Google Urged the US To Limit Protection for Activist Workers (bloomberg.com) 224
Google, whose employees have captured international attention in recent months through high-profile protests of workplace policies, has been quietly urging the U.S. government to narrow legal protection for workers organizing online. From a report: During the Obama administration, the National Labor Relations Board broadened employees' rights to use their workplace email system to organize around issues on the job. In a 2014 case, Purple Communications, the agency restricted companies from punishing employees for using their workplace email systems for activities like circulating petitions or fomenting walkouts, as well as trying to form a union. In filings in May 2017 and November 2018, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, Alphabet's Google urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent.
Citing dissents authored by Republican appointees, Google's attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard "should be overruled" and a George W. Bush-era precedent -- allowing companies to ban organizing on their employee email systems -- should be reinstated. In an emailed statement, a Google spokeswoman said, "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" against meritless claims at the NLRB.
Citing dissents authored by Republican appointees, Google's attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard "should be overruled" and a George W. Bush-era precedent -- allowing companies to ban organizing on their employee email systems -- should be reinstated. In an emailed statement, a Google spokeswoman said, "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" against meritless claims at the NLRB.
How 1984 of them (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoda thunk a bunch of rich white 1%ers who push "progressive" ideals is also all about stifling any dissent?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
rich WHITE?
have you BEEN to any bay area campus?
(narrarator: most tech workers are indian and chinese; last I checked, that's not 'white' by definition).
Clue: 1%'ers sniffling dissent are senior managers (Score:2)
Whoda thunk a bunch of rich white 1%ers who push "progressive" ideals is also all about stifling any dissent?
rich WHITE? have you BEEN to any bay area campus? (narrarator: most tech workers are indian and chinese; last I checked, that's not 'white' by definition).
Clue: the rich 1%'ers sniffling dissent are the senior management, not the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
He said 1%ers, the 1% is mostly more successful and educated workers. Maybe he meant the 0.1%
Re: How 1984 of them (Score:3)
rich white
Skin color is totally orthogonal to power and control, numbnuts.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a clear correlation, though one that is steadily lessening as time passes. Wealth and skin color are both inherited.
Re: (Score:3)
The same kind of logic could (and is) used by very bad people to argue things such as exterminating all the black people.
While most rich people are white, most white people aren't rich, as most black people are not violent criminals and so forth.
Beware of the retarded mindflip.
Re: How 1984 of them (Score:4, Informative)
"While most rich people are white, most white people aren't rich, as most black people are not violent criminals and so forth."
And just as importantly, the sins don't pass from father to son. White people born today aren't guilty of a crime or owe any sort of debt to people randomly born with dark skin. Just like people randomly born wealthy with dark skin don't owe any debt. There is no score to settle and nothing to correct, the people who committed the crimes and the victims are all dead or so old as to be irrelevant. Your grandparents might have had something coming but you aren't entitled to collect it from the grandchildren of the people who owed it because being in either position was a dice roll. That's the whole point, you can't change what you are born as and that is what makes discrimination on those traits so evil. It is the same lesson we learned about thrones and positions passed from parent to child.
Frankly the wealth shouldn't pass down either. The sensible thing would just be a tax on wealth rather than income. If you can't bring in enough to cover the taxes on your built up wealth you sell it and pay the bill. After all if you can't grow enough to cover the tax the wealth should be in the hands of those doing a better job. Merit.
Re: (Score:3)
More like "Gimme part of your family jewels.....cause you didn't earn them or your keep but they cost public resources to protect and maintain and so do you."
"So all the things you worked for/earned cannot be benefited to your own kin without them paying some penalty to keep it constantly?"
The alternative is everyone else pays a penalty to enable them to keep them. Also just because you accumulated wealth doesn't mean it was in proportion to what you rightfully had coming. People have earned billions while
Re: (Score:3)
"But that's much of what you do when you take money away from rich people and give it to poor people, because black people are still suffering from economic distress whose roots were deliberate."
But there is a very big difference. Once is racist, the other is merely a correlation. Rationale based on race is faulty and unsound, period. If it weren't racism wouldn't be bad.
