Sure it's subsidized - all the android phone prices are, too.
If you want comparable features, you will be paying about the same amount for an android phone, so the point that everybodys spending 500 on an iPhone when they could be getting much cheaper android phones is bullshit, presuming you're not also sacrificing features and capability.
One question though. When someone stands up for personal responsibility. What is it about yourself that makes you feel that you must attack that belief?
Because this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility", and everything to do with you behaving like an obnoxious twat?
I'll answer your question with a similar question: What is it about yourself that makes you feel you must attack & deride people who have committed suicide as weak, and unsuited for living in the first place? Who are you to prescribe the measure of a person's endurance? And who are you to say that suicide has anything to do with someone not taking "personal responsibility" for something?
I take exception to you sitting there offering an opinion on the value of the person committing suicide, since in your words, they are "weak" and "cowardly" to do so.
Your entire chain of responses throughout this thread has been trollish, obnoxious, and shows a breathtaking lack of any concept of sympathy or empathy. Instead, you have simply said "anybody who kills themselves because they are in a situation where another person has directly or indirectly fucked up their lives is weak, and a coward."
Good for you for being a numb and emotionless ubermensch who can take any beating and keep on going. Not everybody is like you, and taking "personal responsibility" has nothing to do with that.
Stating that you have little sympathy for anybody who lost a bunch of money to Madoff because they should have done the responsible thing and invested wisely is very different from saying "Good, if they're too fucking weak to live after losing their life's savings, then they deserved to die." You're not standing up for "personal responsibility," you're flexing your e-peen in a vain attempt to tell us (and perhaps convince yourself) of how much of a tough John Wayne / Marlboro Man / Steve McQueen figure you are.
That's very possible, but it doesn't change the overall dynamic a bit. If the shopkeeper feels that transaction fees are eating into his profits, then he's well within his rights to refuse to accept credit cards at all. If it was strictly a losing proposition, then they wouldn't offer the capability; They may lose a few cents on my $2 transaction, but clearly, the proportion of profitable transactions is enough to absorb that loss.
Why would I do that? Cash is quite liquid - other people can dispose of it easily, and there's nothing really to show that "this $20 is mine." In addition, the filth on most money is rather distasteful, from a purely hygienic standpoint. Instead of filling my pockets with other people's bacteria and other snot, why not just use my debit card or credit card (I pay off the balance in full every month)?
Cash also lends itself to being easily frittered away with a dollar or two here, a dollar or two there. Cards allow you to keep closer track of your transactions and balances.
As far as taking more or less time, by the time I haul out my wallet, count out bills & check to see if I have appropriate change, it's just as easy to have simply swiped a card and keyed in a pin. And if the store's machines are acting up, it's not uncommon for the cashier to be unable to (or very slow to) calculate what my change should be on a cash transaction, too.
If the store is concerned about price-per-transaction costs, that's their problem, not mine. Some stores impose minimum limits for use of cards, so if the owners are that concerned, they can impose the same limit. If they're not willing to, I guess they're not very concerned about the transaction fees.
So... tell us again why cash is so much better? As far as I can see, the only argument *for* using cash is that you feel it takes longer to use a card, and in my experience, the difference in time is so small as to be nonexistent.
It might encourage the people working on the code to work harder - or it might mean they run out of money, energy, and interest and Diaspora becomes another piece of abandoned FOSS code.
If there are so many glaring security holes from the start, it sounds to me like they have accomplished nothing but a basic mockup. How long can they delay the release while they refactor & rewrite? While they implement the many features they haven't completed? While they do thorough security testing, which will possibly uncover *design* flaws in the security, not just "oops I didn't check array bounds here," which could mean that they have to rewrite & redesign entire sections of the application.
How much longer will the money they raised continue to fund their development?
By the way - ditch the insurance. By joining an insurance risk pool, you're asking other people to take responsibility for your life, health, and income, and that of your children. Since you're such a fan of personal responsibility and independence, just thought you should know.
You're engaging in purely pedantic argument for the sake of being a twat.
No, "stealing" is not "murder."
