That would be great for conferences if it wasn't for everything you mentioned plus high levels of govt corruption and IP theft. The lack of open Internet alone is enough that the vast majority of conferences simply cannot be held there.
It's not "China hate" when there's legitimate reasons.
A normal person would have some empathy for people locked in/out their rooms and held ransom. It could be especially dangerous if any of them have medical conditions. I doubt it was a laughing matter for them at the time. The only thing laughable is that hotel's security and setup,
It would take them a while to get to every guest, and it would require them to break the doors. Not exactly a small inconvenience and likely to ruin many vacations.
I feel like harm reduction can go a long way toward helping these people. After all, something like 50% of alcoholics, and I assume other drug users, eventually quit on their own and remain abstinent.
Making it harder for "functional" drug users to accidentally ruin their lives could significantly reduce the number of addicts in the long term by increasing quit rates
I'm not a huge fan of unions but you're wrong about wage drops. Uber is artificially flooding the service with drivers intentionally to drive down wages and therefore the cost of rides. Haven't you seen the insane amount of advertising and rediculous incentive packages?
In markets Uber operates it is largely a monopoly so market mechanisms that would normally cause drivers to go elsewhere don't exist.
Take for example Austin Texas which has no Uber or Lyft. There's five or six competing ridesharing services with considerable market share. The drivers get paid more than twice as much as Uber drivers because it's easy for unsatisfied drivers to switch to a competitor. A few of my friends who did uber in Houston now drive 3 hours to Austin to pick up riders since the pay is much better
They have a right to do that, and others have a right to advertise how much it pays to drive Uber, and if it's less than what people are willing to accept, make it more difficult for Uber to recruit.
God this is a sappy piece that sounds like it came straight from the marketing Dept.
Does one of the things you do for your drivers include not giving a shit about them? Because last year Uber left Austin Texas rather than comply with the cities background check requirement. Overnight an estimated 10,000 Uber drivers lost their jobs and Uber didn't really give a crap. I find the notion that they give a shit about a few hundred of their drivers stuck overseas laughable
I assume this is because some countries make it really easy to get citizenship. It would be quite a loophole to just hop over to country X for a few months then onto the US
Then it would make sense to list those countries' dual citizens or naturalized citizens as ones that would take more scrutiny.
But Any country other than the US? Heck, I know what I'm going through with immigration here in Norway, and I have one of the easier immigration avenues - marriage. Work and school are quite a bit more difficult. It usually requires one to live here for at least 7 years first: Marriage can cut that in half. That comes with things like the possiblity of having our house inspected so that the authorities are convinced we are living like a married couple and possible interviews with my spouse. Some countries have a more thorough check.
It just isn't the bureaucratic lottery nightmare that it is in the states. That doesn't mean that it is easy, merely better run and reasonable.
It's not particularly trivial to become a citizen of the UK. It involves living in the country for years and passing a test. This is in line with most other countries.
Legal resident != Citizen. Until you have citizenship you can be sent back at any time for any reason. People get sent back or denied entry all the time for various reasons. What he did sucks but the media is making it out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. The number of people "trapped" overseas is probably in the hundreds.
We're bombing people in almost every country on the list, so I have no idea why this wasn't done years ago.
No, you cannot be sent back "at any time" "for any reason" as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. I don't know what made you believe that.
What you are saying is contrary to what immigration lawyers say to their clients. Do you have a citation from the Immigration and Nationality Act that says that Congress needs to decide whether CBP officers have discretion to turn back legal residents at a port of entry? To my knowledge, this is the prerogative of the president, and this is exactly the legal basis that underlies Trump's executive order.
Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”.
The notion that that clause allows the President to override the INA's ban on country-of-origin discrimination was challenged in courts over 40 years ago and proved false. Further, it doesn't pertain at all to lawful permanent residents of the US, so you've also moved the goalposts.
The subtext of these arguments is that we should be less outraged, because green-card-holders were lucky to be here at all and reside in this country knowing they can be removed at any time. That's plainly, flatly, objectively false, in addition to being ethically dubious.
Do you have a green card? Cause I do, and the parent is right. It is not a guarantee of being allowed to enter the US, it can be revoked unilaterally by the government.
Of course, in practice it's rarely done without cause (e.g. committing a felony), but in the texts it is clearly stated.
Congress sets the standards under which a green card can be revoked, not the executive branch on the whim of the President or one of his agencies. The rules are in the Immigration and Nationalization Act. It is a false statement to say that the terms green card holders were here under included "can be sent back for any time for no reason".
As a green card holder, you are not a US LPR at the discretion of the President or any of his agencies. You have, in effect, a contract with our country. Congress could change the rules, but until they do, you have substantial rights to remain in this country.
Even people without LPR status are difficult for the government to remove. Among undocumented immigrants put before immigration court for deportation, over 70% of those with legal representation prevail in court --- unfortunately, in most places in the US, they have no right to counsel, which is why we should all be sending money to immigration law organizations.
How many of those previaled because deportation is politically unpopular in certain areas? There's a lot of places that won't deport you even for murdering someone, and indeed our prisons in some states are filled with loads of murderous foreign gang members
They prevailed in immigration court, where many defendants are forced to represent themselves in complicated legal proceedings without counsel and are as a result deported. I don't think public sympathy with immigrants is the most powerful vector is; I think it's the rule of law that's keeping them in the country.
It is numerically, overwhelmingly the case that immigrants to this country aren't a threat to its citizens, and that we have more to fear from lawnmowers and lightning strikes than we do from the people who are being turned away at the borders today, including people coming to the country to work on computational epidemiology and, of course, the spouses of our own citizens.
The biggest issue with illegal immigration is that is does not benefit the United States. A country is not a charity.
The US would be far better off allowing the same number of people in but only those highly educated or those with a lot of money or status. It sounds mean but job of the US govt is not to rescue poor people in third world countries, it's to benefit it's citizens.
Imagine if instead of 6-8 million illegal immigrants with largely low educations, limited English skills and earning potential, no money, and no status we let in 6 million CEO's, scientists, politicians, and billionaires. It's hard to argue that the current situation is in any way "better"
All the studies point that illegal immigrants positively contribute to the receiving country economy. They consume less public resources (they exercise less rights because, well, they're ilegal; as well as being in average young and healthy) and pay most taxes.
Most ilegal immigrants want to move towards a legal status and integrate successfully in the country.
The "burden" of ilegal immigrants is mostly false.
If illegal immigrants are not a burden why control immigration at all! Let's just let anyone that wants to come here fly on over.
This would lead to the country being completely overwhelmed like is happening in Europe. Did Germany stop letting in unlimited refugees because they were helping the country so much?
I don't know what you're arguing about, but they're detaining and rejecting lawful permanent residents of the country right now. At LAX, ACLU is fighting for --- and is not at all assured of winning --- the admission of an 11 month old American Citizen and his LPR mother, who is two weeks from her citizenship ceremony.
I'm not sure what number of undocumented Syrian refugees I would trade for every American citizen who believes that immigration is "dysgenic", but I think it's probably a high number.
But neither my beliefs nor those of Donald Trump are material here. The laws of this country forbid the kind of discrimination Trump has enacted, and have forbad it throughout multiple cycles of challenge and pushback.
It's not "China hate" when there's legitimate reasons.