Why is your right to speech more important than my right not to associate with your speech?
This simple question, right here, demonstrates exactly how and why the US is, has been, and always will be a country fundamentally at war with itself.
When being created as a Federal nation, it was intended to be based on being the opposite of a monarchy, (since that's what had been rebelled against and fought for independence of).
The problem is that merely going from one extreme to the other, only ends up causing different problems.
For this reason, the underlying basis of the US is seen to be that of freedom TO do something, taken as far as possible, now they were free FROM a foreign monarch's rule.
But the extremes of such freedom has never been the underlying freedom humanity has ever truly cared for - if it did, then it would want and love anarchy above all else, when we find the exact opposite is true - that it puts up with the worst of all situations just to escape from anarchy.
For this reason, the most important freedom for humanity is the freedom from harm, death, starvation, exposure etc..
(Of course, this also works for other types of freedom too, such as religion.)
Since these freedoms are the underlying reason for how and why civilization, and billions of people worldwide (and hundreds of millions domestically for the US) actually live and survive, we can therefore understand how and why the US has anti-civilization extremists in numbers large enough to take over a main political party.
Since the freedom TO do anything only matters if you're free from death and harm, it should be no surprise that many of the extremists have taken this to it's logical conclusion and are now exercising the only personal freedom that can ever matter in such context: the freedom to die.
Analogies are not needed if it's truly recognised what this is about, which seems to be a problem for many:
The difference between the use of language, and the rules that govern it.
An API is simply an ADDITIONAL set of rules (that may be more subjective) governing how language is used for greater consistency. A set of rules governing how to apply the English language as 'Yodaspeak' would be an 'API'. Since such rules are completely functional, and used to enable creative expression, they are as unsuitable for copyright protection as any other rules of grammar/content.
Just because you can create a language, and have many subjective rules governing it, does not make either of them suitable for copyright protection in themselves: whether it's speech or computer code makes no difference.
One of the problems with understanding this issue, is that so many people seem to be invested in bad analogies to explain it without involving computers, when easier, simple analogies are easily available/figured out.
What we're dealing with here, is the application of language.
On one side, we have the basic rules of language itself, (in addition to any further rules of communication they involve) which are not copyrightable in themselves.
On the other, we have what it is we use and apply the language to create.
So how do API's fit in between?
By providing additional rules to govern what is being created to ensure further interoperability.
So an equivalent of an API for the English language would be a definition and set of rules governing how English can be APPLIED to CREATE sentences and passages of 'Yodaspeak'.
Such rules do NOT CREATE such passages, they just define the rules and process they follow when doing so.
Are the rules defining and governing 'Yodaspeak' in themselves copyrightable? No. They could be APPLIED in a way that is, yes, but not in themselves, because they still form rules governing language, which are not copyrightable to ensure such interoperability in the first place - since that is what language is FOR.
The US second amendment is already dead, killed by a Republican Supreme Court in 2010, but most people haven't realised it.
The whole point about the US Bill Of Rights is that it was intended as a limitation on FEDERAL power, vs the States, and the second amendment therefore existed within the context of such State led, managed and regulated militias being something the FEDERAL government should have no power or influence over. (Without this as a bulwark against potential Federal overreach, there wouldn't have been enough states to ratify the new Constitution.)
So the whole point about the 2nd amendment was that it was up the States to manage the use of firearms as part of their militia and the Federal government had no say in the matter. This meant that managing the use of arms within the context of state militia, was intended to be managed as a local issue, by local people, dealing with local context. (There's always going to be a difference between necessary regulation in rural and urban areas, and the second amendment allowed for this.)
In 2010 EVERYTHING CHANGED.
The Republican-led Supreme Court chose to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th.
This means that rather than being of the States for the Federal government to obey, the second amendment, is now of the FEDERAL government, FOR the States to obey, and so any changes in regulation etc. that the Federal government makes to the second amendment is something the States can no longer resist, as a matter of law.
---------------
It seems that many people have no recognition and understanding of just how and why the US Republican Party has been slowly putting the pieces together to support a fascist state for quite some time, with this being one of the main ones.
