Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Immigration Order To Give Tech Industry Some, Leave 'Em Wanting More
theodp writes: "The high-tech industry," reports the Washington Post's Nancy Scola, "will have at least two things to be happy about in President Obama's speech outlining executive actions he'll take on immigration. The president plans to grant the tech industry some, but not nearly all, of what it has been after in the immigration debate. The first is aimed at increasing the opportunity for foreign students and recent graduates from U.S. schools to work in high-tech jobs in the United States. And the second is aimed at making it easier for foreign-born entrepreneurs to set up shop in the United States. According to the White House, Obama will direct the Department of Homeland Security to help students in the so-called STEM fields — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — by proposing, per a White House fact sheet released Thursday night, to "expand and extend" the controversial Optional Practical Training program that now allows foreign-born STEM students and recent graduates remain in the United States for up to 29 months. The exact details of that expansion will be worked out by the Department of Homeland Security as it goes through a rulemaking process."
Much cheaper than international outsourcing.
Seriously - the two biggest (ab)users of the H1B system are Tata and Infosys... and they're both Indian corporations.
{rant}I guess in fairness to Obama, he managed to screw both blue and white-collar workers in one fell swoop...{/rant}
Anyone know the lobbyist money trail for this bit of it, or can I safely guess Microsoft, Apple, Google, Intel, etc... ?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That will help make them even cheaper to hire.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Are you kidding? The "high-tech industry" is not happy with this; it is only the greedy bastards at the top who are happy with this.
Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.
Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.
That was the key to one part of the plan that was announced: If you have a child who is a US citizen, you won't be deported.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Seriously - the two biggest (ab)users of the H1B system are Tata and Infosys... and they're both Indian corporations.
{rant}I guess in fairness to Obama, he managed to screw both blue and white-collar workers in one fell swoop...{/rant}
Anyone know the lobbyist money trail for this bit of it, or can I safely guess Microsoft, Apple, Google, Intel, etc... ?
Hard time following this. The potential 4.7 million people contribute billions to the economy and without them we'd tank again. I heard the same screwing the american worker and milking entitlements myths repeatedly. It puts me in mind of what one commentator once referred to as "Factoids", arguments which have no truth at all, but people repeat over and over in hopes they will become true. Well, some of that is working, because some people are believing these tales as truths and would happily cut their own throats (mustard and onion extra) to act on these fantasies.
Tech, agriculture, service industries, foot services, etc. all benefit from the well behaved illegals. And we, the people who buy goods or services from these people benefit, as well. It's a mystery to me that so much untruth is accepted these days. I figure it began with Rush Limbaugh and is now carried out by hundreds of others since, who wind up people for profit. Nothing seems to sell like telling people what they need to fear and whom they need to loath.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Why would Obama be fund raising? Once you retire from public office any money you have left over becomes yours.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
And, given his dislike for America
I've seen this from various nutballs like yourself and I'm curious. Why do you think he ran for President? Because he was actively trying to sabotage the country? With what motive?
Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.
That was the key to one part of the plan that was announced: If you have a child who is a US citizen, you won't be deported.
On this note, looking for illegal ladies who want to have a legal baby.
Be seeing you...
Politicians will never do what is right. They are to power hungry and greedy.
Once you retire from public office any money you have left over becomes yours.
Who told you that? You should probably stop listening to people who are lying to you.
he managed to screw both blue and white-collar workers in one fell swoop
Only if you believe the Lump of Labor Fallacy. Real economies are not zero sum, and there is not a fixed number of jobs to be had. History has shown that countries with permissive immigration policies tend to have lower unemployment than more restrictive neighboring countries.
What Obama did is not only more humane for the families directly affected, it is also good for the American economy, and good for American workers.
Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.
Why are you discriminating against gays?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I'm thinking that there should be some mechanism for funding X scholarships in STEM for X visas of the H1B1 type.
Corporations receive 100 H1B1 visas this year, then 100 STEM scholarships are also provided this year. Funding via taxes on those corporations.
At least it would make it easier to graduate in a STEM field without the massive debt.
This has been proposed before, but perhaps not strongly enough or from an important enough source, which is too bad because it solves practically all of our worries.
The premise is simple: the tech industry doesn't have enough good workers because our education system is not well suited to producing the necessary skill sets. Therefore, allow qualified talent to come in and fill that gap. Tax employers based on their salaries (for this to work, salaries must be lower rather than having the same salaries with extra deductions). The collected taxes would be directed to improve our educational systems (K-12 as well as public universities) so that this problem goes away. In time, it won't be worthwhile for an employer to consider this type of talent acquisition because qualified US citizens would be more readily available and would cost less (due to not requiring this proposed tax).
(Sorry if I got some of that terminology wrong; I'm not in HR nor do I deal with immigration paperwork.)
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
That law was changed several years ago.
Or you can have you PAC pay everyone in your family members just about any amount you want. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J...
Why do people run for any political office?
Is it because they wish to tirelessly dedicate themselves for the good of the people, promoting justice and freedom, working for prosperity and progress?
Or is it because they like to have power, want to gain some personal advantages that come with it, or just plain want to tell others what to do?
There's a tiny minority of the former, but they are outnumbered and out-psychopathed by the latter. The higher the position, the more of the latter kind of politician occupy it.
If the US becomes a third world country, it will be at the hands of the richest among us and their allies in the Republican Party. The Democrats, including Obama, merely aid and abet Wall Street's depredations.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Tech, agriculture, service industries, foot services, etc. all benefit from the well behaved illegals.
You mean that their owners do. We just added millions of mostly uneducated people to the workforce. If you're in a low skill job and you dislike your wages, hours or working conditions, management will gladly and easily find a replacement.
