I applaud the fact that you have the decency not to marry someone just to get a green card. None-the-less, my position hasn't really changed.
Only place I can be useful in the world is here.
I'm sure every immigrant (legal or illegal) believes they can be more useful in america -- they wouldn't have come here if they believed otherwise. However, citizenship isn't decided based on usefulness. If every person who thought they could be more useful here in america, actually came to america, our population would probably swell to billions. It is (usually) a given that when someone is deported they are being sent somewhere where they may not be useful (I say usually, since immigrants are usually from third-world/developing nations).
Why should I return to Nepal (where I haven't been for 20 years)?
You should return to Nepal because you are a citizen on Nepal. If it were up to me, I would support allowing a limited number of people fleeing/avoiding a civil war to stay in america, but only temporarly. They should all be returned to their country when the war is over -- even if they have become accustomed to living here.
But I've suffered enough. Being Saluditorian but not getting aid in state schools. Paying international rates when my parents paid state taxes all the years. Get A- averages but can't get work experience in my field. Can't accept TA or RA offers and have to pay my way through masters.
Those are all a result of being here in America. It doesn't tell us why you shouldn't be deported to Nepal -- none of the things you have "suffered" happened in Nepal (nor would be expected to happen if you returned to Nepal).
Furthermore, I don't think the things you listed qualify as suffering, nor do I think they are unreasonable. If you're here w/ a student visa, then the trade-off is: you get one of the best educations in the world and the benefits of living here temporarly. america gets the benefit of the additional income you bring into the country (paying your tuition and living expenses).
Therefore, it isn't unreasonable for america to a) not pay for your tuition w/ aid (we wouldn't receive the economic benefit if we're paying for your education), b) charge you international rates for studying here (economic benefits again). Even U.S. citizens have to pay for a masters degree. And if you are here on a student visa, you aren't here to gain work experience.
I don't think it matters that you came here when you were 5. What you are arguing is that if you are in this conutry for N number of years, you should suddenly become a citizin of the US and should be able to do what ever you want. It doesn't work like that at all.
I don't think it matters if your employer is in on your fraudulent activities. The punishment for you, shouldn't change. The employer should also be punished/fined for violating out laws as well.
You say you aren't "stealing" anyones job. But you are taking a job from an american. Perhaps you think all americans have degrees, and we all do research or technical work.. but it simply isn't true. The census bureau says only 20% of the americans have college degrees -- that leaves 80% who have high school (or lower) educations. Some of those 80% of americans are competing with you for that job at McDonald's. When that job is given to you, you have deprived an american from a job.
However, I do sympathize with the situation you are in (unable to speak the language in Nepal, and the country being in civil war). For that I ask: What have you done in the years you have been here to correct your legal situation (w/ regard to working here)?
If the answer is nothing, then I have no sympathy for you.
I wanted to add one more thing. When someone gets a visa to enter our country its for a specific reason. Americans (through our leaders) agreed to this arrangement because we thought the trade-off was a benefit to us (or was in some way fair).
Examples:
You are granted a student visa: you get one of the best educations in the world; we get the extra income you bring into our country (everything should be paid using money you earned in your home country or sent to you from your home country).
You are granted a work visa: you earn more money than you would have made in your home country (money that often gets sent back to the home country); we get an additional worker who will help satisfy a shortage.
We let you come here because it benefits us in some way. When you get a student visa, but then start working in our country, you are breaking an agreement you made with our country and the american people. You've decided that the agreement you made doesn't benefit you enough, and so you've decided to act in a way that does not benefit us.
If you can't abide by the agreement you made, then you should not get to benefits of being in america.
Yes, I do think someone should be deported for misrepresenting the reason why they are in our country. If they are here on a student visa, they should attend school, then go home after their visa expires or they graduate. If they wanted to work here, they should have applied for a work visa.
Just like every other country in the world, we have a right to limit the number of immigrants who are in our country for a specific reason. When someone lies to get in to our country so they can take a job from an american, they should be deported. They are showing a disrespect for the american people, and America's laws.
We set limits on the number of tech workers, for instance, to protect the american workers. It's not in our best interest to have american workers unable to find jobs. Jobs provided by American companies, in america, for americans, should go to american workers. Not an immigrant without a work visa.
Do you really think its the law of God that permits someone to work in our country? If you want me to agree with that, you better give me some of what you're smoking.
well thank you for clearing that up. I honestly don't feel as bad that you are here. You are still commiting fraud by saying to your employer that you are legally allowed to work, and you are still breaking our laws, and for that I still think you should be kicked out.
