Oh, they just released those. They have a 2U box with 4 servers sharing two PSUs now.
PowerEdge C6100 I think. But you're right, I remember looking at HP and the others and they did have them but they weren't the right price for us, as we didn't need density.
Honest question from a software developer: is there a free or low price developer version of Oracle DB to test code against?
SQL Server has Express, a highly limited version, Compact, a limited edition for distribution with retail applications, and Developer which is for development use only and is functionally equivalent to Enterprise (only difference is the price: Developer edition is $50.)
Keep in mind we don't have professional router boxes, there's no room in our budget for a few thousand to drop on Cisco or anything more than a few cheap smoothwall boxes.
Again, this is what I see every time small business networking is involved. There's a huge disconnect between what Cisco or even the IETF think is needed in small business and what actually is.
How many? Clearly an insignificant number, based on the growing, not shrinking, number of illegal immigrants in the US.
Your beef should be with your employer and our broken immigration policy, not the illegals. The person who took your job didn't hold a gun to your boss's head in order to get you fired and get a job for themselves.
Why don't we take away the tools employers have to use against their workforce that are illegitimate? Why don't we make the illegals who want to be here full citizens and make them equals?
Furthermore, what would you say if I took your job? What would you say to that. Should regular Americans not be allowed to gain employment while there's a single veteran whose price is too high?
DHCPv6 still isn't entirely standardized and lacks many of the features DHCPv4 does still. In practice, I've found DHCPv6 to be a total mess for both Linux and Windows clients, whereas router advertisement (whether from Linux or Windows) works much better and the autoconfigured IPs work fine. Even Windows 2000 supports router advertisement messages if you enable the IPv6 stack I believe.
I really wish there was a better way to combine the two into one service, and why is it not possible for me to broadcast a third party route to clients through radvd or DHCPv6? I can't say "Hey guys if you want to reach fd:dead:beef::/48, go through fd:123:456:789::1." The only way I can do that is if I run radvd on 123:456:789::1, seems a little ridiculous to me.
I swear the networking specialists have totally taken over on IPv6 and left IT and developers and real world users out of the discussion. It's an utter pain to switch to IPv6 because it lacks that sort of central management. Maybe Cisco doesn't have a problem with it because their switches and routers can do all of it in one box, but it's ridiculous for small business.
But isn't the point of DNSSEC that the US Government couldn't forge a certificate for a.cn domain? They'd have to have the root key, I doubt China would give that out.
So if you still would have been fired, why blame illegal immigrants at all? They're obviously not the problem. Clearly the problem was your cheap employer with no sense of loyalty to their employees.
You're absolutely xenophobic and racist. You're also an elitist, which is ironic because I'd guess you'd describe me as one too.
What makes you so special that the government should stop the immigration process nationwide? Sure, I think GI Bills are great and caring for our veterans is #1 priority. If we risk their lives, we should make sure they're taken care of, but there is a limit.
I mean, where does it end? You said your brothers and sisters in the armed forces. Should we stop employers from being able to hire non-veterans while a single one goes underemployed? If not, why is there a three tier system between non-citizens, citizens, and veterans? No matter what your answer is, you're putting yourself on a special pedestal.
This is all moot though. You're blaming the wrong person. The government isn't at fault, even though we disagree on immigration policy. You can't blame the government for every crime that happens, there are diminishing returns on it. Just like the government can't throw money at Iraq and have it squeaky clean in a week, you can't throw money at a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty" or a "war on illegal immigration" and have it solved overnight. None of these "wars" have ever worked, by the way.
The real person you should blame is your crappy former employer. The one who broke the law to hire illegal immigrants and fired you because he was so cheap he thought it worth the risk to skimp on benefits, taxes and pay and hire an illegal who, being in such a poor position and under threat of deportation, was willing to take the job.
That's capitalism in action Runaway. Don'tcha love it?
Answer this one question for me: would you still have been fired and replaced if we had made all the illegal immigrants valid US citizens, and told them that if they were being taken advantage of they could tattle on their employer (who would face enormous fines and even criminal charges) without threat of deportation? Think about it. And keep in mind, in this hypothetical situation, this is no different than you being fired and replaced by someone to work your job legally for less. Do you think it should be illegal for me to take your job if I'm willing to do it for less?
These features have existed for years, the news is that Secunia is participating in the program and may package patches for third party programs that have not opted in to participate with Microsoft's solution.