Yes, to anybody with a brain, "stealing" from someone can set off a chain of events that leads to their death, or someone else's death. If you are a direct cause of that chain of events, then you do bear *some* responsibility for the consequences. This is why cases of bullying are making their way through the courts. But I suppose by your way of thinking, Phoebe Prince killed herself because she was too weak, those other kids who bullied her and made her life miserable... they're totally innocent, amirite?
Now go listen to your some metal, stare at yourself in the mirror, and remind yourself how strong you are, übermensch.
Diaspora will just be another checkbox for hosting services as well.
s/will/could, if people decide the service is worth asking for,/g
You are assuming a whole chain of events which is not yet in evidence by asserting that this service, which we've seen nothing but a few screen shots and tightly controlled demos of, is a legitimate contender to replace Facebook as the next big thing. "Open source" isn't some magic stamp that guarantees success.
I can't find the original slashdot story, but the gist of the study discussed that "bullies and victims" in school situations have similar problems with social skills and navigating social environments, but where the victims will tend to immerse themselves in schoolwork and studies as an escape, bullies will tend to act out in violent ways.
I wonder if there's not something similar at work here, indicating that at least some of these engineers-who-turn-terrorist are simply more prone to resorting to violence as an expression of their social frustrations? The point is made during the podcast that engineers are "high status" people in their society, but that many of the terrorists are from countries where there's a very constrained job market for their specialized skills, which means low opportunity and difficulty finding work. I'd say it's not that much of a stretch to hypothesize that someone with issues with social interaction who is frustrated by his circumstances ("I'm an engineer, my life wasn't supposed to turn out like this!") would then be more likely to turn to violence and nihilism as a response? The pattern exists in bullying studies, it certainly seems like this would be worth additional investigation.
I know I've heard commentary from a few Brazilian friends here to the effect that it's "a Brazilian service" - but perhaps that notion is more common here among Brazilian emigrants? I was including that last as a possible factor, because I know that the majority of brazilians I've met here in the states are, as I said, quite proud of their heritage & country, so it wouldn't strike me as uncharacteristically proud for them to choose the "Brazilian" service over a competing foreign service.
I agree that most of it is market penetration - network effects are strong, why would you join Facebook when all of your friends are on Orkut? And that network effect is what provides a lot of inertia; I suspect that Facebook will make inroads into the Brazilian market in the longer term, but it'll take time until more Brazilians (particularly those with more education, and money to travel and/or study abroad) who are likely to be members of *both* services (Orkut & Facebook) influence friends and family to also move. I think it's more likely to be the educated travelers, because they are probably more likely to meet (and thus want to communicate with) people who have accounts on sites which are popular outside of Brazil.
Only if every other seed opts to also join the proletariat - a classless society is inordinately difficult to achieve with outside pressure from the bourgeoisie.
Language quibble: He didn't say "Sparse BUT clean." He said "Sparse AND clean," 2 times: in his post, and as the subject of his post. It may be argued to be redundant, but then, sparse doesn't necessarily imply clean, and clean doesn't necessarily imply sparse, so I'd say that the two words simply describe what he liked about the interface - that it was minimalist, and neatly laid out.
Be pedantic somewhere else, or at least read the fucking post before you try to correct people and end up looking foolish.
So Diaspora will become the new MS Windows, and Facebook will become the new Linux. Sound odd?
Consider the number of comments posted here of the form: "I got SO fucking sick of answering Windows questions for my parents and friends that I finally convinced them to use Linux. And they love it."
Then consider whether you really want to be "the social network support guy" for a hundred of your family & closest friends.
And, incidentally, I have to chuckle like Beavis on principle at the statement "my friends and their friends can readily use my seed."
However: Orkut did not *displace* Facebook in Brazil. Orkut was launched about the same time as Facebook, and simply has a more sizable user presence in Brazil than Facebook does - this is an example of Network Effect in action, people didn't largely migrate from Facebook to Orkut. From what I know of Brazilians, and the fact that they generally seem quite proud of their Brazilian heritage, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to conclude that, since Orkut is also now operated & managed from Belo Horizonte, that would invoke at least a bit of pride in supporting a service that's "made in Brazil," as well.
