Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, we won't be kicking out anyone born here. Were there any other ideas you wanna run by me?
Birthright citizenship has no place in a merit-based system. So again, if a merit-based system is good enough for new citizens, then surely it is good enough for existing citizens too, right? Why or why not?
Originally posted by Robtard
Surtur's only achievement in life is being American...
The point system is ridiculous.
If a candidate is 36–40, with a U.S. Bachelor's degree, is fluent in English, and has a job offer with a salary <77,900 but >103,900, he does not qualify for citizenship.
In order to earn enough points, he would need a Nobel Prize, an Olympic Medal, or plan to invest a minimum of 1.35-million in a new commercial enterprise.
A smart person would not want to implement a policy that would disqualify himself if he had to live under it.
Immigrants: Be educated and wealthy. Born citizens: Be birthed from an American vagina.
Rules for thee, but not for me, indeed.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It would. Take the quiz, and see for yourself: [b]Find Out If President Trump Would Let You Immigrate to AmericaIf this policy was in place 100 years ago, no Irish would be granted U.S. citizenship, and Surtur would not be here, acting like an accident of birth makes him more deserving of citizenship than other people. [/B]
Ha, I didn't make it. I'd need a job offer of over 77,900.
But then, it's not like I was likely to get in on your previous system anyway.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Birthright citizenship has no place in a merit-based system. So again, if a merit-based system is good enough for new citizens, then surely it is good enough for existing citizens too, right? Why or why not?
We can apply it to everything if you want. This means tests in order to see who gets to vote, etc.
You down with that?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Would you support IQ tests for that?
Sure go for it. Then stuff like Affirmative Action can go.
EDIT: Well, actually, I'd wanna look into it more. How reliable are IQ tests in showing us intelligence? Can someone be intelligent and not do well? But I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of test.
Originally posted by Surtur
Sure go for it. Then stuff like Affirmative Action can go.EDIT: Well, actually, I'd wanna look into it more. How reliable are IQ tests in showing us intelligence? Can someone be intelligent and not do well? But I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of test.
IQ tests are very accurate on the aggregate but it's possible for individuals to do poorly for specific reasons like learning disabilities. But we could put measures in place to correct for that.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
IQ tests are very accurate on the aggregate but it's possible for individuals to do poorly for specific reasons like learning disabilities. But we could put measures in place to correct for that.
I would say go for it, but I also think some people would be opposed to it because some people have better opportunities for education than others.
Public schools in poor neighborhoods here are crappy.
I think there are PR / optical / slippery slope issues with using testing for immigration and rights tbh and something like employment + education + pedigree acts as a decent figure.
Trump's points system is weird and arbitrary though, under it Mark Zuckerberg were he born in another country wouldn't qualify [before he won some major international award].
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I think there are PR / optical / slippery slope issues with using testing for immigration and rights tbh and something like employment + education + pedigree acts as a decent figure.Trump's points system is weird and arbitrary though, under it Mark Zuckerberg were he born in another country wouldn't qualify [before he won some major international award].
What about tests like the SAT's? Or ACT's? I only took the latter.
Originally posted by Surtur
We can apply it to everything if you want. This means tests in order to see who gets to vote, etc.You down with that?
If we implement a merit-based citizenship system, you will not need tests to qualify to vote, because the only people left will be educated and wealthy. And therein lies the problem with this system: society needs people of all education levels and skill sets in order to function. If everyone is wealthy, then there is no one to pick fruit, collect garbage, or clean toilets. Those are all essential things that need to be done. That is why it is so preposterous for people to turn up their noses at the notion that these "menial" jobs should not be paid a living wage. If people do not do those jobs, civilization comes to a screeching halt.
"The firings happened around December 15. On December 20, Comcast announced that, because of the pending tax cut and recent repeal of net neutrality rules, it would give "special bonuses" of $1,000 to more than 100,000 employees and invest more than $50 billion in infrastructure over the next five years.
"With these investments, we expect to add thousands of new direct and indirect jobs," Comcast said at the time."
It must be nice to be an ISP in the US. You're basically a super villain with immunity.
The $50 billion in investment to infrastructure takes into account their regular maintenance costs from what I can tell and they've already been given over $300 billion to invest by the government that they've pocketed.
Anybody who trusts an ISP to regulate itself is a flat out idiot. They'd sacrifice human beings if it was legal and earned them more profit. I did my undergrad COOP at a Telecom company before I knew better and was hypnotized by money. The people working there are borderline sociopathic when it comes to the bottom line and bonuses. And this was in Canada.
They made the employees they fired sign NDA's. Smh.
"The firings happened around December 15. On December 20, Comcast announced that, because of the pending tax cut and recent repeal of net neutrality rules, it would give "special bonuses" of $1,000 to more than 100,000 employees and invest more than $50 billion in infrastructure over the next five years.
"With these investments, we expect to add thousands of new direct and indirect jobs," Comcast said at the time.
We examined Comcast's investment claims in an article on December 21. As it turns out, Comcast's annual investments already soared during the two-plus years that net neutrality rules were on the books, and the $50 billion amount could be achieved if those investments simply continued increasing by a modest amount.
Comcast was one of the most active companies lobbying for lower corporate tax rates in 2017, Vox reported shortly before the tax changes passed in December."
Snake oil salesmen. Assume anything a large corporation fees you in the press is partially if not fully false. In capitalism, a corporation exists to maximize only profit, they'll lie, cheat and steal to do this. This is a fact.
"Comcast isn't the only company whose actions contradict statements that workers would benefit from the corporate tax cut. AT&T claimed that it would invest another $1 billion because of the tax cut and said that "research tells us that every $1 billion in capital invested in telecom creates about 7,000 good jobs for the middle class."
But as we wrote yesterday, AT&T is now laying off thousands of employees and is facing a lawsuit from a workers' union that is trying to stop the mass layoffs."