I can deploy, for example, Dell patches and drivers specific to Dell machines using System Center / WSUS. I think the only news here is that now I can keep Java or Adobe Reader or whatever up to date too.
Wow, the invasion of Europe by the Islamic/Arabic masses? They represent a tiny minority, and just like here, some of the more conservative elements have taken to xenophobia and scare-tactics to avoid addressing any real issues. There are fewer Muslims, legal citizen or not, in western Europe than there are illegals in America.
Why can illegals always work cheaper than you? If they had the same payroll taxes, if they had the same benefits as you, if their employer had to maintain OSHA compliance for them just as much as you, if their employer had to match their health care to yours, why would they still be able to work for less? And if a Hispanic American citizen were to apply for your job and they were willing to take home less net pay for the same job, isn't that just capitalism? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?
Kids are failing in schools not because of illegals, but because of poor education, because of boards of education lowering standards or because of half-assed programs like no child left behind.
Your spam email is pathetic, and nearly every statement is as histrionic and ill-conceived as the words uttered by Glenn Beck on a daily basis. It's xenophobic and racist.
Listen, there's no way, no amount of money we could spend to totally get rid of the illegals. The only reason you lost your job to an illegal is because they can be paid less, they don't get the same benefits, etc.
If the illegals were all made legitimate, you wouldn't have lost your job to an illegal, you would have had to have lost your job to someone better qualified willing to work for less legitimately.
You're still coming across like a bigot, now just generally a xenophobe. We both know that the government has its hands very much tied dealing with illegals, that it's an expensive and time-consuming process made morally impossible when you account for all the illegals that have children that are, by the law of the land, natural born citizens of the US.
Given that it would cost billions to detain and deport every illegal, and would result in thousands of orphans whose parents were deported, do you really think it's worth it? Do you think we should continue throwing billions of dollars at our border between the US and Mexico, and throw millions at the Coast Guard to step up their patrols along the gulf and California? Do you really think that any of this is actually going to result in moving a significant fraction of the illegals out of the country or preventing more from coming in?
How about we deal with the main problem, lawmakers listening to their constituents who are xenophobes and afraid of immigrants taking their jobs as if it would be somehow unfair for a US Citizen of 1 year to take the job of a US Citizen of 10 years. Key words there: US Citizen. You're both the same in the eyes of the law. So to deal with this xenophobia, they've crippled the immigration process and made it longer and more difficult and with fewer immigrants handled yearly. So now the people who illegally immigrate do have an advantage over you in the workplace. They're not here legitimately, they don't need to have payroll tax deducted, they don't need to be paid as much and don't need to get any form of health insurance, you basically don't have to worry about OSHA or any of that if you've got a factory full of illegals. Etc.
Listen to me, I think it is BS that they have an advantage from the perspective of employers. But what I propose is really quite simple: get rid of any advantage they have and give them all the rights and responsibilities of regular citizens. Post up flyers and run ads telling them that they can stand up to abusive employment practices.
They're only criminals because they're breaking immigration law. If the law were different, if we granted them amnesty, the vast majority would not be criminals anymore. As a result, they'd no longer have what many consider an "unfair advantage" in the employment market for many jobs, and they'd have the same minimum protections all citizens do.
You have to understand that I think our immigration policy is wrong in the first place, most illegals came here because they wanted to live here but were unable to emigrate legally. The process to do so is long, expensive, and made more difficult by what I consider essentially a poll tax on immigration. I think it's wrong, I think our country was founded to be a safe haven for people who believe their country no longer serves them.
So when you look at it from my view, calling them all criminals is tautological. Of course the illegals here are criminals, because our immigration policy makes them criminals. Our immigration policy is broken, they aren't guilty of any heinous crime.
There are some huge biases at play here. Of course Houston police are used to dealing with the dregs of society, of course they're regularly dealing with the gangs comprised of illegals, and of course the drug traffickers are here illegally. The last one is even a tautology! Even if the drug traffickers had passports it'd be illegal for them to be here!
All I've seen from you are talking points and very racist remarks that generalize ten or twenty million people based on the worst group of them. How about I apply the same reason to citizens in America? We Americans jail more of our own people than any other country on earth! We are surely the worst mankind has to offer. We would be lucky to get the citizens of other nations where crime rates are so much lower. *eyeroll*
Decreasing clock speed with a CPU usually allows a pretty good decrease in voltage, and as you said, the power consumption decreases with the square of voltage.