My original post was more aimed at the 10-15 million people who have no legal right to be on our soil. You may have a right to be here, but you have no right to break out laws.
you approach the issue logically and calmly, as if what you are doing is OK and justified. You approach it as if you should get all of the benefits of someone who is here LEGALLY - you want SS benefits, you want the benefits of our economy and political system.
So what's the big deal? What's the problem with taking a job from an american (even if it is in the fast food industry)? So what's the problem with using the SSN of an american?... with entering a country illegally?... with commiting identity theft?
Just because you don't know the name of the person you stole the SSN from doesnt make it right. It doesn't change what it does to that person. It doesn't change the effects it has on their credit and on their lives.
Millions of people every year get their identity stolen and it costs them thousands of dollars, and sometimes years worth of their time. The loss you've already caused to the person you stole the SSN from more than offsets the (minuscule) contribution you've made in taxes.
The fact is illegal immigrants are a drain on the american system and that includes YOU. What you are doing is a slap in the face to every legal immigrant who has gone through the process to come here legally.
You ignore our border; you ignore our laws -- GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY! (you're welcome back when you get your green card)
i hate capital one... i have about a half-dozen credit cards with APRs of 7.5-8.9%... but even though Ive had a capital one card for more than 3 years (and a really good credit rating), they still won't lower the apr from 20%+... in fact, last year I started paying off the balance every month.. so while ive paid hundreds of dollars in interest for my other cards, capital one hasn't received a penny in interest.
I think you're exactly right... The company I work for once tried to expand their advertising by using Looksmart... after 48 hours they put the advertising on hold -- they already received thousands of clicks and spent hundreds of dollars. After 3 months, not a single one of those visitors ever returned to our site, and we dropped Looksmart.. they probably won't get a dime from us ever again.
Face it.. as much as you want to praise IBM.. they are a company, and are just doing what's in their best interest -- including patenting some ridiculous crap.
No.. that is not the law. go to your local library and pick up a law book on corporate governance.
The board of directors are ultimately responsible for the companies actions.. they usually owe a duty to the shareholders, but this duty can fall to their creditors in some situations (for example if the company is insolvant).
A director has has a duty of care, and loyalty. There is also a business judgement rule (that works in confunction with their duty of care) that protects a director from liability of mere negligence if exercising their duty of care.
If a director must make a decision and there are only two choices: one that will result in more money for the shareholders, and another that will result in the company being more fiscally sound, the director may make either choice, provided he acts with care and loyalty to the company.
As a real-life example of a board that is acting with care and loyalty, but is making a decision that results in less money for shareholders, take a look at the current Qwest-MCI-Verizon merger...
MCI's board is refusing Qwests bid, and taking Verizons lower offer (lower by more than a billion dollars). They are taking the lower offer because Verizon is a much larger company that is more fiscally sound, and therefore can more easily meet MCI's obligations.
This is such an incrediable engineering effort. It's quite amazing what NASA can accomplish when they aren't tied to the designs of yesterday (like the Shuttle).
The Shuttle has done nothing but hold NASA back. They should ditch the things in the ocean and spend more money on this new "Paper" technology. Just imagine what we could accomplish then!
ah.. but googleguy says he doesn't represent the official opinion of Google, Inc. And if Billy came on here and said the security of Windows isn't a problem because he put a link to report problems on MSN on some obscure page that no one can easily find... i have no doubt he would be modded a troll.
tell me how he's isnt a troll.. he comes on here and tells us the 302 exploit isn't a problem because he put a link on some page no one can easily find and he only got 30 responses.
Google: Shows searches at any Google-owned web site such as Google.com or Google Image Search. May show searches at some Google partners that show Google's domain in the URLs of their search results, as happens with Go.com.
It goes on to say that google provides up to 48% of search results (after you include results from sites like AOL, iWon, MyWay, etc, that use google).
But google really has no way to track people who use AOL or iWon for results.. they can only track the 35% that actually use the google site. So if they released browser stats, it would only be for those 35%...
Anyone complains, ask for proof they didn't make a purchase from you.
that isn't even how it works for merchants. If anyone complains, you (the merchant) needs to prove to the card holders bank that they made the purchase. The card holders bank almost always sides with THEIR customer.