In terms of services, Orkut, Myspace, and Facebook don't offer tremendously different capabilities - the basics are all there. Something may well come along to replace Facebook, but it'd have to offer a very compelling alternative to entice a large chunk of 500 million people to move away.
It's okay, somebody will fork Diaspora, and name it Genocide, and they can say "What's wrong with that name? It's like a mass grave for your photos and status updates!"
They should have used the name "Tumbleweed" - that's what you'll probably find on this new social network.
You can hide all the app-generated stuff, though I'll admit that is a hassle to have to do it individually - it would be nice to say "I only want posts in my News Feed that was created by these people, not app-generated crap." Click the 'x' button for an entry in your feed, and it'll offer you the ability to "Hide ", "Remove this post", or "Cancel", I believe - so if you have a friend who plays MafiaVampireFarmWars, you can hide all notices from that app.
As far as ads everywhere, I don't find the ads any more intrusive than Google's ads in Gmail or search results, so that doesn't really bother me - a few ads on the right-hand side column is, to me, easily ignored.
If Diaspora strips social networking back to it's basics, if it lets me see what's going on with friends and family, look at pictures of their recent vacation and send a few "how are you?" messages, then I'm all for it.
You realize that you can do *all of that* today with Facebook, right?
This seems like it's more a comment on how you're easily peer-pressured into accepting friend requests from people you don't like, and don't care to see updates from, and wish that technology would protect you from having to say "Sorry, we don't know each other well enough for me to add you," or "Sorry, but I get too much junk on my wall, I'm cutting back my network here to only family and close friends who I see / hang out with a lot."
Okay, so your solution is largely similar to mine, except my proposal doesn't go as far as summary execution, instead it would just deport them, and prevent them from coming back illegally because they'd have no incentive to do so. If you look at the points I outlined previously:
1) Companies that hire illegals in order to bypass paying market wages get fined out of existence, with managers all the way up to CEO personally liable for penalties and prison time. If you enforce this single item, suddenly nobody's hiring illegals. Offer a grace period of 6 months for companies & employees to "get right" with the government, after which companies are subject to penalties & undocumented employees are subject to deportation.
2) Companies that need employees and cannot find them (and can demonstrate a prior good-faith effort to have found them locally) may sponsor immigrants for work visas, and must also pay them prevailing market wages for the job in question. This eliminates the temptation for companies to try and game the system, and neuters the "illegals steal our jerbs" argument.
3) Any immigrant coming here legally will be given an identification card, which must be presented if they are going to take advantage of government services. If you don't have that ID card, sorry, no driver's license, no educational benefits, no universal healthcare, etc. etc.
4) Any immigrant coming here who runs afoul of any of our laws faces possible deportation & revocation of their ID and ability to take advantage; this includes tax status, criminal statutes, and everything else.
No matter how we approach it, there's going to have to be a "grace period" or "amnesty" offered. Rather than killing millions of people, let's acknowledge that the people who are here are largely here because they wanted to make a better life for themselves, and are often working in dangerous conditions for sub-standard wages, because we largely turn a blind eye towards industry that is hiring illegals for this type of work, and paying them substandard wages.
If you eliminate that draw, then there's no jobs to lure them here illegally, and no companies willing to hire them; Plus, you can offer companies the opportunity to hire immigrants legally, provided they pay prevailing market wages, giving immigrants a way in that's not dependent on sneaking or a hard quota, and companies a way to hire people if they *legitimately* cannot find someone to do the work locally.
Then you say "For those of you here, you're welcome to stay if you come forward, get documented, and get an ID." And then the small proportion of people who don't do that can be hunted down, and deported after a short trial with no appeals, and given a permanent entry ban.
They did what? Vigorously enforced the existing laws? No, they did not, at least if you're referring to the 'amnesty' offered in the late 80's by the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1986 under Pres. Reagan?
They offered amnesty, and continued turning a blind eye to the companies hiring illegals for another nearly 25 years, producing the problem we see today. This is equivalent to mopping the floor furiously, while neglecting to turn off the broken tap.
As someone fortunate enough to have been born here, do not misunderstand me: I appreciate that you came here through the legal channels, and I thank you for respecting the laws of the land in doing so.