So if you decrease the clock speed by 10% and that lets you drop the voltage by 10%, you get a ~30% drop in power consumption.
Of course, if you have a fixed voltage or a fixed frequency the equation comes out differently, but anyone who is seriously underclocking for power usage and ignoring voltage is, well, not seeing the forest for the trees.
This is what lead Anandtech to confusingly claim that clock frequency cubed relates to power consumption. In practice it can be close to that, but it is as you said, more complex.
Are you done defending bigotry? Don't confuse the crimes of ancient civilization with current-generation Latin America.
And my quick and dirty response to your immigration spiel is that there shouldn't be a queue to immigrate to the US. We're the land of the free, we're the land of hopes and dreams, we're supposed to be the place people aspire to be. But we've made it very difficult for people to become legals out of bigotry and fear that new Americans have less of a right to the same jobs that other Americans have.
In my oh-so-humble opinion, I think we should just make all the illegals here naturalized citizens in one fell swoop, crack down on the businesses who fail to provide them the same benefits and pay and have been skimping on payroll taxes and be done with it. The illegals, ten to twenty million of them, are here and there's nothing we can do about it. Our borders are too large, our immigration policy too strict to allow the free movement of people. What are the states afraid of, that 20 million new citizens would break the country?
I think the US code should be under version control and laws should be "patches" so to speak. It'd be amazing if we had that.
It's a long way down the road though. Ultimately, all legal text is just like what you said, and you're right that it is complex. You're right that it is, a little dense. Neither of us are lawyers though, and if you really, truly cared about it you could look up all of the text online, and all the referenced code, etc.
Wow, because the Europeans who emigrated to the US and brutally slaughtered the Native Americans were so much better than the "crude" tribespeople who lived here.
You're just a racist, a bigot, you're not willing to actually talk about immigration policy. You think that a few rotten eggs are representative of the entire coop. Not only that, but you're willing to dredge up ancient history to these folks to try and incriminate them. Sins of our great great great grandfathers, I guess.
I suppose you think that because the news covers the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the brown people must hate the US and be incapable of reason? Or is it too extreme to categorize them in the same way you've done for Hispanics?
It does increase risk if a situation is erroneously escalated and someone with a life-threatening condition is called in moments later and no resources are available to serve them.
Unless the phone operators are going to go to med school or go through extensive EMT training, I think I'd prefer it if they followed guidelines set by someone who has done either. If there's a situation that truly does not fall within any guideline, they should defer to the EMTs, or a supervisor who is trained when they contact them and explain the situation. At some point between receiving your call and the paramedics arriving at the scene, the dispatcher has to communicate with someone and explain the details. And even if there are some hoops to jump through, I'd much rather have medical professionals make those decisions.
Armchair experts are bad news, I know, I've been one of them. There's nothing worse than someone who knows has just enough knowledge to think they know the answer when they don't, and just enough power to implement it.
No, many do want to naturalize and are happy their kids are citizens because that is the law of the land. But some bureaucrats have decided that the immigration policy that lead to enormous growth hundreds of years ago no longer servers our nation. I think we should accept any and everyone to be US citizens, it makes our country stronger, more diverse, and affords those people the same protections everyone else has in the US.
You can't say illegal aliens are taking our jobs when they aren't illegal, when they have the same minimum wage and required benefits and the ability to participate in legal organizations (unions, etc) and can no longer be taken advantage of by manipulative businesses. A lot of businesses love illegals because they can abuse them and they have no recourse (the illegals often don't realize that they could blackmail the business, but two wrongs do not make a right either.)
Everyone would be better off if we changed our immigration policy, including the government, you, and I.
You sure have some awful nice talking points there.
How much does your physician make that he's going to end up paying $100,000 in extra taxes? None of the new taxes are more than a few percentage points.
I bet it costs them less to go on vacation than it does in America. We have essentially no national transport, rail can be cheap but is slow, and our airports are a mess. Driving is of course always possible but who wants to drive for a day or two to get somewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a particular SKU or could you link me to the relevant download and/or licensing info?
Oh, they just released those. They have a 2U box with 4 servers sharing two PSUs now.
PowerEdge C6100 I think. But you're right, I remember looking at HP and the others and they did have them but they weren't the right price for us, as we didn't need density.
Honest question from a software developer: is there a free or low price developer version of Oracle DB to test code against?