(Note: in case people don't fully understand fascism:
It is essentially a dictatorship writ large - (which is why the tend start in such a manner, though it's not required) - with the state itself (or the ruling government/party as is usually the case), acting as a dictator in its whole. Such political structure is therefore extreme right wing, next to dictatorship/monarchy itself. As far as their economic and social orientation is concerned however, that can vary, of being either side, depending on the whims of the 'state'.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". (For state: read government/party))
If people don't think the US Republican Party would like to, and is trying to do everything they can to turn the US into an effectively 1 party state, then... (Unfortunately, I think Trump came a bit too soon for them to get the most out of him following the midterms - though if they get even more Supreme Court justices, then...)
Many people have a problem with sports that are non athletic etc., and this happens for a good reason, because they think that sport is defined as and by the nature of the competitive activity itself.
Which is wrong. Activities are defined by what they are, nothing more - (e.g. games, competitions, puzzles etc., in addition to being work or play.)
What defines a sport, is the regulation and organisation around and supporting it, so we can have regional, national and international sports given the nature of such regulation and organisation. (Only having one of these, regulation OR organisation is not enough - sport always needs both.)
Any competitive activity that has such regulation and organisation is therefore a sport. Computer games have long since had such regulation and organisation, just not necessarily on this scale before, and so have no problems being a sport.
So their main complaint is that the Steele dossier has been used as part of the evidence given for an application for FISA warrant, and that it makes unproven, uncollaborated/unsupported, partisan allegations, even if serious and important.
Sounds like the claims in the dossier are something that needs to be investigated, maybe by a Federal Bureau of Investigation or something, just to be sure...
As I said below - 2.4 of the GLA is a standard non-compete clause - to prevent CIG from developing their own ENGINE as their BUSINESS, rather than developing a game using such an engine.
Anyone reading this as anything else, is simply not reading to correctly/accurately AS WRITTEN, which includes Crytek, apparently.
This GLA between Crytek and CIG is too ambiguous is places, and was obviously written either in a hurry or by amateurs :P
Having said that, trying to make out that a (fairly standard) non-compete clause (against CIG developing their own game engine) is instead a clause determining exclusive use of CryEngine FOR the game (no other engine allowed) is just bullshit.
The moment CIG swapped to using Lumberyard (new contract between CIG and Amazon), and stopped using CryEngine the GLA between Crytek and CIG is no longer applicable.
For this reason, the two viable claims they do have, only matter for the time until this happened:
Failure to reciprocate bug fixes and improvements to the engine, and failure to display engine use and copyright ownership notices etc. with the product.
The only other ambiguous aspect is how it applies to Squadron 42 - on one hand it describes it as a separate game, but on the other it also details that it must use the same basic launcher-executable as Star Citizen. If this didn't happen while they were using CryEngine (not Lumberyard), then Crytek may also have a (minor) case regardless of it being described (and therefore allowed to exist) as a separate game.
So I was scrolling past this story pretty quickly and mis? read what was written in one particular line, which made me scroll back up to make sure - (tis a shame it wasn't right):
"Here's how Keeper describes it in their own bullshit:"
I'm not sure you can ever truly understand the NATURE of the problems your country has, if you cannot recognise and understand the specific nature of the issues I just gave you.
Which is why government exists - because individuals are EXTREMELY bad at regulating their own behaviour, knowledge and understanding to solve problems on a larger scale - and internet is as large as it gets.
Unfortunately, the nature of government also means, like any other tool created by humans, it can be used to both ill and good. And since so many people refuse to understand it, they seek to destroy it, which leaves the rich and powerful, now often using corporations, too, to rule instead.
At the minute some corporations want to RULE the internet - the only thing standing in their way is government regulation - net neutrality rules.
The US government is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a feudal state - if you wish to destroy it, then rule you they will. You've already given it to the corporations, rich and fascist - why not get rid of it all together?
You didn't read the intro to the paper then, just the title? lolol.
The thing about waste is that it's ALWAYS there - which means, UNLESS you can prove it's gotten worse, the historical context is a WASH...
Within this context, the income from taxes to support road infrastructure in the US, is getting lower. FACT. If 20% of that has ALWAYS been lost to waste, then that has no bearing on the lower income, only that it affects all of it, ever.
Nope - it's VERY correct - if you think I pulled that out of thin air, you'd be extremely wrong.
