Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Well at least the USA will be safe once that big wall goes up. No one's going over that baby.

Except the people who entered on legal visas and then didn't go home.. Those who travelled down from Canada by car.. Anyone from overseas, China or India which are now where most of the immigrants are coming from.. The numbers from Mexico are at the lowest levels they have been for 30 years...

The wall will do nothing.

[Annoyed]

Except the people who entered on legal visas and then didn't go home.. Those who travelled down from Canada by car.. Anyone from overseas, China or India which are now where most of the immigrants are coming from.. The numbers from Mexico are at the lowest levels they have been for 30 years...

The wall will do nothing.

If that's the case, why do people oppose it so much? Why has Mexico's President (who doesn't mind his citizens going to the US illegally, but treats illegals coming into Mexico much more harshly than we do) even gone as far as to drop F-bombs talking about it?

[Coco Pops]

Except the people who entered on legal visas and then didn't go home.. Those who travelled down from Canada by car.. Anyone from overseas, China or India which are now where most of the immigrants are coming from.. The numbers from Mexico are at the lowest levels they have been for 30 years...

The wall will do nothing.

That is true

[Annoyed]

Because in the case of Europe, the countries they arrive in are either bankrupt or can hardly take care of their own - hence why they close the borders.

And those countries that can look after the refugees/immigrants were not in the least prepared to handle such a refugee/immigrant stream of people -- thus the crisis exists.

So, If I understand you right, it's perfectly fine for European countries to maintain control their borders and refuse those who wish to live in their country illegally, while the US is supposed to take all comers?

Is that the position you're staking out?

As far as many European countries being bankrupt, isn't it true that most of Europe is much farther down the socialist path than we are? Maybe there is a cause and effect relationship there?
Endless giveaways and freebies didn't do Greece much good, did they?

And finally, I will point out that US workers at the lower end of our socio-economic ladder can't afford the effects of millions of illegals on the job market any more them European nations can afford illegals.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

If that's the case, why do people oppose it so much? Why has Mexico's President (who doesn't mind his citizens going to the US illegally, but treats illegals coming into Mexico much more harshly than we do) even gone as far as to drop F-bombs talking about it?

Why would he complain about his citizens being labeled criminals, murderers and rapists? Or the campaign of hate against his country?

Hmmm... Let me think.. That's a tough one..

You know that Mexico blocks people travelling north from central and South America as part of a deal with the US, right?

[Annoyed]

You have said women should be paid less, which is discriminatory towards women.

Where have I said that gender alone should be basis for different wage rates?

There are circumstances where it would work out that way, such as if worker A starts a career and continues at it for 15 years, while worker B takes 3 years off over those 15 years for childrearing duties, for example.
This clearly gives worker A a leg up on worker B in terms of experience at the job. Gender doesn't make the difference, experience does. If in some situation it is the male who takes that time off to raise the young and the female who keeps going to work, other things being equal, the male should expect that his earning power would be reduced. The difference is not due to gender discrimination, but rather due to different roles each gender plays. If the role is reversed, you would expect the effect to be reversed also.

In real life, this usually works out to be the female, because our species, despite foolish attempts to pretend otherwise, is comprised of two separate genders, each of which has their strong points and weak points, and in general, the rearing of the young is something the female is better suited for. This is the result of thousands and thousands of years of evolution, and isn't going to change because pretending that differences don't exist is currently popular.

You have all but said, "blacks are more likely to be criminals", which is racial discrimination, and hold up "crime statistics" that totally ignore the fact that the criminal justice system has been geared towards racial profiling.

You yourself are clearly aware that the statistics bear out that "blacks are more likely to be criminals" or you wouldn't have raised that point. You can make all the excuses and rationalizations you want, but you cannot possibly deny that blacks are grossly over represented in prison populations in comparison to their percentage of our society's population. Remember, you don't generally get involved with the criminal justice system unless you commit a crime, and unless the crime is particularly heinous, you don't see prison until you've committed a number of offenses.

You don't think people have the right to determine for themselves "what they are", and that other people should be able to do that, which is discriminatory towards any non-cis gendered person.

Not quite. No one, not the person itself or any other person can determine what gender an individual is. That determination is made by the combination of chromosomes that make up the person. We do not have the technical ability to change this. To really "change" a person's gender, you would have to go back in time to the individual's birth, change the chromosome as desired, and then that person would be raised as whatever gender they are at that point.

And considering how intimately gender identity is interweaved with our species' reproductive process, a basic drive of any successful life form, I'm not so sure it's a good idea to try to fiddle with this stuff.

