Legislators are already not paying attention to email, because so much of it is automated. At best, some legislators tally email, many of them don't pay attention to it at all.
Automating phone calls is an inevitable continuation. Right now, phone calls have _some_ impact. Unfortunately, technology will make calling less effective.
On one end we have software, on the other we have the poor Congressional staffers who have to pick up the phone every time it rings. Eventually the staff will become numb to phone calls, stop paying attention, and turn to people sitting in their offices for guidance (lobbyists, who get paid to be there, or, less likely, people like you and me who find the time to actually go and talk to them.)
We have a disconnect between taking the smallest step (sending an email, calling) and the next one, physically going somewhere. This is why we -- we the tech industry, in partnership with visionaries from the non-profit space -- have to reinvent activism. To make the transition from the online to the offline world smoother. And to make the time spent online more meaningful.
Increasingly, people look online first. The dozens of petition sites -- Change.org is a full social network type of deal -- are making it easy to confuse "doing something" with "doing something effective."
No, activism is effective (see: GoDaddy, Arab Spring, Montgomery Bus Boycott), but it's hard and takes real work. It's the political system that needs to be fixed. Those lobbyists should not be out in the lobby. The fact that they have more clout because they are right there is the major problem. Saying we need to get boots on the ground so we can compete with lobbyists is to miss the core problem that we shouldn't need to compete with lobbyists. We should be able to email, call or walk into an office and have our voice heard. Our vote should matter more than money.
In the meantime, yes, we need to be active enough to change the political system, but changing activism should only lead to the larger goal of changing the fact that activism shouldn't need to be changed.
Activism can be effective, but certainly not by default. Non-profit campaigns fail about as well as startups.
When I say reinvented, I mean that we need innovative ways to use technology in the advocacy space. Like you said, activism takes real work. Clicking "Like" on FB is giving people the false impression that they have actually done something.
Where we agree is that the political system is broken and that it is a much more important issue.
I've been fighting for a particular bill for nearly a decade (see my profile, if you care to know) and the thing that I've heard consistently, regardless of what season or year it is, regardless of who controls Congress, regardless of who is the President, is this: "now is not a good time to make the push, because the election is coming up." If there is ANY election in the next two years, Congress simply STOPS. In other words they are in a perpetual election cycle.
We make the push anyway, we inch closer, but fail (always due to filibuster and votes splitting evenly along party lines, regardless of actual stance of specific legislators), then we spend YEARS in the election cycle. I've seen this happen too many times...
I'm starting to think that all progressive organizations should drop their pet issues and focus on campaign financing reform first.
>I'm starting to think that all progressive organizations should drop their pet issues and focus on campaign financing reform first.
We certainly agree on that point. I believe publicly financed campaigns and term limits will bring the United States greater change than any other two policy changes can.
That said, I don't think slactivism is really a change per se. It's hard to believe that people who click the "Like" button on Facebook would be out picketing or writing their congressman on any issue. What you could argue is that it at least forces them to consider a position that they might again consider when they are standing in the ballot box.
Walking to work instead of taking a bus is hard. Facing arrest for breaking an immoral law is hard. Protesting and risking arrest (or much worse) by a thuggish police is hard.
Please don't tell me that changing your hosting is comparable. Besides, we don't know that the GoDaddy boycotting has had any effect on SOPA (as opposed to GoDaddy).
How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?"
And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.
I agree it seems heartless to not grant kids like this guy residency. The problem I have with this is that that would just make the moral hazard stronger. Parents already smuggle their kids into the US to give them a better life. If they knew that these kids would then be eligible for legalization, it's hard to see how even more people wouldn't try.
I'm not a Minuteman and I'm not going to argue for any border fences, but it seems like the root cause of the problem is that the risk of getting caught is so low that many people try it. The real solution would be to make people not want to immigrate illegally in the first place.
A lot of things are disruptive. Doesn't make them bad or undesirable. We talk about "disruptive" new technologies here on HN all the time and how the best progress is made by disrupting the status quo. I won't claim that all disruption is good, but who's to say a little disruption in the immigration world wouldn't be?
If an unemployed person loses out to an immigrant (legal or illegal), clearly there's a reason. I'd rather have jobs filled with better people than pander to people who are currently more eligible solely because they had the luck to be born in a certain place at a certain time.
Sure, all else being constant, you want jobs to be filled by the best people available. More likely, the market will see to it that the best people per funds spent are employed, resulting in a race to the bottom. And there are downsides and costs to having millions of unemployed, too. You'll end up paying for them one way or another, through unemployment benefits or prisons.
Are you cool paying healthcare and education costs for the immigrant's four kids? His low hourly wage does not come close to representing his costs given a social welfare state. This is essentially what is happening as criminal employers hire criminal aliens: they externalize massive costs to the larger population.
It sounds like the problem here wouldn't be the immigration, but rather that moving between economic classes is difficult for those with no skills. If we could provide ways for any citizen or immigrant to gain useful skills that are in demand, then we would help mitigate the problems of unemployment as a whole and help reduce the spending burdens of social programs.
The reason he has a depressed wage is because he's undocumented and therefore can be exploited. Reduce the friction involved and more people will be documented, and more on their way to full citizenship. Shady employers won't be able to pay less than min/market wage since the now-documented workers have legal recourse.
> How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?"
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law.
I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to.
And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me.
I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule".
We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".
I'm not sure whose viewpoint your arguing against, because it's sure not mine.
If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next).
Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.
Right, although I never said to open the border, nor hinted at any specific solutions.
More so, I asked for you to see the situation in a different light. I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else", while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article, and in essence, ignoring your own history and how you got to where you are. In my opinion, its actually a bit arrogant and self-centered, to think that its just that easy to dictate something so complicated as immigration.
Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
If you could tell me, what "fairness" and "regulation" did you face when you came to America? Or your parents, or their parents, or theirs' as the case may be. The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
> Right, although I never said to open the border, nor hinted at any specific solutions.
Exactly, you seem to prefer to philosophize and invoke moral criticism than to actually discuss practical solutions.