The problem is that infrastructure spending in the Us is primarily paid for by gas taxes, which haven't increased since 1993, and take in even less due to more fuel efficient vehicles.
Taxes on gasoline and diesel are the primary sources of transportation funding at the state and federal level. Due to inflation and improved fuel efficiency, these taxes are increasingly inadequate to maintain the transportation system. In most states and at the federal level, the real fuel tax rates decrease because they are fixed at a cents-per-gallon amount rather than indexed to inflation.
If Washington is spending less than it should, falling tax revenues are partly to blame. Revenue from taxes on petrol and diesel flow into trust funds that are the primary source of federal money for roads and mass transit. That flow has diminished to a drip. America's petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993. While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund.
Not good enough. We all know why modern toll roads exist - because TAXES aren't enough to support the infrastructure many states/municipalities need (from turnpikes to bridges/tunnels etc.) - they're too low.
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INTERNET.
Why?
Because the taxes THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID to build the infrastructure have not been used correctly to provide the service the providers promised - it's not that the money provided is not enough, when you factor in the declining cost of providing the service, and ongoing subscription cost vs cost of maintenance and new builds, it's just the corporations involved are too greedy.
This is why my above example was an ANALOGY - if ALL roads were toll-based, and built using taxes in the same way as the internet is, THERE'D BE RIOTS - the reason why toll roads are used is to LOWER the use of TAXES to pay for it - if that wasn't true THEY'D HAVE NO REASON TO EXIST.
But that's exactly the case with the majority of your internet infrastructure - PUBLICLY FINANCED but PRIVATELY OWNED AND RUN - and you want them to have ALL the power over who, how, what, when, where and why it should be used?
Talk about a inaccurate analogy... Here's a more accurate one:
Imagine that the US road network was suddenly handed over to private corporations to own and support. What do you think would happen to it WITHOUT regulations to govern their behaviour?
Less-used roads would disappear. The cost of using them (tolls) would vary for everyone depending on what you wanted to use them for and where you wanted to go, even if everyone paid a (varying) subscription to use them (regardless that they were built with tax money). Private users would be secondary to corporate users - tough luck if it means you never get to work on time - because they can afford better contracts. If you can't get to where you need to go for any reason, sorry, SOL.
Either way, the road owners get rich, and everyone else gets a lot poorer, with many towns and villages now being wiped off the map due to no transport options to anywhere else, even if the companies 'promised' it would happen - and because they bought off the state and national government, these local communities can't even build their OWN roads.
This is the situation net-neutrality seeks to prevent - just like the road network - enabling anyone to use it within the basic regulations/laws required, requiring those that need it to be supplied as best as possible, for any and all purposes at any time, (required maintenance permitting).
Anyone against net-neutrality is against CIVILIZATION ITSELF, because this is how its infrastructure has to operate, in order for it to fully exist.
Yes illegal immigrants are illegal (for a reason).
But that's not what truly matters. Why? Because if the country benefits from it, then the only problem is with the illegality, not the immigration.
This entire matter is PURELY one of economics, than then can also involve additional issues and context, (as it always has been) - and anyone who tries to deal with it purely as anything else, e.g. as a matter of xenophobia, racism etc. will cause more problems than they solve - hence the issues here.
When dealing with illegal immigrants, there are only a few things that matter:
Is the country benefiting from their presence? If so, how, and maybe WHO is doing so?
What other problems have they brought with them and are causing?
Does the cost of removing them from the country outweigh the benefits of them being here? THIS is the biggest issue. The problems factor on both sides, though - many individuals benefit from both sides - some from keeping them, some from removing them, irrespective of the overall country's benefit. Obviously it doesn't help matters if there is NO punishment (compared to legal immigrants) - the problem is figuring out the best way of doing that while still getting the most economic benefit from their presence, (so long as they're not guilty of anything more egregious, so economics becomes secondary).
So, on the one hand we have illegal immigrants being exploited for labour (esp. farm/domestic workers), yet on the other we have people who benefit from removing them, and the war between these two factions is what is causing all the problems.
And so the most beneficial solution for the COUNTRY, while still respecting human rights etc., is the hardest to find - a way of punishing illegal immigration whilst gaining the most benefit from their presence as a nation. If illegal immigrants had no economic role to play, most of them wouldn't have immigrated in the first place - for most, a better life = a job to support a home/family etc..