Yes, sometimes it seems to work out wrong; people end up feeling more like a person of the opposite gender. You may doubt this, but there have been times I've wondered if I ended up in the right skin.
But regardless of the problem at hand, pretending it doesn't exist, or trying to pretend you're something you are not is almost never a proper solution to a problem. You are what you are, and that cannot be changed. No one gets a perfect life. We are all born less than perfect, and must deal with our flaws.

You believe that companies have the right to discriminate based on "religious grounds", yet last time I checked, non living entities really don't care about god (unless that is their specific business like churches), which is discriminatory towards whoever/whatever the religion in question does not like.

I assume you are talking about bakeries not wanting to bake cakes for weddings they object to on religious grounds, and that sort of thing.

If two same-gendered people want to get married, I don't care, even though I consider it to be counter to survival as a species and would never choose it for myself. It is their business and their business alone.

My issue arises when their rights are elevated over and above the rights of someone else. Such as legally forcing a person or business to provide a service they object to for whatever reasons, religious or otherwise.

Need I go on?
Look, if you don't actually believe any of these things, cool, but that's how you are coming across dude. You can argue that -all- of that was/is "just the system", but then you have to recognize the fact that for hundreds, if not thousands of years, "just the system" was build to empower and advance white, straight men, and trying to hold onto that system is -in of itself- a discriminatory act.

I believe that everyone should be treated equally, as much as is possible. Granted, when it comes to gender issues, that is not always possible, because of our species' reproductive process. Men and Women are fundamentally different at a very basic level because of this, and pretending those differences do not exist, as is popular today isn't a wise course of action.

But as far as race, religious beliefs, and the rest of it, everyone should be treated equally. This means no preferential treatment of any sort, and no one's race or beliefs should be held above those of another.

[garhkal]

Except the people who entered on legal visas and then didn't go home.. Those who travelled down from Canada by car.. Anyone from overseas, China or India which are now where most of the immigrants are coming from.. The numbers from Mexico are at the lowest levels they have been for 30 years...

The wall will do nothing.

It will at least stop new ones coming in across the border, like the 80K or so we saw last year.
But i do agree, we need to something about all those already here. AND No its not amnesty them into being citizens.. They need to get booted out, and come back in legally.

If that's the case, why do people oppose it so much? Why has Mexico's President (who doesn't mind his citizens going to the US illegally, but treats illegals coming into Mexico much more harshly than we do) even gone as far as to drop F-bombs talking about it?

From those i chat to in person, most who are opposed to it, simply are just cause Trump proposed it rather than actually against putting up a wall to protect our borders.

You know that Mexico blocks people travelling north from central and South America as part of a deal with the US, right?

Based on all the news reports SHOWING people jumping onto those trains coming up from Further south, THROUGH mexico into the US, it doesn't seem to me like they are blocking any..

[Falcon Horus]

BUT that's the thing. I don't see it as discrimination, telling someone "Use the bathroom/shower of the SEX you have, not the gender you feel you are". if anything i find saying "Use what ever batroom/shower you want" is discriminatory to the NORMAL Folk, by saying "Your privacy and feelings about NOT having to have someone of the opposite sex come in on you matter not, only the Transgendered folk's rights do"..

So basically, you freely discriminate but don't want to be discriminated against.

BUT what of Italy...

The north of Italy is the rich part while the south is not, and it just so happens to be the part where the refugees/immigrants land, although less than on Greek shores.

...France...

France says it's the UK's problem, and the UK says it's France's problem, so the immigrants get stuck in the middle or more accurately in Calais, trying to cross the North Sea by going under it through the tunnels for the Eurostar trains.

France has placed housing containers near the site of The Jungle, a camp build by the immigrants, but the immigrants don't want to live in them for some bizar reason. All they want is to get into the UK at whatever cost.

...Belgium...

Belgium was on the whole completely unprepared to receive the flood of refugees and immigrants. They have been placed all over the country in different shelters and a lot of them filed papers to gain refugee-status or filed documents in order to temporarily stay in the country. The only ones given refugee-status are Syrians and can stay up to 5 years in Belgium. Some even returned voluntarily at which time they are being given 250 euros and are given one year of help to get back on their feet -- the returnees were mostly Iraqis.

Most of the ones arriving here are not transits -- and the controls on human smuggling is high. Just last week, smugglers were chased down a highway to end in a crash, leaving all 4 men severely injured. The people they had already stashed away in trucks were discovered and rounded up.

...and the other countries passed through on the way to the UK?