This sucks for anyone who is entering the workforce or who lacks the proper skills or aptitude to crawl out of the bottom. As if unemployment and underemployment for those people wasn't already bad enough.
Obama just set the war of poverty back by about twenty years.
While I do believe the program was conceived with good intentions in 1990, it has grown into a labor market distorting farce.
Never mind the degree-factories that grant dubious advanced 'qualifications' to foreign born applicants. Never mind the quality of labor produced by the 'best-and-brightest' the H-1B system provides. This is about A) providing a slave-labor force to the Indian Off-shoring corporations and other participating domestic corporations, and B) lowering the market rates for competitive labor due to the effects of A.
As Robert X. Cringely pointed out years ago, there already is a visa that has an unlimited cap for the true 'best-and-brightest': Visa class 'O' for 'Outstanding'.
Anything else is simply criminal.
Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.
Apparently, he's can finally do what he thinks is wrong, too.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Typo. he's == he.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.
He was personally freed from all consequences once re-elected. As he told the Russian President he would never have to face another election so he would be more flexible once re-elected.
As for consequences to the democratic party he is no more free before the recent midterm election than after. What he did and what he will do will effect the party, be it helpful or hurtful.
Method matters. Obama's actions are appaling and well on the way to destroying the country for reason that have nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is a distraction at this point.
It's the constitutional issues that matter - it's been 800 years of wars to establish in Western culture that parliaments, not kings, are ultimately in charge. Ignoring the will of Congress and just making proclamations is a serious structural problem. Now we'll see if congress will do anything about this, or simply give up their position as a co-equal branch of government.
The House has the power to stop anything the government does, but they would have to actually take a stand for once. I'm not holding my breath for that: the idea that a majority of congresscritters would actually care more about governing than fundraising --- well, it's hard to take seriously.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Eventually Obama is going to be a civilian again. If he pleases the right people, he (or his immediate family) can make tremendous amounts of money as a lobbyist, consultant, guest speaker, etc...
Just look at the money that Chelsey Clinton earns from her array of jobs at various consulting, investment, educational, media and humanitarian companies and organizations. Her success was handed to her on a diamond platter as political thanks to her parents.
I don't disagree with what Obama did in principle, but I disagree with the way he did it. We're still a nation of lex, not rex. Obama's changing of the rules via executive order are just as bad as Bush's changing of the rules via executive order.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
He figured out a way to contrive this smoking hot topic into something tech related so we could curse about it on Slashdot - brilliant! Next topic: Bill Cosby. I got nuthin...
Find a partner and make a baby fast! Your child will be automatically a US citizen. That will child will be your ticket to legal residency in a few years, if you want it later.
That was the key to one part of the plan that was announced: If you have a child who is a US citizen, you won't be deported.
Hmm... People just want to read only what they want to read, and then ignore the rest but rather misinform others with only what they read.
From TFA
If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.
Q: How do you tell an Illiberal by his first sentence? A: An Illiberal would typically start talking with a personal attack.
I do not know the answers to these questions and don't wish to offer you mere speculations.
But the fact that he dislikes America is evident in his — personally stated — desire to "fundamentally transform" the country.
People may agree with his assessment of the country or disagree with them, but there is no denying the fact — he did not like America as it was (before his presidency).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
For varying values of "only"
This signature is false.
I'm pretty sure, I said the exact opposite... Let me check... Yes, I did...
You're able to read about as good as your writing is...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Although the time I have spent in the field of IT is not very long, at least for more than 30 years I have been in this field
And the 30+ years the people that I've met, and I mean, those who can be considered as productive members of the IT fields, none of them are from the "illegal immigrant" category
Yes, there are a lot of immigrants in the IT industry in America, myself included. But none that I know sneaked into America through the porous border between Mexico and the United States
In other words, what Obama just did, giving the 5 million illegals their "legality" hardly benefits the IT field, if at all
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Tech, agriculture, service industries, foot services, etc. all benefit from the well behaved illegals.
It's true, if by x_industries you mean "the business owners and shareholders of that industry". Flood of cheap labor drives down wages, so it wouldn't benefit existing laborers.
I heard the same screwing the american worker and milking entitlements myths repeatedly.
Correct, illegals are not milking entitlements currently. It's a myth, only a tiny percentage of illegals have the means to forge documents in order to receive welfare and other benefits.
But Obama just made them legal, so they will be collecting entitlements in the near future.
I understand the liberal mindset. I am not a cold hearted monster and I can sympathize with the plight of the poor migrant laborer. However what liberals need to learn is use their brains more and stop acting on emotion alone.
A cherished liberal concept is wage equality (Gini coefficient). Now think what happens when you import large numbers of poor laborers.The rich get richer and the working class get lower wages. Income inequality rises. Liberals can rationalize this by saying the children of illegals will go to school and become doctors and engineers and become wealthy. But look around in the real world and see if this really happens. Are you really creating a more equal and just society, or are you just creating a bigger underclass when you already have a sizable underclass dependent on public entitlements?
Keep in mind that everything discussed above refer to well behaved illegals (as you put it). I don't know where you live but here in the border states, large percentage (often the majority) of the prison population is Hispanic, and a large percentage of that are illegals.
Think back to the old days before large scale illegal immigration and compare the wage inequality to today. Note the difference, and add it to the current figure to project the future.
Which is all good in theory... until the parliament/congress becomes more interesting with infighting and navel gazing than actually improving the country.
When was the last time that congress worked for the genuine benefit of the country, without a primary focus on how it will affect their reelection numbers?
The system, as it currently stands, is broken. Beyond broken. And if it takes an unconstitutional tyrant to get us back on the proper track, so be it. Perhaps a smidgen of anarchy is necessary to remind us why we chose order
This signature is false.
