masondixon

> abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down

If they keep their expenses down is does benefit customers in paying less for tickets.

> They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350.

Legally, they can negotiate with customer. If they refused to offer cash that is illegal. But they can offer whatever they like.

"As you can see, in many cases you’re entitled to a sizable cash payment, up to $1,350. However, here’s the dirty secret of the airlines. In a vast majority of cases they’ll only offer cash compensation if you specifically ask for it. Otherwise they’ll offer you the same voucher they gave anyone who was voluntarily denied boarding."

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...

Yep. And I am arguing that there is a lot of analysis over something that should not have been a media firestorm, but a simple dispute with an airline that probably happens 1000s of times per day.

Take away the kicking and screaming and you have a standard airline dispute of which you can find thousands.

> The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

Seems this is part of the contract.

Who would he be angry with if the weather caused the plane to be grounded?

If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so.

They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

Did they not pay out the compensation? I can't seem to find that part.

> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip.

But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does.

If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat.

Now the fact that it can be argued legalistically that he was not "denied boarding by bumping", but was "deplaned", is something he can pursue in the courts if he chooses to. But I don't think he was even arguing this at the time.

His behaviour was simply childish.

Agree. I had a similar dispute with a codeshare ticket in the past. You make a contract with the airline that sells you the ticket and it is their responsibility to resolve the issue with their carrier.

In a codeshare dispute, both airlines will blame each other, but it is important to focus all your efforts on the ticket seller.

> (a) There was an unjust system and

There was a legislated racist system.

The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach.

(b) It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules.

What is the just result? The law is still the law. Next time this happens, the passenger won't act like a child, and it won't be a headline.

I don't get it.

Airline bumping is legislated. You get bumped involuntarily, you get $800. He got bumped, he can get the money.

If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they suppose to do?

I don't know how a grown adult can get into a situation where they need to be physically carried off a plane.

His behaviour was childish, unprofessional, and completely unacceptable.

They offered $800 to get off the flight.

This is what they have to pay by law. Bumping is legal, and must pay if the bump involuntarily.

I don't know how a grown adult can get into the kind of situation where they need to be carried off a plane.

Absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks the behaviour of the passenger is acceptable in society. And he is a doctor. This is so unprofessional and I would fire the man if he worked for me.

> Countries that are reducing numbers of immigrant workers

Is this headline accurate? Are numbers of immigrant workers reducing?

The H1B visa program is always over-subscribed more than 4x so if the number of applicants decreases, there is still the same number coming in.

Every country looks to be trying to reduce low-skilled immigration which is fair enough.

Its tiring these days that every headline is made alarmist by lumping all immigrants into one big group. Illegal immigration vs legal immigration is always referred to as simply "immigration". Low skilled vs high skilled = immigrant. Temporary working visa vs. foreign-born US citizen = immigrant.

> What I hear you saying is "if only we banned these foreigners, maybe our native born people would have a chance in Phd programs". And what I interpret that to mean is "Let's not spend $80 billion on free college for everyone who wants it, because that would be 'big gubmint socialism', instead everything will work out if we just institute protectionism immigration policies."

You seem to view everything through a racial/foreigner lense. It muddies the debate. America is a melting-pot already, and US citizen focused policies are to the benefit of all US citizens regardless of race, birth-country, sex, etc. You are implying hidden motives in everyone's actions which cannot be argued against because we simply do not know what is going on in their heads.

Education is a big money making industry. It brings wealth into the country. There is far more incentive to bring in foreigners than to improve the opportunities for US citizens (who are not all white males - why does race and sex have to come into this I have no idea).

I appreciate the discussion, it has been a good insight to another side of the debate floor.

Thanks for the chat. I learned a lot.

I think we both agree system needs reforming, and subtracting the political rhetoric from both sides, there is middle ground reform that should hopefully prevail.

> I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this?

>> You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism.

Its a book he has read. That is all. Fake news and false outrage.

> What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it.

You are saying the government needs to tell women and minorities to apply for STEM courses, because they are incapable of doing so? This is a cultural problem and it is fixing itself without government intervention.

> "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants

As Dr. Kaku says in the video, "the scientific establishment would collapse...50% PhD are foreign-born.". So your solution is immigration? Wouldn't the solution be to fix the education system?

What we are saying is focus on a sustainable solution - looking after the people you have. If you keep bringing people in, and they bring their families, and their kids turn out to be dummies because of poor education system, then you need to bring in more foreign-born...who will just perpetuate the problem and increase the burden on the country of dummies. Its a ponzi scheme. And it is actually an argument for restricting family visas, and favouring increase numbers of H1-B.

> Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves.

Anecdotal, but yes, some/most immigrants are talented - of course. But there is documented abuses, and conditions available for abuses - which means abuses certainly happen.

> So larger number of immigrants overall

What is the rationale behind this? Or how will this benefit existing citizens? Where do you draw the line for a cap on immigration, and why?

There is an almost infinite number of people who want to come to the US. Decisions must be made fairly and consistently, and to the benefit of the standard of living of existing citizens.

H1-B = 236K applicants / 85K spots

So that is ~150K high-skilled people who want to come but cannot right now. I would say the first priority is to ensure this system is not being used to drive down wages, and not being used to abuse migrants.

If companies still need these people to grow the economy, and cannot find US people to do it, then we should get them in first.

Family-based immigration must be done in a way to ensure that we are not creating greater demands on the economy. They should be able to support themselves and not contribute to the decrease in participation rate, and increasing unemployment.

> "28% of new [tech] startups in America are started by immigrants," - Ron Conway > "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Doll..."

This says that there should have some kind of entrepreneurial visa.

> its being regarded as unnecessary

How so? Where do Trump supporters and right-wingers get their news from?

If you are on the right, you look at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc. and see a ridiculously biased and censored view of the world. So distorted that no one could see Trump winning.

Their viewers are mostly liberal and because of PC-culture there is a very narrow acceptable world-view. To write an article pro-anything-Trump did would put careers at risk.

Liberals receive a very censored view of the world. The ethos being something like, we need to control the facts you hear about otherwise everyone will turn into racists.

Its ironic how they are shouting fascist and big brother 1984, when they are the ones who are censoring the news, physically preventing ppl speaking at events, not engaging in debate, banning words, etc.

Look at wikileaks - use to be a hero of the left, but now it is an enemy.

A progressive-run government would be much more authoritarian.

---

> Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?

You perceive Fox News as a bad source of news in the same way that the right perceive the MSM as a bad source of news.

Its wrong to discredit the MSM...when its on your side. But if the tables are turned, you would feel the same way about the MSM.

> Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.

You think that there is 50% republicans running around the NYTimes newsroom? You think the people who work at CNN are anywhere close to 50% republican. No way. I am saying they hire like-minded people because its difficult to constantly be having arguments all day.

> All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.

> pm90: Definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

I really, really don't see this, compared to the behaviour of the progressive left.

I do not see personal freedoms of US citizens being violated. I see illegal immigrants being deported, laws being enforced, national borders being secured, and freedoms being protected.

Progressive-left is authoritarianism waiting to happen.

But I really wish you could convince me of this WH authoritarianism. I'm just not seeing it.

;)

> Here, this HuffPo article links directly to SoundCloud interviews where you can hear him say it:

I cannot find it. Please give me a timecode. It being his favourite novel is implied from MSM is it not?

> Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post.

Me and you will both have the opportunity to wait and see what happens.

Right now the left is all about scary predictions. Tell me an objective measure we can use in 4 years (or 2 if he is impeached as you like to predict), that we can point to to say that you were right and I was wrong about Bannon.

> I'd say the biggest problem isn't the immigrants, it's the education system and the culture.

H1B's are good to hire because there is the threat of having to leave, and losing ability to go for green card if they are fired. So they accept low wages, you don't have to give them pay rises, they will not leave for another company.

This is ripe for abuse. So its not just education and culture, its also government immigration policies -- and this is not the fault of the immigrants -- no-one is saying the immigrants are at fault here...

The left physically prevents speakers at right-wing events.

Protests blocking highways and roads to right-wing events.

During the campaign name a single time when Trump supporters tried to prevent a left-wing speaking event happening?

The right is like "hey i think you are wrong, here is why".

The left is like "hey i think you are wrong, don't talk to me".

Right now I see plenty of examples on the left. Especially physically preventing speakers at right-wing events.

But I do not see the same kind of stuff from the right.

I'm not saying its always like this, but right now, this is how it is.

I mean give me an example where someone's free speech on the left was prevented?

The left blockades right-wing events to prevent people speaking. They physically try to prevent speech.

I think a lot of democrats don't see what is happening in the progressive left. I use to identify as a democrat, but after seeing this stuff, I no longer can.

You can associate with whoever you like. 100% agree.

Re: employment. So if you accidentally referred to someone as "colored" instead of "person-of-color", and you get fired for it...you are happy about this? You want to live in this kind of society?

> It's authoritarian because it refuses to accept facts and wants to distort them to fit its own narrative. It will discredit the press if it does not "fall in line".

And on the right, its the press who is distorting facts for their own narrative.

The press being discredited is justified. And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.