Eastern-Europe doesn't have the monetary means, Western-Europe wasn't prepared. And now they try to safe whatever they can. And everyone one else is closing their borders to keep the thousands of immigrants out.

My point was, if its Unsafe for the natives, which is why they supposedly are fleeing, How is it safe to send Expats and tourists???

Tourists are probably advised to stay away from certain hotspots, and expats usually don't have a choice in the matter -- expats working for international companies.

So, If I understand you right, it's perfectly fine for European countries to maintain control their borders and refuse those who wish to live in their country illegally, while the US is supposed to take all comers?

Europe is not a country. It's a collection of countries, each deciding on their own how to maintain their borders. While yes, there is an open border policy in the European Union - however, this is not applicable to people from outside the EU - actually outside of the Schengen countries.

Schengen explained

Endless giveaways and freebies didn't do Greece much good, did they?

Socialism, which you probably hoped was the case, is not at the basis of Greece's problems - please try again.

Here try this: Explaining the Greek Economic Crisis to Students

The word you would be looking for is "corruption".

And finally, I will point out that US workers at the lower end of our socio-economic ladder can't afford the effects of millions of illegals on the job market any more them European nations can afford illegals.

Let's put that in perspective:

"Unauthorized immigrants make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force. In the U.S. labor force, there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012. Among the states, Nevada (10%), California (9%), Texas (9%) and New Jersey (8%) had the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their labor forces."

From "5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S."

Total labor force in 2014: 161,048,950
5.1% of that is 8,213,496

Labor force:
Total labor force comprises people ages 15 and older who meet the International Labour Organization definition of the economically active population: all people who supply labor for the production of goods and services during a specified period. It includes both the employed and the unemployed. While national practices vary in the treatment of such groups as the armed forces and seasonal or part-time workers, in general the labor force includes the armed forces, the unemployed, and first-time job-seekers, but excludes homemakers and other unpaid caregivers and workers in the informal sector.

[Annoyed]

[QUOTE=Falcon Horus;14479382]

Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
So, If I understand you right, it's perfectly fine for European countries to maintain control their borders and refuse those who wish to live in their country illegally, while the US is supposed to take all comers?

Europe is not a country. It's a collection of countries, each deciding on their own how to maintain their borders. While yes, there is an open border policy in the European Union - however, this is not applicable to people from outside the EU - actually outside of the Schengen countries.

I used the phrase "European countries"; I was speaking of Europe as a group of countries.

Schengen explained



Socialism, which you probably hoped was the case, is not at the basis of Greece's problems - please try again.

Here try this: Explaining the Greek Economic Crisis to Students

The word you would be looking for is "corruption".

Let's put that in perspective:

"Unauthorized immigrants make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force. In the U.S. labor force, there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012. Among the states, Nevada (10%), California (9%), Texas (9%) and New Jersey (8%) had the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their labor forces."

From "5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S."

Total labor force in 2014: 161,048,950
5.1% of that is 8,213,496

Labor force:
Total labor force comprises people ages 15 and older who meet the International Labour Organization definition of the economically active population: all people who supply labor for the production of goods and services during a specified period. It includes both the employed and the unemployed. While national practices vary in the treatment of such groups as the armed forces and seasonal or part-time workers, in general the labor force includes the armed forces, the unemployed, and first-time job-seekers, but excludes homemakers and other unpaid caregivers and workers in the informal sector.

Ok, so take 5.1% as a valid figure for discussion.
There are all sorts of movements to get bottom end wages raised to $15/Hr (and these laws are not applied evenly) these days.
Many working illegal immigrants are working at wage & benefit levels well beneath what business would have to pay a legal citizen worker over the table.
What do you suppose might be the effect on the bottom of the labor market if those workers were not undercutting the US worker by working unofficially, and therefore suppressing wage rates?

Business would still need to have that labor performed, so they would have to raise wages offered until they are able to fill the position with an "over the table" worker.

The middle and lower economic classes in this country have been having a very hard time of it for a very long time now, and they can't afford that illegal competition for the jobs they need to support themselves.

[Falcon Horus]

Many working illegal immigrants are working at wage & benefit levels well beneath what business would have to pay a legal citizen worker over the table.
What do you suppose might be the effect on the bottom of the labor market if those workers were not undercutting the US worker by working unofficially, and therefore suppressing wage rates?

I think the problem with your 15$/hr is that employer are far more likely to hire the illegal immigrant at a far lower wage than the legal worker who will want that 15$/hr. And if employers can save money on wages, they will.