SQL Server has Express, a highly limited version, Compact, a limited edition for distribution with retail applications, and Developer which is for development use only and is functionally equivalent to Enterprise (only difference is the price: Developer edition is $50.)
We just got a few 1U dual socket quad core servers from Dell, so I don't know why you're saying they can't do it.
One of our smoothwall boxes is the VPN and does the routing to the branches via a T1, and the other is just DSL.
I realize we're scraping the bottom of the barrel here in terms of networking setups, but it seems odd to me that DHCPv6 lacks this functionality.
You tell me how to deploy OSPF, RIP, EIGRP, or BGP in a small business network with branch office VPNs and I'll give you a gold star.
That said, about DHCPv4:
http://www.debian-administration.org/article/Supplying_routing_information_using_DHCP
Defined in RFC3442.
Keep in mind we don't have professional router boxes, there's no room in our budget for a few thousand to drop on Cisco or anything more than a few cheap smoothwall boxes.
Again, this is what I see every time small business networking is involved. There's a huge disconnect between what Cisco or even the IETF think is needed in small business and what actually is.
How many? Clearly an insignificant number, based on the growing, not shrinking, number of illegal immigrants in the US.
Your beef should be with your employer and our broken immigration policy, not the illegals. The person who took your job didn't hold a gun to your boss's head in order to get you fired and get a job for themselves.
Why don't we take away the tools employers have to use against their workforce that are illegitimate? Why don't we make the illegals who want to be here full citizens and make them equals?
Furthermore, what would you say if I took your job? What would you say to that. Should regular Americans not be allowed to gain employment while there's a single veteran whose price is too high?
DHCPv6 still isn't entirely standardized and lacks many of the features DHCPv4 does still. In practice, I've found DHCPv6 to be a total mess for both Linux and Windows clients, whereas router advertisement (whether from Linux or Windows) works much better and the autoconfigured IPs work fine. Even Windows 2000 supports router advertisement messages if you enable the IPv6 stack I believe.
I really wish there was a better way to combine the two into one service, and why is it not possible for me to broadcast a third party route to clients through radvd or DHCPv6? I can't say "Hey guys if you want to reach fd:dead:beef::/48, go through fd:123:456:789::1." The only way I can do that is if I run radvd on 123:456:789::1, seems a little ridiculous to me.
I swear the networking specialists have totally taken over on IPv6 and left IT and developers and real world users out of the discussion. It's an utter pain to switch to IPv6 because it lacks that sort of central management. Maybe Cisco doesn't have a problem with it because their switches and routers can do all of it in one box, but it's ridiculous for small business.
But isn't the point of DNSSEC that the US Government couldn't forge a certificate for a .cn domain? They'd have to have the root key, I doubt China would give that out.
So if you still would have been fired, why blame illegal immigrants at all? They're obviously not the problem. Clearly the problem was your cheap employer with no sense of loyalty to their employees.
You're absolutely xenophobic and racist. You're also an elitist, which is ironic because I'd guess you'd describe me as one too.
What makes you so special that the government should stop the immigration process nationwide? Sure, I think GI Bills are great and caring for our veterans is #1 priority. If we risk their lives, we should make sure they're taken care of, but there is a limit.
I mean, where does it end? You said your brothers and sisters in the armed forces. Should we stop employers from being able to hire non-veterans while a single one goes underemployed? If not, why is there a three tier system between non-citizens, citizens, and veterans? No matter what your answer is, you're putting yourself on a special pedestal.
This is all moot though. You're blaming the wrong person. The government isn't at fault, even though we disagree on immigration policy. You can't blame the government for every crime that happens, there are diminishing returns on it. Just like the government can't throw money at Iraq and have it squeaky clean in a week, you can't throw money at a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty" or a "war on illegal immigration" and have it solved overnight. None of these "wars" have ever worked, by the way.
The real person you should blame is your crappy former employer. The one who broke the law to hire illegal immigrants and fired you because he was so cheap he thought it worth the risk to skimp on benefits, taxes and pay and hire an illegal who, being in such a poor position and under threat of deportation, was willing to take the job.
That's capitalism in action Runaway. Don'tcha love it?