"The truth is that being in either position was very much not a dice roll — white people deliberately made things worse for black pe
Re: (Score:2)
Entitlement to lost wealth and blame for how it was acquired are not. You don't have any say in whether you are born rich or poor or what color your skin is. The son doesn't inherit the sins of the father and he doesn't inherit a legitimate complaint of his father's either.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoda thunk a bunch of rich white 1%ers
A lot of the 1%ers are not white. A lot of the money is in investment firms and the racial diversity is a bit different than you think it is. But keep exercising your free speech to push the false racism narrative I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
What do rich white 1%ers have to do with Google? I think you meant to say high income indian 1%ers.
Re: How 1984 of them (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, if you want to organize protests, etc....do it on your own time, or at the very least, do it on your own private email, etc.
I mean, why should a company essentially pay you to protest them or let you use their facilities and servers to promote things that are against the best interests of the company or it's shareholders (you know, the folks that own the company)?
Sure you have the right to protest me or oppose me, but I shouldn't have to foot the bill for you too should I?
Re: (Score:2)
On my own private email...gorehog@gmail.com...uh huh...
Re: (Score:3)
Either they're both wrong, or they're both right. Either you shouldn't do personal stuff on the company's time, and the company shouldn't care what you do during your non-work hours. Or the company can exert control over your behavi
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but IMHO this is pushback against companies taking punitive action against employees for doing stuff on their own time. e.g. You post pictures of yourself smoking weed and drinking beer at an evening party on your Facebook account, and your company fires you for it.
Funny you should say this. Did you know Silicon Valley companies are particularly bad offenders of thinking they own people's personal time? I mean heck, they're the ones that came up with the idea that firing someone is "graduation". We want to congratulate Bob for graduating XYZ Silicon Valley startup ABC. We wish him well on his next badass adventure. Talk about a bunch of evil psychological hackery.
Re: How 1984 of them (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, why should a company essentially pay you to protest them or let you use their facilities and servers to promote things that are against the best interests of the company or it's shareholders (you know, the folks that own the company)?
Because it works.
I come from a country with strong employee protection laws, including the right to organize inside the company, and even laws regulating how to organise, how to elect representatives to speak for the employees, and rights and protections for those representatives, including extensive use of company facilities and even money to pay for what they need (training, lawyers, etc.)
The result is much more peace within the workplace, because there are accepted ways to bring your grievances to the attention of management. There are ways to force management if they don't comply with the law, without going to an external court and putting all the internal dirt into public.
It may not be perfect, but even most companies agree that it beats being hit by multi-million dollar lawsuits every few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you consider company email as being private?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that burden is upon the organizers.
How did they do it in the past before there were computers and email?
Certainly you know some if not most of the people you work with, and see in person ask them. Or you could even use company email to j
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that burden is upon the organizers.
How did they do it in the past before there were computers and email?
Employees were (and are) allowed to contact, and interact with other employees on the company premises and on company time on matters of workers rights and interests, including organizing unions.
If the organization is global, interacting electronically, then extending those existing rights to email would be the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
"How did they do it in the past before there were computers and email?"
They saw there co-workers, they were in the same building and not a different state or even country. Jesus, isn't it bad enough they maximize the number of contract and visa workers to crush their staff and prevent fair pay?
Maybe it is hard to sympathize with complaints about pay from people making in the low six figures but when their job should by all reasonable metrics be paying at least the mid 200's and it is underpaid nationwide in
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyers are paid by, and represent, Google. They do not do anything that is not "Google really".
Also recall that last year the top corporate sponsor for CPAC, the far right-wing circus that used to be relegated to the fringes, was Google.
So much for "do no evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
With the news of Chrome disabling ad-blocking extensions, and now then, I guess we can put Google squarely in the "evil" category.
The thing is, what other options are there? There's Apple, which for the moment is a bit better but they have some evil of their own, and there's no guarantee they won't go full evil like Google has in the future.
Microsoft? HA, I kill me.
Should I just hunker down and stop using the Internet? I don't know anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oracle
Google
Apple
Microsoft
Yes, the Microsoft of old was pretty evil. They have gotten a bit better while many of the rest have gotten much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
And which of these owns Twitter?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you were going to rate evil
Yeah sure. That's a useful exercise. When you finish ironing out your evil ranking system why not run around in a circle and make chicken noises for a while? Should make for a really productive Thursday!