> I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else"
I started this thread by arguing that we should have compassion for people who run into headaches while trying to immigrate legally, and that we should aim to make things easier for them.
> while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
> The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
The only difference between me and Bill Gates' kids is who we happened to be born to, but that doesn't entitle me to grow up in Bill Gates' house.
It is you who are making an argument of entitlement. A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa. The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
The only thing that makes my position more privileged than a Mexican's is that my countryman and ancestors have built a more prosperous economy than Mexico has. That's dumb luck on my part, no doubt, which I am grateful for. I didn't do anything to earn that.
But there's no way everyone on earth is going to be born with equal opportunity. And there is no virtue in opening wide the gates of immigration if just ends up making the (currently) desirable place more like the (currently) undesirable place.
Well, there might just be a difference in the way we see things. Its comments like these that bug me:
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
Obviously, we don't hold children to the same standard as adults. However, the fact that its not an implicit belief (to give a child benefit of the doubt) and has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such. That even though he came here as a kid, that this is all he knows and lives, we should be lenient when we consider kicking him out. I see selfish ration and logic in your words, but I see no compassion or sensibility for others.
A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa.
You'll never work in Mexico because nobody will pay you a livable wage, thats the difference. It sounds the equivalent of someone saying: "I don't step through your garbage dump looking for food, so you don't step through my wine vineyard. That's called fairness."
The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed. By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite. You know, the people who account for something like 90% of the worlds wealth in 10% of the population.
Hey Coryl, I'm enjoying this discussion between you two and I think you both make excellent points and I'm learning from the discussion. But this out of bounds -
> has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority.
You really ought not personally insult the guy you're discussing with... it doesn't help the discussion at all. Really uncalled for, haberman is disagreeing with you but he's being civil. If you don't like his points, argue without the insults.
Thanks. They weren't intended to be insults for insults sake, but reflect how I see, as what I believe to be, his perspective of immigrants as criminals.
To say something like "immigrant children broke the law, but since they're kids, we should be lenient when we consider punishing them", carries a pass of judgement that I perceive to be as a statement on whom is more righteous or more privileged. I don't feel like anyone has the right to pass that judgment nor harbor that mentality, just because they themselves are secure in their person and place by chance and fortune. It shows little thought or consideration for other human beings, especially when complex situations become simply labelled as " illegal immigrant", or "lawbreaker".
So while what I said may seem insulting, they are not intended to be direct insults. I feel what I feel, and I'm just doing my best to describe that.
> To say something like "immigrant children broke the law, but since they're kids, we should be lenient when we consider punishing them", carries a pass of judgement that I perceive to be as a statement on whom is more righteous or more privileged.
If you came home and a homeless person was sleeping in your bed, would you consider it an intolerable passing of judgement to say they shouldn't have done that and you will be "deporting" them out of your house?
if the homeless person was a child, yeah it would be an intolerable passing of judgement.
and if i had a huge house with more than enough space, and one day discovered that a homeless child had moved into a tiny space a few decades ago, contributed extensively to maintaining that space, and is now an adult, i would say it's completely intolerable for me to evict them at that point.
> shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such.
What bothers me about your attitude is that you invoke a sense of moral superiority to defend what is nothing more than breaking the rules to get ahead. It shows more compassion for the people who will take what they want than the people who work to get it.
I can have compassion for people who come to this country looking for opportunity. But I have 10x more compassion and respect for the person who is stuck in their own country because they can't get a visa than the person who decided to break the law to get ahead.
I'm pretty sure that I would feel the same way if I had been born in Mexico. I've always been a "wait in line" kind of guy, and I'm pretty sure I would resent seeing the most impassioned defense of immigrants directed at the line-jumpers rather than the people who are still waiting in line.
> Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed.
Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.
Present-day Mexicans are mostly descendants of the Spanish and the indigenous tribes like the Aztec and Maya. The Spanish conquered and colonized the Americas for 400 years, destroying entire civilizations and enslaving the people. The indigenous people practiced human sacrifice as well as slavery. No civilization has clean hands when judged by the standards of today.
And what exactly do you think the USA did to "take opportunity away" from "some" (this turn of phrase conveniently implies a general feeling of guilt without being specific enough to evaluate). Canada seems to be doing fine, so how are you going to pin Mexico's relative poverty on the USA?
> By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite.
No, I mean "most of the world." People who are forced to leave their home are called "refugees," which are estimated to be 62M people worldwide, or 1% of the world population.
> Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.
It's true. If we applied the same rules to countries that we do to the mafia, you'd be a criminal conspirator in an agency that has routinely used murder for control and profit.
> It's true. If we applied the same rules to countries that we do to the mafia, you'd be a criminal conspirator in an agency that has routinely used murder for control and profit.
You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption.
I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
I'm not seeing what the negative consequences are. Are you referring to the fact that some of the immigrants were criminals and mental patients, who were encouraged to emigrate from Cuba and take their problems with them? The article you cite says the scope of this problem is debatable and may well have been overstated.
Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
> Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?
I'd like to move in the direction of eliminating them, yes. I don't see any reason to keep US/Canadian border controls, given that the relative parity of incomes means there isn't likely to be some huge, destabilizing migration. The EU's Schengen free-travel zone is a good precedent to follow on that, imo. Mexico is a harder case because of how screwed up the country currently is; opening borders tends to work better between relatively stable countries. But certainly we could start with Canada.
I think you should answer my question first, since the existence of interstate crime is indisputable and this doesn't seem qualitatively different from the deleterious effects which you are citing in the Cuban example.
But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.
Now you're assuming that our current regulation system is right.
I think it's clear that our current system is broken. It's far too expensive to enforce our current system, so we're left with laws that are ineffectual. Reality trumps abstract ideas, and I think we need laws that deal effectively with the reality of our situation.
You keep framing things in black and white and I'm trying to make it explicit. If you don't mean what I think you mean then I am reading you wrong or it's not clear.
"I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation"
See, more black and white. I don't think anyone is suggesting no regulation. You aren't putting words in my mouth are you? ;)
Why don't we create a legal process to let people that want to work here come and work. Why limit it so much?