We're led to believe that illegal immigration is both a security issue and an economic issue. Both of these constrain the possible solutions available to us. If it's purely security issue, we have three options: 1) We round up every last illegal and deport them all; 2) We turn a blind eye to illegals and hope none of them are here to do us harm; 3) We offer incentives for people who are here illegally, but not for *criminal purposes* (i.e., just working and raising a family) to come forward and be granted amnesty, while letting us know who they are and where they're from.
Now, since this is also an economic issue, deporting every illegal is not feasible -- it would be costly, we would vastly disrupt our own economy, and it would literally be impossible to prevent the people deported from coming back. So our options are reduced to:
2) Turn a blind eye; 3) Offer incentives;
Of the two, turning a blind eye does nothing to increase our security, leaving us with #3, which is more or less win-win - we know who's here, and why; we can then start pursuing & departing the relatively small number of people who've refused to come forward, and find out why they've got no interest in taking advantage of legal status.
If you couple that with penalties: no public services for non-documented people; detention and eventual deportation if you ever run into a legal problem (e.g., give police the power to detain someone if they are unable to show proper immigration documentation, or a government-issued identification), and make it very painful for companies to hire people who are not properly documented, then you have a sustainable system which will improve security & not completely disrupt the economy.
I understand that you have 'no sympathy' for illegals. What I don't understand is what your practical solution is to the problem of illegal immigration. Shipping them home is simply a time & money drain if you don't eliminate the incentives to bring them here illegally in the first place. And eliminating those incentives by fiat is simply not workable - you have to allow for a way for these people to stay here, in their jobs, or you will trash the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Those android phones are not anywhere near feature parity if they're 199 factory unlocked. Thanks for playing.
Sure it's subsidized - all the android phone prices are, too.
If you want comparable features, you will be paying about the same amount for an android phone, so the point that everybodys spending 500 on an iPhone when they could be getting much cheaper android phones is bullshit, presuming you're not also sacrificing features and capability.
RT @wmbetts: I'm waiting for /. to crash and a whale to show up.
Uh... who spent $500 on an iPhone?
On ATT's website, an iPhone 4 cost you $199 for a 16GB version, vs. $199 for a comparable Samsung Android model: Samsung Captivate, 16GB.
On Verizon, a Droid X is $199. HTC Droid Incredible is $199. Samsung Fascinate - $199. Motorola Droid 2 - $199.
Pray tell, where are the iPhones that cost 2.5x as much as these Android phones sold?
Because this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility", and everything to do with you behaving like an obnoxious twat?
I'll answer your question with a similar question: What is it about yourself that makes you feel you must attack & deride people who have committed suicide as weak, and unsuited for living in the first place? Who are you to prescribe the measure of a person's endurance? And who are you to say that suicide has anything to do with someone not taking "personal responsibility" for something?
I take exception to you sitting there offering an opinion on the value of the person committing suicide, since in your words, they are "weak" and "cowardly" to do so.
Your entire chain of responses throughout this thread has been trollish, obnoxious, and shows a breathtaking lack of any concept of sympathy or empathy. Instead, you have simply said "anybody who kills themselves because they are in a situation where another person has directly or indirectly fucked up their lives is weak, and a coward."
Good for you for being a numb and emotionless ubermensch who can take any beating and keep on going. Not everybody is like you, and taking "personal responsibility" has nothing to do with that.
Stating that you have little sympathy for anybody who lost a bunch of money to Madoff because they should have done the responsible thing and invested wisely is very different from saying "Good, if they're too fucking weak to live after losing their life's savings, then they deserved to die." You're not standing up for "personal responsibility," you're flexing your e-peen in a vain attempt to tell us (and perhaps convince yourself) of how much of a tough John Wayne / Marlboro Man / Steve McQueen figure you are.
That's very possible, but it doesn't change the overall dynamic a bit. If the shopkeeper feels that transaction fees are eating into his profits, then he's well within his rights to refuse to accept credit cards at all. If it was strictly a losing proposition, then they wouldn't offer the capability; They may lose a few cents on my $2 transaction, but clearly, the proportion of profitable transactions is enough to absorb that loss.
