salamanderss

It wouldn't surprise me if places like Nigeria have a bunch of semi-whitewashed English speaking faces/voices to perform this kind of grey area work. Even better if some of their family is part of a hostage taking gang so they can burn the candle from both ends.

Common sense 3d printer regulation. Nobody needs a device that can produce weapons of war. Sensible people will have no problem registering their printer, getting a permit, and universal background checks to make sure whoever they sell it to isn't someone with a mmj card or history of selling an improperly packaged lobster.

Yeah. For the record I'm not against unions. It's just as a worker it's always been way too exploitive / exclusionary to be practical. I don't doubt it's great if you're a chosen apprentice due to connections with the union boss or whatever, or one of the guys that can use their card to shut out more vulnerable workers from the job.

NBER research suggests unions correlate with lower relative employment for certain more vulnerable populations such as young and old.

There's also the risk the union basically exploits the young and old by driving their wage from shitty to zero (by setting them too high to bear for anything but the most able bodied middle age). This pretty much mimics my experience younger working construction; union gigs set my wage at '0' by making me the outgroup. Being exploited by middle age union workers is bad for longevity imo.

Does unionization really make companies more successful? If unions have such high interest in the company stability and success I presume the evidence shows union shop companies have more success and longevity after unionizing vs like ones that dont?

And my biggest fear as a worker is not longevity but my marketability to gain new jobs. If unions make it easier for me to get hired and promoted without consideration of tenure of other union members I'd probably be interested in joining

Cool. Let's repeal the chicken tax. Give workers with less privileged contracts less taxed access to the import truck market.

You're right. The Canadian armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch of Canada in the UK, the same man not coincidentally currently monarch of UK. The monarchy of Canada, an abstract idea nebulously exists perhaps everywhere (including in the UK) or nowhere depending on how you consider abstract ideas.

An abstract system has no physical location. The actual monarch, the flesh leading it, is in the UK.

It only makes no sense if you don't understand the monarch of Canada is in the UK, and thus is monarch in but not necessarily of UK. (But really the same dude and mostly defended as separate as some sort of weird commonwealth saving of face about your nation swearing allegiance to the guy who's the monarch of UK)

The head of monarchy of Canada is residing in the UK. Being a monarch of UK isn't same as being monarch in UK. The Canadian monarch is in the UK, this is fact.

>y're different sovereign entities that have the same office holder and follow the same rules of succession (from the Act of Settlement)

Brother he lives in the same place cause he's the same guy. He's in the UK.

Yes. And they are living in the UK. We're both right.

Nah referring to England's king.

The monarchy of Canada is the monarchy in the UK. But yes you're right. Pedantically we are both accurate as I intentionally didn't say they swore to the monarchy of UK.

In any case it's a distinction that leads to the same guy.

Yes the military in Canada also swears allegiance to the monarch in the UK. So maybe he could order Canadian forces to attack the UK government when they try to abdicate him?

He'd still be commander in chief of Canada's armed forces. There's that at least.

I've been debating this with various people for years and you're the first person willing to pick one or the other.

For the record I'm in agreement, although imo neither answer is wrong as long as consistent.

What is insane to me is that almost no one including the courts want to address that harsh logical inconsistency through much beyond high IQ handwaving.

Heller made clear that right of people is individual rights of persons. So for instance you still have fourth amendment right even when by yourself. Heller also clarifies the right is disconnected from militia service.

I'm just looking for a single logically consistent person to admit that aliens (not just those with a hunting license or other credential) are people with all the rights of people, or not people and not protected specifically by what is narrowed to protection of people. You were painfully close.

Ah k so those on non-immigrant visas aren't people, unless they buy hunting license to become a people? Does that make sense to you?

My assertion is people are people. If the Constitution says the right is to people then people have the rights if people. If you have no right to bear arms you're not a person and the first contrary to your claim does explicitly tailer congresses limitations on assembly and petitioning to 'people' just as the second tailers to people.

So aliens have the right to bear arms in the US?

Part of the first amendment, specifically assembly and petitioning grievances is explicitly qualified to the 'people'. Aliens are not generally considered the 'people' in the US, as evidenced by them not being allowed arms which are the right of (even individual per Heller) people.

But there is hilariously due process that probably protects those opinions once you've already snuck in.

It's a wonder why people put themselves through the hassle of legal immigration where they have basically no rights, when they could just sneak in and be covered by most civil rights and entitled due process in the unlikely event they do something dumb or unlucky enough to get caught.

DC v Heller makes clear the present day interpretation of the people conveys individual right. People is also said in the fourth amendment, surely you're not arguing individuals have no fourth amendment rights.

In the first I'm specifically referring that it says the right is to the people to petition grievances. The wording pretty clearly doesn't prohibit congress from stopping non-people from assembling/petitioning.

If you can't have a gun you are necessarily not a person based on the present day interpretation of the courts. Therefore most aliens are not people and law can prohibit their grievances (derogatory posts perhaps) and assembly and abridge their protection from search and seizure.

Note:

>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

Lol you purposefully chopped off the part where some of that was explicitly qualified to 'people' rather than to anyone!

Genes can definitely be a threat factor. For instance it is nearly certain males are genetically more prone to violence than females.

> There is massive variety of culture and ideology between people that share the same phenotypes

The missing note here is that some phenotype cluster near areas with proximate similar culture. If I ban anyone speaking Mandarin or with Chinese accent I'm not really banning a phenotype but everyone knows what this actually does. I think you very much understand how solidified cultural traits are used as backdoor to profile phenotype.

Not great myself. Sometimes you move someplace specifically to assimilate with the culture because you feel it's a leg up from where you left. When it is infuriating is when someone comes from someplace that has been torched by failed ideas, or at least failed in the sense it drove them to leave, and they set up shop and do the same damn thing. It ought not be illegal, but for instance you see that with home owners that flee and then vote for the same dumbass stuff that made their origin unaffordable.

You have the right to just show up with newly printed residency and demand change, but no right to be liked for it.

There are various cultural traits that are effectively as solidified as phenotype by the time you're old enough to be considered acting independently of your parent/guardian. Lots of these traits are also used as backdoor phenotype profiling.

Money. For the same reason I prefer rich immigrants who hate me and buy my shit over nice ones that end up on stamps after they get their papers.

Free speech is granted to the people. So probably not. Note right to bear arms is granted to 'people' therefore by deduction if you are barred arms you are not a person. Aliens are not typically considered 'people' in a constitutional context.

My objection is the criteria is likely arbitrary and capricious and have more to do with ideologies of the sorts of people designing and executing this than public safety.

Maybe the AI is better, maybe it is worse. On some occasions CBP just takes a good look at you for whiteness or whatever and just waives you through without even opening the passport; other days you end up with your car in 1500 pieces. It's mostly voodoo.

Migrants always pull up the ladder, they're no different than you and I. Look at South Africa, visas are a total nightmare meanwhile almost everybody there are from tribes that migrated in recent history.