> It's far too expensive to enforce our current system
Huh? Our current system simply isn't enforced. It's not a matter of cost at all. It's just expedient for an alliance of big business and certain political elements to allow a continued flow of criminal aliens.
I mean, look at Israel. They enforce a much more restrictive immigration system at low cost with no difficulty. Or Japan, or Korea, or any of dozens of other nations.
The Native Americans lost it fair-and-square through force of arms. Moreover, much of North America was unoccupied, unorganized territory open for colonization by Western Civilization.
Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
So just to get this straight, you would have no probs if China were to declare war on the U.S. tomorrow, win, kill off people living in America, and settle it with their citizens?
So, just because your mother put you on a plane with a complete stranger when you were 12, you should be thrown back to a third world country for a decade, even though your contributions to American society outweigh most native born citizens?
Are you replying to the right comment? Nowhere in this thread have I advocated deporting people who were brought here as children. I have advocated the opposite.
You're blaming the laws of the country you want to recognize you instead of your parents who did not recognize the laws of the country they smuggled you into.
I'm in the same boat. It's been difficult. I cannot express how grateful I am to Jose Vargas for writing this story.
I was brought here as a kid 13 years ago. I'm 24 now. I also graduated from a "top" university -- like that matters. I guess my parents weren't smart enough to get a fake social security card for me back then, I wish they were. I've also been fighting for the Dream Act for what feels like an eternity. I made a site and still maintain it, have met with Senators, protested in front of the White House, several times, other things. I'm loosing hope. I lost hope in Congress long ago. I lost hope in this President in December, when he failed to stand by us and the vote. I don't have anything left to wait for.
I'm still "hiding," most of my friends have no idea, but I see less and less reason to do so every day. I just can't take it anymore. I'm worth _something_. I'm competent coder, and fuck it all, at least I got that, my mind, and my family.
Anybody who wants to debate the pros and cons of immigration reform can go to hell. I'm done reading the hate mail. I'm done debating. I am done listening to those masked bigots. I know what it is like to live like this having done nothing wrong. I know that I don't deserve the punishment. If we can't agree on the fact that I am American and should have basic rights, then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not asking for anything except recognition.
Btw, people who were brought here on fake documents, as me and Jose, can't get married for papers. So even if Jose wasn't gay, he wouldn't be able to adjust based on marriage. It's unfortunate that people who come here on student visas get married -- assuming they have enough money -- and have a green card in six months. People like me and Jose, homebred Americans if ya will, are forever tarnished with this inherited title. Hello, my name is "illegal immigrant." That's what I feel like every single day. Every morning in the shower, I utter the words "I am so fucking tired." And I am.
Trust me, there's nobody on this board that is more sympathetic than I am. I am 110% behind you with the DREAM act, and my money has gone to Immigration Equality which has lobbied for this issue. (For different reasons, but suffice to say I'm an ally.)
There's one simple problem with changing immigration, and that's the system is working as intended. Farm workers can't unionize nearly as easily if they are undocumented, and undocumented workers don't have to be paid standard wages. In fact, they can explicitly be paid substandard wages and there is no way to complain. Your parents, most likely.
Undocumented workers lower unskilled work wages and working conditions far past what a documented system would. Further, as workers age out of the ability to do backbreaking farm work, they have no legal protections on which to rely, and can be thrown back out more easily. The DREAM act, however, brings people into the system with legal protections, people who can't easily be exploited in the same way their parents are. Your parents, that is.
And that's why we face an uphill battle with the DREAM act. It sounds conspiratorial, and nobody would explicitly admit this; sometimes, we get to status quo through unintended consequences, but people build their businesses on unintended consequences, and change isn't something they take easily, especially when it impacts their bottom line.
Georgia's tough anti-illegal-immigrant law drove a sizable fraction of the migrant labor pool out of the state, and as a result, "millions of dollars' worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops [are] unharvested and rotting in the fields."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/georgias...
Surely there would be some way to legalize low cost unskilled workers at the expense of giving them some basic rights.
For me, those documents are but papers that marks the existence of a certain person in the political angle. It seems like papers are more valuable than life. Jose and you deserved recognition by papers. Hopefully, many people like you would support the Dream Act.
After 4 years (3 years + 1 year of waiting for the citizenship test, passport generation, etc) you can come back and work in the US under TN at the border. You can also travel to the USA by applying for a 5-10 year B visa and visit as you wish once you've had your your permanent residence card for a while. This all contingent if you haven't had any issues with us immigration. Singapore is also an option.
I don't know, there might be a way to do it still for Canada. For example cooks and chefs can get a PR card o_o, it would be good for your health to take up a 1 year cooking sabbatical or something (geek out about diet and such). Australia accepts computer professionals on arrival also under the software engineer category (60 points, pretty good!) with a skills test. Australians also have a TN like arrangement with the us, but it's a dual intent visa (E-3) so it's even easier to get the green card. The waiting period although is 6 years (5 years + 1 year citizenship test & passport generation). Singapore is also extremely quick if he has the gumption to start a consulting business there, or get employment, it's possible to get PR in 6 months and singapore also has a special TN type H1B. Singapore although is a 1 passport citizenship, it's major downfall. Mexico also has the TN arrangement along with Canada as a part of NAFTA and Chile also has a TN like arrangement also. The somewhat open secret with these TN visas is that even if they are not dual intent, if your willing to stay in the country until green card and renew inside until you have it you can still successfully for permanent residence. You can also apply directly outside of the USA for permanent residence under the EB-* visas. You'll be waiting years and have to have a really really nice employer/friends who's willing to wait that long. There are also the dual intent L-1A, L-1B visas. There are options for immigrating to the USA, even if it might take 20 years in the end...
The story was a moving one and I hope Vargas gets to stay.
With that said, I think illegal immigration creates all kinds of societal problems and is unfair to legal immigrants.
The problem it creates is that there's enormous stress on those that are illegal. They live in the shadows and can be taken advantage of. My own personal experience was driving in LA and being rear-ended by someone who then fled the scene (most likely illegal). They work for less than minimum wage and don't cooperate with law enforcement for fear of deportation.