Answer this one question for me: would you still have been fired and replaced if we had made all the illegal immigrants valid US citizens, and told them that if they were being taken advantage of they could tattle on their employer (who would face enormous fines and even criminal charges) without threat of deportation? Think about it. And keep in mind, in this hypothetical situation, this is no different than you being fired and replaced by someone to work your job legally for less. Do you think it should be illegal for me to take your job if I'm willing to do it for less?
These features have existed for years, the news is that Secunia is participating in the program and may package patches for third party programs that have not opted in to participate with Microsoft's solution.
I can deploy, for example, Dell patches and drivers specific to Dell machines using System Center / WSUS. I think the only news here is that now I can keep Java or Adobe Reader or whatever up to date too.
Wow, the invasion of Europe by the Islamic/Arabic masses? They represent a tiny minority, and just like here, some of the more conservative elements have taken to xenophobia and scare-tactics to avoid addressing any real issues. There are fewer Muslims, legal citizen or not, in western Europe than there are illegals in America.
Why can illegals always work cheaper than you? If they had the same payroll taxes, if they had the same benefits as you, if their employer had to maintain OSHA compliance for them just as much as you, if their employer had to match their health care to yours, why would they still be able to work for less? And if a Hispanic American citizen were to apply for your job and they were willing to take home less net pay for the same job, isn't that just capitalism? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?
Kids are failing in schools not because of illegals, but because of poor education, because of boards of education lowering standards or because of half-assed programs like no child left behind.
Your spam email is pathetic, and nearly every statement is as histrionic and ill-conceived as the words uttered by Glenn Beck on a daily basis. It's xenophobic and racist.
Listen, there's no way, no amount of money we could spend to totally get rid of the illegals. The only reason you lost your job to an illegal is because they can be paid less, they don't get the same benefits, etc.
If the illegals were all made legitimate, you wouldn't have lost your job to an illegal, you would have had to have lost your job to someone better qualified willing to work for less legitimately.
You're still coming across like a bigot, now just generally a xenophobe. We both know that the government has its hands very much tied dealing with illegals, that it's an expensive and time-consuming process made morally impossible when you account for all the illegals that have children that are, by the law of the land, natural born citizens of the US.
Given that it would cost billions to detain and deport every illegal, and would result in thousands of orphans whose parents were deported, do you really think it's worth it? Do you think we should continue throwing billions of dollars at our border between the US and Mexico, and throw millions at the Coast Guard to step up their patrols along the gulf and California? Do you really think that any of this is actually going to result in moving a significant fraction of the illegals out of the country or preventing more from coming in?
How about we deal with the main problem, lawmakers listening to their constituents who are xenophobes and afraid of immigrants taking their jobs as if it would be somehow unfair for a US Citizen of 1 year to take the job of a US Citizen of 10 years. Key words there: US Citizen. You're both the same in the eyes of the law. So to deal with this xenophobia, they've crippled the immigration process and made it longer and more difficult and with fewer immigrants handled yearly. So now the people who illegally immigrate do have an advantage over you in the workplace. They're not here legitimately, they don't need to have payroll tax deducted, they don't need to be paid as much and don't need to get any form of health insurance, you basically don't have to worry about OSHA or any of that if you've got a factory full of illegals. Etc.
Listen to me, I think it is BS that they have an advantage from the perspective of employers. But what I propose is really quite simple: get rid of any advantage they have and give them all the rights and responsibilities of regular citizens. Post up flyers and run ads telling them that they can stand up to abusive employment practices.
They're only criminals because they're breaking immigration law. If the law were different, if we granted them amnesty, the vast majority would not be criminals anymore. As a result, they'd no longer have what many consider an "unfair advantage" in the employment market for many jobs, and they'd have the same minimum protections all citizens do.
You have to understand that I think our immigration policy is wrong in the first place, most illegals came here because they wanted to live here but were unable to emigrate legally. The process to do so is long, expensive, and made more difficult by what I consider essentially a poll tax on immigration. I think it's wrong, I think our country was founded to be a safe haven for people who believe their country no longer serves them.
So when you look at it from my view, calling them all criminals is tautological. Of course the illegals here are criminals, because our immigration policy makes them criminals. Our immigration policy is broken, they aren't guilty of any heinous crime.
There are some huge biases at play here. Of course Houston police are used to dealing with the dregs of society, of course they're regularly dealing with the gangs comprised of illegals, and of course the drug traffickers are here illegally. The last one is even a tautology! Even if the drug traffickers had passports it'd be illegal for them to be here!