I think he ran for president for the same reason anyone interested in power and influence would, because he craves power and influence. What he does not seem willing to acknowledge is the responsibility part. He rebounds from adviser to adviser telling him what to think and say and because of his lack of experience and talent he just does what he's told because he believes it keeps him in power and grants him influence.
I would venture that the vast majority of his "policies" and ideas are simple gleanings from overheard conversations at Hollywood cocktail parties. He has the depth of character one would expect from excessive education paired with inadequate intelligence. When people say he is a stuffed suit, that's in part because of what they observe and in part what they hear him say. It doesn't have anything to do with the color of his skin but entirely with the content of his character; a character that is woefully lacking and ill suited to the task.
To dismiss reservations about him with a simple "various nutballs like yourself" is to reduce the weight of your own argument in opposition. When you disregard the opinion of others in such a way, you lower the threshold for your argument and make your job easier. So, make an effort.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
$400k - equal to 8 years wages for the average American household. The AVERAGE worker today earns about 20-25k. His/her spouse probably works, and earns about the same. Total income for a working couple, about 50k.
I wish the hell that I were making a paltry 400k, and worrying about sending two offspring to college.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Congress has abdicated its responsibility to serve the public interest by openly declaring that it will oppose any initiative by the President just for spite. It's no wonder that he's forced to seek alternative solutions to get anything done.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
They are being given 3 year work-papers they are not being given legal-immigrant status or even a path to that. Work papers simply allow you to work in the country legally. Of course fact don't work well with the Conservative mindset that the working poor whether U.S citizens or not, simply want to live on government handouts. It does make the injustice of wage disparity much more palatable I guess.
If he cared a fig for this country, he would not have yammered on about fundamental transformation. Nor would he have so grossly violated the separation of powers doctrine. Jail to the Chief!
If the Bamster is not an incompetent nincompoop, then he is simply evil. Or maybe you could point out all the evidence of his brilliance. Note that you will have to discount pretty much everything coming out of a TelePrompTer since someone else wrote it.
And if it takes an unconstitutional tyrant to get us back on the proper track, so be it.
Is that you, Putin?
I wonder if the recent push open up immigration on all fronts, has something to do with the bank bailouts caused by the housing market crash. Basically, the banks now own a lot of useless foreclosed real estate and injection millions of people into the market, some percentage of which will do well enough to buy a house, may be seen as a good thing (by banks and elites).
Of course, it increases wage competition making it harder for working people to get ahead and is thus seen as a bad thing by such people.
I have no evidence, I'm not saying it is true, just mentioning it is some sort of possibility to explain why Democrats are so hell bent on opening the borders recently (aside from the obvious pandering to certain voting segments).
Far down on anyone's radar are environmental effects. There are enough people here already and the more we add, the more polluted and nasty our world gets.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I heard the same screwing the american worker and milking entitlements myths repeatedly.
Well they are lowering the market wage for farm labor.
Sorry, being my age i heard the same stupid fucking crap from the same stupid fucking people back when Reagan gave amnesty to 7 million. Dipshit doomsayers like you just continue repeating the same fucking stupidity regardless of what actually happens, and you're too fucking stupid to look back and see reality. If you're going to complain about adding uneducated people to the workforce, perhaps you should go be an activist in Texas where the majority of high school students don't have the basic education to be able to get into a state college; or maybe Alabama where barely 70% of kids even graduate high school. I get it though, people like you just have to have someone else to blame for everything so you don't have to take that long hard look in the mirror to see how fucked up you are yourself.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I don't disagree with what Obama did in principle, but I disagree with the way he did it. We're still a nation of lex, not rex
If Congress doesn't like what he did, they can pass a law and overturn it. Chance of that happening: 0%, at least in the next two years. In the absence of a law saying otherwise, Obama is free to run immigration policy as he sees fit.
Congress has abdicated its responsibility to serve the public interest by openly declaring that it will oppose any initiative by the President just for spite.
Open declaration? Surely you have a link to the speech about "just for spite"? You're not just making that up, right?
Even so, the congress has that power under the Constitution. The Congress is in charge of America, per the Constitution. The President, as leader of the executive has the job of executing the laws created by Congress, you know, the legislative branch, the lawmakers.
It's no wonder that he's forced to seek alternative solutions to get anything done.
It's his job to "get done" those laws that the Congress passes. Simply choosing not to enforce those laws because he doesn't like them is rather the opposite of his job. As the leader of the Democratic party, OTOH, he had a different path for many years to "get stuff done", a constitutional one! The American voters deliberately took that power away in the recent election, if you believe that democracy is important.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"critical thinking skills", I do not think that means what you think it means. You have brought it up several times now seemingly to indicate you do not agree with something that someone has said or done. That would be completely wrong. You further seem to suggest that a lack of critical thinking skills would lead someone to actually applying them "internalize Republican nonsense" as if being dismissive without using your critical thinking skills was in and of itself critical thinking skills.
That may float in your little circle but everyone else is seeing the failure in logic you seem to be suffering.
The premise is simple: the tech industry doesn't have enough good workers because our education system is not well suited to producing the necessary skill sets.
Or perhaps we could just let the free market do its job by raising the wages of the labor that is in shortage until more people decide to take up that field. Worked just fine in the 1990s, everyone that could spell computer was enrolled in CS classes.
What a crock of shit man. Drop the partisan politics and learn about checks and balances. The executive branch shouldn't be legislating, no matter what party.
If it's such a great idea, why isn't everybody else opening their borders already?
