skulk

As others have pointed out in the thread, those who slurp up the surplus value of the labor of these undocumented workers would hate to lose this leverage of "Oh you want the same rights American workers get? Don't want me making a phone call to my buddy over at the police department!"

The purpose of a system is what it does.

> If you want more people to immigrate you should make the legal pathways more accessible, not tolerate the illegal ones.

How do you do this in a way that preserves the leverage that business owners have over undocumented workers? Those people form a pretty strong coalition with the people who think all immigration is bad for ... other reasons, so this is pretty much a non-starter politically.

I'd encourage you to read the entire last sentence of my comment and not focus on the racism part if it bothers you so much; there is a non-racist argument for deporting all illegal immigrants as well.

Immigration in the US has always been more complicated than "no papers? gotta go." Moving north to do some seasonal work then moving back south is a very old thing, and was enshrined into law by the "Bracero program" in the post ww2 era. In the 60s, however, it was ended abruptly, giving migratory workers no choice but to stay illegally. ... and business owners no choice but to keep hiring them.

The idea that illegal immigrants need to be deported (and not have a path to legal residency) comes from a view that those jobs should go to American citizens (which will bring economic pain that is intolerable) or from a view that browns don't belong in the USA.

it makes zero sense to go after the engineers since they are hundreds of times as fungible as the executives. There's a reason the RICO act exists.

vocal people on the Internet are "up in arms" but does the general public care that some LG exec says they "own the glass"? I think that at best, they might care until they see the ad-subsidized price tags.

you don't think they're going to yank that option away in, say, a year? or make it even more onerous, like "you have to send us a letter saying you want to develop apps"

lets not forget that this isn't a thread to argue about economics (which is quite a dull thing to be so enthusiastic about), so I'm not really required to have an argument. It's about how pathetic it is to lick Elon Musk's boots.

thanks for demonstrating why arguing with you is a total waste of time; you have a very simple set of principles and apply them bluntly and draw the conclusions you want from them. it's childish.

You're wasting your keystrokes; it's WalterBright, whose personal mission is to defend the idea that money is virtue, that those with money should be worshipped, and that anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is demonic.

> Just do other things you like and don't worry about women.

Just want to pile on here and say that this is absolutely crucial, both for your chances of eventually finding someone and if not that, for your own sanity.

1. if you go into activities with the ulterior motive of meeting someone, you're not going to be satisfied by the activity itself which will cause resentment.

2. people can sense when your heart isn't really into what you're doing, and this will defeat your purpose entirely causing #1

You really have to accept that you may never find someone to properly get into this mindset though, and that's really hard. But it's a choice and I'm convinced that it's the correct one.

6 years of on-and-off trying and I could only get to p50 squat, and even being able to do that feels like a serious accomplishment. ... I should really get back into it huh

Any government can spy on a few people, and we're generally fine with that. But when they build a robust network of surveillance devices but pinky promise that they're only being used to spy on those same few people, we bring out the electric saws. It's a very similar situation with normalizing passkeys.