Google is a piratic valley cesspit just like all the other valley pirates, except that it has a greater cohort of apologists and naive pink hairs that are still knocking back Google's progressive flavored kool-aid.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the free market, where real choice exists only in chaotic beginnings, and every mature product space collapses to two (or maybe three) barely distinct shades of moral chartreuse.
I grew up in a non-gospel church with "We Shall Overcome" as regular staple.
As an adult, I now understood that those who sang it best were the committed capitalists, overcoming the strictures of competition in an open market of ideas, where the customers make important choices ab
Re: So much for "do no evil" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you use it for.
Nobody honestly cares what kind of porn you watch.
Re:So much for "do no evil" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
all large corps are evil.
life sucks as you realize this.
life aint no disney movie.
oh, and humans generally suck.
that is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are not inherently evil. They're just intelligence without conscience or accountability, neither legal nor moral. That usually leads to pretty rotten actions, which we consider evil, but corporations are not evil. Corporations neither think nor act.
The shell of a corporation only allows people to act without having to justify their actions morally, because they have to do something, because if they don't, someone else would have and they'd have been fired.
The main difference to the Third Reich
Re: So much for "do no evil" (Score:2)
Corporations are not inherently evil. They're just intelligence without conscience or accountability,
Same fucking thing, for all practical purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
With the news of Chrome disabling ad-blocking extensions
Has Chrome really disabled ad blocking extensions?
Government Regulation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So much for "do no evil" (Score:4)
Yes, it's essential to be realistic. Corporations are legal fictions - AIs with human components, as it's been said - and they have absolutely no conscience or morality.
Robert Heinlein once wrote something that applies perfectly to corporations:
"Never rely on a man's better nature; he may not have one".
In the case of a corporation, it hardly ever has any trace of a better nature. Just as a Terminator is interested in absolutely nothing but destroying its target, a corporation is interested in absolutely nothing but profit. (Not all of the profits may reach the shareholders, admittedly; the managers get their share).
Re: (Score:2)
Apple introduced their version of the ad blocking API that Google is proposing years ago. And as I pointed out in the story about it, Google is actually looking at keeping the older API for stuff that needs it
Embrace
and offering the new one as a higher performance but more limited option.
Extend
What comes next?
Google is the new Microsoft.
Ah, the royal 'we' (Score:5, Informative)
"We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses"
Thems weasel words Google.
Re: (Score:3)
"We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses"
Thems weasel words Google.
We're not lobbying to change the rules, we just want them to be different and are trying to make that happen.
Re: (Score:2)
(paraphrasing a line from the movie "Dave")
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that old "It's against the law but someone said it probably shouldn't be" defense.
Re: (Score:2)
"We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses"
Thems weasel words Google.
I just Googled definitions, and they are using them exactly, perfectly, correctly, don't look any further now, we know your browsing history...
Google has to be broken up (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one reason why. Among many.
disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech, and US regulations about labor organization communications, don't imply the right to disseminate messages in any way without regard to the rights of others or in any channel you may encounter. People are free to speak to each other, and they're free to publish documents, papers, blog posts, news articles using their resources.
Google is right to do this, and they should learn to act even more like a professional business. They already brewed themselves a shitstorm by inviting their employees to discuss and debate controversial political topics on internal forums as if it's some kind of college campus. It's coming back to bite them in the ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I support a company's right to be able to regulate the internal use of their software and tools that they provide and pay for.
They already brewed themselves a shitstorm by inviting their employees to discuss and debate controversial political topics on internal forums
Well Google can't have it both ways, can they?
Re: (Score:3)
Bring your whole self to work. Except the part of you that hates being treated like shit by your employer.
Fine if Google banned all non work speach (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore there is nothing wrong with giving workers extra protections. As a worker you already have a significant disadvantage (you've got less money and you work for a living as opposed to owning things for a living). If that balance is not redressed somehow you get oligarchy and totalitarianism like we had in the era of robber barons & company stores.