The problem with the right-wing Republicans and GOP at this time, is that what they really want, is as anti-free speech as you can get: freedom from consequence, with Trump as the prime example of where that can lead. Since they want no consequence for speech, it can never be truly free which is what they're now reacting to in the name of 'free speech'.
Freedom...
Why is your right to speech more important than my right not to associate with your speech?
This simple question, right here, demonstrates exactly how and why the US is, has been, and always will be a country fundamentally at war with itself.
When being created as a Federal nation, it was intended to be based on being the opposite of a monarchy, (since that's what had been rebelled against and fought for independence of).
The problem is that merely going from one extreme to the other, only ends up causing different problems.
For this reason, the underlying basis of the US is seen to be that of freedom TO do something, taken as far as possible, now they were free FROM a foreign monarch's rule.
But the extremes of such freedom has never been the underlying freedom humanity has ever truly cared for - if it did, then it would want and love anarchy above all else, when we find the exact opposite is true - that it puts up with the worst of all situations just to escape from anarchy.
For this reason, the most important freedom for humanity is the freedom from harm, death, starvation, exposure etc..
(Of course, this also works for other types of freedom too, such as religion.)
Since these freedoms are the underlying reason for how and why civilization, and billions of people worldwide (and hundreds of millions domestically for the US) actually live and survive, we can therefore understand how and why the US has anti-civilization extremists in numbers large enough to take over a main political party.
Since the freedom TO do anything only matters if you're free from death and harm, it should be no surprise that many of the extremists have taken this to it's logical conclusion and are now exercising the only personal freedom that can ever matter in such context: the freedom to die.
Hmmm...
I speak dead people...
Re: There's no need for an 'analogy'...
Analogies are not needed if it's truly recognised what this is about, which seems to be a problem for many:
The difference between the use of language, and the rules that govern it.
An API is simply an ADDITIONAL set of rules (that may be more subjective) governing how language is used for greater consistency. A set of rules governing how to apply the English language as 'Yodaspeak' would be an 'API'. Since such rules are completely functional, and used to enable creative expression, they are as unsuitable for copyright protection as any other rules of grammar/content.
Just because you can create a language, and have many subjective rules governing it, does not make either of them suitable for copyright protection in themselves: whether it's speech or computer code makes no difference.
Too many bad analogies...
One of the problems with understanding this issue, is that so many people seem to be invested in bad analogies to explain it without involving computers, when easier, simple analogies are easily available/figured out.
What we're dealing with here, is the application of language.
On one side, we have the basic rules of language itself, (in addition to any further rules of communication they involve) which are not copyrightable in themselves.
On the other, we have what it is we use and apply the language to create.
So how do API's fit in between?
By providing additional rules to govern what is being created to ensure further interoperability.
So an equivalent of an API for the English language would be a definition and set of rules governing how English can be APPLIED to CREATE sentences and passages of 'Yodaspeak'.
Such rules do NOT CREATE such passages, they just define the rules and process they follow when doing so.
Are the rules defining and governing 'Yodaspeak' in themselves copyrightable? No. They could be APPLIED in a way that is, yes, but not in themselves, because they still form rules governing language, which are not copyrightable to ensure such interoperability in the first place - since that is what language is FOR.
But I thought...
Note:
The whole point about the US Bill Of Rights is that it was intended as a limitation on FEDERAL power, vs the States, and the second amendment therefore existed within the context of such State led, managed and regulated militias being something the FEDERAL government should have no power or influence over. (Without this as a bulwark against potential Federal overreach, there wouldn't have been enough states to ratify the new Constitution.)
So the whole point about the 2nd amendment was that it was up the States to manage the use of firearms as part of their militia and the Federal government had no say in the matter. This meant that managing the use of arms within the context of state militia, was intended to be managed as a local issue, by local people, dealing with local context. (There's always going to be a difference between necessary regulation in rural and urban areas, and the second amendment allowed for this.)
In 2010 EVERYTHING CHANGED.
The Republican-led Supreme Court chose to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th.