1. Economic ignorance
2. Xenophobia
People can be astonishingly ignorant about what economic policies work, and which don't. Look at the NAFTA agreement between America, Mexico and Canada. Economists pretty much universally agree that all three countries have benefited, yet the people in ALL THREE countries believe they got screwed and all the benefits went to the other two.
You know, I bet if you stood on a street corner in any city in the country and asked 500 people if there was anything major about America (immigration, healthcare, defense spending, foreign policy, etc) they wanted to see changed, ALL OF THEM would something to say. And then if you asked all of them if they loved America anyway, the vast majority would still say they did.
So I think you're being more than a bit disingenuous trying to say that he "disliked" or "did not like" America. Like almost everybody, he sees room for improvement.
"he'll have two years to turn her into a 3rd world country". You DO understand that this is LITERALLY impossible, right? A first world country was defined as the US or her allies during the cold war, 2nd world was the Soviet union and her allies, and 3rd world were unaligned countries. So how exactly do you see Obama making the US a country non-aligned with the US?
Yeah ... banksters explain some part (certainly not all, but some for certain) of the immigration reform push:
Head of banking group pushes Republicans to back immigration reform
Wells Fargo Official Links Lending to Immigration Reform
Silicon Valley Bank: In Support of Immigration Reform
How Immigration Reform Will Help Fix The Housing Recovery
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Lets imagine the roles are reversed and it is a Republican President skirting a Democrat controlled congress and sending down proclamations. Are you going to be happy about that? The answer is no. It does not matter what party president is from, we must honor the Constitution and follow the rules or it will be bad for all of us.
Since you didn't like others facts I'm sure that you have citations for yours right? Immigration can be a net win (let in skilled immigrants) or a net loss (let in unskilled immigrants). US has chosen a losing immigration strategy.
that there will be more jobs, but I'm left questioning if there will be any _good_ jobs. Also, while there is not a fixed pool of labor supply and demand still apply, and increasing the supply reduces the value of labor; lowering wages in the process.
There are also other impacts your not considering. The workers here are visas can be sent back at any time for any reason (with a black mark on their career to boot). They border on indentured servants. I know several that put in 50, 60 even 70 hours every week. The position they're in means they have no choice. These further reduces the amount of labor needing to get done. If I've got 2 guys working 60 hours a week I can skip hiring that third guy I really need...
If American workers were as cheap as visa holders the companies wouldn't bother with the visa holders. These aren't PHDs, they're PHP programmers...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
we're a Republic. The principle reason we are not is that the wealthy landowners built our gov't not to spread freedom but to protect their land. They didn't even want a central gov't but feared without one they wouldn't have the strength to keep their land from being sized by the peasantry.
Now, if this were Canada you might have a point...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And, given his dislike for America
I've seen this from various nutballs like yourself and I'm curious. Why do you think he ran for President? Because he was actively trying to sabotage the country? With what motive?
He answered this question on August 6, 2008 in Elkhart, Indiana during the 2008 campaign, when he was asked the question by a 7 year old girl, and couldn't deflect her into talking about oil prices. He said: “America is , uh, is no longer, uh what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”
He failed to indicate what date "what it once was" applied to.
Here's the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I would say that he's been about as successful at this as he has been in keeping his campaign promises to get us out of the two foreign wars, start no new foreign wars, and close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which he promised to do in the first 90 days of his presidency. In other words, not very successful.
Not that anyone is actually keeping score, but...
Other campaign promises not kept:
- end tax deductions for companies that offshore
- Introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in my first year in office
- No signing statements to nullify instructions from Congress
- No family making less than $250K will see "any form of tax increase" (ACA, we're looking at you...)
- term limit the DNI (Director National Intelligence)
- call for and support a human mission to the moon by 2020
- tax deduction for artists
- tax incentive for new farmers
- windfall profits tax on oil comanies (we could use this one about right now...)
- limit subsidies for agribusiness
- antimonopoly laws strengthened to favor independent farmers
- Scholarships to recruit new teachers
- Restrict warrantless wiretaps
- public option for the National Health Insurance Exchange
- Restore superfund so polluters have to pay to clean up their messes
- Same sex adoption equality (still state by state, and not in most states)
- require companies to disclose personal information breaches
- ban racial profiling by federal agencies
- roll back earmarks to 1994 levels
- national catastrophe insurance reserve for things like a future Katrina
- allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms (sister is losing her house over this one)
- work with Russia to step down nuclear defense postures (har har - that's working out)
- double federal funding for cancer research
- strengthen ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)
- low carbon fuel standard
- require 25% reneable by 2025 (guess it was based on Solyndra not being a scam)
- reinstate special envoy for the Americas
- global fissile materials production for weapons treaty
- global education fund to offer alternatives to jihadi schools
- international group to aid Iraqi refugees, including providing $2B in funding
- help resolve the Cyprus situation
- Sign Freedom Of Choice Act
- penalty free "hardship withdrawls" from retirement accounts
- annual "State of the Word" address
- all new vehicles to support flex-fuels by 2012
- health care reform to be negotiated in public, on CSPAN
- cap and trade system for carbon emissions to reduce global warming
- use revenue from above to support clean energy, environmental restoration (hard to do if there's no system, isn't it?)
- call for congressional leader consulting group on national security, and consult with them prior to major military action
- reduce the number of federal middle managers
- increase supply of affordable housing (Hi, San Francisco! Allow buildings over 4 stories without a zoning variance yet?)
- UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- pay for national service plan without increasing deficit
- Increase federal minimum wage to $9.50/hour
- re
It's not often an Anonymous Coward says something worth mod points. Figures I don't have any this week...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Q: How do you tell an Illiberal by his first sentence?
WTF is an Illiberal? First it's the big lie and now your resorting to name calling? Conservatives want to change this country, that's all they've been talking about. Does that mean they dislike America too? You're not logical and well thought out like you seem to think. You're just a prick who listens to too much talk radio. When Rush says you're the smart ones, think about it.
The summary mention an extension of the OPT visa which are essentially granted to foreign students after completion of a degree in the US. This extension of OPT will certainly benefit these students as the length of OPT typically leaves little margin of error to move to a different status.
I don't know whether it is a good thing or not for the tech industry, but there are lots of STEM student directly affected by that.
Actually less now. Last I read it was somewhere around $44-48k and still decreasing. Here in Canada we surpassed American median income about two years into Obama's term.
Om, nomnomnom...
because people don't want to live in a 3rd world shithole full of billions of overcrowded people they're "xenophobic"?
Yes, if you believe that immigration will turn America into a "3rd world shithole" then you are a xenophobe. People said the same thing when the immigrants were Germans, Irish, Italian, Jews and Chinese that they are now saying about Mexicans. They were wrong every time, and are almost certainly wrong now too. Arriving immigrants quickly rise to American levels of productivity, and within a generation, they usually exceed it.
It's because you literally sound like you're on the cusp of quitting bathing and spending the rest of your life pushing a shopping cart around downtown with a cardboard sign hung around your neck that equates Obama with the antichrist.
There's absolutely no value in your linguistic torsion exercise that 'proves' the 'fact' that Obama doesn't like America. Why in the world does this have to be so black and white for you? Is it not possible to like America while being dissatisfied by some aspects of it? Isn't that the entire purpose of democratic government, that the people can influence the way the country changes over time?
Citation?
First, the tech industry is not just software engineers.
Second, while the current US educational system is very good at producing people who can drive good design, it's not so great at producing people who can implement it. The raw technical chops, especially with respect to understanding of advanced mathematics, is a rarity here in the US compared to (e.g.) much of the EU.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Gays can't have kids?
I'm pretty sure they can. Here is a hint. love means nothing in this context as child birth is a utility or tool to achieve an end- not the natural progression of opposite sexes mating.
You don't see many IT professionals hanging out in front of the Home Depot.
I'm just saying.
Eventually Obama is going to be a civilian again. If he pleases the right people, he (or his immediate family) can make tremendous amounts of money as a lobbyist, consultant, guest speaker, etc...
Just look at the money that Chelsey Clinton earns from her array of jobs at various consulting, investment, educational, media and humanitarian companies and organizations. Her success was handed to her on a diamond platter as political thanks to her parents.
I don't know if Chelsea Clinton's employers are getting anything, but there's some truth to that.
For example, Billy Tauzin, the Republican representative from Louisiana, made sure that the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill would prohibit Medicare from negotiating cheaper prices with the drug companies, the way the health care systems do in every other country. After he left Congress, he went to work for the drug industry lobbying organization, PhRMA, for $2 million a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Pretty good investment. PhRMA paid a few million dollars, and got back billions in higher drug prices. That's why all those new drugs cost $100,000 and more a year.
What a crock of shit man. Drop the partisan politics and learn about checks and balances. The executive branch shouldn't be legislating, no matter what party.
Funnily enough, President Obama addressed that very issue in his speech: he said that if Congress doesn't like what he's doing, they should come up with a law themselves. So in the President's considered opinion the issue is so urgent it trumps this principle you mention.
Sound like a legitimate argument to me, that needs a serious refutation if you disagree with him.
It's his job to "get done" those laws that the Congress passes. Simply choosing not to enforce those laws because he doesn't like them is rather the opposite of his job.
Well, he has the power to veto laws he doesn't like, so things are a little more complicated.
Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.
As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.
That statement actually is insightful, but not because it supports Obama. What it points out is that he's free to do what he wants because he doesn't need to worry about re-election. Any worry about being re-elected would be because what HE wants to do is NOT what the people who voted for him want him to do.
In other words, he can do anything he wants because the people who elected him no longer matter at all. They no longer have a say in the matter. That's not a good way to run a democracy, I think.
Thing is, while he might have done that before (I don't know and I'm not taking sides as I'm not an Elmer) why would he behave like that now? (Bouncing from one advisor to another, I mean.) The extent of his power can't be longer than 2 years because of the 2 terms rule and it's incredibly unlikely to be any less than 2 years, even if he sat on his ass and did absolutely nothing.
That's a good and reasoned question. I speculate that he knows no other way. He has for so long been in ballistic mode that it has now become natural and provides the path of least resistance. I watched his speech last night and I couldn't help but reach the conclusion that he was out of his depth. Although he fails at speaking extemporaneously, he is normally fairly good at delivering his messages when properly prepared. Last night was as controlled a situation as he is likely to find and his delivery, pacing, tonal quality and lack of any deference spoke to me about a man at the end of his limits.
I've always believed him to be a pretty darn good grifter but he let himself literally get carried away by the overwhelming and indomitable forces of Hollywood and Beltway exuberance.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
Eventually Obama is going to be a civilian again. If he pleases the right people, he (or his immediate family) can make tremendous amounts of money as a lobbyist, consultant, guest speaker, etc...
Without lifting a finger, after he leaves office, his family will make $221,700 a year for life: his presidential pension ($201,700) plus another $20,000 for Michelle. His family will receive free lifetime secret service protection. He will have a fund of $150,000 a year to pay for staff ("Here Malia, file these papers for Daddy, ok?") for the first 30 months, and $96,000 per year after that. ("Sharpen these pencils for Daddy, sweetheart...").
Just his pension alone will put him well into the top 5% of wage earners in this country according to 2009 data. Adding the staff money, where he can hire who he wants and pay them what he wants up to the limit, including children, would put his family in the top 1%.