Why would I do that? Cash is quite liquid - other people can dispose of it easily, and there's nothing really to show that "this $20 is mine." In addition, the filth on most money is rather distasteful, from a purely hygienic standpoint. Instead of filling my pockets with other people's bacteria and other snot, why not just use my debit card or credit card (I pay off the balance in full every month)?
Cash also lends itself to being easily frittered away with a dollar or two here, a dollar or two there. Cards allow you to keep closer track of your transactions and balances.
As far as taking more or less time, by the time I haul out my wallet, count out bills & check to see if I have appropriate change, it's just as easy to have simply swiped a card and keyed in a pin. And if the store's machines are acting up, it's not uncommon for the cashier to be unable to (or very slow to) calculate what my change should be on a cash transaction, too.
If the store is concerned about price-per-transaction costs, that's their problem, not mine. Some stores impose minimum limits for use of cards, so if the owners are that concerned, they can impose the same limit. If they're not willing to, I guess they're not very concerned about the transaction fees.
So... tell us again why cash is so much better? As far as I can see, the only argument *for* using cash is that you feel it takes longer to use a card, and in my experience, the difference in time is so small as to be nonexistent.
It might encourage the people working on the code to work harder - or it might mean they run out of money, energy, and interest and Diaspora becomes another piece of abandoned FOSS code.
If there are so many glaring security holes from the start, it sounds to me like they have accomplished nothing but a basic mockup. How long can they delay the release while they refactor & rewrite? While they implement the many features they haven't completed? While they do thorough security testing, which will possibly uncover *design* flaws in the security, not just "oops I didn't check array bounds here," which could mean that they have to rewrite & redesign entire sections of the application.
How much longer will the money they raised continue to fund their development?
By the way - ditch the insurance. By joining an insurance risk pool, you're asking other people to take responsibility for your life, health, and income, and that of your children. Since you're such a fan of personal responsibility and independence, just thought you should know.
You're a real hoot, you know that?
You're engaging in purely pedantic argument for the sake of being a twat.
No, "stealing" is not "murder."
Yes, to anybody with a brain, "stealing" from someone can set off a chain of events that leads to their death, or someone else's death. If you are a direct cause of that chain of events, then you do bear *some* responsibility for the consequences. This is why cases of bullying are making their way through the courts. But I suppose by your way of thinking, Phoebe Prince killed herself because she was too weak, those other kids who bullied her and made her life miserable... they're totally innocent, amirite?
Now go listen to your some metal, stare at yourself in the mirror, and remind yourself how strong you are, übermensch.
s/will/could, if people decide the service is worth asking for,/g
You are assuming a whole chain of events which is not yet in evidence by asserting that this service, which we've seen nothing but a few screen shots and tightly controlled demos of, is a legitimate contender to replace Facebook as the next big thing. "Open source" isn't some magic stamp that guarantees success.
Just tell her it's a dragon, created by the Titans, to protect Azeroth.
That'll totally sell her on Diaspora - who doesn't want a fucking dragon in their computer?
There was an article here on Slashdot 2+ months ago, about this article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=bully-or-victim-more-similar-than-w-10-07-10
I can't find the original slashdot story, but the gist of the study discussed that "bullies and victims" in school situations have similar problems with social skills and navigating social environments, but where the victims will tend to immerse themselves in schoolwork and studies as an escape, bullies will tend to act out in violent ways.
I wonder if there's not something similar at work here, indicating that at least some of these engineers-who-turn-terrorist are simply more prone to resorting to violence as an expression of their social frustrations? The point is made during the podcast that engineers are "high status" people in their society, but that many of the terrorists are from countries where there's a very constrained job market for their specialized skills, which means low opportunity and difficulty finding work. I'd say it's not that much of a stretch to hypothesize that someone with issues with social interaction who is frustrated by his circumstances ("I'm an engineer, my life wasn't supposed to turn out like this!") would then be more likely to turn to violence and nihilism as a response? The pattern exists in bullying studies, it certainly seems like this would be worth additional investigation.
