Unless, any immigration is proved in court to be illegal, it is undocumented. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

      You're being silly. This is not a court. If you prefer we can use the term "alleged illegal immigrant".

    23. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Do you have documents?

    24. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Having accidentally been born somewhere shouldn't give you special privileges.

      I'd say being part of a nation and its culture should.

      Back of the line!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    25. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 1

      How about 'legacy americans'? Can we use that term?

    26. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BVis · · Score: 1

      There's 12 million of them (that we know of). I'd consider that a significant part of the population (4% or so). The "culture" part of your comment pretty much gives away your 'white power' attitude.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    27. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by jasper160 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers is like a drug lord an undocumented pharmacist.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    28. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      And what does it take to be 'native' then? It's a relative word.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    29. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      And only the brilliant select few can see it . . . right.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    30. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      I'm quite certain the Native Americans would love to have their country back and see all the descendants of those assholes who slaughtered their people and took their land deported.

      Which "Native Americans" (BTW, most prefer to be called Indians) are you referring to? Are you concerned about the territory that the Navajo and Apache stole from the Zuni and other peoples who've been in the Southwest longer? How about the parts of what's now South Dakota that were grabbed by the Lakota? The Ohio river valley that the Haudenosaunee took by war from the Miami and Shawnee?

    31. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal is illegal.

      Tacos?

    32. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is to obscure the fact that they are in the USA illegally.

      Partly. It is also because words have connotations beyond their direct meaning. "Illegal" tends to imply that something is also wrong or immoral. Why else would our wise and noble political leaders make it illegal? But many of us feel that a free society should welcome people that want to come and make a better life for themselves. Immigration (even when illegal) is a positive good, benefiting both America, and the families of the immigrants. The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past. Every wave of immigration has been opposed by racists and people believing in "zero-sum" economics. They have always been wrong in the past, and are almost certainly wrong now.

    33. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws can't work without the support of the general population (re: drug war).

      For better or worse, a majority of the (US) population supports the War on Drugs (TM). Especially the older, whiter, voting majority.

      The question is, why is it illegal to wander across the face of the planet if it takes my fancy and make an honest attempt to pay taxes and abide by the local laws?

      An honest attempt to follow local laws, except for those pesky immigration laws, because I don't agree with those. (Oh, and drug laws, because I don't agree with those, either....)

      Think about it, did the Mongols ask Marco Polo for his passport or did they proudly show him a nifty navigation device called a "compass" to help him on his journey?

      For a good portion of his travels, Marco Polo was, essentially, a prisoner of Kublai Khan. What's your point exactly?

    34. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      No, no, taking inspiration from how well the "send freed slaves back to Liberia" movement worked in the 1800's, the immigration-insane are queuing up to do something like all over again in the 21st century.

      "Of course history repeats itself. Motherfuckers don't listen."

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    35. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having accidentally been born somewhere shouldn't give you special privileges.

      Good idea. Let's get rid of the birthright citizenship that ensured that former slaves were citizens, and also ensures that the children of illegal aliens who were born here are US citizens. Do you prefer that we abandon jus soli in favor of jus sanguinis, so that people whose families have been in this country for generations are not citizens? Or should everyone just be stateless until such time as some country decides to grant them citizenship?

    36. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I assure you the Mongols under the khans would have dealt with Marco quite harshly if they hadn't wanted him around. Should we adopt a similar policy? Personally I'm the soft-hearted kind that prefers deportation to execution.

    37. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      so lets get this right - Zuckerburg et al will be doing some coding (well, I assume Zuck will be watching and 'supervising') with some "undocumented" immigrants all in one room.

      I for one would be enquiring about a reward for snitching about the whereabouts of a load of illegal immigrants to the authorities.

    38. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Because people in the USA are "presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law". Their presence on US soil *may* be illegal, but that has not yet been determined.

    39. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Megane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past.

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in. If they didn't, they weren't let in. Apparently Spanish-speaking immigrants are "more special" and don't have to immigrate properly.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    40. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by hajo · · Score: 1

      "Innocent until proven guilty, remember?"
      Uh NO! in immigration cases, like in tax law, the burden of proof is reversed.

      --
      Hajo Monogamy: Belief so strong that millions of people end perfectly good relationships in order to start a new one.
    41. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So? We call "making war" "going on a peacekeeping mission" and "assassinating enemy leaders" "neutralizing insurgents".

      Welcome to the wonderful world of the bullshit euphemisms. I'm just waiting to hear about "unwilling sperm recipients". Though I guess the feminist movement would cry bloody murder when we go and call rape victims that, so I guess we cannot become PC in that area.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Awesome! Nothing like being called a white supremacist the first thing in the morning.

      Do you care to explain how valuing culture is indicative of a "white power attitude"? If a black person said what I wrote, what would that make them?

    43. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Great idea!

      I'm quite certain the Native Americans would love to have their country back and see all the descendants of those assholes who slaughtered their people and took their land deported. I wouldn't hold my breath on that readmission line moving too fast, though.

      Problem with that is: We Europeans don't want all those Americans coming over here.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    44. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But many of us feel that a free society should welcome people that want to come and make a better life for themselves.
      I think the majority of us feel that way. Which is why we created a system by which people can immigrate to the United States. My wife did it, my grandfather did it, about a million people per year do it. So, why should we reward people who do it illegally by giving them a free pass, while punishing those who do it legally by making them do all the paperwork and pay fees?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    45. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are called undocumented rather than illegal because corporations wish to hire them. Corporations have the money to alter public perception and purchase loyalty from lawmakers. It's another instance of capture by financial interests of all basic mechanisms of human society. We are in the midst of a planetary-scale Darwinian experiment testing the proposition that money = merit.

    46. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      It would be like those sting operations where the cops set up a "lottery" and invite all the criminals they have to arrest to win a prize :-) More seriously what do facebooks investors think about a C level executive consorting with illeagals presumably he will be supporting the SEIU and their campaign for "Justice for Janitors" or something like the London living wage even Bo Jo supports that one

    47. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a legal immigrant to the US, I can confirm.

    48. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Jiro · · Score: 2

      You know, this is about illegal immigrants at Facebook. I believe that Facebook is, in fact, a corporation.

    49. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Then why do you parade people yet to be convicted in prison jumpsuits and chains in front of the press *innocent smile*

    50. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the immigrants themselves are not illegal. I haven't yet heard of such a thing as an illegal human being (outside of a few sad episodes in human history).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    51. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      an undocumented pharmacist

      Which is technically correct, isn't it? Most of the substances are current or former pharmaceuticals. But perhaps "CEO of an undocumented pharma company" would be even more accurate.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    52. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Bongo · · Score: 1

      ended up the other side of the country with amnesia

      hence the need to lock them in

    53. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by slash.jit · · Score: 1

      You have to use XCode and write iOS apps in Objective C.

    54. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For immigration activists to call illegal immigrants "undocumented foreign workers" would be like if marijuana legalization activists called marijuana an "undocumented plan", or if the NRA referred to assault rifles as "undocumented firearms".

      It's quite clear to me that they're pushing to destroy the working class in this country by flooding us with cheap labor and they're trying to control the language to achieve their goal.

      It's hard to believe that back in the day, Henry Ford was proud to say that people who built his company's cars could afford to buy them.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    55. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a black person said what I wrote, what would that make them?

      The GP assumes only members of the white race can say or do certain things, which makes him/her more racist than he/she knows.

    56. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by slash.jit · · Score: 1

      So Illegal spying on American citizens.. Nope that's National Security Administration.

    57. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Uhm, have you not read the thread? ... thats exactly how this discussion started.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    58. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      It is to obscure the fact that they are in the USA illegally.

      Partly. It is also because words have connotations beyond their direct meaning. "Illegal" tends to imply that something is also wrong or immoral. Why else would our wise and noble political leaders make it illegal? But many of us feel that a free society should welcome people that want to come and make a better life for themselves.

      Agreed, and a legal avenue for such a pursuit exists for anyone wishing it. QED.

    59. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in.

      So? You are just begging the question. Of course illegals didn't do their paperwork. But that doesn't make illegal immigration wrong, or evil or bad. Most people break the law everyday. How fast did you drive on the way to work this morning? Unlike restrictions on immigration, laws against speeding actually have a rational justification.

    60. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't Zuckerberg and Soros use their philanthropic wealth to pay for the process for the illegal to become legal? There must be something other than altruism that is behind their actions.

    61. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      I think the answer is obvious. We cut you in half.

      Whichever land gives up its claim in order to save you is your true motherland.

    62. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and a legal avenue for such a pursuit exists for anyone wishing it. QED.

      Nonsense. The legal avenue only exists for people with education, money, and/or an H1-B sponsor. None of the people that picked the lettuce and tomatoes on your sandwich would have qualified.

    63. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Why is it that these companies boast about age discrimination? Where is the ACLU?

    64. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No AC , 'Undocumented' means status cannot be determined. For example, family moved here illegaly but baby is born within US borders in a shack without a birth certificate. The baby is then 'undocumented'.

      Naturalised US citizen who lost passport, then became homeless and ended up the other side of the country with amnesia = Undocumented.

      There is a difference. Unless, any immigration is proved in court to be illegal, it is undocumented. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

      If that's what "undocumented" means, why are they called undocumented immigrants and not undocumented residents?

    65. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by xelah · · Score: 1

      You've missed an option: that governments should stop drawing lines around everyone and forcing their lives in to country shaped boxes. Why should the world's governments have the right to tell us where we should and shouldn't live? Of course, it's more than a little difficult practically, not to mention against the interest of many people in some countries, which is why it isn't done that way any more.

    66. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by bziman · · Score: 1

      My family came to America on the Mayflower. And we destroyed the civilizations that were here before us. It's been ten generations, and I still feel sort of bad about that.

      And the "great" civilization that we have now, was built by many people from all over the world coming here and working together. How long after my family got here did yours arrive?

      People are not "illegal". If you imagine that now that YOU are established here that no one else is welcome, then I feel very bad for you.

    67. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 0

      They are literally immigrants without citizenship. That phrase is 100% accurate, it captures everyone who is meant to be captured by it and doesn't capture anyone else.

      The problem most will have with the phrase is the question of "whose fault is it?" that the choice of phrase leaves open. If you say "illegal immigrant" then it automatically assumes some criminal intent on the part of the immigrant. If you say "without citizenship" then it leaves open the question of "whose fault is it that they don't have citizenship?"

      Citizenship is just a title. Don't ever delude yourself to think that you earned it, or that it is something that you deserve because of some virtue you maintain. There is no royalty is in the US.

      On a related but independent note: (rant begins here)

      How the hell is it your business if someone wants to live in the US? If they find a landlord who will rent to them and a job that will pay them, then it is absolutely no one else's concern. At most, it would be a zoning issue for counties trying to handle local population size. Even that is a stretch.

      But in return for this paranoia, what have you gained? Suppose one day that you want to go live in France or Korea or somewhere else. Well guess what, you can't. Because they have the same policy you have, maybe in 10 years after you've given up tons of money and dignity, and then maybe you can somehow be treated as a second class citizen.

      Thank god for you though, you have no intention of living somewhere besides where you were born. And you are totally fine living in this cage you've built for everyone.

      If it became generally accepted that people should have the right to live in whatever state or country they want, this would be the single most important right any human would have. It would do far more to protect your other rights than even "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Press", because when all else fails you can just leave to live with like minded people.
      (end rant)

       

    68. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      A car analogy might be useful here. I've never heard somebody called an "illegal driver". I've heard of unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers, intoxicated drivers, etc. even though those people are breaking the law, they're not called "illegal".

    69. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in.

      Lol. No. An even larger fraction of immigration in the past was "undocumented". It was far easier to live without papers back then.

    70. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then prove it.

      Innocent until proven guilty. A bedrock of US Freedom. Don't be so quick to put on the brown shirt unless you are absolultely 100% sure that they'll never start coming for you.

    71. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by sabri · · Score: 1

      The legal avenue only exists for people with education, money,

      Bullshit. The visa bulletin lists three categories: family-based (you could marry a US citizen), employment based (which is your pet peeve) and then there is always the diversity lottery. And you can always apply for political asylum, if you meet the requirements.

      and/or an H1-B sponsor.

      More bullshit. The H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa. Your H1B is useless if your employer won't file an I-140 on your behalf.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    72. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by sabri · · Score: 2

      Citizenship is just a title. Don't ever delude yourself to think that you earned it, or that it is something that you deserve because of some virtue you maintain.

      I am a legal immigrant. After years of hard work I earned my permanent residency. And in a few years from now, I will apply for citizenship.

      I think it's pretty fair to say that once I am naturalized, I will have earned it. I spend years in getting an education which allowed me to get hired by a US company. I worked hard to be moved to the US. I worked hard while the company applied for permanent residency. And I continue to work hard as an LPR.

      Being pushed out by your mom in the right place does not make you earn anything. However, working hard to be part of the society that you came into (whether that was as a legal immigrant or by birth) does.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    73. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The problem is if you do something once people will assume you will do it again (no matter how much you yell about it being a "one off") when a similar situation arrises in the future. So by "forgiving" current illegal immigrants you encourage more illegal immigration in the future.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    74. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell no. Everybody has a point at which they will become irrational.

    75. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 0

      All immigrants work hard. I strongly doubt your work is harder than working on farms, or more useful than providing affordable food. Yet these people don't get the title of citizenship.

      I completely agree with you that working in a competitive economy is something that contributes to everyone else around you. Considering how many people don't do that (I'm thinking about those who get privileged easy jobs), it is certainly true that it is beneficial for you to be present.

      But we both know that hard work and contributing to an economy don't earn a person citizenship. Plenty of people are harder working and better educated than you or me and don't get citizenship. I know those with college educations and worked harder than you can imagine who can't get citizenship on technicalities even.

      More importantly, plenty of people don't work hard and are just born with citizenship. "Citizenship" is just a title awarded to people which grants them rights, it is not something that is earned. It especially does not justify the condescending position that citizens take towards those who are here without citizenship.