This means that rather than being of the States for the Federal government to obey, the second amendment, is now of the FEDERAL government, FOR the States to obey, and so any changes in regulation etc. that the Federal government makes to the second amendment is something the States can no longer resist, as a matter of law.
---------------
It seems that many people have no recognition and understanding of just how and why the US Republican Party has been slowly putting the pieces together to support a fascist state for quite some time, with this being one of the main ones.
(Note: in case people don't fully understand fascism:
It is essentially a dictatorship writ large - (which is why the tend start in such a manner, though it's not required) - with the state itself (or the ruling government/party as is usually the case), acting as a dictator in its whole. Such political structure is therefore extreme right wing, next to dictatorship/monarchy itself. As far as their economic and social orientation is concerned however, that can vary, of being either side, depending on the whims of the 'state'.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". (For state: read government/party))
If people don't think the US Republican Party would like to, and is trying to do everything they can to turn the US into an effectively 1 party state, then... (Unfortunately, I think Trump came a bit too soon for them to get the most out of him following the midterms - though if they get even more Supreme Court justices, then...)
A general message for all concerned: (What is sport?)
Which is wrong. Activities are defined by what they are, nothing more - (e.g. games, competitions, puzzles etc., in addition to being work or play.)
What defines a sport, is the regulation and organisation around and supporting it, so we can have regional, national and international sports given the nature of such regulation and organisation. (Only having one of these, regulation OR organisation is not enough - sport always needs both.)
Any competitive activity that has such regulation and organisation is therefore a sport. Computer games have long since had such regulation and organisation, just not necessarily on this scale before, and so have no problems being a sport.
Hmmm...
Hmmm...
Sounds like the claims in the dossier are something that needs to be investigated, maybe by a Federal Bureau of Investigation or something, just to be sure...
Re: Re: Re:
Anyone reading this as anything else, is simply not reading to correctly/accurately AS WRITTEN, which includes Crytek, apparently.
Been following this for a while...
Having said that, trying to make out that a (fairly standard) non-compete clause (against CIG developing their own game engine) is instead a clause determining exclusive use of CryEngine FOR the game (no other engine allowed) is just bullshit.
The moment CIG swapped to using Lumberyard (new contract between CIG and Amazon), and stopped using CryEngine the GLA between Crytek and CIG is no longer applicable.
For this reason, the two viable claims they do have, only matter for the time until this happened:
Failure to reciprocate bug fixes and improvements to the engine, and failure to display engine use and copyright ownership notices etc. with the product.
The only other ambiguous aspect is how it applies to Squadron 42 - on one hand it describes it as a separate game, but on the other it also details that it must use the same basic launcher-executable as Star Citizen. If this didn't happen while they were using CryEngine (not Lumberyard), then Crytek may also have a (minor) case regardless of it being described (and therefore allowed to exist) as a separate game.
Hmmm...
"Here's how Keeper describes it in their own bullshit:"
Well, it made me laugh anyway...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental
Which is why government exists - because individuals are EXTREMELY bad at regulating their own behaviour, knowledge and understanding to solve problems on a larger scale - and internet is as large as it gets.
Unfortunately, the nature of government also means, like any other tool created by humans, it can be used to both ill and good. And since so many people refuse to understand it, they seek to destroy it, which leaves the rich and powerful, now often using corporations, too, to rule instead.
At the minute some corporations want to RULE the internet - the only thing standing in their way is government regulation - net neutrality rules.
The US government is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a feudal state - if you wish to destroy it, then rule you they will. You've already given it to the corporations, rich and fascist - why not get rid of it all together?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental
The thing about waste is that it's ALWAYS there - which means, UNLESS you can prove it's gotten worse, the historical context is a WASH...
Within this context, the income from taxes to support road infrastructure in the US, is getting lower. FACT. If 20% of that has ALWAYS been lost to waste, then that has no bearing on the lower income, only that it affects all of it, ever.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental
The problem is that infrastructure spending in the Us is primarily paid for by gas taxes, which haven't increased since 1993, and take in even less due to more fuel efficient vehicles.
Taxes on gasoline and diesel are the primary sources of transportation funding at the state and federal level. Due to inflation and improved fuel efficiency, these taxes are increasingly inadequate to maintain the transportation system. In most states and at the federal level, the real fuel tax rates decrease because they are fixed at a cents-per-gallon amount rather than indexed to inflation.