Let us know when you move out of your parents basement and learn how the real world works
Slashdot Mirror
Except, its market share is only 35%.. which is far from a monopoly. (For comparison, yahoo is at 32%)
Only here on slashdot does everyone think google completely controls the web search market.
that wasn't really a fix.. more like a temporary work around. A fix would be a patch for the memory leaks.
Only place I can be useful in the world is here.
I'm sure every immigrant (legal or illegal) believes they can be more useful in america -- they wouldn't have come here if they believed otherwise. However, citizenship isn't decided based on usefulness. If every person who thought they could be more useful here in america, actually came to america, our population would probably swell to billions. It is (usually) a given that when someone is deported they are being sent somewhere where they may not be useful (I say usually, since immigrants are usually from third-world/developing nations).
Why should I return to Nepal (where I haven't been for 20 years)?
You should return to Nepal because you are a citizen on Nepal. If it were up to me, I would support allowing a limited number of people fleeing/avoiding a civil war to stay in america, but only temporarly. They should all be returned to their country when the war is over -- even if they have become accustomed to living here.
But I've suffered enough. Being Saluditorian but not getting aid in state schools. Paying international rates when my parents paid state taxes all the years. Get A- averages but can't get work experience in my field. Can't accept TA or RA offers and have to pay my way through masters.
Those are all a result of being here in America. It doesn't tell us why you shouldn't be deported to Nepal -- none of the things you have "suffered" happened in Nepal (nor would be expected to happen if you returned to Nepal).
Furthermore, I don't think the things you listed qualify as suffering, nor do I think they are unreasonable. If you're here w/ a student visa, then the trade-off is: you get one of the best educations in the world and the benefits of living here temporarly. america gets the benefit of the additional income you bring into the country (paying your tuition and living expenses).
Therefore, it isn't unreasonable for america to a) not pay for your tuition w/ aid (we wouldn't receive the economic benefit if we're paying for your education), b) charge you international rates for studying here (economic benefits again). Even U.S. citizens have to pay for a masters degree. And if you are here on a student visa, you aren't here to gain work experience.
I don't think it matters that you came here when you were 5. What you are arguing is that if you are in this conutry for N number of years, you should suddenly become a citizin of the US and should be able to do what ever you want. It doesn't work like that at all.
I don't think it matters if your employer is in on your fraudulent activities. The punishment for you, shouldn't change. The employer should also be punished/fined for violating out laws as well.
You say you aren't "stealing" anyones job. But you are taking a job from an american. Perhaps you think all americans have degrees, and we all do research or technical work.. but it simply isn't true. The census bureau says only 20% of the americans have college degrees -- that leaves 80% who have high school (or lower) educations. Some of those 80% of americans are competing with you for that job at McDonald's. When that job is given to you, you have deprived an american from a job.
However, I do sympathize with the situation you are in (unable to speak the language in Nepal, and the country being in civil war). For that I ask: What have you done in the years you have been here to correct your legal situation (w/ regard to working here)?
If the answer is nothing, then I have no sympathy for you.
Examples:
You are granted a student visa: you get one of the best educations in the world; we get the extra income you bring into our country (everything should be paid using money you earned in your home country or sent to you from your home country).
You are granted a work visa: you earn more money than you would have made in your home country (money that often gets sent back to the home country); we get an additional worker who will help satisfy a shortage.
We let you come here because it benefits us in some way. When you get a student visa, but then start working in our country, you are breaking an agreement you made with our country and the american people. You've decided that the agreement you made doesn't benefit you enough, and so you've decided to act in a way that does not benefit us.
If you can't abide by the agreement you made, then you should not get to benefits of being in america.
Just like every other country in the world, we have a right to limit the number of immigrants who are in our country for a specific reason. When someone lies to get in to our country so they can take a job from an american, they should be deported. They are showing a disrespect for the american people, and America's laws.
We set limits on the number of tech workers, for instance, to protect the american workers. It's not in our best interest to have american workers unable to find jobs. Jobs provided by American companies, in america, for americans, should go to american workers. Not an immigrant without a work visa.
Do you really think its the law of God that permits someone to work in our country? If you want me to agree with that, you better give me some of what you're smoking.
My original post was more aimed at the 10-15 million people who have no legal right to be on our soil. You may have a right to be here, but you have no right to break out laws.
you approach the issue logically and calmly, as if what you are doing is OK and justified. You approach it as if you should get all of the benefits of someone who is here LEGALLY - you want SS benefits, you want the benefits of our economy and political system.
So what's the big deal? What's the problem with taking a job from an american (even if it is in the fast food industry)? So what's the problem with using the SSN of an american? ... with entering a country illegally? ... with commiting identity theft?
Just because you don't know the name of the person you stole the SSN from doesnt make it right. It doesn't change what it does to that person. It doesn't change the effects it has on their credit and on their lives.
Millions of people every year get their identity stolen and it costs them thousands of dollars, and sometimes years worth of their time. The loss you've already caused to the person you stole the SSN from more than offsets the (minuscule) contribution you've made in taxes.
The fact is illegal immigrants are a drain on the american system and that includes YOU. What you are doing is a slap in the face to every legal immigrant who has gone through the process to come here legally.
You ignore our border; you ignore our laws -- GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY! (you're welcome back when you get your green card)
of course, i know absolutely nothing about the book.
i hate capital one... i have about a half-dozen credit cards with APRs of 7.5-8.9%... but even though Ive had a capital one card for more than 3 years (and a really good credit rating), they still won't lower the apr from 20%+... in fact, last year I started paying off the balance every month.. so while ive paid hundreds of dollars in interest for my other cards, capital one hasn't received a penny in interest.
I think you're exactly right... The company I work for once tried to expand their advertising by using Looksmart... after 48 hours they put the advertising on hold -- they already received thousands of clicks and spent hundreds of dollars. After 3 months, not a single one of those visitors ever returned to our site, and we dropped Looksmart.. they probably won't get a dime from us ever again.
Half of the patents granted to IBM are software patents
They are lobbying the EU FOR software patents
They have patented such novel invention like:
Caps lock notification (granted 2004)
And Web page templates (submitted 1998)
Face it.. as much as you want to praise IBM.. they are a company, and are just doing what's in their best interest -- including patenting some ridiculous crap.
The board of directors are ultimately responsible for the companies actions.. they usually owe a duty to the shareholders, but this duty can fall to their creditors in some situations (for example if the company is insolvant).
A director has has a duty of care, and loyalty. There is also a business judgement rule (that works in confunction with their duty of care) that protects a director from liability of mere negligence if exercising their duty of care.
If a director must make a decision and there are only two choices: one that will result in more money for the shareholders, and another that will result in the company being more fiscally sound, the director may make either choice, provided he acts with care and loyalty to the company.
As a real-life example of a board that is acting with care and loyalty, but is making a decision that results in less money for shareholders, take a look at the current Qwest-MCI-Verizon merger...
MCI's board is refusing Qwests bid, and taking Verizons lower offer (lower by more than a billion dollars). They are taking the lower offer because Verizon is a much larger company that is more fiscally sound, and therefore can more easily meet MCI's obligations.
The Shuttle has done nothing but hold NASA back. They should ditch the things in the ocean and spend more money on this new "Paper" technology. Just imagine what we could accomplish then!
that isnt comparable.. the blacks are a minority, and they were the ones being oppressed. maybe you should reread his post.
ah.. but googleguy says he doesn't represent the official opinion of Google, Inc. And if Billy came on here and said the security of Windows isn't a problem because he put a link to report problems on MSN on some obscure page that no one can easily find... i have no doubt he would be modded a troll.
tell me how he's isnt a troll.. he comes on here and tells us the 302 exploit isn't a problem because he put a link on some page no one can easily find and he only got 30 responses.
yeah.. they're in damage-control mode now... apparently lying isn't against thier 'no-evil' policy.
What happened to Google's 'dont be evil' policy. Guess that only applies when its convenient. Personally.. I would have given GoogleGuy -1 Troll.
thanks for the link. from your article:
Google: Shows searches at any Google-owned web site such as Google.com or Google Image Search. May show searches at some Google partners that show Google's domain in the URLs of their search results, as happens with Go.com.
It goes on to say that google provides up to 48% of search results (after you include results from sites like AOL, iWon, MyWay, etc, that use google).
But google really has no way to track people who use AOL or iWon for results.. they can only track the 35% that actually use the google site. So if they released browser stats, it would only be for those 35%...
well... if 35 percent is EVERYBODY.. then sure.
may i ask where you moved to that was so much better? (serious question.. i live in Denver :)
google still doesn't pass the w3c validator
that isn't even how it works for merchants. If anyone complains, you (the merchant) needs to prove to the card holders bank that they made the purchase. The card holders bank almost always sides with THEIR customer.
Let us know when you move out of your parents basement and learn how the real world works
ive had blockbuster for the last few months, and they did *exactly* the same thing.