I'm a child of legal immigrants so I'm naturally biased. There is a legal system and many people every year try to go through that system like my parents did. I see illegal immigrants as "cutting in line" and I see nothing fair about it.
But I'm also human. People like Vargas had no choice (sent here as a kid) and has made a life here. I also sympathize those that flee poverty, crime and even wanting a brighter future. I also grew up in LA and know that many illegal immigrants live decent lives.. heck some of my friends are probably undocumented.
But completely opening the borders is not feasible. Creating systems that encourage illegal immigration only make the problem worse (and exacerbate the problems mentioned above).
There is a legal system and many people every year try
to go through that system like my parents did. I see
illegal immigrants as "cutting in line" and I see
nothing fair about it.
The problem is that if you are not a student there is basically no way to legally immigrate except:
1. Marrying an american
2. Indentured servitude via H1-B (hard to get, and if you leave your job/get fired you have to find a new job in two weeks or leave)
If you think the privilege of an H1B is "indentured servitude", it seems that immigration is not for you. I don't expect to enter a foreign country and immediately have all the same worker rights as a citizen of that country.
If you think the privilege of an H1B is
"indentured servitude", it seems that
immigration is not for you.
Funny that you say that, I have been an immigrant for almost 7 years now in the European Union (where it's significantly easier than in the US).
I am educated, healthy, young, have no criminal record and as a programmer I earn a significantly higher than average salary (and therefor pay significantly higher than average taxes).
I can say with a straight face that probably any country I choose to live in will benefit from me being there, so why would you want to keep skilled people like me out?
Do they? Just the other day I met an entrepreneur who was not American (either Canadian or European) who's able to work here on a "extraordinary ability" visa. He wasn't under an H1B and he's starting his own company.
My original point is that H1B is not a right, it's a privilege. Even though you're awesome (by your own account), I fail to see why you're owed anything.
I'm not owed anything, I'm arguing that it's in the country's interest to attract skilled labor (which many other western countries like Australia, Canada & New Zealand do with their vastly easier immigration policies).
Well 1) that is the rule of law. It's not just the case for the US but many other modern nations in this world.
2) Being a citizen doesn't just have benefits but also responsibilities. This is why we pledge allegiance.
At age 21 I had to register for the civil service. That means that if my country goes to war and I'm drafted then I must fight and possibly die for my country.
An illegal immigrant will not be drafted.
It also means other things I'm bound under federal law like paying taxes. There are also other civil duties like being on a jury to judge my fellow citizens. As a citizen, I'm bound by the laws on our constitution and those created by our legislature.
3) The privileges of a citizen allow them to contribute to the way our democracy functions including the right to vote.
An illegal immigrant cannot vote.
The rest of my argument was already stated above to you. If we completely open the borders to everyone, then our government wouldn't even be able to serve the current legal citizens.
You may dislike the system but in other countries such as Japan and Germany it is even more difficult and exclusionary. They are based on parentage and while that make more sense to you, it actually ends up leaving large classes of immigrants unnaturalized.
1) So basically your explanation goes like that:
"Discrimination against immigrants is justified, because it's a law and other countries discriminate even worse than the US".
I hoped for somewhat better reasoning than that.
If you take "it's a law and it must stay unchanged" principle to the heart, then you would be dead by now killed as invader by one of American-Indian tribes.
2) "Opening borders to everyone" has very little to do with "Stopping discrimination against immigrants".
It's two-fold. On one hand, it's the law. On the other hand, I consider it a fair law. Pointing to other countries was simply to show that the US isn't alone in this thinking.
It has everything to do with opening the borders because if illegal immigrants have all the same rights as citizens then you're essentially inviting every immigrant to come to the US.
Of anyone, I would think you understand that our physical borders does not do a great job of preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country.
You seem to pick and choose your literal arguments from your theoretical ones.
> That means that if my country goes to war and I'm drafted then I must fight and possibly die for my country.
Societies that raise slave armies aren't free.
Or, did I miss where you'd be able to abstain if, for instance, you knew the whole thing was a farce?
> Being a citizen doesn't just have benefits but also responsibilities.
And consequences. If you're a US taxpayer (one of about 200M) you've recently paid for the killing of about 1/100th of someone, likely a non-combatant.
Not to count (of course) those your country's policies have merely displaced, such as many of the poor in Mexico, victims of "Free Trade" and the like.
Darned illegals.
> If we completely open the borders to everyone, then our government wouldn't even be able to serve the current legal citizens.
Cite needed.
The USA can manufacture and deliver a bomb for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, and you don't think it could provide basic food and medical instead?
The USA is not responsible for the citizens of Mexico and to imply that they are is actually insulting to Mexico. It says that they can't take care of their own citizens.
Everything else you said is simply biased slander on your part.
We've screwed them over in war, taken land, and forced them to accept unfair treaties. While that's not all that's happened to them, it is enough.
Like Iraq. It may crawl back to where it was before the attack but only at ten times the effort. Likely it'll bear the scars of the war for a century and, if the USA gets its way, suffer "treaties" long after that. Is it insulting to the Iraqis to say that this will set them back, or is it realistic?
> Everything else you said is simply biased slander on your part.
I could say you're a pro-USA fanboy who'll blindly support them regardless because he's afraid his loyalty will be questioned and his citizenship revoked. But, even if I feel you act that way, I won't. Srs. So don't do it to me either, k?
You forgot sponsoring/petitioning a relative AND the visa lottery (a relative of mine was lucky enough to receive one of these, was able to bring his whole family here, eventually). It has taken us 20 years to bring about 35-40 relatives from South America (more are waiting--in line)... it takes time, money and a LOT of patience. Also helps if you don't get into problems with the law.
The problem with your “cutting in line is bad” line is that people’s choice to immigrate without papers has almost nothing to do with “lines” or policies or lawbreaking, and everything to do with the much more powerfully compelling economic organization of the world (and particularly North America).