If Washington is spending less than it should, falling tax revenues are partly to blame. Revenue from taxes on petrol and diesel flow into trust funds that are the primary source of federal money for roads and mass transit. That flow has diminished to a drip. America's petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993. While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/infrastructure-funding.pdf
http://www.scienc edirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X16301482
http://www.economist.com/node/18620944
Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental
Not good enough. We all know why modern toll roads exist - because TAXES aren't enough to support the infrastructure many states/municipalities need (from turnpikes to bridges/tunnels etc.) - they're too low.
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INTERNET.
Why?
Because the taxes THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID to build the infrastructure have not been used correctly to provide the service the providers promised - it's not that the money provided is not enough, when you factor in the declining cost of providing the service, and ongoing subscription cost vs cost of maintenance and new builds, it's just the corporations involved are too greedy.
This is why my above example was an ANALOGY - if ALL roads were toll-based, and built using taxes in the same way as the internet is, THERE'D BE RIOTS - the reason why toll roads are used is to LOWER the use of TAXES to pay for it - if that wasn't true THEY'D HAVE NO REASON TO EXIST.
But that's exactly the case with the majority of your internet infrastructure - PUBLICLY FINANCED but PRIVATELY OWNED AND RUN - and you want them to have ALL the power over who, how, what, when, where and why it should be used?
I guess we know who'll be bending over first...
Re: Lawn chair rental
Imagine that the US road network was suddenly handed over to private corporations to own and support. What do you think would happen to it WITHOUT regulations to govern their behaviour?
Less-used roads would disappear. The cost of using them (tolls) would vary for everyone depending on what you wanted to use them for and where you wanted to go, even if everyone paid a (varying) subscription to use them (regardless that they were built with tax money). Private users would be secondary to corporate users - tough luck if it means you never get to work on time - because they can afford better contracts. If you can't get to where you need to go for any reason, sorry, SOL.
Either way, the road owners get rich, and everyone else gets a lot poorer, with many towns and villages now being wiped off the map due to no transport options to anywhere else, even if the companies 'promised' it would happen - and because they bought off the state and national government, these local communities can't even build their OWN roads.
This is the situation net-neutrality seeks to prevent - just like the road network - enabling anyone to use it within the basic regulations/laws required, requiring those that need it to be supplied as best as possible, for any and all purposes at any time, (required maintenance permitting).
Anyone against net-neutrality is against CIVILIZATION ITSELF, because this is how its infrastructure has to operate, in order for it to fully exist.
Re: illegal immigrants are illegal...
But that's not what truly matters. Why? Because if the country benefits from it, then the only problem is with the illegality, not the immigration.
This entire matter is PURELY one of economics, than then can also involve additional issues and context, (as it always has been) - and anyone who tries to deal with it purely as anything else, e.g. as a matter of xenophobia, racism etc. will cause more problems than they solve - hence the issues here.
When dealing with illegal immigrants, there are only a few things that matter:
Is the country benefiting from their presence? If so, how, and maybe WHO is doing so?
What other problems have they brought with them and are causing?
Does the cost of removing them from the country outweigh the benefits of them being here? THIS is the biggest issue. The problems factor on both sides, though - many individuals benefit from both sides - some from keeping them, some from removing them, irrespective of the overall country's benefit. Obviously it doesn't help matters if there is NO punishment (compared to legal immigrants) - the problem is figuring out the best way of doing that while still getting the most economic benefit from their presence, (so long as they're not guilty of anything more egregious, so economics becomes secondary).
So, on the one hand we have illegal immigrants being exploited for labour (esp. farm/domestic workers), yet on the other we have people who benefit from removing them, and the war between these two factions is what is causing all the problems.
And so the most beneficial solution for the COUNTRY, while still respecting human rights etc., is the hardest to find - a way of punishing illegal immigration whilst gaining the most benefit from their presence as a nation. If illegal immigrants had no economic role to play, most of them wouldn't have immigrated in the first place - for most, a better life = a job to support a home/family etc..
Re: Truth is a hostile entity.
Hmmm...
More comments from KeillRandor >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by KeillRandor.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt