Yes, only because the conservative's only solution is to complain about anchor babies and threaten to deport the baby, which is illegal, based on the Constitution and treaties we've signed. Revoke the 14th Amendment if you don't like it.
Yeah, the guy in the car crash isn't counted in your statistics.. Your complaints about "war" use a broad killing that isn't very well focused on "war". It also counts police shootings. You know, the ones caused by governments (the police are government employees). Do you think that anybody on the planet but you considers a shooting at a traffic stop "war"?
No, I did read the links. You obviously didn't understand them. The reason the recent history has been better is that the numbers are heavily skewed with a few World Wars, and the internal actions of China and Russia. Correct for world wars, and a few "isolated" internal actions, and the deaths you are counting are relatively steady.
Because, nice as the US is, has a reputation of harassing ex-citizens. Going back to visit relatives gets you on lots of lists that need inspections, searches, and lots of questions.
I think the un-Fair Tax is evil, but if it ever passes, it'll simplify my tax liability greatly. I think the only country in the world that taxes non-resident citizens is the US.
cities wouldn't care about lawsuits (which have cost some of them dearly).
Where do the cities get the money from to pay for the lawsuits? Seems most of the politicians and police higher-ups don't care too much about losing lawsuits (at least not from the cost standpoint).
Don't worry, we make up for that by having very few refugees. Our policy on that is one of the tightest in the world. Sure, we are #11 on the list of # of refugees, but bottom half of the list when you look at refugees per resident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And the laws aren't nearly as permissive as you state, or we'd have the millions of illegals be millions of immigrants. There's a difference. You can't have it both ways. If we are so permissive, why are there so many millions that are "illegal"?
And I use "immigration" loosely. We should have 5 million migrant worker visas to pass out to Mexicans and others who want to work seasonal labor in the US. Often they would rather work a season, then go to Mexico until the next season, but they can't because crossing the border is too hard.
So our unwillingness to issue visas causes illegal immigration that would otherwise be a temporary work trip. The current political climate refuses to recognize the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Someone with an H1-B can't live in the US indefinitely. So it's not a "immigration" issue. It's a work-visa issue.
And plenty of places around the world have work visas for high-demand jobs. They just have those jobs generally listed as skilled jobs. In the US, our work demand is mostly for unskilled labor. So our rules are no better. Our standards no higher. It's just the jobs we need the most help with are "lower".
Your constraints are not narrow enough. I've seen people do similar, with solar panels and equipment chosen for low-power usage. But 24/7 is nearly impossible. The people I've dealt with have had power for 8 hours a day, running a satellite connection, tablet or low-powered laptop (though my HTPC is about 1/2 the power of my laptop, but my PC doesn't include a monitor, and the laptop isn't the best possible eco choice).
If you want 24/7, you'll have to be in cell coverage. Get an old Nokia, and keep that around for your "emergency calls", running on AA batteries, recharged if you have the energy budget. Keeping Skype online 24/7 is impractical in this case. Unless "camping" includes a few thousand pounds of generators, panels, fuel and such.
So The USA has never told American companies which foreign nations they can deal with and how? Like, Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea? The US has never filed for extradition for Kim Dotcom for violating US law while never having set foot in the US? Good to know the US respects international boundaries, and those events never happened. Though you may want to go correct reality. It seems to disagree with you.
I'm sure they believe it's all tracked with RFIDs read by the GPS satellites. Never underestimate the stupid of people. Bush, a good 10 years after barcode scanners were in all supermarkets, went on a publicity trip and was amazed by them. Politicians live in a separate world, we can't begin to understand.
The one family of illegals I know came over from El Salvador when the death squads targeted his family (long story, he did nothing). Oh, and the death squads were US-backed because they opposed the communists. So the political refugee came across. Of course, not being dumb, he got fake Mexican papers on his way through, and when he was caught the first few times, he was deported to Mexico, not El Salvador. So in my limited personal experience, 100% of "illegal aliens" from Mexico are not even Mexican. But to Trump, that distinction is meaningless.
The real issue is that because we don't have sensible immigration laws, we have a lot of people coming over the southern border. Any terrorist who was already on a watch list (unlike the 9/11 crew, who were recruited because they weren't on a list), could just fly into Mexico, and walk across with all the other illegals. Sealing the southern border and making new classes of migrant worker visas and such would be a much better idea, but for whatever reason, neither party wants to seal the border and still let in lots of Mexicans. Though that's the only rational choice.
EMS (generally) isn't government money. The private hospitals eat the cost of unpaid bills. Do you have anything to indicate that illegals pay their bills less than the equivalent citizen? The few things I've seen on it (that didn't touch on health care) indicate illegals pay bills better, because they don't want the attention that not paying bills brings.