Don't be afraid to have a sense of entitlement. You work for a living. You ear
Re:disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I support a company's right to be able to regulate the internal use of their software and tools that they provide and pay for.
Do you understand scope of Google control over modern communications?! If you let them do it, they can very effectively censor any attempt to organize - it won't be searchable by Google, you won't be able to email to @gmail, you won't be able to make Youtube videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the first amendment protects your right not to say things as well, and forcing the company to pay factionally for email to support speech it doesn't like violates this principle, however minor.
The government is basicslly forcing you to fund your detractors.
whoa (Score:3)
Did I hit the wrong site? /. gets more like /b/ every day.
Sad.
On topic:
Want to organize? Go for it.
Using the company email system to foment strikes or walk outs? You should be fired on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the company is one of the world's largest providers of free personal email which it hands out on a non-discriminatory basis?
Why not? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I don't think company resources should be used to undermine that company. Why should a company be forced to let employees use company infrastructure against itself? I also think it is stupid for an employee to use company resources for these activities. The company can monitor those resources and find out who in the company needs to get assigned the tasks that no one else would want to do. The whole thing seems a bit silly, although I am a simple minded fool so...
What if the employees are trying to save the company from making a bad decision? Do they have to do that entirely externally to the company?
I worked at Google for a long time, and there were many times when someone used internal communications for completely-inappropriate stuff. But there were many times when such communications were essential to get things sorted out. Unfortunately, there was not a bright line between the different types of communications, mostly because people are people, with all the
Some of the Obama era protections were wrong (Score:3)
Doubleplusgood! :) (Score:2)
Google: "First, Do Evil" (Score:2)
I see they have sold their souls and now expect recompense from their masters in the heap
This is the way lawyers are taught to think (Score:2)
Lawyers are taught from the beginning to think and plead "in the alternative" which sounds much more sophisticated than "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" or "bury the judge in bullshit and see what he'll buy". This is particularly true when playing defense.
Lawyers operate like the litigation realm is some isolated 4th dimension quasi-universe where the rules of time, space, and physics don't apply and what they put in their pleadings does not have real world consequences.
oh (Score:2)
Citing dissents authored by Republican appointees
Oh, well that cinches it.
Dissent is not allowed.
Republicans aren't allowed either. Well, we're working on that one, but we'll get there ...
I tend to agree (Score:2)
If you are on company time, if you are using company property, then you should only be doing company business.
this is why Pichai has to go (Score:3)
Look, if they want to limit email, I am good with it. That is THEIR system. But once you are actively trying to block any legal union attempts, well, that is BS.
These people are taking over Google (Score:4, Informative)
I've got 2 contacts in there and I continue to hear stories about these people effectively hijacking the workplace, shaming others into joining their protests, putting up banners all over the campuses and so on.
Nothing wrong with equality but now you basically have the gestapo running around making up rules and trying to enforce them, people who seem to think their entire job is to stop people working productively and to just push politics.
Google is no longer producing exceptional tech, or at least, less of it. There's a lot more misses now, there's a lot of odd decisions, I feel like management are stuck for getting things done, dealing with these people and moving in the right direction.
I visited a campus a few months ago and it was something /straight/ out of a TV show / movie or 1990s high school drama, I saw a wide variety of people walking around chatting and little productivity. I'd say I saw a 60/40 ratio of women to men, most people relatively young and attractive.
Out of the 3 or 400 people I saw, I'd say, I saw about 5 guys, at most who were your traditional looking neckbeard type programmer dudes (Let's be honest, a lot of us don't present great) - they were on their own and just generally looked pretty out of place there if anything. The only thing I saw less of, was people over the age of about 35. I've never felt so old in my life. It felt like clique club.
But I digress, I've posted this before and had responses here before, from others inside, confirming that there's a good portion of the workforce, simply not doing /real work/. It's a place of business, to develop products and software and a /lot/ of staff are not only not doing that, they're actively making it more difficult for the business to do so.
I miss the days where I thought Google was the most amazing company of all time, near a decade ago. Endlessly producing amazing things, better than others, for 'free'. Now they shut things at a moments notice and 'fix' existing products with UI overhauls that make them worse (this month? Google maps)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think one delusion is more justifiable or better than any other?
Re: (Score:2)
IF everyone wanted it...we'd have it.
Personally, I do NOT.
There are a number of things they could do to make ti better here in the US, but I do NOT want the overreaching, poorly managed Federal Govt in charge of it.
Hell, we can't afford it even if we wanted it...its starting to weigh heavy and fiscally drag things down under its own weight in countries that have it, I hear in Great Britain they're starting to show cracks in that system.
Re:Americans take corporate dick in the ass (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Americans take corporate dick in the ass (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree whole heartedly on this one.
I also think that they should open it up for medical insurance sales across state lines.
Competition there might help things a good bit.
I'd also like to see the govt. PROMOTE and make it easier to set up individual HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) that people can use to save pre-tax for their routine medical needs....or to even pay for individual insurance, etc. Rather than try to inhibit this as the Obama regime did, it should be opened up and promoted to make it easier for people to do.
HSA's, unlike FSA's are not use it or lose it either, you can put these accounts together to grow over time and even earn interest on them, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And that solves the problem of those that can currently also not participate in a healthcare system, i.e. the ones that cannot simply stuff money in some account because they live paycheck to paycheck, in what way?
Or, wait, do we simply have them die off? That's a solution of the problem, I give you that...
Re: (Score:2)
Inhibit HSA's? Citation needed.
Absolutely so. HSA's are what the FSA's want to be, when they grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
This. This. And this again.
No solution to healthcare that doesn't put more control in the hands of the patient is going to make things worse. Federal control for sure isn't going to give patients more control. Why should my company's HR department pick my plan and deal with coverage? Even worse, for anyone who has ever dealt with insurance problems and had to get their HR involved, HR generally sides with the insurance company... What are you going to do? Quit?
Not sure where you live (Score:2)
This goes both ways too. A friend worked for a small company. He had some pretty major health problems (cancer). He was politely told that if he signed up for the company health insurance he'd be fired. This is legal in my state.
But you're right, healthcare shouldn't be coupled to employment. Every civilized country (and some not s
Re:Americans take corporate dick in the ass (Score:5, Insightful)
but I do NOT want the overreaching, poorly managed Federal Govt in charge of it.
you are pathetic and insincere.
SOMEONE is in control. you dislike the government. fine, I mostly agree with you there, but who else should control this? currently its the insurance companies and they are allowed mostly free control of this industry. they are entirely profit driven. the government is not; so that's a plus in the gov's favor. both have competancy issues, so that's a moot point for both.
does our current system work? not really. therefore, we have only 1 choice: CHANGE IT and make it less of an industry and more of a SERVICE to mankind.
other countries do this. almost all do, in fact. the US is a 3rd world hellhole when it comes to this issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit, back when "Obamacare" was all the rage, I stood there baffled and befuddled that anyone could oppose universal healthcare. You see, over here in Europe, you can do a lot to us. You can take away our guns, we don't really care about them that much, you can take away our holidays, you can make us work overtime for no pay, there's very little that you can't do to us, just as a few right-leaning governments recently proved.
But talking about taking away universal healthcare would probably lead t
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how the comment above assumes that people choose not to get health care because they are greedy, and not because they desperately need the money that would go to those premiums just to make it to the next paycheck.
Re: Americans take corporate dick in the ass (Score:2)
you are pathetic and insincere
And you clearly possess an amazing ability to convince those who don't agree with you; "sky-high EQ" and all that. ;)
Re: Americans take corporate dick in the ass (Score:2)
Why do people who are against universal healthcare think that it wouldn't be possible to get health insurance on top of the state system?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I have to pay twice?
Re: (Score:2)
More that he's acting like a kid throwing a tantrum. Maybe a spanking would help?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is if you call Stormy in to perform the the spanking he would like it too much, even if it hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to me that Trump has offered to negotiate.
He's made it a one-issue debate and refuses to negotiate on that. That's not an offer, it's a stonewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he's asking for like $5B.
Either offer him something lower than than amount....or maybe try to get something MORE that they want....
I mean, c'mon...you've got democrats on record like Shumer, Obama...big time democrats that only a few short years ago were openly supporting wall construction and re-enforcement.
It isn't like they weren't for a wall not that long ago, so, why not give Trump somethin
Re: Trump Fails It (Score:2)
No walls, fences or even guards required...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd come up with the idea of having our military snipers line the border, and they could do target practice....
Or, maybe we lay land mines along the border....
Either of those might make a better deterrent than a wall, but I figured some might consider those to be a bit too extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were the Democrats, I'd offer funding for the engineering studies and environmental impact assessments.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have compromise on moral issues. And the Democrats have made everything Trump says immoral. Now, I will grant you that a lot of the stuff Trump does is immoral, but seriously even serving McDonalds is an abomination now? Peace with North Korea? How can you be against that?
Re: (Score:2)
I"m STILL trying to figure out how a border wall is somehow "immoral".
I especially wonder, when so many democrats, only a few years ago...were for a wall?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the wall, it's the attitude the wall represents. There are people who want into the US, and the two major factions see those people in very different ways. The liberals see a horde of desperate people - impoverished, oppressed, starving, fleeing lives of violence and hoping to start a new life. To them, only a true monster could ever turn away such people and leave them to die. The conservatives see an unruly mob of criminals, murderers and rapists, and believe that the country must be defended aga
Re: (Score:3)
See, that false dichotomy is why there cannot be any compromise. Maybe the conservatives see: a horde of desperate people - impoverished, oppressed, starving, fleeing lives of violence and hoping to start a new life by crossing illegally into a foreign land with no prospects other than handouts or illegal labor to get them out of poverty. And by letting them in with no consequences, we encourage more refugees to do the same. Are some of the migrants criminals, murderers, and rapists? Most definitely, but th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how someone can be a "monster" by turning away people to leave them to die when a huge percentage of the world's population is in the same or worse circumstances and there is no way we can save them all.
Look up the countries these people are coming from, then look up what caused the unrest in their country. Note how the US is culpable for most of it. We make the refugees, then we get mad when they show up asking for help, then we scratch our heads and act surprised. This innocent act ain't gonna fly.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is culpable for most of it around the world. Why does central america get to flood the border and not the Middle East, southeast Asia, Africa, and North Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
The US is culpable for most of it around the world. Why does central america get to flood the border and not the Middle East, southeast Asia, Africa, and North Korea?
If your argument is that those people should also get to come here, I agree. If you're actually asking, I weep for you.
Re: (Score:2)
My argument is that the process should be fair to everyone who needs asylum regardless of origin and we should process the requests in a controlled manner. Having mobs of people crossing all willy nilly and claiming asylum when caught is not a reasonable immigration system. It's unmanageable and inhumane because we cannot process them when they arrive in caravans.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a dichotomy, but it's not a false dichotomy. It's the nature of American politics. There are two sides, exactly two sides. Anyone who doesn't pick a side is effectively excluded. The number of people in house and senate combined who don't come with an R or D next to their name is in the single digits, and has been for a very long time. There are two major political factions, who are inseparably linked to the two major political parties in such a way that they both define and are defined by each other.
T
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to me that Trump has offered to negotiate....the Dems should begin the process on their side.
No. Trump is not negotiating, nor willing to compromise. He is still demanding the full amount he was always demanding, and the only thing he is willing to give up is the hostages he's taken, if that. The dreamers only get a three year reprieve, and there's no promises on the caged refugee children.
Our nation has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and Trump is still holding hostages. Let him give back the refugee children and agree to extend DACA, and end the shutdown, and then we can negotiate. A
Re: (Score:2)
They can ask, but their faces are already on the Internet for anyone who knows how Google Image search works:
https://ocdn.eu/images/pulscms... [ocdn.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that we get Pence as a replacement, right?
I'm still convinced that's the main reason nobody pulled the trigger on the annoying orange yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Pence is at least a known factor. He's a straight-ticket Republican on all issues. We all know his policies, and he'd do what he could to advance those policies in the conventional way. I disagree with him on practically everything, but I am still confident that he is not going to wake up grumpy one morning and order a nuclear missile strike on North Korea. With Trump, anything is possible.