1) United States agriculture absolutely depends on a certain amount of unskilled labor to function, for which the United States has been importing Mexican laborers in large numbers for at least 80 years. Ending this importation of labor would literally cause the agriculture system in this country to break down.
2) Many parts of Mexico have been economically depressed with high underemployment/unemployment for decades. There are physically too many people for the quantity of available jobs.
The undocumented immigrants I know (including my parents’ godson who is a migrant agricultural laborer, including several guys who stayed in my family’s house for a few months in the early 1990s, including 30-50% of young men from many indigenous communities in southern Mexico, etc.) DO NOT want to leave their parents, their wives, their children, their communities to go to a strange place where they do not speak the language to do hard labor, missing their children’s early years, DO NOT want to take on tremendous personal financial risk in the form of huge loans from loan sharks who will happily repossess their family’s home or start sending goons to beat people up if the money isn’t repaid.
Unfortunately, the choice is often hover-your-whole-life-just-above-or-below-subsistence-level (i.e. take on personally degrading and dangerous jobs to feed your family, risk starvation, etc.), or clear out and go somewhere else. If the outlet of leaving to the United States were unavailable as an escape valve, I’m quite convinced many would end up either starving or turning to other kinds of desperate action.
In other words, not really a choice at all.
You’re damn right that a system that has people staying in this country without papers isn’t fair and allows those people to be taken advantage of. You know what else isn’t fair and allows people to be taken advantage of? The whole global economic order.
[Note: this is not intended as a call to any particular action; just trying to state facts.]
I sympathize but, ultimately, do not find your argument compelling.
Mexico isn't the only poor country in the world. They just happen to be the one that's closest to the US. When my parents legally immigrated here, South Korea was a poor nation. Look at the history of US immigration and you'll see that this is a pattern (eg. Irish and Italians in the 1900s to modern day immigrants from Africa and Asia).
I'm from LA so I'm well aware of the economic contributions of the Mexican illegal immigrants.
With that said, I don't necessarily agree with your positions. Due to the massive rate of illegal immigration, agriculture has been able to thrive on low cost economics. If they didn't have that labor, it doesn't mean the US would shut down. What it would mean is that the US would have to adjust the economics in order to make it viable. This could result in the following:
a) A much larger legal guest worker program.
b) Importing more agriculture from countries like Mexico.
c) Higher wages for legal farm workers (including legal residents of Mexican origin).
In all 3 of these cases, it would lead to be a better situation for Mexican-Americans or Mexico. In the case of b), it would help the economics of Mexico.
I sympathize that Mexico is a poor country. Like I said before, there are many poor countries in this world. I don't want to sound callous but I don't understand how this is specifically the responsibility of the US. We don't even have a nationalized health system.
Also, allowing illegal immigration does not help Mexico in the long term. It won't fix their lack of economy and unemployment problems. Saying there are "physically too many people" is an excuse IMO. Every country battles the problem of unemployment.
I don't think that anyone not from l.a. understand the illegal immigration thing going on here. it's difficult to give the full image.
I'm living here for more than a year and am still shocked that there are neighborhoods that only speak their native language and are virtually paperless... even though some of them goes to tijuana every other weekend. I'm here legally and still avoid going to mexico to avoid the hassle.
I didn't meant to imply that. I just meant what I said which was that I'm well-aware of the illegal immigrant situation since I've lived in the middle of it.
I was in the same boat too. Reading this article brought back a lot of painful memories. Like the author, I only found out years after I assimilated. For a while, I couldn't even look at the flag or say the pledge without feeling depressed.
Thankfully one of my divorced parents married a citizen close to when I started high school. Eventually I was eligible to apply for citizenship sometime late in college.
I still remember the citizenship 'test' I had to take. It consisted of telling the tester: the colors of flag, reading a sentence that said George Washington was the 1st US president, and telling her who the current president was. Ironically I had passed an AP US history course sometime ago with flying colors.
I think Milton Friedman nailed it when he said that the biggest obstacle to a freer immigration policy is the welfare state.
"[Throughout the history of the U.S.] you had a flood of immigrants, millions of them, coming to this country. What brought them here? It was the hope for a better life for them and their children. And, in the main, they succeeded. It is hard to find any century in history, in which so large a number of people experienced so great an improvement in the conditions of their life, in the opportunities open to them, as in the period of the 19th and early 20th century.
You will find hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’
What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not?
Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he or she works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit.
But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values."
And yet Canada's population growth is almost entirely due to immigration (population growth by birthrate in Canada is flat or ever so slightly negative).
Immigration to Canada in the 21st century is not the situation you had in the USA pre-1914. At Ellis Island, as long it was deemed that you weren't insane, diseased, or a criminal, and could support yourself, you could get US citizenship in an afternoon.
Although Canada has the most liberal immigration policy of all industrialized countries today, it will still take an applicant years to become a Canadian.
I do not disagree on any of those counts, the fact still remains that impediments to immigration are not caused (either solely or entirely) by welfare states. And more to the point, they can have considerably more liberal policies than less progressive states.
So when i hear people attack socialized systems, especially in oblique manners such as this (rather than highlighting specific policies that need to change), my bullshit radar goes off.
Thank you! Isn't the whole idea of fairness that people should be able to work to support themselves. Isn't that a basic human right? So to all the people clamoring for amnesty for Vargas but think Indian and Chinese workers don't deserve jobs, please think about the logical inconsistencies. The free market has benefited a lot of people. Its about time it also benefited the underclass of workers, who are not part of exclusive unions, whether they be SEIU, or protectionist parties in different nations.
You are a criminal and not a "homebred American". You should stop punishing yourself and return to your home country. It sounds like you have the skills to be very successful there.
So is 'American' culture or tribe affiliation? If he/she grew up in America then deporting him/her is like sending them to a foreign country for all intents and purposes. What if he/she doesn't even know her/his native language? It's not such a black and white issue, as much as you might want it to be.
Its simple. Do you implement the LAW ? or let law hijacked by emotions/plight? The legal aliens are idiots?. There are literally billions of people living below poverty line, who will sacrifice everything just to come to America - legally!!! Hardships, emotions and empathy has no place when you take into account 300 million citizens who are legally bound to support the system (tax, servcies, public shcools, hopsitals etc)
The real gem of this story is that the Secret Service and Whitehouse staff/security couldn't catch the fake social security card/number, that Vargas submitted.
LoL! If those institutions cant catch, then who can? Anybody can come here illegally and live/work enjoy. The fear (no reason for it) they have is similar to fear we have of accident - it rarely happens but needs vigilance/careful.
If law is unjust, you change the law. It has happened in American plenty of times. Hell, America was founded in part because an unjust law was imposed on us.
vargas, when he was smuggled into this country, was not "special case" at that time. This is a typical, hallmark fraud case. The coyote, fake passport, fake student visa, fake greencard the list goes on.
you want the Law to be just in above case? i am just saying there needs to be punishment and accountability.
Believe me, the US immigration law is lot better, just and clever than most other countries. There are lot of legal aliens that comply with it, and grateful for the opportunity.
But in this case, punish whom? Vargas? He was 12 when all this happened, had no say in the matter, and didn't really know what was going on until he turned 16. What should he have done then? Turned himself in as an illegal immigrant?
That argument can be taken advantage of in lot of situations. I empatize with vargas but unfortunately, as the lawyer said, he needs to get back in line - legally.
He committed 70% of the fraud after turning 16. He is not kid anymore, and be responsible for his situation/actions.
What about legal alien kids who come (sent by parents) here legally for undergrad studies...pay upto 100K in tuition fees, and be sent back if can't get job visa or other legal immigration problems? Wouldn't you argue, this kid knows nothing , he was shown the american dream, he deserves greencard/citizenship?
Lot of other scenarios can be argued.
There is law for a reason, and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
What about legal alien kids who come (sent by parents) here legally for undergrad studies...pay upto 100K in tuition fees, and be sent back if can't get job visa or other legal immigration problems? Wouldn't you argue, this kid knows nothing , he was shown the american dream, he deserves greencard/citizenship?
This is just further evidence that the system is terribly broken. And, of course, in this case the kid getting sent home still has the illegal immigration option. He/she's no worse off than someone like Vargas, though residing illegally is probably more difficult when you're already on file with the gov't.
There is law for a reason
So you say. Clearly it's not working out very well, or situations like this (and many others) wouldn't pop up so often, and immigration reform wouldn't be a hot-button issue of national importance.
... and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
They can feel however they want to feel; I don't particularly care. They do have one huge benefit over Vargas' situation: they don't live in fear every day that someone will find out about them and they'll get sent back to their birth country.
There is law for a reason, and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
Obviously you've never dealt with immigration. My wife was a Chinese citizen here on a student visa when we married, and so I've dealt with the process first hand.
It seems to me that most people believe that the process of getting a green card or citizenship is just a matter of filling out a couple forms, going to a notary, and waiting a few months for everything to be approved. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and as a result, many people who want to do everything legally, who really try to do so, wind up with an illegal status.
The process involves scores of forms that must be filled out just so. I can tell you from personal experience that figuring out exactly what the INS wanted was a challenge -- for me, an native English speaker who got 680 on the SAT verbal section. It's nearly impossible for non-native speakers, but many of them can't afford a lawyer to help them.
My wife's application was rejected twice. The first was due to confusion about the correct papers to prove marriage. The second was due to improperly collected fingerprints. We went to the State Police to have the fingerprint cards done. Who is better qualified to take good fingerprint samples than the police, right? We were rejected because the NJ State Police are not certified by the INS as fingerprint authorities. It seems that, to get the prints done legally, we had to drive to the duly certified fingerprint authority, some 40 miles away, which turned out to be a camera shop. Her prints were taken by some Indian guy, obviously an immigrant himself, rather than a police officer -- and these were accepted.
On one occasion the wife was at the INS office in NYC Federal Plaza. The woman at the counter was telling wife that something had to be done just so, no exceptions. Wife asked to speak to a manager to try to clear up the misunderstanding -- a perfectly legitimate request in any business. Rather than trying to work with my wife to resolve the disagreement, the worker pushed a little button, and two big burly guys came out of a door and physically removed my wife from the premises, claiming that she was a threat.
Obviously this process is not about a correct and complete application: they are about perpetuating the INS itself, through the fees for fingerprint certifications; shoring up their little fiefdoms, and so on. Anyone who believes that people who are unsuccessful in navigating this bureaucracy are criminals, bad elements that we don't want in our society, is badly mistaken.
Unjust to ordinary Americans as well as the immigrants, while favoring businesses. If there was a legal avenue to bring in enough individuals for farm work and other manual labor, there would be far fewer illegals living in the shadows and wages would be higher.
So, here we have a philosophical issue: tribe or meritocracy. Considering the historically horrible results with tribalism, meritocracy is best.
Which means, open the borders.
If some lazy spoiled Americans lose their jobs to better skilled immigrants, all the better. That's what this country is about.
The USA has an orderly and, from what I understand from my immigrant friends and coworkers, not too difficult immigration process already. The meritocracy is here already. The article's author decided to cheat the system and be a criminal.
It's not true. I got an employment-based green card a little over a year after I set foot in the country.
What is true is that the system is rigged against Indians and Chinese. If you are Indian and don't have a PhD, then yes, you may have to wait 10 years, probably longer in fact. Unlike the hardships of illegal immigrants, this hardly ever gets any attention though.
I'm an American who has contacts with a group of people who are illegal aliens. We have been trying to go the correct route for years. Trust me when I say it is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
The entire reason we have a problem is because there isn't a good way to "do things legally".
I had to wait over 8 years to get my citizenship and wade through tons of bureaucracy and paperwork. In my experience it was anything but easy. It took a letter to the governor of my state, asking for help so that I can vote for him; to get things moving. Suddenly everything magically fell into place within two weeks of writing that letter.
> horrible results with tribalism, meritocracy is best.
May I attempt to translate?: Throw my weaker countrymen under the bus. I have no human loyalties to those born in my nation who share my culture. Their welfare is of no consequence compared to potentially profitable foreigners.
I think your "tribalism vs meritocracy" line does get to the heart of the matter. Except I would substitute the term "nationalism" for tribalism. And the story of the 19th and 20th century is the absolute failure of systems of government not oriented around nationalism, and tribe. All over the world empires and larger nations repeatedly broke up into their tribal elements. This is inevitable human nature and fighting it is just stupid. This project of inviting the entire world into the borders of the USA will end in civil war eventually. Enoch Powell was right. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Riv...
It might also be worthwhile to mention that the 20th century has seen a nice collection of wars and atrocities done by nation states upon other nations.
yes he got social security card from SS office but the grounds for it are not valid - making the SS card invalid (when somebody catches him for illegal entry to US).
The secret service is supposed to be able to pull up entire background check - not simply make sure if SSN checkouts against Vargas name.
This could be my story, except my parents never managed to legalize, and I couldn't even get a tax id. Lawyers haven't been able to help. I am going to a "big shot" lawyer soon to see what he says, but at this point I'm not holding my breath. I was brought to the states at the age of 12; that was 13 years ago. I'm in limbo, as you.
Forget the Start Visa Act, that's fresh out the oven and even if it did, somehow, manage to make it through the stalemate in Congress, there is no way it would cover people like you and I, who have "broken the law" (we were brought here as children, for the few who will miss the point). Something that _could_ help us is the Dream Act.
In college I started http://dreamact.info It is the biggest community of would be Dream Act beneficiaries and undocumented students. I'm not too proud of what's there at this point -- I always want to do more -- but it's the best I could do with life always catching up. =( I've been in and out of the fray trying to pass this bill and perhaps have some things to share that go beyond the scope of this comment. If you are at all interested in the bill, or just want somebody to share with -- I know it gets very tough -- feel free to contact me at nick at dreamact.info
God, I remember when the Dream Act was first introduced. I wrote a story about it for my school newspaper, then started a GeoCities site, and then a newsletter. I thought it would be no time before it would get through. That was over 10 years ago! If it were passed 4 to 10 years from now, which is its apparent trajectory, it would be too late for me to benefit from it. I'm getting less and less optimistic with every year. Nothing changes, man. Nothing. I can hang on for the moment, but just barely. :(
We got very close to the passage of the bill during the lame duck session (dec 2010). Twenty ten especially was filled with energy and action; that's what got us there.
I've seen one thing consistently, we, as a movement, are getting older, smarter, and closer to our goals. Not unlike starting a startup in high school, you are bound to fail, but after 10 years of failing you learn a thing or two. The timeline for the passage of the bill is not some constant or range. It is a linear function of how smart we work and how much energy we put into it. If I learned one thing, is that Congress has absolutely zero interest in passing the bill, either party. They all just want to get elected again. You work from there.
If by "too late for me," you are referring to the age limit in the bill, the Dream Act usually gets introduced without the limit and the 30 year old age limit is sometimes tacked on as a "compromise" in the process. Also, the number I keep seeing lately is 35, simply because its taking this long to pass the bill. I want the limit gone, it makes zero sense from any angle. It is only good for marketing the bill to hypocrites who'll never support it anyway, "look only kids will benefit." Fucking load of shit, we were kids when this mess started!! Just because you've been in legal limbo for 20 years, doesn't make you less American. Eh... You give a finger you get nothing, you give a hand, you get nothing, you give half your torso, and you still get nothing. That is the dynamic of party relations in the Senate right now. Democrats compromise, Republicans just keep saying "No" because that will get them elected. The age limit is a compromise not worth making and we'll make sure the Senators know about it. I see more and more people who are already over the proposed limits, they deserve this more than I.
Personally, I'm not ruling out "going back." Although, it's not really going back is it, its leaving everything and everyone you know behind to go to a place you barely remember, if at all. I have the same problem, not having done mandatory military service, I'd probably be arriving into a jail cell. That is unless I arrive after a certain age. The country of your origin may have a similar rule, look into it. Coincidentally, this is the strategy of our opposition, they call it "attrition." Make our lives so miserable that we leave on our own. Look at the AZ bill. Look at the Georgia bill that will be signed by the governor in a couple of days. We leave, they win. I don't know what they win exactly, you and I are clearly American and have something to contribute to society. But, I don't care about the principle of this thing much, I just want to breathe free for once (ironic isn't it.)
What helped me deal with this situation personally, is just not being afraid anymore. That sounds cliche, but something just snapped one night somewhere around the time where my friend was going to be deported (a few days later, Sen. Dick Durbin has personally acted to stop his deportation), and I just said you know what fuck it all. I know I'm worth something as a human being. I know I'm a competent "product" guy that loves what he does. If the worst thing that I have to be afraid of is getting shipped out clenching my American diploma, then fuck em. Ship me out and let me live my fucking life already. Or do what you have been doing and pretend that I don't exist. I'll be fine either way, so fuck you. You can see I was angry, not bitter, I think I have it easy compared to others and certainly the rest of the world, just angry. That night I made a pact with myself, fear will never be a factor again. It worked. Somehow accepting the possible consequences and not being afraid of them anymore has helped me get a grip on this situation emotionally. Over the years I've developed a really thick skin, nothing ever surprises me anymore. In addition, overcoming this fear -- I can't even say concretely what I was afraid of, it's just this perpetual state that you are in as an undocumented person -- has given me a ton of confidence. You want to bring me down? It will take you a lifetime; enjoy the ride.
So my advice is please do ALL you can to change your status, but if no avenues are available, do what you can to improve your quality of life. Come to some kind of an arrangement with your co-founders and keep going, keep doing what you love, live your life as fully as you possibly can, we are still incredibly fortunate. Just look at yourself as you, not as the system sees you.
While the American laws are comparatively flexible and open (compared to a few other countries), it is many of our mistakes we make as people (whether in the system or not) to define ourselves as folks by the law instead of by ourselves, by our own capabilities.
With the OP, I can say that if they went to some other developing country, they would still make a good living. It won't be America but that is where the equalization will improve over time, might be long,
MEANWHILE, don't forget yourself as a person, as a person with capability rather than a person with disobedience to the law.
Create the company, if it does not meet the startup visa requirements, no worries, just create it anyway. Supportive people will help you with your issue, your co-workers, your friends. Folks visiting HN support you too!
Thanks, bro. Reading this made my day. You're awesome for standing up for your friend and giving hope to strangers like me on the internet. With some luck, we'll get through this. My only consolation right now is that I'm not going through this alone. :)
If the NY Times want to write a story about an elusive American Dream they should write about us, the Dream Act students, who've been stuck in limbo with no job and no rights in sight because of our broken immigration system.
It feels absolutely devastating to graduate from college, hang that degree on the wall, and realize that you can't even open a bank account.
Plenty of illegal immigrants have bank accounts. At least around here (Bay Area) it's kind of a joke -- there's literally a separate line for illegal immigrants to do all-cash transactions. Presumably they use a fake SSN to open the account.
Also, there is nothing preventing illegal immigrants from going to college. It's unfair, however, for tax payers to subsidize their education even further when an American citizen who happens to be from another state must pay full tuition.
You are either misinformed or are purposely changing the facts.
The immigrants who open bank accounts open them using ITIN. Others, can't open a bank account because we lack _any_ documentation that is not expired. Our consulates are refusing to renew anything. Others, yet again, are stateless individuals and don't have a consulate period. Dream Act students often fall into these categories because they were brought here at a very young age.
There is plenty preventing immigrants from going to college. Tax payers are not subsidizing anything, because undocumented students cannot apply for any federal loans or financial aid. If you are undocumented and go to college, you pay out of pocket, period. There are only a handful of private merit based scholarship that are available to undocumented students. I'm one of the lucky ones.
Out of state tuition argument is moot and I'm tired of the misinformation around the issue. There are only 10 states that have legislation that allows undocumented students to be eligible for in-state tuition BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE STATE FOR AT LEAST 5 YEARS AND GRADUATED FROM A STATE HIGH SCHOOL. I've lived in New York State for over ten years, and my parents have payed taxes into the states treasury every single year. I am a New Yorker and the in-state tuition law recognizes that for purposes of tuition. So "Americans have to pay out of state tuition while undocumented immigrants can pay in-state tuition." is complete bull shit. Residents of the state pay in-state, out of state students pay out of state, undocumented or not. Fair and square, and available only 10 states.
You simply don't want to recognize that I am an American and a human being. If you see this issue for what it is, our fight for basic human rights, the economics of it all of a sudden don't feel that important. I am _American_, educated, and an aspiring entrepreneur. One day I just want to wake up and be able to breathe.
!. Illegal immigrants have bank accounts. I don't know specifically how they do it, which is why I said "presumably"... I just know that they do.
2. There is nothing, legally, preventing illegal immigrants from going to college. Yes, cost might be an issue, but to say that it is the US government's responsibility to make sure that a Mexican citizen, for instance, can go to college in the US is absurd.
3. I don't think you know what "moot"means.
4. In-state tuition is, by definition, a subsidy.
5. To say that "Americans have to pay out of state tuition while undocumented immigrants can pay in-state tuition" isn't bullshit... it's a fact by your own admission.
6. I recognize that illegal immigrants are human beings and that some are "Americans" culturally, philosophically etc. whatever that means. On the other hand, I don't think American citizenship is a "basic human right."
We're using Campaign Monitor and its faaaar too expensive. Sending 40k/mo would cost over $400/mo and thats ridiculous for email. Mailchimp and others cost pretty much the same.
Are you sending to 40,000 different email addresses or sending a total of 40,000 emails per month? If you are sending to 10,000 addresses 4 times a month (for example) then take a look at iContact. 10,000 subscribers 6x a month would cost $74 a month.
iPhone's iTunes will refuse to download a longer podcast over the air; only works on wifi. On my Palm Pixi, I can download/steam anything I want over EVDO.
Mine had a cracked motherboard because I was apparently picking it up off the table wrong, by the corner vs gently holding it on both sides, as designed. IBM initially claimed that it was water damage (6 months prior), searching online revealed a small army with the same problem as I.
I still use that ThinkPad (well minus the new motherboard) on my electronics bench, but to say that its on par with the iPhone or Mac Pro in terms of quality is laughable. The whole thing looks and feels like its made out of recycled plastic. Its so ugly it looks rugged.
I don't think you can SSH into a soviet era weapon.
This idea that war can be carried out "safely" is detached from reality. We say that our technology gives us a moral advantage in warfare. "We can hit just the right targets, and minimize collateral damage." It will never be.
WikiLeaks presentation of the first video was disingenuous, but I don't care as long as the video enters the public domain. I want to be able to pull up videos that show how worthless human life is on the battlefield. I have friends in the military and they need an emotional shell to do their job. The public, however, needs to start thinking about war not as a pissing match with browner countries, but as a serious issue.
I've struggled with Kuler for a while. Its just too slow and cumbersome (try copy pasting to Photoshop and back). The reason is of course that its all in Flash. There is a built-in Kuler toolbox in Photoshop, but that's as slow and cumbersome as the site.
Legislators are already not paying attention to email, because so much of it is automated. At best, some legislators tally email, many of them don't pay attention to it at all.
Automating phone calls is an inevitable continuation. Right now, phone calls have _some_ impact. Unfortunately, technology will make calling less effective.
On one end we have software, on the other we have the poor Congressional staffers who have to pick up the phone every time it rings. Eventually the staff will become numb to phone calls, stop paying attention, and turn to people sitting in their offices for guidance (lobbyists, who get paid to be there, or, less likely, people like you and me who find the time to actually go and talk to them.)
We have a disconnect between taking the smallest step (sending an email, calling) and the next one, physically going somewhere. This is why we -- we the tech industry, in partnership with visionaries from the non-profit space -- have to reinvent activism. To make the transition from the online to the offline world smoother. And to make the time spent online more meaningful.
Increasingly, people look online first. The dozens of petition sites -- Change.org is a full social network type of deal -- are making it easy to confuse "doing something" with "doing something effective."