All I've seen from you are talking points and very racist remarks that generalize ten or twenty million people based on the worst group of them. How about I apply the same reason to citizens in America? We Americans jail more of our own people than any other country on earth! We are surely the worst mankind has to offer. We would be lucky to get the citizens of other nations where crime rates are so much lower. *eyeroll*
Decreasing clock speed with a CPU usually allows a pretty good decrease in voltage, and as you said, the power consumption decreases with the square of voltage.
So if you decrease the clock speed by 10% and that lets you drop the voltage by 10%, you get a ~30% drop in power consumption.
Of course, if you have a fixed voltage or a fixed frequency the equation comes out differently, but anyone who is seriously underclocking for power usage and ignoring voltage is, well, not seeing the forest for the trees.
This is what lead Anandtech to confusingly claim that clock frequency cubed relates to power consumption. In practice it can be close to that, but it is as you said, more complex.
Are you done defending bigotry? Don't confuse the crimes of ancient civilization with current-generation Latin America.
And my quick and dirty response to your immigration spiel is that there shouldn't be a queue to immigrate to the US. We're the land of the free, we're the land of hopes and dreams, we're supposed to be the place people aspire to be. But we've made it very difficult for people to become legals out of bigotry and fear that new Americans have less of a right to the same jobs that other Americans have.
In my oh-so-humble opinion, I think we should just make all the illegals here naturalized citizens in one fell swoop, crack down on the businesses who fail to provide them the same benefits and pay and have been skimping on payroll taxes and be done with it. The illegals, ten to twenty million of them, are here and there's nothing we can do about it. Our borders are too large, our immigration policy too strict to allow the free movement of people. What are the states afraid of, that 20 million new citizens would break the country?
I think the US code should be under version control and laws should be "patches" so to speak. It'd be amazing if we had that.
It's a long way down the road though. Ultimately, all legal text is just like what you said, and you're right that it is complex. You're right that it is, a little dense. Neither of us are lawyers though, and if you really, truly cared about it you could look up all of the text online, and all the referenced code, etc.
Wow, because the Europeans who emigrated to the US and brutally slaughtered the Native Americans were so much better than the "crude" tribespeople who lived here.
You're just a racist, a bigot, you're not willing to actually talk about immigration policy. You think that a few rotten eggs are representative of the entire coop. Not only that, but you're willing to dredge up ancient history to these folks to try and incriminate them. Sins of our great great great grandfathers, I guess.
I suppose you think that because the news covers the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the brown people must hate the US and be incapable of reason? Or is it too extreme to categorize them in the same way you've done for Hispanics?
It does increase risk if a situation is erroneously escalated and someone with a life-threatening condition is called in moments later and no resources are available to serve them.
Unless the phone operators are going to go to med school or go through extensive EMT training, I think I'd prefer it if they followed guidelines set by someone who has done either. If there's a situation that truly does not fall within any guideline, they should defer to the EMTs, or a supervisor who is trained when they contact them and explain the situation. At some point between receiving your call and the paramedics arriving at the scene, the dispatcher has to communicate with someone and explain the details. And even if there are some hoops to jump through, I'd much rather have medical professionals make those decisions.
Armchair experts are bad news, I know, I've been one of them. There's nothing worse than someone who knows has just enough knowledge to think they know the answer when they don't, and just enough power to implement it.
No, many do want to naturalize and are happy their kids are citizens because that is the law of the land. But some bureaucrats have decided that the immigration policy that lead to enormous growth hundreds of years ago no longer servers our nation. I think we should accept any and everyone to be US citizens, it makes our country stronger, more diverse, and affords those people the same protections everyone else has in the US.
You can't say illegal aliens are taking our jobs when they aren't illegal, when they have the same minimum wage and required benefits and the ability to participate in legal organizations (unions, etc) and can no longer be taken advantage of by manipulative businesses. A lot of businesses love illegals because they can abuse them and they have no recourse (the illegals often don't realize that they could blackmail the business, but two wrongs do not make a right either.)
Everyone would be better off if we changed our immigration policy, including the government, you, and I.
You sure have some awful nice talking points there.
How much does your physician make that he's going to end up paying $100,000 in extra taxes? None of the new taxes are more than a few percentage points.
I bet it costs them less to go on vacation than it does in America. We have essentially no national transport, rail can be cheap but is slow, and our airports are a mess. Driving is of course always possible but who wants to drive for a day or two to get somewhere?