I know I've heard commentary from a few Brazilian friends here to the effect that it's "a Brazilian service" - but perhaps that notion is more common here among Brazilian emigrants? I was including that last as a possible factor, because I know that the majority of brazilians I've met here in the states are, as I said, quite proud of their heritage & country, so it wouldn't strike me as uncharacteristically proud for them to choose the "Brazilian" service over a competing foreign service.
I agree that most of it is market penetration - network effects are strong, why would you join Facebook when all of your friends are on Orkut? And that network effect is what provides a lot of inertia; I suspect that Facebook will make inroads into the Brazilian market in the longer term, but it'll take time until more Brazilians (particularly those with more education, and money to travel and/or study abroad) who are likely to be members of *both* services (Orkut & Facebook) influence friends and family to also move. I think it's more likely to be the educated travelers, because they are probably more likely to meet (and thus want to communicate with) people who have accounts on sites which are popular outside of Brazil.
Only if every other seed opts to also join the proletariat - a classless society is inordinately difficult to achieve with outside pressure from the bourgeoisie.
Language quibble: He didn't say "Sparse BUT clean." He said "Sparse AND clean," 2 times: in his post, and as the subject of his post. It may be argued to be redundant, but then, sparse doesn't necessarily imply clean, and clean doesn't necessarily imply sparse, so I'd say that the two words simply describe what he liked about the interface - that it was minimalist, and neatly laid out.
Be pedantic somewhere else, or at least read the fucking post before you try to correct people and end up looking foolish.
Let me be the first to reply to your status update and say, "DISLIKE" -- we really don't need to hear about what "exited" you the other day.
So Diaspora will become the new MS Windows, and Facebook will become the new Linux. Sound odd?
Consider the number of comments posted here of the form: "I got SO fucking sick of answering Windows questions for my parents and friends that I finally convinced them to use Linux. And they love it."
Then consider whether you really want to be "the social network support guy" for a hundred of your family & closest friends.
And, incidentally, I have to chuckle like Beavis on principle at the statement "my friends and their friends can readily use my seed."
However: Orkut did not *displace* Facebook in Brazil. Orkut was launched about the same time as Facebook, and simply has a more sizable user presence in Brazil than Facebook does - this is an example of Network Effect in action, people didn't largely migrate from Facebook to Orkut. From what I know of Brazilians, and the fact that they generally seem quite proud of their Brazilian heritage, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to conclude that, since Orkut is also now operated & managed from Belo Horizonte, that would invoke at least a bit of pride in supporting a service that's "made in Brazil," as well.
In terms of services, Orkut, Myspace, and Facebook don't offer tremendously different capabilities - the basics are all there. Something may well come along to replace Facebook, but it'd have to offer a very compelling alternative to entice a large chunk of 500 million people to move away.
It's okay, somebody will fork Diaspora, and name it Genocide, and they can say "What's wrong with that name? It's like a mass grave for your photos and status updates!"
They should have used the name "Tumbleweed" - that's what you'll probably find on this new social network.
You can hide all the app-generated stuff, though I'll admit that is a hassle to have to do it individually - it would be nice to say "I only want posts in my News Feed that was created by these people, not app-generated crap." Click the 'x' button for an entry in your feed, and it'll offer you the ability to "Hide ", "Remove this post", or "Cancel", I believe - so if you have a friend who plays MafiaVampireFarmWars, you can hide all notices from that app.
As far as ads everywhere, I don't find the ads any more intrusive than Google's ads in Gmail or search results, so that doesn't really bother me - a few ads on the right-hand side column is, to me, easily ignored.
Are you kidding? He'll probably be one of the first nodes to go live.
You realize that you can do *all of that* today with Facebook, right?
This seems like it's more a comment on how you're easily peer-pressured into accepting friend requests from people you don't like, and don't care to see updates from, and wish that technology would protect you from having to say "Sorry, we don't know each other well enough for me to add you," or "Sorry, but I get too much junk on my wall, I'm cutting back my network here to only family and close friends who I see / hang out with a lot."