The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.

I hope someday we can return to a world with more people thinking like you.

> Is it the act of calling a homosexual person, gay instead of fag?

Using the term 'homosexual person' is not PC. Are you a homophobe or what? :P

http://americablog.com/2007/07/dear-washington-post-please-s...

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-appropriate-homosexual-o...

If I was on the left, I could make a big deal out of your incorrect use of the word homosexual, and I could make it look like you are as bad as someone calling someone a fag in an intentionally derogative way.

> Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?

Black people is not PC. Dude, are you a racist or what?

The correct term is person-of-color. But do not say "colored person" or you will receive a massive social media outcry.

"But I am not a racist you say?". Doesn't matter, once you say the wrong word, you are already one of them.

> Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads? > Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?

2017 PC is not about using derrogatory terms.

> In 2017...its not much to ask for.

It seems like it is for you, because in your post you have used the incorrect terms.

Now, are you a racist and a homophobe?

The right would assume you are not.

The left will be keeping their eye on you, and now have material to take you down in the future if they want to.

Free exchange of ideas. This is by far the most important right. You must imagine that someone in power has enacted harsh laws that you oppose. These laws should never prevent your ability from finding other people who oppose these laws and having a means to democratically over turn them. This is the most important part of freedom.

Everything else you mentioned can be democratically overturned if enough people support it.

> woman's right to choose

I consider myself on the right, but I support women's right to choose. The religious right is on the way out. Yes, it use to be a big issue, but its not anymore. It was not a campaign issue, and Trump says he will "leave it to the states".

> freedom to assemble and protest

Can I have examples of this? We 100% support your right to peaceful protest and assembly. Can you provide some examples of ways Trump's administration is cracking down on this?

If you are talking about non-peaceful protests like blocking highways, preventing people from getting to work, ANTIFA wearing masks and attacking people at rallies then this is not acceptable and I support laws to crack down on this more.

> freedom from religion

Tick.

> freedom of the press

Examples that are not fake news please?

> freedom of movement

What do you mean here? US citizens who are not under parole or incarcerated can move freely anywhere inside the US.

> freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender

What about freedom to use the bathroom associated with your own sex (physical M/F)?

Two sides to every "freedom" issue.

> freedom to use drugs recreationally

You want crack made legal? Weed legalisation is non-partisan now.

> personal freedoms

If these personal freedoms you talk of prevent you from being able to assemble and vote, then I support them.

Otherwise, laws should be enacted based on debate and democratic processes.

> Family-based migration absolutely does exist in other countries, including those you have specifically named.

Sorry, I genuinely meant that its not as extensive.

"Australia admits approximately two-thirds of its immigrants on skill criteria and strives to recruit persons during their peak working ages (Walsh, 2008). By contrast, about two-thirds of U.S. immigrants are family sponsored, without regard to skills or age (Wasem, 2007)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516050/

Do you agree with me that the rhetoric and outrage surrounding this proposal are dramatically overblown when considering the statistics and practices in a very liberal country like Australia?

This is my main point. There is a debate to be had, and the left/liberal/progressive/MSM want to shut it down with scary headlines. This is most definitely an example of fake news.

Nicely said :)

"It simply tries to get a handle on 1 million immigrants coming here a year, virtually none of whom are coming here based on their employment skills or demonstrated economic need," he said. " I don't think our immigration system is working for working Americans."

How does it make sense to let people in who will not work or fulfil a need? How is this sustainable?

From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...:

"Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more."

Family-based migration doesn't exist in other countries, and doesn't make sense.

There is a debate to be had here, but instead everyone is reading fake news headlines and confirming their biases.

Sigh.

> Authoritarians

Why do you think they are authoritarians. I don't get this.

The right in the US is about freedom. The left is the part of authoritarianism. The progressive left especially has incredibly tight control of freedom of speech. Everything they don't like is called hate speech, all discussions are shut down, and PC terminology means that it doesn't matter what you say anymore, if you accidentally choose the wrong words, you are finished.

> Than why so many leaked memos show that Bannon and Miller want to reduce family Visas for those already legally here?

From http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14773298/mer...:

"Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more."

Yes, Australia and Canada.

> Why is Bannon and Miller's favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white?

I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this?

> Why when Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on legal immigration way down?

See http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/ste...

He is talking about H1-B visa abuse, just as the OP says.

"They get into graduate schools, they can’t get engineering degrees, they can’t get into graduate schools because there are all these foreign students, when they come out, they can’t get a job."

NOTE: "Foreign students". You do realise that by addressing this problem, he is helping all American citizens - who are all different ethnicities.

> You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.

You, my friend, are reading fake news.