You can prepare your kids for their natural pendulum swing. I told mine it's natural to rebel and do the opposite of what your parents do, make sure you understand, and don't unintentionally swing too far in the other direction.
It's not "people traveling" as this phrase is commonly understood, that is the issue; it's "relocation of 5% of a small country's population (Nicaragua for example) into the USA".
>Most tuberculosis (TB) cases in the US are diagnosed in foreign-born persons, and undocumented foreign-born may face particular barriers to timely access to health services.
When leaving the USA, getting TB vaccine is highly recommended and (at least in my experience) free and easy. I think it's fairly clear GP meant folks coming into the USA, and not for short periods, from areas that are not able to supply vaccines regularly.
This very well might be an issue. UNICEF and other aid organizations work dilligently to eradicate TB and other poverty-adjacent diseases, so perhaps individuals and the US Gov should increase their aid to other nations.
TB is a disease of poverty, it doesn't spread that easily, but the risk goes up for people in overcrowded living situations and for those who are chronically malnourished.
It's not a great surprise that one would find TB in cross-border migrants, but it's an indictment of the system that the disease continues to spread over here.
oh, but wait! it is actually endemic among native armadillos (USA) and native red squirrels (UK) - you almost never see a red squirrel in the UK, so don't worry.
Sure, though we shouldn't hold up the poetry or the statue as a symbol of our country then.
There is a lot of what went into America that would be (or has been) lost by completely abandoning the idea though. Maybe its worth it, that's not for any one person to decide, but its a huge change and there's always the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
It is still a symbol of the country. Settling the US was a meat grinder, and you basically turned up and sank or swam. You weren't ever a cost back then; you were an asset.
Now with all the various welfare programmes you can easily become a cost, although of course that's only a proportion of the people coming in, just as it's only a proportion of the people born in the country. But it's silly to equate what happened back then with what's happening now. And it's unfair to hold the US to this standard and not any other country. Particularly when the US takes in more (legal) immigrants than any other country each year.
Totally agree on the challenge with welfare programs. To me that's more a sign that welfare programs were never going to be sustainable though. We still haven't found a way to secure our borders, without that welfare is a blank check.
I don't hold other countries to a standard only because I have no say in how the are run. I would actually prefer to see countries freely allowing immigration and emigration, but I'm not going to say anyone else has to or even should.
What's often lost, in my opinion, with regards to the statue is that the whole point was that anyone should be able to move here if they want to give it a shot and none should be able to take away that right from anyone else.
That might be the point of the statue; I don't know. But equally the point of the pyramids might've been to ensure the world venerated the Pharoahs for eternity, and that's not happening today. I don't see why a landmark would have legal force.
To be fair the society that idolized those pharaohs is long gone though. It'd be a different story with the statue of liberty if the US was gone.
Landmarks don't have to have legal force. My only point here, that I'm almost certainly over complicating or muddying, is that the statue is still held as a symbol of our country but we seem to fundamentally disagree with what the statue stood for in the first place.
It seems disingenuous but that alone isn't a huge deal. My concern personally is that I do still believe in what the statue stood for, and I think most people arguing immigration miss the fundamental question of should one person be allowed to stop another from choosing to live here and make a life for themselves. The argument usually jumps straight to how to limit it, not whether one should have the right to limit it.
No one disagrees with what it stood for; in fact, the US is still the world leader in immigration. But that doesn't mean illegal immigration is okay. If we want to play statue originalists for a second, the fact that the statue stands as an invitation shows it believes that an invitation is required to enter someone else's country.
Interesting, I don't actually read the poem on the statue as an invitation so much as an ideal that an invitation isn't needed since everyone is welcomed.
Illegal immigration is a whole bag of worms since it only comes down to what laws we choose to write. Our immigration policies today are much more strict than they were historically (with a possible caveat for wartime years). Where it once was legal as long as you went through a port of entry and provided basic info, today its a multi year process tied to merit and limited by caps on total immigration and country of origin. Both were legal if you followed the rules of the day, but the rules are drastically more strict today.
We've got both a declining birth rate and an economy that demands growth. Our biggest competitor is 4x our size. We have vast open spaces, and a history of repeatedly, successfully incorporating waves of immigrants. We're not even remotely full.
Its still a more fundamental question for me than whether were full.
Should we be able to decide who has a chance to live here at all? We have laws and you have to abide by them, but beyond that I'm not sure why I should get to be gate keeper at all. We'd have to get rid of welfare programs if we have no cap on immigrations, but honestly if someone wants to move here and try to make a better life for themselves I don't see what the problem is.
I'm sure most would say crime, but that's just not a compelling argument. We will never have a bulletproof immigration system, people will find ways to sneak through went we don't want to let them in. More importantly, crime isn't a foreign problem - we have domestic crime that has nothing to do with immigrants.
"I'm sure most would say crime, but that's just not a compelling argument. We will never have a bulletproof immigration system, people will find ways to sneak through went we don't want to let them in. More importantly, crime isn't a foreign problem - we have domestic crime that has nothing to do with immigrants."
So let me rephrase: "we have already some internal crime so there's no point trying to limit another source of crime" ?
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't my right to tell someone else that they can't live here. If someone wants to come to the US to try to make a better life for themselves, I wish them the best of luck and hope they succeed. I don't think its anyone's right to claim the right to decide who is worthy of getting a chance here.
When it comes to crime, its not that we already have crime so don't bother. We have to deal with crime either way, and the potential benefit of closing borders isn't worth stepping on what I consider a fundamental right. We also haven't answered how to know who will commit a crime if they come here, unless we have precogs hidden away in a pool somewhere.
The proletariat can rock that soviet tech, making some lips/forth/prolog insanity. Once they're done, I'll simulate it at 10,000 times native speed on one core of my Apple iThing.
unless you own land and manage not to sell it to buy food, you should not assume that you will still have your current lifestyle in ten years. even if you are of the rentier class, you should not assume that there will be enough people who can afford your prices in ten years.
The US population has gone from 150 million in 1950 to over 350 million. This has been accompanied by a huge migration from rural areas to the city. There is no way house prices could not go up but there is always going to be a limit on how much things increase by before they stop selling because the buyers vanish.
The more interesting question for me is once the baby boomers start dying off and population growth becomes a big fat negative is what will happen to property prices.
A better TLDR would be "other than the child saying 'I identify as a wolf', they do not actually identify as a wolf, and no accommodations have been made for them."
Nowadays? It's so bad and cringeworthy that my young sons picked up on the STEM girlie nonsense and are actively rebelling against it and running with whatever they have. Leaving the coddled scrubs behind.
You think encouraging more people to become more interested in jobs that are essentially the future of civilization is “nonsense”? Don’t you think that’s odd?