    76. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I shouldn't have said "all immigrants work hard", but I think you can still understand the idea I was trying to present.

    77. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by nashv · · Score: 0

      I get it. You spent years of hard work and diligence to adapt and meet a standard set by US Government/Corporations that allowed you to stay in the US. But that is not what the parent poster is talking about.

      He is asking "Who gave the US Government/Corporations the right to set that particular standard that you had to meet?".

      No one. They just happened to be on a certain piece of the earth's geography before you did. In an ideal 'free-world' you wouldn't have had to 'earn' their approval to move there. You would just need to have the resources to get yourself physically there. That is the bigger picture.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    78. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are called undocumented and not illegal because being here without a valid visa/passport is NOT A CRIME. It's a civil offense and the remedy is removal, not jail or prison. I hope that helps clear it up for you. "Illegal Immigrant" is a misnomer.

    79. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by kevmeister · · Score: 1
      IANAL, but...

      "Illegal' is not the correct term. Being an undocumented resident of the US is not a criminal act. It really can't be because that would require engaging the full criminal justice process which would be totally impossible to scale. Instead it is a civil issue with no penalties other then being removed from the US. Deportation can be done quickly and with minimal overhead. (This has both good and bad sides as citizens have been deported on occasion.)

      So undocumented IS the correct term. I suppose "extra-legal" would also be correct, but that is mostly a legalese term and is less specific than "undocumented".

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    80. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal is a sick bird. I prefer Undocumented Immigrant to "Migrants who entered unlawfully." YMMV.

    81. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Unlike restrictions on immigration, laws against speeding actually have a rational justification.

      So there's no rational justification in restricting immigration?

      Think about it. Immigrants arrive penniless. They are a drain on the economy until they get on their feet. There is a very good reason for limiting the number of them to reasonable levels which our economy can handle.

      Combine that with the welfare system that basically makes it counter-productive to become productive and you have a bunch of people with very low standards of living who are perfectly happy to continue living that way indefinitely. Living in poverty in America is pretty good, especially when you can compare it to living in poverty in whatever third-world country you came from.

    82. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if what you're saying is true, then the only way to really ensure that we can tell the difference between people who were born in the USA and lost their birth certificate vs. people who were born in Mexico and came here illegally is apparently to erect a giant wall between USA and Mexico, and ensure that people stay on the correct side.

      A border wall should be your top priority - unless your real intent is to flood the country with illegal immigrants.

      Of course, your entire argument is invalid anyway. If you walk up to the US border from Mexico and claim you have no documentation but you're a US citizen, honest, you WILL have to prove it before they'll let you enter the USA. The "innocent until proven guilty" argument doesn't fly - it's more like "in Mexico until proven a US citizen".

    83. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by budcub · · Score: 1

      In the old days (think Ellis Island), all you had to do was show up and say "Here I am". You didn't need a immigration attorney, and years of paperwork.

    84. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You've missed an option

      Not quite. That's an extension of my option that "everyone just be stateless until such time as some country decides to grant them citizenship". The difference is that people would be permanently stateless, because granting them birthright citizenship would violate the principle that "accidentally been born somewhere shouldn't give you special privileges".

    85. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      When you're calling someone 'undocumented' you already know they are illegal, otherwise you'd use different phrasing. In order to call someone undocumented you have to confirm they don't have any documentation, making them illegal.

      This isn't complicated, just stop trying to manipulate the situation to something other than what it is.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    86. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The context was different. Ellis Island existed at a time when we were expanding our industrial base and needed all the help we could get, therefore the United States opened the gates to immigration.

    87. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Right? Doesn't the US govt want money? Seems like that would be a easy multimillion dollar fine right there

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    88. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just forget about him Jethro. Anyway, are you coming to the Klan meeting later? We're discussing which gas is most effective on the Jews.

    89. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      And they want young programmers because they will put up with more shit, not because they write better code. No wife, no kids, no other responsibilities but the job, so they can use them all up working insane hours and pay them nothing and kick them out in 5 years when they finally say I can't handle this torture. Rinse, repeat.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    90. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      That may have been true 100 or more years ago, but the rise of the welfare state along with unfettered immigration makes for vast numbers of people who cost a country more than the value they create there.

    91. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Are you saying then that driving over the speed limit is not illegal?

      You just went full stupid.

    92. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can certainly afford to send them home. We just need to crack down on those people that are hiring them in the first place and they will go back home on their own. BTW, the latter is already happening because the economy in Mexico is better than the US.

    93. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Many civilized, industrialized nations do not have birthright citizenship. It is despicable that we have people who run "birthing vacations" services for those who come here so their kid can be a US citizen.

    94. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Asians, Jews, Irish, and Germans were allowed to actually file paperwork and get in with ease, though. Immigation today vs the immigration that they all had to deal with is not even close to equivalent.

    95. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by kriss · · Score: 1

      Yes, the buggers hop onto their three ships, land in the caribbean, start enslaving the locals and don't even bother with their paperwork. Hate it when that happens..

    96. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      The context was different. Ellis Island existed at a time when we were expanding our industrial base and needed all the help we could get.

      This is zero-sum thinking. One of the reasons that our economy was expanding quickly, was because of the rapidly growing labor force.

    97. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by schnell · · Score: 1

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in.

      One critical difference is that my (Irish, German) ancestors came to the US back when all you had to do was show up. You got your paperwork done when you arrived because the US was still taking all comers. Today we restrict immigration heavily... my ancestors either wouldn't have come or - who knows - might have tried to get in illegally.

      I'm not saying that what illegal immigrants do is right. But I'm saying it's very easy for most of us to look down on it because our ancestors didn't have the same hard time getting here legally that current would-be immigrants do.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    98. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      *PEOPLE* cannot be illegal; only actions can.

      It's like if you said your CPU was written in C. That's just wrong and sounds stupid. The software running on it may be, but the CPU itself isn't.

    99. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past.

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in. If they didn't, they weren't let in. Apparently Spanish-speaking immigrants are "more special" and don't have to immigrate properly.

      Tell that to the natives...

    100. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      So they're now proven guilty because you say so?

      Sorry, that's not how the USA works. Try Riyadh.

    101. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      100 years ago if anybody wanted to move here from anywhere in the world and make their way, I'd say more power to them. But since the rise of the welfare state where anybody and everybody can apply for benefits, if you cost the taxpayers in this country more than you contribute to the economy, then you're a net drain and you're not needed here. We have enough financial pain as it is.

    102. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Except for the part where people trying to escape World War 2 in Europe were turned away from the US, or had to stop in Cuba or South America, because the country quotas were supposedly full.

      Illegal means there is a law against it, and it is "malum prohibitum" - bad because it is prohibited. Yes, there are laws prohibiting things that are not "wrong" ("malum in se" - bad in itself), and some of them are stupid, and that does not invalidate the idea that there are rules. It is against the law to sneak into a concert or play or amusement park without a ticket; so a law against sneaking into the country is not so unreasonable. And if you think our laws are slow, check some of the European laws, like Switzerland.

    103. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inform us of how an illiterate immigrant can get a green card, please. Because that person wants to improve their life as much as the next PHD.

    104. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The reasoning is that the "person" is not illegal, just the act of entering the country. Using "illegal alien" implies that the person is illegal. We don't name people of other crimes with "illegal shoppers", "illegal copiers", "illegal gun owners", "illegal tax payers", and so forth. Also so many people in the country without papers are here because their parents brought them in at a very young age, many do not even realize they are not legal residents until they apply for college.

    105. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      "Already in the place" wouldn't work at a concert, or a sports arena, or an amusement park - you would be escorted to the exit, and maybe the police would be waiting for you when you got there.

    106. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's also not necessarily a wave of Latino immigrants. After all most of the southwest US was originally a part of Mexico which was acquired through a military campaign.

    107. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You must not know a lot of immigrants. A lot come here with money, they're often in a better category than the native born American who leaves college penniless as a burden on society.

    108. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.fwd.us/dreamer_hackathon

      "his Hackathon is a way to make those contributions more tangible by connecting DREAMers – undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children – with some of the most innovative product design and engineering talent in Silicon Valley."

      Undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children I think says enough.

      By the way, if we're going to do any sort of amnesty (permanent residency, not necessarily citizenship), it should be on children who arrived by age 8 (probably provable via the k-12 education system) along with conditions: no felonies, lived in the U.S. for 11 years, proficient in English, and has a high school diploma.

      I am not sure how right or fair having a hackathon limited to young undocumented immigrants is. Something just feels off about it.
      1. Limiting it to young people feels like age discrimination, but if it's not a job and more of a contest, it might be okay. If it's a way to recruit someone for a job, then that's not okay.
      2. Undocumented immigrants seems unfair to those who have proper documentation.

      You know what, let's just say it. This is probably more about increasing cheap labor than to "fix" the immigration system. Personally, I think we should fix the immigration system by a guest worker program. But I'm not sure if this will work unless we have some sort of negative-income tax or guaranteed income for those citizens and legal immigrants who are displaced by cheaper labor--unskilled and skilled labor alike. Maybe create a mandate that guest workers be paid amount that is on par with those of the industry? So, if it's a tech job, enough said. If it's truly about talent, nothing should really be lost. If it's about cheap labor, I don't think these tech giants will go for it much.

    109. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      A whole lot of Europeans arrived in America with almost no money and quickly stole the land away from the original inhabitants. That is why today their descendants are still worried that someone else will use the same tricks on them.

    110. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ah, because they fought each other it was therefore moral and legal to take their land, go to war against them, and put the few remaining survivors in economically undesirable reservations. It would be good then to just invade Europe with its history of warfare and primitive legal systems and make it a part of America, for their own good of course .

    111. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by deadweight · · Score: 1

      As a fellow Mayflower descendent, you may want to check up on your history. The original passengers and the original Indians they met got on OK considering the settlers swiped their corn stores when they first showed up. Fast forward some years and *both* the next generation of Indian leaders AND white leaders thought they were bad-ass and wouldn't mind a fight or two. Also note Europeans had a long tradition of conquering each other and warfare was practically the Olympics and the Super Bowl combined for Indians. It all went about as well as you would expect...

    112. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I don't know or care. Hire a sweaty lawyer to do it for $10,000, or figure out how to do it yourself for maybe $1,000. Since over a million people immigrate legally every year, I don't think they could all be PhDs and there are probably more than a few that are illiterate.
      When my wife became a citizen I knew more about this stuff than I do now, but I know that they allow translators for the oral test, and in some cases that I have heard of, there are "professional" translators that basically give the answers even if you don't know them. The written test is also available in a variety of languages. My wife took it in English, although her first language was Korean, and Korean is available.
      We did not use a lawyer, because all of the information is out there, and the lawyers don't really do anything for you that you couldn't do yourself. They won't even do some of what you would do yourself, like checking the status vigilantly and following up with people to keep things moving. Plus most of them use websites that try to appear to be official sites, but are really there to take your money and file a piece of paper and then disappear.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    113. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the vast majority of the ones who come here with money have something to lose and immigrate legally. The argument isn't against immigration, it's against illegal immigration.

    114. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those ones typically are the LEGAL ones who do go through the proper paperwork.

    115. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Since the past was lawless and unjust, the present should be, too.

      Or perhaps we just should hold all people responsible for the actions of their ancestors? Let's bring back blood feuds, too! Those were such great times.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    116. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      His point was that, at that time, the people showing up at Ellis Island were immigrating legally.

      If we want to expand our labor force, we should make it easier to immigrate. Making it difficult to immigrate and then a) exploiting those who immigrate illegally by accepting their labor but denying them the pay and rights of a citizen, or b) rewarding those who bypass the legal process and whose first act in the country is breaking the laws isn't a rational solution to any problem.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    117. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Ah, because they fought each other it was therefore moral and legal to take their land, go to war against them

      Nowhere did I say, or imply, that it was moral or legal. I'll state unequivocally that it wasn't. Neither were any of the historical events I mentioned. The GGP seems to want to rectify the situation though, and I was wondering how far back he wanted to take it. If you want to right the historical injustices of conquest, why limit it to European conquests?

    118. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Many of these laborers are taking jobs that no one else wants to do. Even immigrants who have obtained permanent residency or citizenship very rarely want to work in the fields for less than minimum wage. How many of those people standing in the crowd of hopeful day laborers were born in the US? The problem is with the shadow economy of some employers wishing to keep cheap manual untrained labor. This includes plenty of wealthier people who hire domestic help under the table as well.

      A much bigger problem for the working class is the removal of traditional manufacturing jobs from the US.

    119. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS about multicurtualism is a way of glossing over the fact that you are talking about people breaking the law by sneaking in and getting paid under the table.

    120. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by causality · · Score: 1

      And only the brilliant select few can see it . . . right.

      If by "select few" you mean anyone who reviews the facts of the matter, reads the studies, and looks at the government's own numbers, then yes.

      I note you did not present evidence or reasoning to formulate a disagreement with me. You demonstrate the particular form of irrationality most rampant in this nation with your failed attempt at a cheap shot. Religious traditions call it "pride" but fail to really provide a definition, sadly. It's this need to assert a phony sense of superiority by showing empty contempt for someone else who has done nothing wrong to you, or otherwise putting that person down, since you already judged that person as inferior to you.

      It's just the kind of thing that will prevent you from being self-correcting, from recognizing and trying to constructively remedy your own faults as they occur. The more extreme form is the "perpetual victim", whose problems are always caused by others because nothing is ever his or her fault. The small-minded view things in terms of fault and blame and how to redirect those against someone else. People with even a little wisdom view things in terms of cause and effect and realize that if a problem is your own fault, that's good, because that means you can change it by making a better choice.

      You're better than the petty, small-minded behavior you're displaying here.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    121. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahahaaa. That's a good post, good post. Problem is, it's better addressing your own attitude than mine? ;)

      I note you did not present evidence

      Nor did you

      You demonstrate the particular form of irrationality

      I like to be skeptical. What can I say? I just can't help that irrationality.

      "pride"

      You mean your pride I hurt with my post? That is the one way to explain such a negative accusatory tone displayed in length. But as explained below, I'm not going to jump to that conclusion.

      It's this need to assert a phony sense of superiority

      My whole point. You're the one going off on "particular form of irrationality most rampant in this nation", not me. That is the attitude I challenged, and have challenged multiple times. It just happened to be now that it was your attitude.

      or otherwise putting that person down,

      I'm not putting anybody down. Yes, my tone is often abrasive, but if I'm going to put somebody down then I address that person explicitly. I was mocking the attitude that the deviant ills of society are so clearly seen to those who know better, and will be the downfall of said society. You, OTOH, addressed me personally. Now, the rest of the post I have no idea what you're rambling on. I could play armchair psychologist and say you're projecting your own faults onto others. Or you have your ego so wrapped up in seeing things so clearly that you flip a fuse when somebody challenges your world view. But I'm not. I don't know what's going inside your head. And I don't care. Unlike you, I'm not going to jump to conclusions about others motives and thoughts. So relax

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    122. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't make illegal immigration wrong, or evil or bad. Most people break the law everyday. How fast did you drive on the way to work this morning? Unlike restrictions on immigration, laws against speeding actually have a rational justification.

      laws against unmitigated immigration have many, many justifications. here are a few,

      1. no background check ... murders, rapists, violent offenders may be entering and you have no idea one way or the other

      2. illegals are actually targeted for abuse in the work force and other places, since they can't go to the authorities with problems. obviously they've still decided that situation is better than where they came from however.

      3. illegals are paid under the table ... because they can't legally be paid. that means we collect no taxes from them, which means they aren't contributing to support the society they live in.

      4. the US does not have some infinite well of resources. if you let people immigrate arbitrarily, they'll do it to a point where the standard of living is equivalent to where they came from, and only then they'll stop. that means you are letting every other shit hole unmanaged country in the world drag the US down to their level.

      this is why you generally need to show some means of supporting yourself if you want to enter legally.

      5. it's not fair to the people that went through the immigration process legally.

      6. it's not fair to citizens that have to compete with illegals for the same work, as the illegals will necessarily work for less $ and less benefits

      and so on.

    123. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Which is kinda my point. The idea of sending all "foreigners" away is bullshit no matter how you present it.

    124. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You don't realize it, but we're making the same point.

      The idea of sending "foreigners" away is idiotic. We're all foreigners.

    125. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You must not know a lot of immigrants

      we're talking about *illegal* immigrants. legal immigrants are allowed to enter *because* they can show the ability to support themselves. so yeah, duh, thanks for the comment.

    126. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      so basically, since any immigrant could theoretically be "undocumented", we can't legally stop anyone from coming into this country, right? once they are over the border by whatever means, they are in huh? show up in a boat off the coast? i was fishing sir, had a bout of amnesia, and forgot my name and address. i also lost my wallet and ID overboard. heck, even if you catch me at the border, maybe i just got drunk and wandered into mexico and now i want back in (also with amnesia and also i was so drunk i lost my ID and forgot where i live).

      that, in concept, embodies much of what's screwed about the US legal system. overload it with some silly argument that while is technically correct, actually flies in the face of common sense.
       

    127. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      sure, let's treat our immigrants as the khans would have. that would mean torturing the men to death and raping their women.

    128. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I see absolutely no problem with that strategy.

      Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes. Not that real life is ever logically consistent....

    129. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I see absolutely no problem with that strategy.

      i'm shocked.

    130. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      p.s., there's nothing stopping you from living out your beliefs. please, start today. sell everything you own, and send everything you make to 3rd world countries ... that is, everything except the 3 handfuls of rice a day it will cost to sustain you. it's only fair.

      maybe you'll make the argument that you are more a benefit to society if you can produce, and you need resources to produce. well, i'd ask you to speak with the starving people in africa, or the homeless fellow down the street, if they'd rather have you with greater resources to produce, or that $5000 balance in your bank account. i think they'll choose the later. it's only fair to respect them in that.

      of course, you haven't done that. i know because you are sitting in front of a computer, and you haven't sold that yet and sent the money to a 3rd world country. i know because you have electricity to run the computer. you have a broadband connection. even if you are borrowing all that, that's resources that should be shared evenly with those that have less than you ... resources that will essentially be zero by the time you are done sharing.

      Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes.

      so get to it man. figure out where you relatives are from. go there. but before you leave, drop off your belongings, and the contents of your bank account to the nearest reservation.

    131. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Not a single goddamn word of this gibberish has any relation to a word I've said except that bit at the end...

      Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes.

      so get to it man. figure out where you relatives are from. go there. but before you leave, drop off your belongings, and the contents of your bank account to the nearest reservation.

      I never said that was the only solution, I said it was the only *other* solution. There are two logically consistent positions -- let them in, or get out. As stated, I prefer to let them in.

    132. Re: Illegal, Not Undocumented. by JonFremont · · Score: 1

      Undocumented immigrants pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. undocumented workers have to provide false social security data. all federal taxes are deducted. but they get no tax refunds and pay into social security and medicare and payroll taxes. Yet they will never get social security benefits. Its like free money for the fed. Even Alan Greenspan said social security would have been been bankrupt decades ago if not for undocumented workers. Not to mention the jobs they take no american wants. Farmworkers paid almost nothing. dishwashers and cleaners working minimum wage. Do you want pay $10 for a head of lettuce or $20 for a hamburger? Cuz that's what you'll get if you kick them out. that and the collapse of social security and medicare.

    133. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, very few people who are not illegal immigrants would have had any chance at all of getting into the US legally no matter what they did. So it's not like they had an option of getting there legally.

    134. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Great idea!

      I'm quite certain the Native Americans would love to have their country back and see all the descendants of those assholes who slaughtered their people and took their land deported. I wouldn't hold my breath on that readmission line moving too fast, though.

      Problem with that is: We Europeans don't want all those Americans coming over here.

      Your maternal ancestors didn't say that ~1945.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    135. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the one resident of particular area that has the biggest stick. Some of the sticks are just written words.

    136. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Fenster+Karton · · Score: 0

      poor people don't have the resources for "legal" Once across they are quickly exploited as cheap labor. I heard of a man in Hermiston Oregon, hispanic no less, that hired undocumented workers for a 2 week harvest job. They were to be paid upon completion He called immigration and had them picked up 2 days before payday. If you don't see anything wrong with that there is no hope for you..

    137. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by captainlavender · · Score: 1
      Holy shit. What happened to compassion? People come here to escape awful living conditions, persecution, and threats to their physical safety, and then get mercilessly used and taken advantage of when they get here. Our economy relies on them, in fact. Giving them shitty jobs and shitty lives is the only thing sustaining our industry.

      Like, seriously. How is this upvoted? What is wrong here? Is /. just republicans now? This is really upsetting to me.

    138. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Your maternal ancestors didn't say that ~1945.

      First off, how do you know my ancestors weren't nazis?

      Second off, it's cute how you Americans still think you and not the whole "War on two fronts"-thing Hitler pulled won the war.

      You guys do realize that without the Eastern front and The Germans throwing away most of their airforce on The battle of Britain, chances are that The Nazis would have kicked everyone's ass, right?

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    139. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past.

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in. If they didn't, they weren't let in. Apparently Spanish-speaking immigrants are "more special" and don't have to immigrate properly.

      The above is the very definition of racism.

      Speak spanish? Then you're illegal. Jews? Jews are legal.

    140. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Already in the place is already in the place. Nobody is going to send them all elsewhere especially since so many of those who make the rules are already benefiting from a shadow economy of people that can be paid less and treated worse than a "legal" employee. Pretending otherwise is not going to make it all go away by magic and treating these people like subhumans is only making things worse, making that shadow economy even more attractive and reducing the conditions for the "legal" employees.
      The USA cannot afford to send them "home". Just getting angry about it hasn't helped for the last century+ either.

      Isn't paying them less and treating them worse actually treating these people like subhumans?

    141. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Somehow they think this less defamatory. As if driving a car while unlicensed is less illegal than speeding.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    142. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to send them all elsewhere especially since so many of those who make the rules are already benefiting from a shadow economy of people that can be paid less and treated worse than a "legal" employee.

      Of course, you could put the employees who employ them in jail instead of letting them get away with civil penalties. Zuckerberg can pay ANY fine imposed. But what if he were risking a jail term?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    143. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't make illegal immigration wrong, or evil or bad

      I think it makes it perfectly wrong and immoral.
      For one, it's the geopolitical equivalent of line-cutting -- pushing others out of the way because your own sense of entitlement makes you think it's ok. Or that somehow it's ok if it's done for your family, as if those others they cut ahead of didn't have families either. And breaking a country's laws by crossing its borders to settle is worlds more serious than speeding in a car. They aren't even comparable.

      But finally, a country should have the right to decide who crosses its borders and who lives in that country. It should even have the right to decide that maybe it doesn't have the resources to comfortably support thousands or millions of illegal immigrants, and if it doesn't, those people aren't welcome, should be caught, and deported.

    144. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Time to relocate all humans to the exact part of Africa where the species first evolved, then. Everyone elsewhere is an undocumented immigrant who the native species did not welcome.

      That is true. The only thing that really matters is who can take a territory, and who can hold it.

    145. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      BTW, most prefer to be called Indians

      I've heard exactly the opposite -- they don't particularly like being called a naming mistake. That name has no meaning other than they were mistaken for something else, and that's not exactly a source of cultural pride.

    146. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about winning a war. I'm talking about doughboys fucking your grandmother, be she kraut, frog, or limey.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    147. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past.

      Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in. If they didn't, they weren't let in. Apparently Spanish-speaking immigrants are "more special" and don't have to immigrate properly.

      Tell that to the natives...

      In fact the immigrants with more native-American blood are more likely to be thrown out than those with more European blood. Arizona codified what was otherwise an ad-hoc policy.

    148. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
      You've raised some good points, Darinbob. However, when you say, "Many of these laborers are taking jobs that no one else wants to do", I say, "Many of these laborers are taking jobs that no one else wants to do for the wage that these laborers are willing to do them for."

      I believe that the political situation revolves around two simple facts:

      1)Politicians, in general, like having a large underclass of citizens who are in need of help, and thus can be enticed to vote for them.

      2)Business wants to pay the lowest wage possible (just like you and I want to pay the lowest price possible for anything we buy), and bringing in people from poor countries will tend to depress wages, even for legal workers, simply because they must compete with illegal immigrant labor.

      There's no reason Americans wouldn't work agricultural jobs for reasonable wages. Of course, we would pay more for food, but why should we expect that the cost of food should be held down by illegal immigrant labor?

      I have sympathy for the plight of poor people from countries like Mexico where it is so hard to earn a decent living, but the politics of it makes me ill.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    149. Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. by causality · · Score: 1

      You remind me of so many I have encountered before, those who have the skill to usually win arguments despite being dead-wrong. These are not people who ever admit they were mistaken and you never hear that old view from them again. They are true believers. I have acquired enough humility and experience to recognize that nothing I say matters much to such a person, for they have a faith in their beliefs that cannot be shaken by reason.

      You made this a personal matter the moment you implied there were a "select few' and that I regarded myself as among such an elite. It so happens that those who see clearly often are not those with popular positions, but that is not my doing. Oh how I wish that were not so, but I accept that it is and has been for a long time.

      It's a roundabout way of saying that the number who agree with a thing and whether this is generally apprecaited is relevant to the truth of that thing, which is simply and plainly false. I am sorry the clarity of this passed by you unnoticed, for I did try to bring this to your attention, but the feelings and motivations of such a position are not difficult to understand. It's comfortable and cushy to accuse someone of being some kind of elitist while never explaining where their reason is flawed, and so very difficult to refute because it amounts to proving a negative.

      You're a rarity because I can't say for certain whether you just love being right, or whether you really understand what you're doing. But I don't doubt your sincerity for a moment. And if you were wondering, pride has no proper place in such matters, which was exactly my point with my previous post.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  2. Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe you need young people, because they are stupid enough to think that spending hours for your employer is a great way to spend the precious little free time you'll have in your life. I used to think it was cool to spend 3-4 days at a demo party just hacking away. Now I would rather sleep, exercise and keep myself in good shape without worrying about crashing and trying to make up for lack of sleep.

    1. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I would rather sleep, exercise and keep myself in good shape without worrying about crashing and trying to make up for lack of sleep.

      Ah, so you're unemployed too.

      Let's face it, having a work life balance in no longer tolerated in corp America; hence the smartphones keeping one tied to their job 24/7 - and even on vacations.

      Don't like it? There's a Third World citizen who'll do it for half the price and think he's living like a king.

    2. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or young people trying to make a name for themselves and keep a paycheck. Don't know if they still do it, but for years EA expected its programmers and testers to sleep at the office during crunch (and I remember an article where they tried to keep a guy from seeing his own child being born). I saw a little of that visiting (one of) their offices, but I didn't actually work for them and am not allowed to disclose why I was there or what I was working on for them due to the contract and NDA (probably can say when, though - late 1990s).

    3. Re:Young stupid people by billcarson · · Score: 2

      Not stupid, but desperate. Getting a well-paid job isn't easy these times, you know.

    4. Re:Young stupid people by gmack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stupid managers as well. Every few years my employer retries that idea only for the bug counts to skyrocket as the hours get later. After about an 11 hour day, more time is spent fixing bugs created by overtired employees than making actual progress.

    5. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why I work in Europe. Enjoy your land of the free.

    6. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Welcome to you. May I, as a citizen of a european country, ask that you educate yourself on why we have the rights we have and act in a manner that enables us to keep them?

      I'll watch your back and you can watch mine and we'll both be better off than if we start screwing eachother over.

    7. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, as has been said before. Nobody's final regret is wishing they had spent more time in the office. I work because I enjoy it, plus 10 more years wages towards retirement certainly won't go astray. I'm technically contracted for 37.5hrs/wk, it varies but I usually stop when I hit 40hrs because work addiction (like almost every other uncontrolled addiction) is bad for one's physical and mental health (not that I'm a shinning example of either).

      I understand some jobs do require ridiculous hours, I worked as a deckhand on several different fishing trawlers in the Southern Ocean when I was a kid and I can't see how the approximately 3 day shifts can be avoided other than on large factory ships, a small businessman with a 50~100 foot fishing trawler is not going to cut it. If you want me to work an "emergency" double shift these days then fine but be advised I won't be in tomorrow, and I'm too financially comfortable to be unnerved by a hollow threat of unemployment.

      The office overtime thing cuts both ways, the company gets it for free, I get to work when I fucking feel like it's actually important or when I have made a promise to a customer or colleague rather than had an unrealistic promise thrust upon me by a 25yr old middle manager attempting to learn how to suck executive cock. That is my idea of "professional behaviour" wrt to office hours and it has kept me employed for the past 20yrs doing something I like doing much better than trying not to get killed whilst experiencing vivid hallucinations on the high seas from lack of sleep.

      BTW: "Stupid" is way too harsh, "exploited" is more accurate. Young people by definition have very little in the way of life experience to compare to their current work environment and if there are no (or few) older hands below executive level then everybody around you is in the same boat - by design!. It's the same reason conscription was foisted on 18yr olds, they're much easier to convert into obedient "dogs of war" than (say) a 30yr old.

    8. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Therein lay the problem. If you are producing a product that the average third world employee can emulate to 80% accuracy, you have failed yourself.

      For 8 yrs I did nothing but consult on outsourcing clean-up jobs. I helped companies in-source and recruit the right folks while busily fixing the infrastructure issues that had either been implemented or had not been fixed by aforementioned the inexpensive support staff.

      It's amazing how far a company will go and how much they will spend to fix their network and servers when shit doesn't work.

    9. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's also why you produce so little and your economy is shit.

    10. Re:Young stupid people by 0racle · · Score: 1
      None of this is new, or specific to the current downturn. Kids out of school or otherwise without a family would work these very long hours when times were good. Zuckberg said the hire only young workers in 2007, before the current downtrun, and was working that way before he said it.

      "Young people just have simpler lives. We may not own a car. We may not have family." In the absence of those distractions, he says, you can focus on big ideologies. He added, "I only own a mattress." Later: "Simplicity in life allows you to focus on whatâ(TM)s important."

      The message is hire young people and burn them out before they realize their job isn't the whole life they want. Before they find out the job isn't that important.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    11. Re:Young stupid people by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The real life equivalent of the prisoner's dilemma and its solution.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Young stupid people by gsslay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Young people also have little in the way of life experience that allows them to differentiate between "can we do this" and "should we do this".

      Result; no qualms about implementing things on a technical basis without consideration to the social/moral consequences.

      And before you vote me down; I'm not suggesting young people are less morally or socially concerned than anyone else. Just that, plainly, they do not have as much life experience. Many issues that the likes of FB raise are not new just because the technology is. It's the same old struggle between individual rights and the demands of big companies and authorities.

    13. Re:Young stupid people by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      If you want me to work an "emergency" double shift these days then fine but be advised I won't be in tomorrow, and I'm too financially comfortable to be unnerved by a hollow threat of unemployment.

      The problem is that many don't have that level of financial comfort, especially if they're young. It is difficult to have that level of comfort if you're married either, unless it is to somebody who also has a fairly high income and without a desire to go spending it.

    14. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because European countries crack down on companies using "illegal laborers"?

    15. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you work this hard you sell yourself underpriced. This way you never get a well paid job. Its exploitation. If you quit the next people are already waiting. If there are hundreds of cheap labor force why the hell the employer should pay them well?

    16. Re:Young stupid people by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      says the American whose country is basically built on borrowed money.

    17. Re:Young stupid people by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      That's why all your goods are manufactured in China and Bangladesh? That's why you work so many hours? Because you "produce" so much?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    18. Re:Young stupid people by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I first graduated from college, I was lucky enough to have a coworker who had gotten over that. He worked hard and fast, and was focused during work, but as soon as 5:00 came around, he relaxed and went home.

      This was a new thing to me, because I was used to being in college where I had to stay up all night if my project/homework wasn't done. If I hadn't worked with him, I would have stayed with the 'all-nighter' attitude for a long time, because I didn't know anything better.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young people can do the impossible because they are too inexperienced to know it can't be done.

    20. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stated negatively, young people lack the experience to understand that employers ask and demand (in specific cases) that the employees do things that the employers cannot legally require the employees to do--"stay late", or, uncompensated overtime, etc., etc. Experienced people typically know what the employers can ask and what they can & cannot require.

    21. Re:Young stupid people by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      How is spending 3-4 days hacking at a demo party spending hours for your employer ? Are we talking about the same kind of demoparty ?
      Demo parties are, well, parties. There is music, drinks, people socialize, etc... that's closer to burning man than work if you ask me.

    22. Re:Young stupid people by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It could be worse. The company I work for thinks it's a good idea to get rid of all the people who have experience with their code base, and replace them with people who don't for the same amount of money. Then they get upset when the new people don't know the code within a week of starting.

    23. Re:Young stupid people by lgw · · Score: 2

      Let's face it, having a work life balance in no longer tolerated in corp America; hence the smartphones keeping one tied to their job 24/7 - and even on vacations.

      Bullshit. Software development is still a profession, and there's no reason to put up with that. I sure as Hell don't, and have no problem finding jobs. The exception is your first job to break into the profession, where you should reasonably expect a crap job simply because the supply of people who would like to enter the profession, but haven't proven themselves yet, is so high.

      Facebook is still very much centered in "first-job culture", but is trying to pay enough to keep people past their first couple of years. For some reason, they have great difficulty attracting senior engineers (and don't really know what they're for). I'm rather glad that when I interviewed with them recently, not knowing much about them, that we determined quite quickly that it wasn't a match. Facebook knows exactly what it's looking for, that's for sure.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Young stupid people by lgw · · Score: 1

      Your first job will be crap, that's a given. But it shouldn't take long to get to the point where you have both the financial resources and the work history to not live in fear of losing your job.

      As I see it, the real problem here is the utter lack of financial education in America, whereby otherwise smart people live in really financially stupid ways in their 20s. I sure as heck did. Your employer will have you over a barrel until you both learn to live well below your means, and learn what to do with the money you save. These are simple things to learn compared to an engineering degree!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Young stupid people by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      As I see it, the real problem here is the utter lack of financial education in America, whereby otherwise smart people live in really financially stupid ways in their 20s. I sure as heck did. Your employer will have you over a barrel until you both learn to live well below your means, and learn what to do with the money you save. These are simple things to learn compared to an engineering degree!

      Sure, simple to learn, but pretty hard to actually practice unless you're single, or unless you happen to marry somebody who also values living within means (usually means not having kids, or certainly not indulging them, etc).

    26. Re:Young stupid people by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You're seriously arguing that sleeping is some how less wasteful than working for some one?

      Heres a hint, it is entirely possible to work for an employer AND have a balanced life outside of work. Young people know this themselves as well, tell me this ... WTF were you doing at a demo party hacking away if you didn't find it entertaining and meaningful at the time?

      Did you go to demo partys against your will and end up getting turned into Future Crew's bitch as they forced you to write code?

      I just don't get what you're saying, its like you woke up and realized you no longer liked what you were doing as a kid, had a revaluation about it and somehow think you've figured out something no one else has figured out.

      Let me give you a hint, what happened to you ...is you grew up. Nothing more.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    27. Re:Young stupid people by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, you have to make wise decisions in life or your life deserves to suck. Perhaps that's the place to start with better education? With the somehow-missing idea that you can't escape the consequences of your decisions, so you might want to think them through?

      I find financial ignorance excusable (at least, in one's 20s), because our society seems intent on keeping people exploitable, but the other problem seems to be a deep cultural issue. People work so hard to shield children (and now even adults!) from the world, and the fundamental notion that you can hurt yourself through foolish choices by removing any pain from those choices. Seems like a foolish choice, to me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:Young stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US manufacturing is still 20% of the world output you know.

    29. Re:Young stupid people by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sure, you have to make wise decisions in life or your life deserves to suck.

      Are you suggesting that getting married one of those unwise decisions? If you get married, your ability to achieve financial independence is for the most part entirely out of your own control.

    30. Re:Young stupid people by lgw · · Score: 1

      Getting married to a fool is a foolish decision, as is going into business with a fool as a partner. It's basic responsibility: before entering into a long term committed relationship with someone (for any purpose), it's on you to ensure you're comfortable with any decision your partner is likely to make. The fact that arguments over money are, the last I heard, still a leading cause of break-ups tells me people aren't talking about the important stuff beforehand.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Young stupid people by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Getting married to a fool is a foolish decision

      Or an ignorant one.

      The fact that arguments over money are, the last I heard, still a leading cause of break-ups tells me people aren't talking about the important stuff beforehand.

      Either that, or talking about the important stuff beforehand doesn't prevent later arguments over the same things later.

    32. Re:Young stupid people by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, there's always the chance you'll grow apart. But from what I've seen among my friends, once there's agreement in principle that "it's important to save real amounts of money", couples become more in tune on the details over the years - it's that first agreement that's the sticking point.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. Bad summary by barlevg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Conflating two stories that shouldn't be conflated: the FWD.us hackathon isn't a Facebook-employee lock-in. It's (basically) a publicity stunt designed to help / help raise awareness for immigration reform. That has nothing to do with any tyrannical measures Zuckerberg is taking as CEO.

    1. Re:Bad summary by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like a honeypot set up by US immigration, but maybe I'm just too cynical.

    2. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if only it WAS.

      You see illegals picketing all the time in D.C.....why no crackdown/arrests/deportations?

    3. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      One could only hope so. Illegal immigration is one of the driving economic factors killing this country (not discounting the brain damaged policies coming out of the current administration). It's been well established that a very large percentage of those who come here illegally because "they only want a better life" end up in prison for things like robbery, rape, murder, drugs, etc. If they had no respect for our laws when they came here why would they respect our laws after the fact? I've witnessed it personally. They have no interest in the American way of life. It's all viva la raza while sucking up all of our resources. Instead of amnesty we need to start talking about rounding them up, shipping them to Antarctica, and let them walk back. At least it would take a bit longer for them to get back here.

    4. Re:Bad summary by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if only it WAS.

      You see illegals picketing all the time in D.C.....why no crackdown/arrests/deportations?

      Well, you see, America has what's called a "Two party system". One of the parties operates under the bleeding-heart assumption that illegal immigrants might actually be humans, and might actually vote for them. The other party isn't that optimistic; but likes its laborers cheap, expendable, and powerless.

      (Also, when it comes to playing law-enforcement whack-a-mole, fighting the 'war on drugs' and getting some of that sweet, sweet, civil forfeiture action pays so much better than rounding up illegal mexicans.)

    5. Re:Bad summary by andy1307 · · Score: 1
      You're missing theodp's point.
      1. The Man's keeping you down
      2. They're going to take yer jobs
    6. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got that right!
      They will take it in a heart beat.
      Then when they get in trouble, flash they disappear.

    7. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you're so objective I can't tell which one you favor!

      Really though if you favor either one, you're a sucker. The point of a two party system is to play you in the middle. Sort of like good cop, bad cop only they swap roles every now and then.

    8. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same illegals who got permission to host a rally on areas that were closed off to the public during the government shutdown?

      In -any- other country, they would be rounded up, tossed in a paddy wagon, processed, then sent back to their home country, stat. If seen again, they would be rounded up, put in a prison for 5-10 years, then send home. Here in the US, they seem to be the next Democratic voting bloc, so they are treated with more respect than WWII vets who actually gave something to the country.

      Of course, the Reps and the teabaggers are not the light-on-the-hill party either.

    10. Re:Bad summary by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But Zuckerberg needs the illegals to accomplish his "come as close to [locking people in the buildings as possible]"

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:Bad summary by BVis · · Score: 1

      It's been well established that a very large percentage of those who come here illegally because "they only want a better life" end up in prison for things like robbery, rape, murder, drugs, etc.

      Well established in your mind, maybe. The rest of us would like you to cite your (objective) source. Blaze, Fox News, World Net Daily are not sources, they're parodies.

      Instead of amnesty we need to start talking about rounding them up, shipping them to Antarctica, and let them walk back.

      How would you like to pay for that? I'm sure you'd rather rip your legs off than pay more in taxes.

      If they had no respect for our laws when they came here why would they respect our laws after the fact?

      Because they don't want to attract attention to themselves? Getting arrested is a really good way to get deported if you're here illegally.

      They have no interest in the American way of life.

      Work hard, get ahead, leave something better for your kids. Sounds pretty American to me. All the immigrants I know work pretty fucking hard at shitty jobs so they can send money back "home".

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    12. Re:Bad summary by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You call it cynical - I call it hopeful.

    13. Re:Bad summary by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Conflating two stories that shouldn't be conflated

      Why not? Both have to do with reducing the hourly cost of labor, which Zuck is keen to do as he believes he's undercompensated.

    14. Re:Bad summary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And I'd like to lock him up as long as possible, and I don't get my wish either, so why should he?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd feel better about it if it was a honeypot. In reality it's just a slave labor event masquerading as a hack-a-thon. I find the latter more depressing and secretly hope it is a honeypot and all of the illegal immigrants there are deported.

    16. Re:Bad summary by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Because they don't want to attract attention to themselves?

      you must live in a different world to the fucked up one we live in.

      Here in Britain, we had a failed asylum seeker appear ON TV to argue about immigration reforms with the minister. He (the immigrant) had been turned down 5 times by the courts on (costly) appeal after appeal as the judge said he had no case whatsoever, and now he's just walking around with impunity.

      That's what our system has become, idiots defending the cheat who falsely claimed asylum to get in the country to basically take advantage of the economic strength we have built up over the decades.

      Note that whilst its admirable for these people to work hard and send money home, its not a benefit to the economy if all your dollars disappear to the third world making your currency weaker and weaker. Nor is it a benefit if it means your native workers are on unemployment benefits because the jobs have been taken by exceptionally cheap immigrant workers. The system is screwed, and frankly, we should be working to make their own countries better than bringing them here to work like slaves.

    17. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DAY TUK R JABS! Sweet Southpark episode.

    18. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work hard, get ahead, leave something better for your kids. Sounds pretty American to me. All the immigrants I know work pretty fucking hard at shitty jobs so they can send money back "home".

      True. I respect the fact that they've traveled quite a distance, gone through Lord knows what obstacles to get here, and then work their asses off. I would just prefer they would have done it through legal means although the US immigration clusterf*ck makes that difficult. How about we deport to Antarctica the the moochers and parasites who can't be bothered to move to the next county for a job?

    19. Re:Bad summary by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      You see illegals picketing all the time in D.C.....why no crackdown/arrests/deportations?

      Probably because the police department that tried that would get slammed with so many millions of dollars in wrongful imprisonment and civil rights lawsuits. Which would then be paid out of your tax dollars.

      a) Not everyone at those things are illegal. I'm a native-born citizen and I've attended several events like that
      b) The bill of rights applies whether you're a citizen or not. Notice that it always says PEOPLE, not citizens. Such an assault would violate the first, and possibly fourth, fifith, and sixth amendments.

  4. so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    genuinely curious. if you have time to arrest and send people out for making remarks on twitter how come undocumented(I assume that's double speak for illegally working) immigrants can hold public meetings?

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      POTUS Obama has ordered the INS/DHS/and others not to arrest undocumented immigrants/illegal immigrants/illegal aliens. This has been reported in the Main Stream Media for years. (Remember Obama's law-breaking uncle?)

    2. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because this administration just sees future voters for the democratic party. Why get all hung up on the fact that they're breaking the law? They do it everyday.

    3. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      how come undocumented ... immigrants can hold public meetings?

      Mostly because the First Amendment right to assembly is not restricted to US citizens.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Lithdren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe because being undocumented has nothing to do with being here illegally? While its possible, its not a given, as many different situations can cause someone to become an undocumented individual who cannot prove their citizenship or right to be in the country. Lucky we're not all jerks and deport people without due cause.

    5. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is irrelevant. If someone organised a convention of bank robbers you wouldn't arrest the attendees for holding an unlawful assembly. You'd arrest them for robbing banks.

      That said, I don't think they should be arrested. Immigration law needs some serious reform.

    6. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think attendance at a bank robber conventions is sufficient to arrest someone. You'd need a warrant for that person's arrest, meaning reasonable suspicion he had actually robbed a bank.

      Put another way, arresting people just because they chose to attend a gathering *is* an infringement of their right to assembly. The exception being if the gathering itself is criminal, e.g. a conspiracy meeting or a riot.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    7. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Cite? Obama has actually been tougher on illegal aliens than his predecessors. Cheap labor from illegal aliens is near and dear to wealthy Texans.

    8. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Maybe because being undocumented has nothing to do with being here illegally?

      Indeed, the two rarely coincide.

    9. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because the dems don't wanna throw out those poor humans who just want a better life and the GOP doesn't want to get rid of cheap labour that allows more pressure on the domestic workforce.

      So who would have an interest in making that bust?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US, but is the law enforcement not allowed to check whether someone is legal in the country? In mine not being able to prove that you are who you claim to be is kinda asking for trouble.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by internerdj · · Score: 1

      You would think that would be a straightforward question, but it isn't. Probably not like you are expecting. It is a federal crime but most law enforcement you would encounter is state or local. There have been some major concerns over it being a racial issue and the states that have the biggest problem with illegal immigrants committing other crimes have a poor racial track record.

    12. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by fldsofglry · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US, but is the law enforcement not allowed to check whether someone is legal in the country?

      Generally, no they can't. There have been some laws in some states that are trying to make this possible, but as encountered resistance. In the US, most people use a driver's license as their ID as opposed to a passport. You don't need to be a citizen, or even here legally, to get a driver's license in many states.

      https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

    13. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which is why you can't get rid of gangs by arresting them.....they have a right to assemble as gangmembers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      what does the right to assemble have to do with it?

      I mean, they're publicly admitted people who are "working" - not paying taxes and presumably not having permits to even be in the country? right to assembly is generally not something that makes you immune from your legal status. otherwise you'd have fugitive assemblies that would last all day and month..

      Surely immigration to USA can't be that simple that I just come over with a tourist permit, burn it and my passport and start making public appearances with speeches about how easy it is to move in? that sounds ridiculous now doesn't it?

      I mean how can you give them such freedom - while having stop-and-frisk policy and tattoo database for others ? ?

      (and I really, really doubt that the people are the kind of people who just lost their birth certificate in a fire or something- come on, they're startup techies)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly because the First Amendment right to assembly is not restricted to US citizens.

      Right.

      Free speech zones have more or less squashed that right. Invasive government spying has more or less killed freedom of association. The police lying about the source of their evidence has more or less killed the right to a fair trial and to see the evidence against you. 'Border' searches which cover 100 miles from any border mean your 4th amendment rights don't exist any more. Reporters being ordered to testify has killed your freedom of the press.

      The US isn't free anymore, and hasn't been in some time. Your Constitutional 'rights' are being interpreted away by courts, and undermined by your own government.

      Anybody who believes the Constitution is still in effect is delusional.

    16. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the previous poster was referring to was the lawsuit filed by one of the ICE unions against the Obama administration for restricting them from performing arrests in the interior US as well as counting Border Patrol deportations twice - once for the BP, and again for ICE.

    17. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not easily.

      Until recently, people in the US tended to make fun of "papers, please" countries and regimes. I can be required to identify myself to law enforcement, but not (as far as I know) provide documentation. There's no way for a law enforcement officer to quickly tell the difference between somebody illegally in the country and a US citizen who isn't carrying proof of citizenship.

      My government-issued ID (my driver's license) doesn't list my nationality. Unless I have a special purpose, I never carry any documentation of being a US citizen, and neither does anybody else I know. I am required to provide proof of being legally able to work when being hired. I think that's a federal law, although I don't know its constitutional justification. It doesn't seem to stop people from hiring illegal immigrants en masse, though.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:so why isn't the meeting going to be busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely immigration to USA can't be that simple that I just come over with a tourist permit, burn it and my passport and start making public appearances with speeches about how easy it is to move in? that sounds ridiculous now doesn't it?

      If you want to immigrate illegally, yep. You've nailed it.

  5. FWD.us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook's wealth demands unlimited slavery

    1. Re:FWD.us by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      Facebook's wealth demands unlimited slavery

      Maybe that's why they tried to get into the phone business. Hey, it worked for Apple.

  6. Breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Admitting to age discrimination are we?

    1. Re:Breaking the law by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Admitting to age discrimination are we?

      Of course not. Our HR department's compliance specialists would love to assure you that no such violations are taking place. Now, as an unfortunate matter of fact, old, uncool, balding sickies with 'families' and 'lives outside work' happen to be a poor fit for our company culture, and our hiring process takes ensuring the continuation of the company's innovative culture very seriously; but all applications are given the consideration that the law requires.

    2. Re:Breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, as an unfortunate matter of fact, old, uncool, balding sickies with 'families' and 'lives outside work' happen to be a poor fit for our company culture

      See you in 15 years...

      Your 'culture' is one of burnout. Look around you. It may take you a few mins. How many of the people you work with have you known for more than 5 years? 2? 1? You are letting your experience walk out the door. Experience that cost you time and money.

      our hiring process takes ensuring the continuation of the company's innovative culture very seriously
      Innovation is not on a time schedule. If you crunch harder you will not find it. Innovation comes from new problems that need solving. If you are always crunching when do you have time to do it? Having worked with a few companies like that. I can tell you. You have 0 time to do it. You are always 'fixing things' or 'adding new features some customer wanted' (but its actually a easy thing to add). Never inventing things that will bring in 100k more customers or even a few whale customers.

      all applications are given the consideration that the law requires
      Thank you for your application.

    3. Re:Breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sarcasm detector seems to be a little... rusty.

    4. Re:Breaking the law by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The fact that two people missed the sarcasm enough to feel that it was worth commenting gives me the unpleasant suspicion that people who aren't being sarcastic apply this theory of hiring with some frequency...

  7. If all this is true by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and I admit to not reading the many links, but taking the article at face value (dangerous I know)
    BUT
    if all of it is true and accurate, it sounds like Mr. Z is a world-class asshole and is trying to bring back the dark days of robber barons building their wealth on the backs/lives of indentured servants...

    Yet one more reason (like you needed another really) not to use Facebook

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:If all this is true by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      Suckerberg, my bad, Zuckerberg is a world-class asshole.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:If all this is true by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Why do you think that Silicon valley has an entire population of wealthy and petulant .com zillionaires with schemes to build their own nominally-libertarian company towns outside of national jurisdiction?

    3. Re:If all this is true by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's a town full of people with specializations in a growth field (so they think its as easy for anyone else as they perceived it to be), and then they became rich so now there worldviews will never be challenged, nor will they ever experience any of the issues anyone else ever does.

      As was noted in an article on the Great Depression, perspective colors everything: if you were rich and didn't lose everything, and lived in the right neighbourhood then "there were no bread lines".

    4. Re:If all this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suckerberg, my bad, Zuckerberg is a world-class asshole.

      Yes, because as we all know, the way to topple any empire with massive public support* is to make up grade-school-level nicknames to anything related to it. I mean, if it weren't for Thomas Brownston, a 16-year-old delinquent high school student in Piqua, OH coming up with the moniker of "Shitler", the Normandy invasion would have been a complete failure and the Nazis would rule all of Europe by this point. So, keep fighting the good fight, TheDarkMaster! Don't ever grow up or mature in the slightest bit, else They(tm) might win! Oh, and make sure you remain as blunt as possible. It should look like it hurt like hell to shoehorn your jokes in your one-line posts. It's the only way anyone will notice how clever you are!

      *: When network effect is what keeps the system going, simply using the service constitutes "massive public support", regardless of the petty whining of the serfs who're going to bug their friends into using it anyway.

    5. Re:If all this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Jewish thing, you wouldn't understand. Immigration is a weapon Jews use against the White majority. Read "Culture of Critique" by MacDonald. Mossad got away with 911, and now we're *all* Palestinians. Google: WTC7

    6. Re:If all this is true by deadweight · · Score: 1

      And you could buy just about ANYTHING for 5 cents on the dollar. If I had a giant pile of cash in 1930 I would arrive at 1950 with a mountain and a half of it!

    7. Re:If all this is true by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Hi Zuckerberg :-)

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    8. Re:If all this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    it's the employees' choices to stay and work there.

    However, these kind of antics seem somewhat tyrannical or unethical to me. To a fb hater like myself (never used and never will), this is more justification to not use that site.

    1. Re:I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait how?

  9. Highly educated slaves by korbulon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the true goal of these companies, and a big reason they're all so keen on H1B1.

    These big tech fucks move into a town, drive the real estate prices sky-high so you basically have to be upper management to own a place outside the "campus", and if not then you must either live well outside the critical radius and spend at least an hour commuting (good luck with your family), or opt to live within company provided housing ( http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Facebook-partner-to-build-Menlo-Park-housing-4860826.php ).

    But this has been done before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town. Sigh. So wearisome.

    1. Re:Highly educated slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you saying you expect some egalitarianism with the shiny tech jobs? Sir, utopia is not on this continent.

    2. Re:Highly educated slaves by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Ah, the plan will not be complete until we can pay the workers in scrip. I'm pretty sure that ZyngaCash isn't an option, since Facebook is having togetherness issues with them. Does Facebook have a pseudo-currency they could use?

    3. Re:Highly educated slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin.

    4. Re:Highly educated slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but we (as in society as a whole not every member of it) keep falling for these robber baron cycles because so many people are morons and vote against their interests simply by the powers that be labeling anyone as "socialist" who speaks out against this. And this is MURKA! WE AINT NO SOCIALISTS!!!

    5. Re:Highly educated slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European here. Utopia is not here either but I think we're a bit closer than our friends across the pond wrt. egalitarianism in shiny tech jobs. Please come here and work with us. You won't be the only ones.

      In my own company, the number of american ex-pats have been growing steadily and they're more than welcome. Despite what the media might be telling you, if you are a skilled worked, there is room for you in almost any country in Europe.

    6. Re:Highly educated slaves by khallow · · Score: 1

      These big tech fucks move into a town, drive the real estate prices sky-high

      Right. I bet that happens all the time. Just don't in places that attract them then.

    7. Re:Highly educated slaves by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that joke.

      A drunk climbs in a bus and yells out "All the people on the right are MORONS. And all the people on the left are SOCIALISTS."

      One guy on the left gets up and yells back "Hey! I'm no socialist!"

      The drunk points to the right "Then you belong over there"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. tl;dr by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    tl;dr - if you want to be a huge success in business, you need to be an a**hole

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:tl;dr by guytoronto · · Score: 1

      This is the internet. You're allowed to swear.

    2. Re:tl;dr by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's "cut throat" but not necessary "a**hole".

    3. Re:tl;dr by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Too bad Cutthroats can't tell the difference.

  11. Lockdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know of a company here where the alarm goes off at 5pm and if you're not out by 5:15pm, you are locked in for the night.

    She makes not working late attractive.

  12. I guess since the US hasn't had their own dark age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they feel compelled to catch up. Welcome to feudalism.

  13. Immigration reform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Immigration reform, local wage suppression, what's the difference.

    1. Re:Immigration reform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One sounds nicer in press releases. Anyone who still believes the industry's H1-B bullshit in this day and age truly is a tard.

    2. Re:Immigration reform? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Legalizing the undocumented would help wages, compared to keeping them forever as an underclass with no legal recourse and limited options like we do. Companies prefer the status quo of easy exploitation.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  14. The jokes on Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As with any large company that writes code as its primary product.... Most of the people do very little even though they do long hours. At FB only a couple of core teams do most of the work and even then there are a handful key players on those teams.

  15. So he's still an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No news there. :)
    I would be afraid to use his services.

  16. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, you're lying. The babies born here are all documented. The illegals know that they have to get a US birth certificate for their babies, not for the "anchor baby" as much as to get WIC. Your red herring is transparent and stinks. And no, conviction is not required for an act to be illegal; a law is.

    1. Re:Bullshit by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your red herring is transparent and stinks.

      It's transparent and red? I think we've just discovered the Invisible Pink Unicorn equivalent of the devil...!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Bullshit by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Oi! Twattish AC!

      Brilliant!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Bullshit by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You're being factually incorrect

      Where is the GP being factually incorrect?

      You don't actually have to accuse someone of "lying" if they merely have a different opinion to you!

      Now you're contradicting yourself. Is the meaning of "undocumented immigrant" a question of fact or opinion?

      The term is so widely, and so clearly, used as a synonym for illegal alien, that I don't consider it a matter of opinion. You are technically correct though in saying it doesn't mean the GP is lying, since lying is defined as deliberately telling a falsehood. The alternative is the the GP is ignorant enough to believe it's true.

    4. Re:Bullshit by BVis · · Score: 1

      The alternative is the the GP is ignorant enough to believe it's true.

      Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Todays "Occam's Razor" prize goes to ebno-10db!

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    5. Re:Bullshit by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      This is an example of how anti-intellectualism gets rationalized in the US. Neither nashv nor the AC stated any opinion. They both made statements of fact. One, the other, or both could be factually wrong, and you clearly think that the AC is factually wrong as you specifically say so. A statement of fact that is wrong is not an opinion.

      The anti-intellectual rational goes like this:
      The opposite of opinion is fact.
      Thus the opposite of fact is opinion.
      A fact is also something that is correct.
      Something that is incorrect is the opposite of something that is correct.
      Thus, the opposite of something that is correct is the opposite of a fact.
      The opposite of fact is opinion.
      Something that is incorrect is an opinion.
      Opinions can't be wrong by their very nature.
      Thus something that is incorrect must be correct!!!

    6. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Transparent" doesn't mean perfectly transparent. It means that light of certain wavelengths will pass through (in a sizable fraction of its original intensity) without being absorbed, reflected, or scattered.

      "Clear" window glass allows visible wavelengths to pass through, but blocks ultraviolet light. Glass which is transparent red allows red wavelengths to pass through but substantially blocks the other wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Etc.

    7. Re:Bullshit by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      'Factually incorrect' comment was only referring to AC's accusation of lying.

    8. Re:Bullshit by janimal · · Score: 1

      Sweet!

  17. Zuckerberg by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A fine example of leadership without empathy.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Zuckerberg by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A fine example of leadership with the whip instead of the incentive.

      Should he ever be unable to make even as little as one payment, people are gone. You get what you give, especially when it comes to loyalty. My boss can expect me (and I'd wager pretty much everyone working there) to pull through if for whatever reason he should be unable to pay our wages for a month. Because we know that he'll do whatever he can to make sure that not only he can pay us again but we also want the company to survive.

      With Zuckerberg it's probably more akin to "Ok, Marc, it's payday. You now spit out 30 Benjamins or 30 teeth, your call, but I get them damn right now".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Zuckerberg by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Should he ever be unable to make even as little as one payment, people are gone.

      He's not going to have that problem for a long, long time. And even if his company eventually did go bankrupt, unless he acts like a complete idiot with his money, he's set for life.

    3. Re:Zuckerberg by jayesel · · Score: 1

      A fine example of why millennials need to work for someone before ever being given mantle of CEO. Whatever, it's America land of people who like bright shiny things, and a people who think that success is equal to genius. No the kid got lucky, but he's a tyrant wannabe Jobs, without 1/2 the imagination. Then again you don't need much to feed the simplistic self-obsessed nature of Americans these days.

  18. Sounds like he figured out the truth by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like ZB figured out the truth about America and is acting upon it. The only way to hire people is to ensure that they have little ability to appeal to the American court system.

    1. Re:Sounds like he figured out the truth by malkavian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No idea how you managed to get a -1 for that.. It's the reason I didn't move to the US long ago (the balance between the worker and employer is screwed, and it's only become worse as time has progressed).. It does seem as though some corporates really are trying to set up an environment that is very close to indentured servitude. Natural citizens still have legal privileges that trump the desires of the corporates for cheap labour, so they want to import.
      That, really, is a crappy way to do business. It'll work in a short term, but ends up as a race to the bottom, and probable collapse far earlier than necessary (wasting a lot of long term productivity and profit).

    2. Re:Sounds like he figured out the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 because it is probably Zuckerberg himself modding down what he sees as the most damaging comments.

    3. Re:Sounds like he figured out the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find that employees at places like Facebook are doing just fine.

  19. So? by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I had any interest at all in working for the latest version of MySpace.com, this might be upsetting, but I don't, so who cares?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:So? by Lithdren · · Score: 2

      Because when someone starts doing something that makes them a lot of money, whatever methods they are using has this really nasty tendency to spread like a disease. While this particular flavor of CEO may not be affecting you, its all together possible he's going to end up rubbing off on some other flavor of CEO who is. And if not you, someone you care about.

    2. Re:So? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Because other companies will follow suit if Facebook is successful in this tactic. You're extremely naive to think that this will only ever happen at Facebook, etc.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had any interest at all in working for the latest version of MySpace.com, this might be upsetting, but I don't, so who cares?

      -jcr

      But... But, but - you posted about it; you stole away my time (along with everyone else's) along with your's again for reading this reply. Why? Why???!!! You Zucker-wannabe. :)

    4. Re:So? by jmhobrien · · Score: 1

      Because it dilutes the gravy train.

      --
      Where is moderation: -1 False?
    5. Re:So? by jittles · · Score: 1

      If I had any interest at all in working for the latest version of MySpace.com, this might be upsetting, but I don't, so who cares?

      -jcr

      The correct name of Mark Z's company is "FaceSpace"

    6. Re:So? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      First they came...

      Not speaking out about wrongs that don't directly affect you harms the society you live in.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    7. Re:So? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Oh, get serious. We're talking about a job that people can leave if they don't like it.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:So? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      If this was the only thing like this that employers were doing, I might be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately, there are more abuses than that described in this article, in just the last month. It sometimes seems like the goal of employers is to see how much they can screw employees over without getting in trouble.

      Fortunately, things aren't as bad as they were in the Great Depression, but I imagine Steinbeck would be writing about company practices like these if he were to write Grapes of Wrath today. Of course, we also have some laws to minimize the abuses employers can perpetrate upon their employees - due in no small part to the reaction to such abuses perpetrated in the past.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  20. Zuckerberg H. Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think bosses prefer hiring HB-1s and illegals because it gives them something powerful to hold over the employees head. If the employee feels secure in their life, then they are more likely to challenge the employer and stand up for reasonable rights. So, "immigration reform" to these companies is a way for them to legalize slavery while importing people whose only goal is to export as much of their paycheck back to their home countries as possible.

    And seriously, employee lock-ins? Why do people put up with that crap? Is working at a social media company, which will most like be replaced by another social media company within five years, some great honor? People need to have some respect for themselves.

    1. Re:Zuckerberg H. Christ by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      I've always had very mixed feelings about unions, and never had any desire to join one. Something like that would change my mind. If I can dream, I'd love to see Facebook shut down by a strike, with the strikers returning only if strict work rules are implemented.

    2. Re:Zuckerberg H. Christ by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And seriously, employee lock-ins? Why do people put up with that crap? Is working at a social media company, which will most like be replaced by another social media company within five years, some great honor?

      Because people will put up with a lot of bullshit to keep their jobs, especially if the economy is bad.

  21. let the hysteria commence by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's nothing in the linked articles to suggest that these "lock-ins" are any different than what many other companies do, especially start-ups, when there is a crucial problem at hand. (To me this 'necessity' sometimes indicates poor management and planning, other times perhaps it's needed). I notice that the first Google result I found isn't mentioned in the summary. It clarifies a bit what the lockdown means, apparently doesn't mean no one is allowed to leave the office or other such nonsense. The link to the Bangladeshi factory story appears to be an absurd comparison.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  22. Intel calls it Dungeons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel has something similar thing where employees aren't supposed to work until the problem gets fixed. Literally the rooms are called "Dungeons" (they used to have signs on the door, but HR told them to pull it down). Everyone still calls it a dungeon though.

    The dungeons pull in people from a bunch of groups, all into the same room to solve the problem. This could last for a number of days (or months), but people work extremely long hours. In general, free food isn't a perk from Intel, but during dungeons they give both lunch and dinner to keep you working.

    1. Re:Intel calls it Dungeons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      employees aren't supposed to work until the problem gets fixed..

      Yeah, I've tried that method myself, but it doesn't always work out for me...

    2. Re:Intel calls it Dungeons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you are completely and utterly full of shit. There is no company-wide concept of "Dungeons".

  23. so lets get the real story by nimbius · · Score: 1

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Facebook-Reviews-E40772.htm

    according to 500 people, facebook is a nice company to work for and they all approve of zuckerberg. Thats not a lot considering facebook employs far more people than just those 500 reviewers. Facebookers: feel free to update information accordingly to we can at least attempt an objective view of this mans policies and actions as glorious leader.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:so lets get the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      97% approve of Zuckerberg? Hahahaha. Either that company is a cult or you can clearly tell that the reviews have been stacked by shills.

    2. Re:so lets get the real story by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      " facebook employs far more people than just those 500 reviewers"

      curious turn of phrase.

    3. Re:so lets get the real story by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Facebook should be an expert at reputation management.

      Maybe that's why their income is surging.

  24. Illegal != Undocumented by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I assume that's double speak for illegally working

    Undocumented means exactly what it you think the word means. It means there is no documentation available to prove the person's citizenship status. If I were to lose certain important documents, I would be undocumented and I'm a US citizen. Often immigrants who are here illegally are also undocumented but undocumented does not mean illegal and illegal does not mean undocumented.

    1. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      Illegal == undocumented in the context of this discussion. No one engaged in this discussion is interested in deporting someone who lost his social security card.

    2. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm sure there are some who are; I was using hyperbole when I said "No one". But I haven't come across anyone like that, personally.

    3. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      All the more reason to stop using the term "undocumented immigrant" when the issue is illegal immigrants. I know of no one opposed to helping people find their paperwork, but people who are here illegally is another story.

    4. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Same problem as Voter ID. Simple solution would be an effort to provide everyone with state-issued ID and require its use then we could satisfy both sides, but then we can't have the other side lose. We've gotten to the point where we can't even entertain the thought that the other side of the political spectrum can have a valid concern.

    5. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Illegal == undocumented in the context of this discussion.

      100% wrong. Illegal is illegal and undocumented is undocumented. They both mean very specific things and the context of the discussion is irrelevant. If a person is illegal AND undocumented then the only correct statement is to say they are both. Someone can be legal and undocumented or illegal and documented.

    6. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Context means everything. The issue isn't people who have lost their documents and somehow can't possibly get new ones. The issue is illegal immigrants who don't have documents, and people on one side of the debate are trying to deceptively frame it in a certain light.

    7. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If I were to lose certain important documents, I would be undocumented and I'm a US citizen.
      You might be temporarily personally without documentation, but you would not be undocumented. Unless all of the official files that various agencies hold pertaining to your citizenship all happen to get lost at the same time.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Still has to be part of the discussion, since there are *already* native-born US citizens spending months in prison for being undocumented. Sometimes forced to work in prison at $1/day to earn the money to purchase a new copy of their birth certificate from the government.

      So anyone saying we should do more deportation and crack down harder is *also* saying we should be doing more of that to our own citizens, because we've already proven we can't do one without the other. Which is why I wanna say a big FUCK YOU to anyone who feels that way.

    9. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! I can get my papers replaced easily and so can someone who loses their physical work permit. Can you imagine losing your passport in the Bahamas and being told you can never come home again? Also note that if I get pulled over for driving "undocumented", it will take the po-po about 3 minutes to figure out if I am lying about losing my wallet or really have no license.

    10. Re:Illegal != Undocumented by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If I were to lose certain important documents, I would be undocumented and I'm a US citizen.

      No you wouldn't. You just wouldn't have a copy of your documentation. The government still does, it has several documents in multiple places that show your origin. Your status is trivial to verify to the government even if you can't 'show your papers'.

      Undocumented is just a bullshit way of trying to make them out to be something they are not.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  25. I worked for a place like that by morgauxo · · Score: 2

    I worked for a place like that. It went out of business when all the employees got fed up, found new jobs and left.

  26. Who''s stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not stupid, but desperate. Getting a well-paid job isn't easy these times, you know.

    Well paid?

    If you consider all the hours, stress, and bullshit one has to put up with from billionaires who got real lucky, the pay in software development sucks.

    I have a relative who is an electrician for a utility. He works less annual hours but with the storm overtime and shift differentials, he pulls in over $100K (after union dues) - AND he has a pension.

    AND his job can't get off-shored.

    Sure there are some late nights freezing his ass off, but at least he's PAID for it. Oh, and at 50+, he (and everyone else his age or older) hasn't "aged out" like many of us do in this industry.

    1. Re:Who''s stupid? by billcarson · · Score: 1

      I happen to know quite a few electricians as well. Let's just say I wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now. There are plenty of people with an equal degree who are jobless, so pay is low in that sector. Every day their job pool is shrinking (recently a local car plant closed down. Another 200 job seekers to compete to). I live in Europe, maybe the situation is different in North America, I don't know.
      Most likely your relative is (like many of his generation) very expensive to keep, but not replaceable because those unions made it impossible to fire someone (if you want to know how those stories end, look at Italy).

    2. Re:Who''s stupid? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      In the US, you have to be licensed to be an Electrician. You can't just quit you coding job and start installing electrical wiring.

  27. A tried and true strategy. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:A tried and true strategy. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You have no idea how much the morale went up in 1793 after the blade came down.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. Locking the Doors? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    So is that why he likes illegals so much? He cannot legally lock the doors, but he can send a few border patrol cops after anyone who leaves before he says they can?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Locking the Doors? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Much better even than the crap you can pull w/ H-1B's. Citizens and LPR's (green card holders) have a nasty ability to say "f you" and walk out.

  29. Mod parent +1 Insightful by QilessQi · · Score: 1

    It seems completely within the realm of possibility to have the workers paid in FaceBucks, GoogleBooty, MicroCents, etc. within a few decades. These would probably start as in-world currency for the various gaming platforms hosted by these companies, but spread outward from there to purchase food and shelter at company-owned places.

    1. Re:Mod parent +1 Insightful by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dunno about you or the US, but it's illegal in most areas of Europe to pay your workers in "corporate money".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Mod parent +1 Insightful by QilessQi · · Score: 2

      In the US, IT workers in startups will sometimes take very low compensation in exchange for stock options. We do have minimum wage laws, but above and beyond those, you can offer many types of "compensation" to attract workers -- retirement plan, corporate car, etc.

      So imagine that in 2020, tech companies start cutting back cash compensation in exchange for alternatives which, on the face of it, have greater value: e.g., I can either give you $1000, or $3000 equivalent of company dollars which you can use to pay rent on a company-run apartment which is walking distance to work, buy groceries in the company store which is right in that apartment complex, etc. Which would you take? It depends on your circumstances. But you can guarantee that a smart company would rig the circumstances so that it ultimately works in their favor at your expense. This actually happened in the US in the 19th century: an awful time to be a worker here.

    3. Re:Mod parent +1 Insightful by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I know, it didn't just happen in the US, and while I can't talk about the US, it certainly was outlawed in pretty much any part of Europe I know of.

      Our countries don't like the idea that anyone but they themselves hands out legal tender.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Mod parent +1 Insightful by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      I suspect that Uncle Sam just wants his cut. :-)

  30. We call them "Cannonball Run" by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have Cannonball Runs, where our developers and engineers work long days, enjoy company-provided, catered meals, and concierge services to help in their absence at home, and of course preems, which are financial incentives for accelerating the schedule.

    It's about as far from what this asshole is doing as you can get, but we get fantastic results, and the work product is very high quality. That's why I spend the money to do it. It does cost money - about $5k/day for a team of 10 people (I refuse to call them "resources").

    1. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      It's about as far from what this asshole is doing as you can get

      On what do you base this statement? The articles linked in the summaries have nothing to indicate that any of the stuff you mention is, or is not, being done.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

      Are you US based, out of interest ?

    3. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      d of course preems, which are financial incentives for accelerating the schedule.

      There is something real. Pay me extra, and I'll help you out too. But don't expect me to work extra hours in exchange for free meals.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by Njovich · · Score: 1

      We have this thing called planning and project management, where we just finish the stuff in the time allotted to the work, and people get to spend the rest of their time with their families or however they please.

      Whatever floats your boat though.

    5. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose everything you've ever done has been perfect the first time and has never had issues that ate up all the slack time built into the schedule... and I suppose you've never had a customer call up and decide to pull in the schedule...

      In fact, have you ever even had a job in development?

    6. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      We have Cannonball Runs, where our developers and engineers work long days, enjoy company-provided, catered meals, and concierge services to help in their absence at home, and of course preems, which are financial incentives for accelerating the schedule.

      Wow, that would be nice. When we have to work extra long hours where I work, that usually means you have to skip meals too because you don't have time to eat.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your schedule breaks down so often that you have an entire system of jargon to describe all of the aspects of the (frequent) breakdowns, you probably need to reconsider how you schedule.

    8. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I never do this. But I do see coworkers who will voluntarily, without any prompting, work the 12 hours days. I really don't understand them. Maybe they get a few thousand more a year but they're always complaining that the spouse is complaining about their hours. I'll see their code checkins at 1am and wonder why they don't have a life. I've been at some jobs where I am certain I am the only employee who thinks that time away from the office is personal time only.

    9. Re:We call them "Cannonball Run" by Njovich · · Score: 1

      No, we just consider these things as part of development rather than plan for the perfect case and go overtime on the slightest road bump.

      I do work in software dev.

  31. Because they have the weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to pull the rest of us down with them (and I already make under the average income in the US).

    CAPTCHA: commands

  32. And zuck would get from me..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A big "fuck you" as I grabbed my coat and walked out.

    You want a project done fast, offer incentive... "Guys let's get this done today! $5000 bonus for each of you if we get it done in the next 24 hours. He can easily afford a paltry $5K to everyone to get them to work their brains out. Sadly he is not smart enough to know that you get subpar coding from making them work like that.

    Zuck is a good marketing and BS man, wish is a great CEO job...he doesnt know shit about coding or product management, but tried to act like he does.

    1. Re:And zuck would get from me..... by Desler · · Score: 2

      You want a project done fast, offer incentive...

      He does offer an incentive. Either work until you're dead tired or you're fired. And that partnered with the collusive hiring practices that go on in Silicon Valley (and you'd be naive to think only Apple, Google and Intel are the only ones doing this rather than just being the only ones caught doing it) you'll likely be facing a hard time getting another job.

  33. how many minus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the astroturfing... and can they witch hunt posters?

  34. So Zuck's campaign contribs for amnesty? by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Are pretty much just a bribe to Congress and Obama to let him continue to be a white slaver. DREAM act my ass.

  35. why would you work in fb or apple? by iamacat · · Score: 1

    When there is a neighbor openly advertising just how hard it strives to keep employees happy? I made a jump myself after concluding that the technology is interesting but there is nothing I. It for me.

  36. First Google Result = oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That fastcompany article is a prime example of how smart people who don't understand the language they use can do very stupid things.

    "'One of the difficulties,' Cheng tells Fast Company, 'is the ambiguity of the English.' Say you have a user who enters the query 'photos of engineers in Mumbai.' Is that engineers who live in Mumbai, or engineers who happened to be in Mumbai at the moment a photograph was taken?"

    Except it isn't ambiguous, or it isn't ambiguous in the way Cheng thought. I'm sure he's a smart person, but "photos of engineers in Mumbai" means a picture showing an engineer with Mumbai in the background (whether you can ID Mumbai or not), or it means photos that are stored in Mumbai and depict engineers. It never means photos of engineers that happen to reside in Mumbai except in the incidental sense that anyone who has lived in a place is likely to have photos of themselves in that place. That's just sloppy thinking on the part of a facebook "engineer".

    As for Lockdowns...as someone who has had a hide-away bed in my office, and has slept in my car in the parking lot when a deadline loomed (and I was working in an office with a shower)...I think the very idea is asinine. I don't care whether you count the entire sprint to release, or just the 5 hour meeting, if your people think something else is more important than them being there...well either you hired the right people and they are right, or you hired the wrong people and they are right. Either way, the solution isn't to tell people they can't leave.

  37. Undocumented? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    I'm there, dude.

    Oh, wait...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  38. why not just deport? by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2

    Seriously. Show up at invitations to illegal aliens like this and arrest all those who are here illegally. Then fine the crap out of whoever sponsored such an event. Zuck is making money off of slave labor yet no one wants to call him out on his tactics?

    1. Re:why not just deport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jewish Talmud says that all of mankind exists only to serve the Jews. If I were you, I'd be careful what I say, or haven't you noticed who runs things -- everything -- since Mossad got away with 911. You're a Palestinian, with an SUV and a flatscreen TV.

  39. Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slurs by An+dochasac · · Score: 0

    Why does the noun "Illegal" always refer to a person who did not hire enough lawyers to weed through the reams of arcane paperwork and pay the fees necessary to become a legal immigrant? Shouldn't the word "illegal" also refer to those who haven't filed the proper paperwork to pay their taxes. Or when the word is said with a particular level of disgust, shouldn't the word also "Illegal" refer to people who've committed bank fraud, theft, murder, rape or other heinous crimes? Why also does it almost exclusively apply to paperwork-deficient immigrants from Mexico, particular those with much native American blood in their family tree but it almost never refers to the hundreds of thousands of lighter-skinned illegal immigrants from Ireland and other parts of Europe.

    When you hear the word "Illegal" referring to a group of people, you should be thinking of Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, Jack Abramoff, Tycho corporation at least as often as you think of the guy who'll mow your lawn for $5/hour because it's the only thing that keeps his kids from starving.

  40. HR makes it so we get HB1 workers that we can by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    HR makes it so we get HB1 workers that we can now work 24/7 with are new on site houseing and if they don't want to work 24/7 then they can just have there hb1 pulled and be kicked out.

  41. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not a slur for me. I honestly couldn't care less what race/ethnicity someone in this country is. Here's what anger me about illegal immigration:

    • We have laws on the books, but the President won't enforce them. This is a basic breakdown in democracy. Either enforce a law, or repeal it. To have extensive laws on the books that are enforced at the whim of a government official is an invitation for tyranny.
    • Illegal immigrants jump ahead of all would-be legal immigrants who are waiting for visas. They basically screw over law-abiding people.
    • What do you say to an honest construction company owner, who loses jobs because someone who pays illegal immigrants under the table is able to under-bid him?
    • Is it just that the handful of victims of violent crimes by illegal immigrants were attacked? After all, those perpetrators weren't supposed to be here in the first place.
    • My state university now allows illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition, but legally present citizens from neighboring states cannot. Basically, following the law is for suckers, apparently. How is this just?
  42. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    To have extensive laws on the books that are enforced at the whim of a government official is an invitation for tyranny.

    Indeed. But the solution is not to participate in enforcing tyrannical laws anyways. Would you have returned escaped slaves to bondage? It was the law after all. Would you have helped send Jews to the camps? It was the law after all.

    "Lex iniusta non est lex"

  43. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A few points. First, I don't consider our right to control who enters our borders to be tyrannical. (I do agree that there are cases where enforcing the law is immoral, as with the examples you gave.)

    I'd also be more accepting of having unenforced laws on the books if it was for very brief periods. But instead what we seem to end up with is a legal code that monotonically grows. I see that as incompatible with the doctrine that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Our legal code is so large now that we basically have ex post facto laws: the government can always find something to arrest anyone for, if they really care to. To me this is a great evil.

  44. company of 20-year-olds run by one by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Let each company have its own operational style that makes it work.

  45. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    shouldn't the word also "Illegal" refer to people who've committed bank fraud, theft, murder, rape or other heinous crimes?

    If you prefer, but I think "criminal" or "felon" are better words. By comparison the word "illegal" is pretty mild, as it can refer to something as minor as a civil violation. Do you think we should use the milder term to refer to people who've committed bank fraud, theft, murder, rape or other heinous crimes?

  46. Complaint media by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    What I love is the compliant media. Zuck gets free op-ed space in WaPo, but as far as I know of, no serious criticism in the media. Any half-baked columnist could rip this guy a new one. Nice lapdog - nice, nice little doggy.

  47. Typical left-wing mud slinging by swb · · Score: 2

    It's always a sign of the weakness of a left-wing political argument when advocates for a position overtly or more subtly make opposition to their positions a symptom of or an overt act of "racism".

    The debate surrounding immigration is a great example of this. If you are opposed to illegal immigration (that is, bypassing border controls, overstaying a visa, working without work permission, etc) you are increasingly labeled racist, presumably because you aren't really opposed to migrant labor, you're opposed to Latinos.

    This is too bad, because I think there are a lot of ways in which easier migration from outside our borders (Latino, or otherwise) has a lot of negative consequences.

    One obvious example that seldom gets mentioned is the unemployment rate among African Americans. This figure is often quite high -- 15-20% or more depending on the measure. The jobs taken by illegal immigrants are almost always low-skill, entry-level jobs, the same jobs that young, unskilled African Americans could take.

    If you're concerned about African American unemployment, you should naturally be concerned about wage depression and competition for these jobs by illegal immigrants. Isn't supporting a lenient immigration policy which keeps African Americans unemployed the real racist policy?

    And then there's affordable housing, health care, schools, and so on, all of which are pressured by large numbers of low-skilled immigrants.

    Sure, we're all upset by the crooks in the system (although I would argue that Madoff, Stewart and Abramoff are all distractions, not the real problem), but the rich and the power structure gain by wage depression and keeping the working classes on edge through unlimited low-skilled job competition. High wages and a "seller's market" for labor actually keep pressure on the corporate elite.

    1. Re:Typical left-wing mud slinging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One obvious example that seldom gets mentioned is the unemployment rate among African Americans. This figure is often quite high -- 15-20% or more depending on the measure. The jobs taken by illegal immigrants are almost always low-skill, entry-level jobs, the same jobs that young, unskilled African Americans could take.

      That's right. They could take them, but don't because they can get by with other means. Which is why the illegal immigrants are here.

    2. Re:Typical left-wing mud slinging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an unfounded assertion. Paying an illegal immigrant under the table is cheaper than paying a US citizen minimum wage. Or are you saying that the fault lies with US citizens for not taking below-minimum wage jobs payed under the table?

    3. Re:Typical left-wing mud slinging by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The debate surrounding immigration is a great example of this. If you are opposed to illegal immigration (that is, bypassing border controls, overstaying a visa, working without work permission, etc) you are increasingly labeled racist, presumably because you aren't really opposed to migrant labor, you're opposed to Latinos.

      Even more moderate liberal voices fall for this: if you are in favor of, say, INS deportations, then you don't like "immigrants." Not illegal immigrants, just "immigrants." They very intentionally lump legal and illegal immigrants together in conversation.

    4. Re:Typical left-wing mud slinging by swb · · Score: 1

      Or are you saying that the fault lies with US citizens for not taking below-minimum wage jobs payed under the table?

      It kind of boils down to "Why won't blacks work?"

      Racism is a canard -- I can't believe that someone who is "racist" would reject an English-speaking, native-born African American for a low/unskilled job yet be perfectly willing to hire (at some risk), an illegal immigrant who can't speak English.

      What's really damning is that people may be rejecting blacks specifically because they make poor employees based on actual experience.

