Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
From the Economist - And as usual I agree 100%. Any of you Union lovers, or Xenophobes, want to disparage this legislation?

It's potentially a good bill (and a good article). Also interesting that the AFL-CIO has merely declined to endorse it, rather than affirmatively support it.

At the risk of being called a "union-lover" or "xenophobe," I wonder about the provision that lets you hire immigrants if you can prove that Americans won't take the job -- how do you go about proving that? And what if Americans would take the job for slightly higher pay? That last part is really the crux of union opposition to increased immigration -- that there are jobs that often go to illegals because the pay is so low, but when the pay is decent Americans and legal immigrants are willing to take them (restaurant and hotel jobs is one example -- very commonly staffed by illegals in some communities, but in others, like Las Vegas, they are filled with people legally in the country).

The discussion of the unintended side effects of immigration laws -- like having "coyotes" who will help terrorists get in the country --- is interesting, but there is no real evidence, or even argument, in the article that the bill would prevent this. Unless we adopt a full open border policy, I don't see coyotes being driven out of business.


Note: You should post links instead of complete articles. Copyright and such.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I just finished an interesting book - The Visitor by Sheri Tepper - where she posits a future society descended from our so-called "right to lifers." As our science improves, the ability to create non-prexisting life will increase to the point that all you will need is a few (or one) cell to create/the life that was or would have been, and where does this lead us? Do I commit murder by shaving? Can society kill me as punishment for a crime, while saving a few cells to reincarnate me later?

I just read an article where a bioethicist points out that 60 or so percent of embryos self-abort before maturing. I guess that nature isn't as interested in life as some people are.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's potentially a good bill (and a good article). Also interesting that the AFL-CIO has merely declined to endorse it, rather than affirmatively support it.

At the risk of being called a "union-lover" or "xenophobe," I wonder about the provision that lets you hire immigrants if you can prove that Americans won't take the job -- how do you go about proving that? And what if Americans would take the job for slightly higher pay? That last part is really the crux of union opposition to increased immigration -- that there are jobs that often go to illegals because the pay is so low, but when the pay is decent Americans and legal immigrants are willing to take them (restaurant and hotel jobs is one example -- very commonly staffed by illegals in some communities, but in others, like Las Vegas, they are filled with people legally in the country).

The discussion of the unintended side effects of immigration laws -- like having "coyotes" who will help terrorists get in the country --- is interesting, but there is no real evidence, or even argument, in the article that the bill would prevent this. Unless we adopt a full open border policy, I don't see coyotes being driven out of business.


Note: You should post links instead of complete articles. Copyright and such.

Right now under the immigration laws you have to show that a domestic worker can't do the job. But the enforcement is really lax.

I would put a link to these articles but you need to be a subrscriber to the economist to go to the link. I hate it when people put up links to subscriber only sites. I am willing to risk the copyright police.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I just read an article where a bioethicist points out that 60 or so percent of embryos self-abort before maturing. I guess that nature isn't as interested in life as some people are.

Yes, nature does not seem to value life very mutch. Hurricanes, volcanoes, disease - but because nature does not value life, does that mean we should not? If we follow natures example shouldn't we just murder every child that is weak or stupid? Mother nature may not respect life, but I think it is still precious.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Why? What is there to respect in blind belief in a - by definition - unprovable theory? Deliberate ignorance should be abhorred, condemned, mocked and ridiculed, not praised. Intentional abdication of your intellect is deserving of nothing less than disgust and derision. Your request that we respect your choice of nescience is laughable.

By posting to this board you are showing you have faith. How can one argue about politics if we don't assume a common set of ethics. If we say something is wrong or not right, we are assuming there is some sort of universal ethical code that applies to all of us. Without such a universal code such words as right or wrong, moral or immoral are meaningless. Without a code, every issue that is placed before the board would be either in my interest or not in my interest. There would be no argument about right or wrong. Just - is this policy good for me or bad for me. But no one argues that way. Everyone assumes that there is a morality that is common for all of us. And such a code, if it exists, must have been designed by someone or something. In otherwords the code had to be put together by some higher intelligence. Every time you post to this board you are showing your faith.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, nature does not seem to value life very mutch. Hurricanes, volcanoes, disease - but because nature does not value life, does that mean we should not? If we follow natures example shouldn't we just murder every child that is weak or stupid? Mother nature may not respect life, but I think it is still precious.

Uh-oh. Cue Less's eugenics lecture.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Uh-oh. Cue Less's eugenics lecture.

girl girl girl girl girl girl girl girl girl

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Of course, inherent in the Star Wars story is the thought that earth was populated by beings from other worlds, and thus life did not spring from the primordial ooze.

How did the beings from other worlds come into being?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Club sock, no?

No. Club doesn't sock.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
At the risk of being called a "union-lover" or "xenophobe," I wonder about the provision that lets you hire immigrants if you can prove that Americans won't take the job -- how do you go about proving that?

The same way you do now. You advertise the job for a certain amount of time in a newspaper, and if no one responds or will accept it, you can hire a foreigner.

Read all about it at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
The same way you do now. You advertise the job for a certain amount of time in a newspaper, and if no one responds or will accept it, you can hire a foreigner.

Read all about it at the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

Sidd's personal ads didn't get any hits for over 3 months. Does that mean he can bring in foreigners for dates?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How did the beings from other worlds come into being?

and thats where the loop closes! Careful examination of the films reveales that the other worldly beings were simply created by the Lucas.

QED.

78-4

'88 Law '92

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and thats where the loop closes! Careful examination of the films reveales that the other worldly beings were simply created by the Lucas.

QED.

78-4

'88 Law '92

You don't consider this intelligent design, do you?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You don't consider this intelligent design, do you?

Are you calling George Lucas stupid?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you calling George Lucas stupid?