Business would still need to have that labor performed, so they would have to raise wages offered until they are able to fill the position with an "over the table" worker.

They'll take their business elsewhere, you mean, where labor costs are far lower.
Except agriculture -- that's harder to take elsewhere. It's possible but you'd be leaving fertile land to whither.

The middle and lower economic classes in this country have been having a very hard time of it for a very long time now, and they can't afford that illegal competition for the jobs they need to support themselves.

That is true for every country I know -- employers are the same everywhere.

[Annoyed]

I think the problem with your 15$/hr is that employer are far more likely to hire the illegal immigrant at a far lower wage than the legal worker who will want that 15$/hr. And if employers can save money on wages, they will.

Not if every single illegal in the country was deported, and immigration levels were set to benefit our own citizens first. If there are no illegals, and companies are not allowed to import cheap labor, they have to hire US workers.

And yes, I am also advocating keeping legal immigration levels in check to benefit our own workers. If you doubt the wisdom of this, just ask any of the Disney theme park employees who were fired after having had to teach legal immigrants (H1B visas?) how to do their jobs for substantially lower wages.
Or the programmers who Microsoft wants to be able to fire by asking the government to increase the number of H1B visas issued so that imported workers can take their jobs.

They'll take their business elsewhere, you mean, where labor costs are far lower.

If they can. But that's the fault of all this "free trade" crap foisted upon us by corporate-owned politicians of BOTH parties over the past 30+ years.

Except agriculture -- that's harder to take elsewhere. It's possible but you'd be leaving fertile land to whither.

Just coincidentally, I'm sure, but agricultural jobs are almost always exempt from minimum wage laws regardless of where they are enacted.

That is true for every country I know -- employers are the same everywhere.

Quite true.

So, we have very powerful arguments for addressing the immigration problem as well as protectionist trade policies in order to benefit our own citizens at the lower and middle class wage levels.

Haven't I heard one of the candidates for President saying the very same things? (actually two of them, but Col. Sanders hasn't got a prayer of getting the Democratic nomination)

[Falcon Horus]

Not if every single illegal in the country was deported, and immigration levels were set to benefit our own citizens first. If there are no illegals, and companies are not allowed to import cheap labor, they have to hire US workers.

A utopia as the companies would simply leave and find their benefits elsewhere.
And if they can't go elsewhere, I bet you anything they won't hire too many people, hoping that their lower workface can handle twice the work.

If you doubt the wisdom of this, just ask any of the Disney theme park employees who were fired after having had to teach legal immigrants (H1B visas?) how to do their jobs for substantially lower wages.
Or the programmers who Microsoft wants to be able to fire by asking the government to increase the number of H1B visas issued so that imported workers can take their jobs.

For reference:
Disney sued for replacing American workers with foreigners
Walt Disney World fired so they could be replaced by foreign employees, lawsuit claims

Microsoft's H-1B visa stats

Two companies who got caught abusing the H-1B visas, but many more don't get caught.

H-1B visas are not meant to be used to replace workers -- they are meant as additions.
Again, the lower costs of labor always win out.

Also, concerning this H-1B workvisa -- I stumbled across this gem:

Deport Melania Trump: She is, literally, the poster girl for his corrupt, H-1B-exploiting agency.
by Kevin D. Williamson March 11, 2016 11:21 AM

Over here one company did exactly the same thing, they fired their entire IT-staff and hired new IT-folks in India. They too are under investigation at the moment. However, the Indian IT crew was not brought over to Belgium, they are working in a local branch in India.
A company my company works with on a daily basis, and we thus get Indians coming in for a few months to learn the ropes and then they go back. And we place many calls back and forth.

If they can. But that's the fault of all this "free trade" crap foisted upon us by corporate-owned politicians of BOTH parties over the past 30+ years.

International Trade Administration speaks of a positive influence on the US economy. Apparently, you didn't get the memo.

"Trade Agreements reduce barriers to U.S. exports, and protect U.S. interests and enhance the rule of law in the FTA partner country. The reduction of trade barriers and the creation of a more stable and transparent trading and investment environment make it easier and cheaper for U.S. companies to export their products and services to trading partner markets."

[Annoyed]

Theoretically, free trade is a good idea. But it never works out that way in real life.
You can cite all the web pages, free trade associations, and whatever that you want, but none of it adds up to what 30+ years of real life history shows.
Ross Perot had it right on the money in 1992, with his "giant sucking sound" as US jobs left for overseas. This has happened, past tense; it's history, next to which, any theoretical analysis is of absolutely no value at all.

NAFTA, and all the other free trade deals have been a disaster for the U.S. working class. The only beneficiaries are the corporations who take advantage of it, and the nations we are outsourcing or jobs and standard of living to.

Oh, and who operates that web site you quoted? "International Trade Association"? It's part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Is it really going to take a position in opposition to that of the government, which, on this issue has been bought, lock stock and barrel by big business ?

Working stiffs have been watching this for decades now. And I'm quite sure this is also one of the strongest reasons for Trump is so overwhelmingly popular with the Republican voters backing him.
Bernie is also benefiting as well; his positions on this are similar to Trump's, but it's a smaller factor in Bernie's support, many of his backers just want the free stuff he is promising.

[garhkal]

So basically, you freely discriminate but don't want to be discriminated against.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". IN this case, the rights of the majority to not have their privacy violated to ME matter more than the supposed rights of the minority (less than 2%) to be 'free to use what they identify with'.

The north of Italy is the rich part while the south is not, and it just so happens to be the part where the refugees/immigrants land, although less than on Greek shores.

So why not spread them out?

France says it's the UK's problem, and the UK says it's France's problem, so the immigrants get stuck in the middle or more accurately in Calais, trying to cross the North Sea by going under it through the tunnels for the Eurostar trains.

France has placed housing containers near the site of The Jungle, a camp build by the immigrants, but the immigrants don't want to live in them for some bizar reason. All they want is to get into the UK at whatever cost.

Which to me SHOWS they are not true refugees, but what's termed Economic migrants, in that they ONLY want to go to which country gives them the most freebies..

Most of the ones arriving here are not transits -- and the controls on human smuggling is high. Just last week, smugglers were chased down a highway to end in a crash, leaving all 4 men severely injured. The people they had already stashed away in trucks were discovered and rounded up.

Good. I despise human smugglers.

Eastern-Europe doesn't have the monetary means, Western-Europe wasn't prepared. And now they try to safe whatever they can. And everyone one else is closing their borders to keep the thousands of immigrants out.

And you think England is prepared and can monetarily support them all??

Tourists are probably advised to stay away from certain hotspots, and expats usually don't have a choice in the matter -- expats working for international companies.

Still doesn't answer the core question though. If its unsafe enough that locals are fleeing by the thousands (supposedly)< then how is it safe for expats/tourists to be allowed visas there..??

I think the problem with your 15$/hr is that employer are far more likely to hire the illegal immigrant at a far lower wage than the legal worker who will want that 15$/hr. And if employers can save money on wages, they will.

Which hurts LEGAL workers..

Two companies who got caught abusing the H-1B visas, but many more don't get caught.

Cause either the government DOESN'T investigate enough, or those who do investigate get their palm's greased to overlook it..

[Annoyed]

And here we have proper gun control.

80 year old home invasion victim hit and killed the miscreant who was the target and quite possibly saved her husband's life, maybe her own and her son's as well.

http://q13fox.com/2016/04/29/gold-ba...ical-examiner/

SULTAN, Wash. -- An 80-year-old woman took drastic action to save her husband during a home invasion.

Police said she shot the intruder but not before he managed to stab her elderly husband.

The elderly woman told Q13 News that her 75-year-old husband is in a lot of pain; he’s listed in serious condition at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

“It could have been a very bad situation,” said neighbor Richard Cross. “It could have been three homicides over there instead of one intruder biting the dust.”

Police said the 75-year-old husband watched the stranger break into the house through the back door and then hit him on his head before stabbing him. That’s when his 80-year-old wife grabbed a gun and killed the intruder.

Cross said his neighbor told him the suspect had been rifling through the medicine cabinet searching for drugs. But when police said she watched him attack her husband with a knife, she then pulled a gun and shot him.

“She didn’t think a second about it,” said Cross. “I mean it was just automatic. She emptied the gun.”

Police believe the suspect has no relation to the elderly couple, or their adult son who also was in the home during the attack.

The 80-year-old shooter told investigators she had never seen the suspect before in her life.

The Snohomish County medical examiner identified the intruder as 25-year-old Steven Sheppard from Gold Bar. Sheppard is a felon who did time for robbery in 2013.

The victim’s family asked for privacy and declined an on-camera interview.

But their neighbor is grateful the friendly, warm family next door survived the terrifying ordeal.

“I figured she’d be a basket case,” said Cross. “The biggest problem she had is she was tired.”

The Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office is still investigating the case. The county prosecutor will determine if any criminal charges are filed against the elderly woman involved in the shooting.