Okay, so your solution is largely similar to mine, except my proposal doesn't go as far as summary execution, instead it would just deport them, and prevent them from coming back illegally because they'd have no incentive to do so. If you look at the points I outlined previously:
1) Companies that hire illegals in order to bypass paying market wages get fined out of existence, with managers all the way up to CEO personally liable for penalties and prison time. If you enforce this single item, suddenly nobody's hiring illegals. Offer a grace period of 6 months for companies & employees to "get right" with the government, after which companies are subject to penalties & undocumented employees are subject to deportation.
2) Companies that need employees and cannot find them (and can demonstrate a prior good-faith effort to have found them locally) may sponsor immigrants for work visas, and must also pay them prevailing market wages for the job in question. This eliminates the temptation for companies to try and game the system, and neuters the "illegals steal our jerbs" argument.
3) Any immigrant coming here legally will be given an identification card, which must be presented if they are going to take advantage of government services. If you don't have that ID card, sorry, no driver's license, no educational benefits, no universal healthcare, etc. etc.
4) Any immigrant coming here who runs afoul of any of our laws faces possible deportation & revocation of their ID and ability to take advantage; this includes tax status, criminal statutes, and everything else.
No matter how we approach it, there's going to have to be a "grace period" or "amnesty" offered. Rather than killing millions of people, let's acknowledge that the people who are here are largely here because they wanted to make a better life for themselves, and are often working in dangerous conditions for sub-standard wages, because we largely turn a blind eye towards industry that is hiring illegals for this type of work, and paying them substandard wages.
If you eliminate that draw, then there's no jobs to lure them here illegally, and no companies willing to hire them; Plus, you can offer companies the opportunity to hire immigrants legally, provided they pay prevailing market wages, giving immigrants a way in that's not dependent on sneaking or a hard quota, and companies a way to hire people if they *legitimately* cannot find someone to do the work locally.
Then you say "For those of you here, you're welcome to stay if you come forward, get documented, and get an ID." And then the small proportion of people who don't do that can be hunted down, and deported after a short trial with no appeals, and given a permanent entry ban.
They did what? Vigorously enforced the existing laws? No, they did not, at least if you're referring to the 'amnesty' offered in the late 80's by the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1986 under Pres. Reagan?
They offered amnesty, and continued turning a blind eye to the companies hiring illegals for another nearly 25 years, producing the problem we see today. This is equivalent to mopping the floor furiously, while neglecting to turn off the broken tap.
As someone fortunate enough to have been born here, do not misunderstand me: I appreciate that you came here through the legal channels, and I thank you for respecting the laws of the land in doing so.
We're led to believe that illegal immigration is both a security issue and an economic issue. Both of these constrain the possible solutions available to us. If it's purely security issue, we have three options:
1) We round up every last illegal and deport them all;
2) We turn a blind eye to illegals and hope none of them are here to do us harm;
3) We offer incentives for people who are here illegally, but not for *criminal purposes* (i.e., just working and raising a family) to come forward and be granted amnesty, while letting us know who they are and where they're from.
Now, since this is also an economic issue, deporting every illegal is not feasible -- it would be costly, we would vastly disrupt our own economy, and it would literally be impossible to prevent the people deported from coming back. So our options are reduced to:
2) Turn a blind eye;
3) Offer incentives;
Of the two, turning a blind eye does nothing to increase our security, leaving us with #3, which is more or less win-win - we know who's here, and why; we can then start pursuing & departing the relatively small number of people who've refused to come forward, and find out why they've got no interest in taking advantage of legal status.
If you couple that with penalties: no public services for non-documented people; detention and eventual deportation if you ever run into a legal problem (e.g., give police the power to detain someone if they are unable to show proper immigration documentation, or a government-issued identification), and make it very painful for companies to hire people who are not properly documented, then you have a sustainable system which will improve security & not completely disrupt the economy.
I understand that you have 'no sympathy' for illegals. What I don't understand is what your practical solution is to the problem of illegal immigration. Shipping them home is simply a time & money drain if you don't eliminate the incentives to bring them here illegally in the first place. And eliminating those incentives by fiat is simply not workable - you have to allow for a way for these people to stay here, in their jobs, or you will trash the economy.