I don't think he has to worry about pleasing anyone. And I don't think that those who helped fund his political career from the beginning will hesitate to hire him at those "tremendous amounts of money" rates for speeches, etc, no matter what he does now.
Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.
There are already plenty of laws addressing immigration that the President has chosen to ignore. Claiming that Congress should be passing more laws on the subject is a little silly -- if the President doesn't like them, what's to stop him from ignoring them too?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Congress just makes the rules. But they cannot enforce it. They can persuade the relevant Federal agencies (and Obama) to do so by various means, but that's part of the politics.
These are the checks and balances. And the things Obama has done are still within their bounds. As an example, Obama hasn't raised the H1B limitations because that's set in law by Congress.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Sound like a legitimate argument to me, that needs a serious refutation if you disagree with him.
Title 8 of the US Code is 1000 pages long. We have more than enough laws on the books about immigration.
What he's really saying is that Congress hasn't given him a law that he likes, so he's writing his own. Which even he admits isn't actually within his authority, but he's betting that nobody will be able to stop him.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Do you ever wonder if your lack of critical thinking skills has led you to internalize Republican nonsense?
Even a whiff of critical thinking skills would allow anyone to see that Obama's purely political stunt is the only nonsense in question. If he gave a crap about the illegal immigrants he wants to "bring out of the shadows," he'd have wave the same magic wand months ago, or years ago. But he knew that it would wreck his party's chances of hanging onto legislative power. But - to his shock, no doubt - his party got completely spanked in the election. So he's done what he just did entirely to poison the well for the upcoming election. That is all.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To let his Kenyan Muslim friends infiltrate the government and turn America into a Caliphate, duh.
yep... to hell with the masses. help the few.
Title 8 of the US Code is 1000 pages long.
I'd bet money that buried in that 1000 pages is the justification White House lawyers can pull out to say that what he did is completely legal. Congress DID make the law. The Executive took advantage of some discretion clause somewhere. That's how 90% of the edifice that is the Executive Branch came into being. This is undoubtedly more of the same.
Still, the complaint is not that he doesn't do anything with the laws that the Congress passes, the complaint is that Congress doesn't pass any laws that address important issues.
No, the problem is that the congress has passed clear laws on the issue of immigration, but Obama doesn't like them. So he makes his own law through creative (lack of) enforcement.
âoeThere are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.â - Candidate Obama
""the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. That is what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." - Candidate Obama
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And how many of these require congress? The executive's job is to execute the laws. He can pass or veto a bill but he can't write them. He can choose how to execute the law, what laws to prioritize or not but his power is limited.
This is especially true for anything tax or budget related. All spending bills must originate in the house. Ever since he swore the oath of office the Republicans have bent over backwards with fillibuster threats for just about everything, even the stuff they wanted. The healthcare law only passed because there was only a brief window when democrats had a fillibuster-proof majority.
A bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill was passed ages ago in the Senate but what has the republican-led house done on it? Absolutely nothing.
It also doesn't help that a huge percentage of department heads have been blocked because Republicans have used the fillibuster to block many of these appointments, many since Obama began his first term.
The republicans have been up in arms and done everything to prevent him from doing his job out of spite, making constant racist comments about his birth, or that he's Muslim, etc. etc with Fox News blowing the horn for them with crazy conspiracy theories.
The republicans blame the president about illegals and children crossing the border. The border control says they need more agents and more money to better control the problem. The president says to provide more money. The republicans say no more money and continue to blame the president for something that needs funding which must originate in the republican dominated house.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Good luck with that. The current batch of republicans have been the least productive house in the history.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/politic...
http://www.eclectablog.com/201...
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
The problem with this is not the way he did it - existing immigration laws have considerable latitude for the executive branch written in. The idea that this is illegal or unconstitutional is going to have a tough time getting through the courts.
The problem with this action is that it's only a temporary patch on the real immigration issues. Maybe it's the best possible for the next couple of years but the real problem is the politics that is preventing real reform. In particular a system that financial rewards the people taking the most extreme and intransigent positions more than moderates.
he said that if Congress doesn't like what he's doing, they should come up with a law themselves
a) They don't have to come up with a law. Congress is not a law factory with lack of new laws being some kind of a horrible problem that the President has to fix.
b) If they come up with a law that he doesn't like, he already said he will veto it.
So, what he is really saying, pass a law I like or else I'll do it.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
H1B is about giving a company a slave. These ppl are basically unable to shift to a different company until they get a green card. As such, companies pay these ppl well below average, and then block the green cards.
BUT, if we change how we do green cards and go back to priority for those that we need, as opposed to saying that somebody has family here (which rarely helps), then we bring good ppl here that will work hard and be allowed to participate in real competition.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When Germans, Irish, Italian, Jews and Chinese arrived there was no welfare state. You either worked your ass off and lifted yourself up or you were screwed. Current immigrants can get a better life in the US than in their home country by doing absolutely nothing except being here.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
It's amazing, seeing the Left reference critical thinking, when they completely fail to recognize that Obama is an both an incompetent failure and a shameless pathological liar and junior-league demagogue. It is also funny seeing them reference "far-right media" while they get their news from Obama's court jesters on Comedy Central. But most of all it is sad seeing human stupidity at such profound levels. Sad, and frightening. This is Eloi-level stupid.
Foot services
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
And, given his dislike for America, he'll have two years to turn her into a 3rd-world country.
I've been calling us a banana republic for a few years now.
Spying on and harassing the press. Check.
Enemies lists. Check.
Spying on the mass of citizens. Check.
Payola to political cronies. Check.
Threatening opposition groups with legal action. Check.
Massive debt. Check.
Paying bills by firing up the printing presses. Check.