WIC and SNAP and such are generally tied to SSN as the identifier. An illegal doesn't file for welfare in the US, because it would bring unwanted attention. In other places, the human right of food is higher than the state right of borders, to they don't mind illegals on welfare as much (though, from what I've seen this has changed, to where more are US like now). Perhaps if a citizen baby was being cared for by an illegal, the parents may file for WIC to see what happens, assuming they can't get deported with an anchor baby. But I've not seen any studies done on that part either. Both sides would rather ignore the problem and keep it as vague talking points for election time.
What about if I visit? I have family there, and an currently investigating a position with a US company that would require infrequent travel to the US. But for me, and a few million others, we hold US passports while living permanently abroad. We get to visit without any of those security measures. No fingerprinting, no scans, no tagging. Just an entry in my permanent file that I was out, and am not not.
The last poll I saw had Donald at the top of the Republicans, and Hillary at the top of the Democrats, and Donald leading if there was a Trump-Clinton vote right now. So , based on the proxy polls discussing today's likely outcome, Trump is the front runner to be the next president. And this sounds like something Trump could get behind.
So more threats and less deaths make for an acceptable imperialist invasion? I'd count "war" by the number of countries with uninvited foreign troops on their soil. Civil wars, unless proxy wars, aren't "war" in the traditional sense, and your statistics are heavily skewed by a few internal actions (Soviet Union and China coming to mind, and if Germany hadn't invaded Poland, "war" wouldn't be related to the holocaust deaths). It's a good thing government murder is down, but that isn't war. You are using the wrong statistics, because they support your opinion, rather than finding something that best describes reality, and forming your opinion based of reality.
So your definition excludes places where people govern themselves, if the intrinsic rights protected aren't protected to your personal standards?
So what about places that have no such "rights" enshrined in a constitution, but protected in practice, vs a place like the US, were the rights are enshrined in the Constitution, but not followed by the government? My guess is that you'll come down on the "US is the best democracy ever" side of that argument, rather than actually thinking for yourself.
I have imperialist ambitions because I don't want to put a gun to your head to shut you up.
No you have imperialist ambitions because you want to put a gun to my head to prevent my vote, if it doesn't agree with your opinion. You hate democracy because it doesn't always give the result you prefer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, only because the conservative's only solution is to complain about anchor babies and threaten to deport the baby, which is illegal, based on the Constitution and treaties we've signed. Revoke the 14th Amendment if you don't like it.
Yeah, the guy in the car crash isn't counted in your statistics.. Your complaints about "war" use a broad killing that isn't very well focused on "war". It also counts police shootings. You know, the ones caused by governments (the police are government employees). Do you think that anybody on the planet but you considers a shooting at a traffic stop "war"?
Do you really think that?
What, that politicians are happy to pass on their problems to the next administration? Yes, I really think that.
No, I did read the links. You obviously didn't understand them. The reason the recent history has been better is that the numbers are heavily skewed with a few World Wars, and the internal actions of China and Russia. Correct for world wars, and a few "isolated" internal actions, and the deaths you are counting are relatively steady.
So your stance is that we should have no restrictions at all with regard to immigration?
Nope. I never said that. Perhaps you should read what's in front of you, instead of making up lies to make you feel better.
Because, nice as the US is, has a reputation of harassing ex-citizens. Going back to visit relatives gets you on lots of lists that need inspections, searches, and lots of questions.
I think the un-Fair Tax is evil, but if it ever passes, it'll simplify my tax liability greatly. I think the only country in the world that taxes non-resident citizens is the US.
So the person dying in war says "I'd have been happy, if only it had been a car crash."?
Your statistics would count police shootings. Are those "wars"?
cities wouldn't care about lawsuits (which have cost some of them dearly).
Where do the cities get the money from to pay for the lawsuits? Seems most of the politicians and police higher-ups don't care too much about losing lawsuits (at least not from the cost standpoint).
Other NBN countries manage.
Which were all put there at the request of the greedy ISPs. They wanted to make stupid regulations to prevent competition.
Don't worry, we make up for that by having very few refugees. Our policy on that is one of the tightest in the world. Sure, we are #11 on the list of # of refugees, but bottom half of the list when you look at refugees per resident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And the laws aren't nearly as permissive as you state, or we'd have the millions of illegals be millions of immigrants. There's a difference. You can't have it both ways. If we are so permissive, why are there so many millions that are "illegal"?
And I use "immigration" loosely. We should have 5 million migrant worker visas to pass out to Mexicans and others who want to work seasonal labor in the US. Often they would rather work a season, then go to Mexico until the next season, but they can't because crossing the border is too hard.
So our unwillingness to issue visas causes illegal immigration that would otherwise be a temporary work trip. The current political climate refuses to recognize the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Someone with an H1-B can't live in the US indefinitely. So it's not a "immigration" issue. It's a work-visa issue.
And plenty of places around the world have work visas for high-demand jobs. They just have those jobs generally listed as skilled jobs. In the US, our work demand is mostly for unskilled labor. So our rules are no better. Our standards no higher. It's just the jobs we need the most help with are "lower".