      From a macoeconomic standpoint, there clearly is a demand for low-skilled labor, otherwise millions of illegals wouldn't be here working. While some employers may be engaging in mere economic discrimination (wanting to pay less for labor), in aggregate if there was a demand for N units of work for W units of wages, there still should be employers wanting to accept some lower level of additional employment for the same amount of wages (ie, hiring some differentially lower number of native workers for the same amount of pay, just getting a lower total amount of increased production from the reduced number of hires.

      I do think that blacks are mostly rejecting work because of low pay, but the problem is they are competing with people from the third world with drastically reduced expectations ("Wow! Food and water that won't give me dysentery!"), which is one of the big reasons to reject "open migration" -- nobody, including the middle class, can compete with people willing to live lifestyles only marginally better than third world.

      But there is also a sense that they won't work.

  48. Re:Illegal != Undocumented - I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the percentage of "Undocumented" people that would not fall into the "Illegal" category?

    I am sure very few of these people lost their "important documents". There are procedures for people who have lost all documentation to recover their documents. A parent, grandparent or sibling can get you a birth certificate in most states. That can get you a social security card. Have any bills with your name on them or a bank account? These also help recover identity. I may take a month or so to get things recovered, but these people were never in the system in the first place.

    The parts of my family that were not here pre-US all came here legally. As a citizen I expect all others to do the same. It is the law here. Don't like it? Go someplace else.

  49. I think someone will be working late tonight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  50. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    shouldn't the word also "Illegal" refer to people who've committed bank fraud, theft, murder, rape or other heinous crimes?

    If you prefer, but I think "criminal" or "felon" are better words. By comparison the word "illegal" is pretty mild, as it can refer to something as minor as a civil violation. Do you think we should use the milder term to refer to people who've committed bank fraud, theft, murder, rape or other heinous crimes?

    Even our sloppy news media usually tries to maintain a spirit of "Presumed innocence" for thieves, murderers, pedophile rapists, fraudsters and other criminals/felons. And so, they typically have the word "alleged" associated with their crime until a trial by jury. Are you saying that everyone who has been tagged as Illegal by the tea party, neo-facists, racist union thugs... has had a fair trial by jury? No, the common American usage for the word "illegal" in reference to a class of immigrants is a crutch for muddled thinking it serves the following purposes:

    • It simplifies the hundreds of different problems and circumstances applying to millions of people who may have violated one or more elements of US immigration law and lumps them into a single category of criminal with a simpleminded solution with a one-size-fits-all punishment. Should we have a one-size-fits all punishment for errors in income tax filings?
    • It allows us to dehumanize and scapegoat a group of people as the cause of internally generated economic and criminal problems.
    • It allows politicians of every party to pretend to do something without having any obvious negative effects on any voters.
    • It allows us to be racist and nationalist in polite company, without fear
    • It provides a focus for the xenophobia which is at the core of nearly every successful election campaign.
  51. Facebook Management Techniques 101 by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The lockdown isn't the first at-home-in-a-Bangladesh-garment-factory management technique Zuck's touted at Startup School. Back in 2007, Zuckerberg drew fire for advising company founders "you should only hire young people with technical expertise".

    Perhaps the little Zucker just believes in exploiting the Stockholm syndrome for fun and profit.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  52. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straw man.
    Jews were legal citizens of their countries when those "laws" were passed by a dictatorship, ergo not illegal immigrants.
    Slaves were also not immigrants, and could not even be considered so since they were not granted personhood in most places.
    Yes the unjust law is not a law at all, and you care to say how discriminating against those who follow the proper immigration channels is just? Or are we expected to reward everyone that breaks a law?
    The US have open laws regarding immigration, and yet we reward people who don't follow them.
    Is it just to pass laws to punish those that follow other laws when then break them, but punish none of the ones that never followed them in the first place?
    Either repeal them all or do not pass unjust laws in the first place.
    And as a note Illegal is only a racial slur in a country like the USA, we have no problems calling illegal actions illegal anywhere else.

  53. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My state university now allows illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition, but legally present citizens from neighboring states cannot.

    That's actually quite fair.

    In most states, illegal immigrants pay an equal share in state & municipal taxes because of how the taxes are collected. Sales taxes, excise taxes (gas, etc), property taxes (even for renters, the cost is passed on), road tolls, fees (parking meters, etc), and lottery profits...these monies get collected from all residents without regard to citizenship. Under-the-table hourly labor wages are well below the threshold at which net income taxes are positive. States get tax revenue from low-income workers not when they earn money, but when they spend it.

    On the other hand, the out-of-state students haven't paid jack shit in state taxes. Why should they get their education subsidized instead of the people that actually pay for it?

  54. Lord of the Flies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every article about Facebook confirms my suspicion that Zuck channels Jack Merridew.

  55. People with lives outside work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    happen to be a poor fit for your company culture?

    Wow, your company must have a pretty hard time finding sensible solutions to the problems that your real life customers have then, as being a well rounded human being with a sense of perspective is something that is pretty essential for this. I mean who'd want things like a social life or a family life or a holiday when they could be spending every waking minute of their lives making money for you? My bet is that even though you only hire young eager-to-please staff, your long term staff retention rates are quite low and that the corresponding lack of experienced "old, uncool" people means that they end up reinventing the wheel a lot, and making the same fundamental mistakes that have been made thousands of times before - things that will sooner or later start to seriously affect your bottom line.

  56. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    1.) Governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.
    2.) Whether a particular power is tyrannical or not is often not in the power itself, but how it is exercised. Securing the border for the purpose of preventing people with malicious intent from entering the country is a valid use of that power, interfering with free association for people coming here for peacable purposes is not.
    3.) Unenforced laws are a problem, but the solution is not to enforce unjust laws merely for the law's sake. Enforcement of unjust laws encourages disrespect of the citzenry for the rule of law, which is just as much a threat to social stability as inconsistent enforcement.

  57. A Young Kid Thinking He Knows Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, that's new! So a young Mark Zuckerberg *knows* the only way to succeed: only hire the young (like him). Damn I'm glad he set us all straight! Excuse me because I need to go find a 16 year old that will clearly know even more than Mark, since by extension, only those younger than him must know even more than he does.

  58. Harvard Billionare touts gilded age business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harvard educated billionare touts gilded age business models, film at 11.

  59. You are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I am looking for an engineer to assist with a project in Mumbai and I want a picture of them, "Photos of engineers in Mumbai" would be a fine way of asking that. Absent of context, you cannot be 100% sure. I think you may have dismissed it because it is an odd search. However, consider this one: "Photos of doctors in my area". What does that mean? Does it mean photos of doctors with my area in the background? Of course not. It naturally takes the interpretation you dismissed. It does so, because you have assigned it context not contained in the sentence.

  60. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Even our sloppy news media usually tries to maintain a spirit of "Presumed innocence" for thieves, murderers, pedophile rapists, fraudsters and other criminals/felons. And so, they typically have the word "alleged" associated with their crime until a trial by jury.

    That's only relevant if you're referring to a specific person. Has anyone here done that? "Illegal aliens" refers to a group of people which exist, unless you believe that no one in this country is in violation of US visa and immigration laws.

    It simplifies the hundreds of different problems and circumstances applying to millions of people who may have violated one or more elements of US immigration law and lumps them into a single category of criminal

    You should brush up on your immigration law - being in the country illegally is in and of itself a civil violation. It's muddled thinking for you to call them criminals - a class of people who (surprise, surprise) have violated criminal law.

    everyone who has been tagged as Illegal by the tea party, neo-facists

    I'm no fan of the Tea Party myself, but I wouldn't group them in with neo-fascists the way you have. That's a serious prejudice you have there.

    racist union thugs

    Racist union thugs are now in favor of "reform". They're now in your camp, so maybe you should tone down the name calling.

    It provides a focus for the xenophobia which is at the core of nearly every successful election campaign.

    Including the campaigns where the candidate advocates "reform"? You should really be careful with those generalizations, as generalizing about groups is at the heart of prejudice.

  61. Beware such advice.... by jythie · · Score: 2

    Most people behind tech startups that did well have very little understanding of why they succeeded while the dozens of companies just like them with equally talented people did not.... and their self image does not really allow for 'you got lucky, right time right place' so they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why they are so much better then everyone else, when in reality... if you have 10 companies doing something and there is only room for 1 titan, chances are luck is going to be the deciding factor, not some special sauce.

  62. Re: Harvard Billionare touts gilded age business m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. A nuclear warhead hitting Harvard would do more to improve the country than anything else I can think of.

  63. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

    We have laws on the books, but the President won't enforce them

    OK, fine.

    We will swarm every nook and cranny of this country with Homeland Security goons^H^H^H^H^Hagents to flag down anyone they think looks a little bit brown, ask them sus papeles, por favor and beat the mierda out of them when they answer in English.

    We will build the Great Wall of Texas.

    And you, in return, will STFU when taxes are proposed to pay for it all.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  64. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Strawman. I argued that the laws and their enforcement should be in sync. Repealing any laws we're not willing to enforce is an option as well, and far cheaper (and less draconian.)

  65. Only hire young... == illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His advice to only hire young, (implied) unmarried codes is flat out illegal in the US. It's called age discrimination.

  66. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    There have been more aliens deported from the US under the current administration than under any previous administration. You really can't blame the president for not enforcing immigration laws when they're being enforced more than ever.

  67. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know that they paid any tax to the state? What if they just entered the country yesterday? What if they lived in the neighboring state and just showed up in the state to go to school? What if the out-of-state student spent most of their time in-state and paid more sales tax than the illegal immigrant that showed up yesterday? Why is the illegal immigrant given the benefit of the doubt when the US citizen isn't?

  68. You can stop now by paiute · · Score: 1

    My hatred of Zuckerboid has reached its maximum possible value now. You can quit posting FB stories.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  69. Re:Only hire young... == illegal. by Desler · · Score: 1

    Which is why they hide it behind saying the person doesn't "fit the culture".

  70. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Indeed. But the solution is not to participate in enforcing tyrannical laws anyways. Would you have returned escaped slaves to bondage? It was the law after all. Would you have helped send Jews to the camps? It was the law after all.

    requiring people to go through a process to enter the country is not the same as sending people to concentration camps or condemning them to a life of brutal slavery. good plan though, invoke those images and maybe make people feel guilty about a perfectly sane law.

    but just for fun, why not take that to it's logical conclusion? let's send oil tanker to ever region in the world that's poorer than the US is becoming. we will fill them up, and take them all back and unload them in the US. hundreds of millions of people. we will bring them all. including criminals, because heck, what are we going to do research each person? no time for that. we will do this until the standard of living is reduced to the point where they don't *want* to come any longer. it's only fair.

    see any problem with this?

    we all want to help others, but be honest about what you are willing to give up. your home? education for your children? healthcare? infrastructure like clean water and sanitation? the US isn't a magical fairy land. the systems here are already on the brink of collapse. many of our governments are already bankrupt.

  71. Numbers by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The numbers involved appear to be in the millions so your analogy doesn't work.

  72. Just AAAUUUGHH!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does this (our?) system persist! This is such a ridiculous example of pure "capitalist" pinnacle power distribution that even I, someone who *wants* to believe that things *can* (could?) work within this system is fully swayed to believe that instead, the *only* alternative is to smash this shit and try to start over. I am retro-actively calling myself a dumb-ass! This is just so egregious - no rational person could defend it. One 29yr old "kid" has this much unrestricted, un-audited power? How many 50yr old Dick Cheney wanna-bees are there out there in concert? Power makes you a dick.

  73. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is all free market is it not?

  74. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Outlaw is the best, most descriptive, term. It contains in it the underlying premise that the law is a social contract. And those who choose not to abide by this social contract are outside of its protections.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  75. Re:Because "Illegal" is a stand-in for racial slur by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    Even our sloppy news media usually tries to maintain a spirit of "Presumed innocence" for thieves, murderers, pedophile rapists, fraudsters and other criminals/felons. And so, they typically have the word "alleged" associated with their crime until a trial by jury.

    That's only relevant if you're referring to a specific person. Has anyone here done that? "Illegal aliens" refers to a group of people which exist, unless you believe that no one in this country is in violation of US visa and immigration laws.

    I don't think anyone is pretending we'll jam 10,000,000+ allegedly illegal aliens through our court system so who exactly are we talking about with the sneering accusation "illegal?"

    It simplifies the hundreds of different problems and circumstances applying to millions of people who may have violated one or more elements of US immigration law and lumps them into a single category of criminal

    You should brush up on your immigration law - being in the country illegally is in and of itself a civil violation. It's muddled thinking for you to call them criminals - a class of people who (surprise, surprise) have violated criminal law.

    Do you really understand US immigration law? Some of the visas granted this year were applied for as long ago as 1988. Do you know how many changes have been made to US immigration law in the past 25 years? Have any of these been reviewed as ex-post facto laws?

    I have a friend who was born in the US of Australian parents but because he sensibly chose to go to university at Oxford UK which is half the cost of the cheapest American state college. INS flagged him and now he can never return to his birthplace to visit his friends and family. BTW he is a tech genius who would have qualified under H1B if he were not already banned from contributing to America's future.

    everyone who has been tagged as Illegal by the tea party, neo-facists

    I'm no fan of the Tea Party myself, but I wouldn't group them in with neo-fascists the way you have. That's a serious prejudice you have there.

    racist union thugs

    Racist union thugs are now in favor of "reform". They're now in your camp, so maybe you should tone down the name calling.

    Of course they're in favor of it. As I said, xenophobia is always popular. Even this "reform" abolishes the green-card lottery and militarizes our borders.

    It provides a focus for the xenophobia which is at the core of nearly every successful election campaign.

    Including the campaigns where the candidate advocates "reform"? You should really be careful with those generalizations, as generalizing about groups is at the heart of prejudice.

  76. Really? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Says where exactly?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  77. Natural law.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Would dictate that the first arrivals own an empty (truly empty) land and can call themselves Native.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.