Indifference to the rule of law. Check.
Jail to the Chief!
Oooh, that is catchy!
I would say that he's been about as successful at this as he has been in keeping his campaign promises
He measures success by the number of promises broken, the number of chumps fooled. The Hope a Dope gets em every time!
If the Bamster is not an incompetent nincompoop, then he is simply evil.
Magic 8 ball says "both".
Presidential pension is only $400k/year.
He has two daughters he will be paying for college.
Boo hoo. What is that, two speaking engagements for The One?
Although such a program could help create a stronger and more succesful nation I do have issues with it. There are many types of people and ways of life. How would an Amish person fare on such an entry program. In other words some people are being devalued due to religions, or ethnic modes of life. And then we have the cheap labor issue. We already have a situation in which farm workers are paid far less due to illegal workers and it goes further than that. If the farms paid more other jobs would have to pay more as well as people would leave so-called better jobs to earn more money on the farms. And when we look at higher levels people like computer and software developers would also be paid more if we disallowed immigrant workers. And sometimes we need to look at the end of a transaction chain before we judge. An example would be the corporations taking over food production. Does anybody not notice the price of food going up like crazy? We do we allow the export of food when prices are risng at home? The same can be said for oil and gas production. Ideas like butchering Canada to pipe oil to the Gulf of Mexico to refine it and then sell it abroad is way over the top offensive. Canada won't allow the refining to take place so the scheme is to pipe it all the way to Texas and Louisiana for refining which naturally will pollute the Gulf Coast like there is no tomorrow. So after ripping the surface of Canada to pieces and then ripping across the nation to the Gulf and then polluting the Gulf Coast we turn around and export that oil. That is insanity.
I suspect he wants Vetinari.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
I'm curious how more competition for entry-level or low skilled jobs helps African Americans. Their unemployment rate is nearly 14%, probably higher in lower age brackets. And given the school "achievement gaps" and lower education attainment for African Americans, these are precisely the jobs they need to work their way out of poverty.
Racism is a common argument for African American unemployment, but how does this stand up when the prime competitors for these jobs are non-white and in many cases marginal English speakers and functionally illiterate in English? Just who are these anti-African American, pro-Latino racists, anyway?
You could make the argument that African Americans don't get hired due to racist criminal justice policies which leave them with criminal records, but again I ask -- who are these people discriminating against African Americans with criminal records yet hiring illegal immigrants with false papers or whose "past" is essentially unavailable because their past is unobtainable in Mexico?
You could make an argument that African Americans don't want to or are incapable of work, but that argument is inherently racist. Their may be qualitative criticisms of entry level jobs (low pay, "jobs nobody wants") but if you buy that argument, then why do Latinos take those jobs? One variant explanation is that African Americans have some moral entitlement to better jobs (eg, due to past discrimination), but I'm not sure how that's supposed to work and the functional equivalent of this argument, affirmative action, hasn't worked and has been mostly discredited.
Plus he has a net worth of over $12 million, he'd get more from the interest than all the rest of that stuff put together.
What worries me are the very bottom — the folks, who come over here knowing, that they may be able to get foodstamps and other hand-outs, that our schools and hospitals will teach and treat them for free.
Of course is though that most recipients of footstamps and benefits are americans. Immigrants generally flock to first world countries like the US in order to work hard and lead a better life. They generally do the work that people born in the US feel is beneath them or agree to work for far less than them. They will live in smaller rooms, pay less in rent, work longer hours and generally put up with a ton of shit just because it is still better than the country they were born in.
The net result is that the people who suffer from immigrants, both illegal and legal are the sort of people who are also competing for the same dead end jobs, exactly the sort of people who feel they are entitled to those jobs just because they were born here.
Those of us who feel we are entitled to jobs because we are the best person to do the job generally have nothing to fear from immigrants, but we do have a net gain as we can get someone to work of our house, iron our shirts or do our cleaning for a fraction of what someone born in the US would charge. We also benefit from being about to go to the all night food mart to get beer or whatever at a time when most people would demand double time to go to work.
Even the H1B system is often a net benefit to us as the sort of people brought over here under those schemes often reach a glass ceiling pretty quickly and we ultimately get made their boss when they are passed over for promotion for the 5th time even though they work harder.
I dont read
Is she a fan of Leslea Garret?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
These people are already part of the workforce and are already competing for low wage jobs (in some sectors like agriculture, they are only competing against each other because American citizens don't do those jobs). If anything this change in immigration law takes away some of the leverage that employers could traditionally use against these people.
Does this
I'm curious to know what countries you're talking about considering that the United States has some of the least restrictive immigration policies on Earth. Furthermore, east Asian nations (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan) would contradict your claims as they've got highly restrictive policies and enjoy extremely low unemployment. Hell, it was less than 15 years ago that Taiwan even allowed foreigners to sign up with a mobile phone plan under their own name. Japan, with a long stagnant economy, is at 3.8% unemployment, Taiwan is at 4% and South Korea is at about 3%.
There are significant benefits to immigration, but those are felt in the long term. Immigrants offer a diversity of ideas and talent for the host country. That, however, doesn't mean that every random individual who tries to enter this country deserves to be here.
Well, if that were really true, you would've shrugged and walked by. So, no, you don't really believe I am "on the cusp" of doing it. You chose to add your own insult to the already posted one.
And that, once again, demonstrates the reliability of my Illiberal-detection method.
Being dissatisfied merely with "some aspects" would not call for a fundamental change, would it?