There are more than two parties where I am. Are you making bad assumptions again?
Your constraints are not narrow enough. I've seen people do similar, with solar panels and equipment chosen for low-power usage. But 24/7 is nearly impossible. The people I've dealt with have had power for 8 hours a day, running a satellite connection, tablet or low-powered laptop (though my HTPC is about 1/2 the power of my laptop, but my PC doesn't include a monitor, and the laptop isn't the best possible eco choice).
If you want 24/7, you'll have to be in cell coverage. Get an old Nokia, and keep that around for your "emergency calls", running on AA batteries, recharged if you have the energy budget. Keeping Skype online 24/7 is impractical in this case. Unless "camping" includes a few thousand pounds of generators, panels, fuel and such.
So The USA has never told American companies which foreign nations they can deal with and how? Like, Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea? The US has never filed for extradition for Kim Dotcom for violating US law while never having set foot in the US? Good to know the US respects international boundaries, and those events never happened. Though you may want to go correct reality. It seems to disagree with you.
So the US has never told US companies what they can do with regards to sending money to Cuba?
I'm sure they believe it's all tracked with RFIDs read by the GPS satellites. Never underestimate the stupid of people. Bush, a good 10 years after barcode scanners were in all supermarkets, went on a publicity trip and was amazed by them. Politicians live in a separate world, we can't begin to understand.
You just require a passport for all internal travel. Worked for the USSR. They kept good track of foreigners.
The one family of illegals I know came over from El Salvador when the death squads targeted his family (long story, he did nothing). Oh, and the death squads were US-backed because they opposed the communists. So the political refugee came across. Of course, not being dumb, he got fake Mexican papers on his way through, and when he was caught the first few times, he was deported to Mexico, not El Salvador. So in my limited personal experience, 100% of "illegal aliens" from Mexico are not even Mexican. But to Trump, that distinction is meaningless.
The real issue is that because we don't have sensible immigration laws, we have a lot of people coming over the southern border. Any terrorist who was already on a watch list (unlike the 9/11 crew, who were recruited because they weren't on a list), could just fly into Mexico, and walk across with all the other illegals. Sealing the southern border and making new classes of migrant worker visas and such would be a much better idea, but for whatever reason, neither party wants to seal the border and still let in lots of Mexicans. Though that's the only rational choice.
EMS (generally) isn't government money. The private hospitals eat the cost of unpaid bills. Do you have anything to indicate that illegals pay their bills less than the equivalent citizen? The few things I've seen on it (that didn't touch on health care) indicate illegals pay bills better, because they don't want the attention that not paying bills brings.
WIC and SNAP and such are generally tied to SSN as the identifier. An illegal doesn't file for welfare in the US, because it would bring unwanted attention. In other places, the human right of food is higher than the state right of borders, to they don't mind illegals on welfare as much (though, from what I've seen this has changed, to where more are US like now). Perhaps if a citizen baby was being cared for by an illegal, the parents may file for WIC to see what happens, assuming they can't get deported with an anchor baby. But I've not seen any studies done on that part either. Both sides would rather ignore the problem and keep it as vague talking points for election time.
What about if I visit? I have family there, and an currently investigating a position with a US company that would require infrequent travel to the US. But for me, and a few million others, we hold US passports while living permanently abroad. We get to visit without any of those security measures. No fingerprinting, no scans, no tagging. Just an entry in my permanent file that I was out, and am not not.
The last poll I saw had Donald at the top of the Republicans, and Hillary at the top of the Democrats, and Donald leading if there was a Trump-Clinton vote right now. So , based on the proxy polls discussing today's likely outcome, Trump is the front runner to be the next president. And this sounds like something Trump could get behind.
So more threats and less deaths make for an acceptable imperialist invasion? I'd count "war" by the number of countries with uninvited foreign troops on their soil. Civil wars, unless proxy wars, aren't "war" in the traditional sense, and your statistics are heavily skewed by a few internal actions (Soviet Union and China coming to mind, and if Germany hadn't invaded Poland, "war" wouldn't be related to the holocaust deaths). It's a good thing government murder is down, but that isn't war. You are using the wrong statistics, because they support your opinion, rather than finding something that best describes reality, and forming your opinion based of reality.
Social Justice Warrior. It's a pejorative for anyone that points out we don't have a perfect society
So your definition excludes places where people govern themselves, if the intrinsic rights protected aren't protected to your personal standards?
So what about places that have no such "rights" enshrined in a constitution, but protected in practice, vs a place like the US, were the rights are enshrined in the Constitution, but not followed by the government? My guess is that you'll come down on the "US is the best democracy ever" side of that argument, rather than actually thinking for yourself.
I have imperialist ambitions because I don't want to put a gun to your head to shut you up.
No you have imperialist ambitions because you want to put a gun to my head to prevent my vote, if it doesn't agree with your opinion. You hate democracy because it doesn't always give the result you prefer.