Words, as he said himself elsewhere, have consequences. For a man, whose primary selling point was and remains his smooth-talking, using a word without meaning to would be a rather surprising gaffe. No, mean it he did...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How would you know that, if the government deliberately does not maintain such statistics and explicitly tells applicants, they don't need to disclose their immigration status? They are poor (and I don't blame them) and they apply for the help, which is paid for with monies collected at gun-point (taxes). I would not have minded, if they weren't entitled to any government help — I would've even donated some money to a private charity (of the kind that helped my family 22 years ago). But I rather resent being forced to do it...
Yes, I do think it is self-evident, that a Man has a right to live anywhere he can afford and work for anyone, who'd pay him. As long as I don't have to subsidize neither his housing, nor his children's education should his choices of locale or employment be in error.
We do, unfortunately. Arriving in too large a number, they will not dissolve in America's famous "melting pot" — as the Irish, Italian, German, or Ukrainian immigrant-waves did before them in the 20th century — but turn the rest of America to a side. Being from the poor countries, where the government is the primary source of wealth, and the Church (Catholic) — a very respected authority, they see nothing wrong with it being such here, thus pushing ever further from the small-government ideals we started with.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
http://sammyboy.com/showthread...
Casteism
http://wh.gov/iCfVS
Casteism
Violate his oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land?
And that, once again, demonstrates the reliability of my Illiberal-detection method.
Im a pretty solid conservative and I too think you're off your rocker.
Obama's policies may often be (IMHO) bad for the country, but I think it takes a large number of terrible assumptions to get anywhere close to "Obama hates America". For one, one of his main roles as President (at least in today's politics) is try to drive congressional action. For him to get his "hate america, must destroy" agenda into action hes got to convince a majority of 535 congressional representatives on his side. Hes also got to trick his own political party to go along with the whole "hate america" plan.
It also makes no sense; regardless of whether you buy into the birther thing, Obama's ties are very clearly to the US, and anything that he does that harms the US in the long run will affect him, too.
That's extremely stupid even for a Republican.
Theres some irony in calling another stupid by way of an ad hominem.
Calling Republicans "stupid" and "wingnuts" and indicating they "lack the critical thinking skills", that we're "propogandized".... is there any substance to whatever stance you have, or can we just boil it down to
If (isNotDemocrat) THEN
isTheEnemy;
enemyDeservesOneThing;
End If
If anythings going to break this country its the spread of absurd extreme partisan divisiveness. Some day you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that roughly half of the country is just as intelligent as you, but completely disagrees with your politics. It doesnt have to kill you to recognize that Conservatives may have legitimate concerns, and may actually not be dumb.
Plus he has a net worth of over $12 million, he'd get more from the interest than all the rest of that stuff put together.
That's peanuts. As I said above, Billy Tauzin got $2 million a year from the drug industry after he let them take as much as they want from the Medicare fund in the Prescription Drug Bill.
GWB got $15 million from speeches, but he's got a long way to catch up with Bill Clinton, who got $100 million.
As the parent said, if Obama pleases the right people, he can make a lot of money after his term expires. This writer http://www.salon.com/2013/07/1... is cynical enough to believe that there's a quid pro quo.
Or as Bill Moyers said: Maybe Obama hasn't sold out. Maybe he's just one of them.
How would you know that, if the government deliberately does not maintain such statistics and explicitly tells applicants, they don't need to disclose their immigration status [breitbart.com]?
Other countries do, I doubt the US immigrants are too different to those trying to get to europe. Also, can illegals still get food stamps with no proof of residency? Here in Europe they can't but they come anyway.
It doesn't surprise me that most people believe the same way you do, as that is way it is often presented. The truth is though that is because the current situation of there being tons of people here illegally is actually better for those who want to pay as little as possible as illegal immigrants will work for less than legal immigrants as they are more desperate. That is the main reason that the parties like the republicans that represent the richest are also usually anti-imigration, they know that people will come anyway they will just work for less due to their desperation.
I dont read
Yes — in many cases they can. For example, a child born in the US is automatically a citizen, unlike some European countries. Not only does that entitle his parents to stay here, if they happen to be poor, they'll be helped by the taxpayers.
The United States does not have a labor shortage. Bringing in cheap foreign labor means, the less desperate poor Americans will have fewer jobs — requiring more taxes to support them. So the immigration tends to increase "safety net" expenditures, even when the immigrants themselves aren't the immediate recipients.
Not true. Though exceptions abound, Republicans tend to represent the middle-class to upper middle class bourgeois. Democrats represent the uber-reach and the proletariat.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The United States does not have a labor shortage.
It is not about a labour shortage, it is about the race to the bottom in terms of working conditions and pay.
It sounds like broadly speaking we agree with who benefits the most from immigration though. My take on it though is that no matter what you do people from Mexico are always going to try and flock from there to the US to work, and keeping them all out is an effort doomed to failure. We have a hard anough time in Europe stopping them crossing a fairly wide sea so the poxy river you have is no barrier at all, even with all the fences around it.
The only real option is making sure that when they get here they are not able to undercut our own labour force at the bottom of the market. The best way to do that is to shift the punishment to the people who employ illegal immigrants with no work permit. Also, minimum wage laws might help too providing the punishment for breaking it as an employer suitable outweighs the benefit of cheap labour (ie: prison time). The main thrust should definitely be though that if you employ someone and do not check their legal status sufficiently you get hefty fines for the first offence then prison for any repeats.
I also have no problem with outright denying things like foodstamps to recent arrivals, I just doubt it will do the slightest thing without the measures I mention above apart from make them more desperate and so willing to work for less.
I dont read
Yes, and I don't blame them...
Not at all. It is perfectly possible to a) block (most of) them from entering on the border; b) discourage all of them from entering by swiftly deporting those, who get through.
Catching them is easy — they don't exactly hide. We have done such deportations before — and they worked.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Link
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make