If I get red cherries in winter from Chile, they are not as good as the ones from eastern Washington in the summer.
Local seasonal fruit in WA is amazing (cherries, peaches, apples, now is pear season)
I appreciate how food tastes, and cherries in the winter are expensive and tasteless. Summer cherries are the complete opposite, specially if you live in a state where they produce them locally. In WA they invented their own hybrid cherry, the Rainier, which is also really good but you can only get during a short period of time.
> The difference is today we eat bland cherries around the year except for a couple of weeks when you get fresh local ones.
Speak for yourself. A lot of people don't want to take part in consumerism and only buy (or just not buy) fruits, when it is their time and don't buy stuff from more than 200km away out of principle.
I'm one of those.
But it's not out of principle, it's because they taste much better, I'm currently eating WA pears from costco as it's the season and have been incredibly good and consistent.
> - Country of Birth caps abolished for Green Cards. Impossible to justify this as it doesn't serve the intended purpose since AC21 was passed.
You are saying that since, for example, Indians can remain indeterminately as long as they are employed, they are de facto kind of like in a green card situation already, therefore country caps don't make sense?
That would mean then that every other country wait will go up for over a decade, with all the backlog that India has (1.2M vs 140k EB green cards per year).
No, it shouldn't. Stuff like recapture has no likelihood of passing. The reason country caps exist is precisely because everyone wants to carve out some provisions for their favorite group in hopes of getting the mythical comprehensive immigration reform. A one sentence bill on this matter has better odds of passing if it were to ever come to a vote. There is really no tenable position in favor of country based discrimination. The challenge is getting it to a vote.
I disagree for the reasons the first reply mentioned. Backlogging every country by 10+ years is effectively shutting down the US immigration system. The backlog will never be cleared.
It will be cleared if everyone is treated equally as Congress will be forced to change the law. Green cards aren't magical fairy dust with a finite supply. Everything is negotiable. You restore basic equality first; the rest is accounting. Your position is tantamount to saying that segregation should be abolished only if it is coupled with increasing the total number of schools. It makes no sense.
The thing is everyone on the queue aren’t citizens, so they don’t vote, so congress doesn’t give a shit if it takes 10+ years for everyone.
There is no downside for them to screw everyone equally. However, if they make immigration easier or make it simpler, a bunch of them won’t be reelected as their bases would hate that.
I’m all in for simplifying the process and what not, but congress taking action I think is very likely to screw things more than they currently are.
The downside is that you have declining birth rates and a slowing economy. Despite all the non-sense from the current admin, you do actually need immigrants. Trump has said so himself as his admin keeps screwing things up (see the Hyundai fiasco). The average American citizen has no idea about how immigration in this country works. People are overwhelmingly in favor of legal and skills based immigration.
>but congress taking action I think is very likely to screw things more than they currently are
Congress' inaction and paralysis is the reason we find ourselves in this morass. Congress has abdicated its responsibility and ceded power to the executive.
That's right. Individuals from every country should be subject to the same set of rules. If the backlog is to be a century, it is to be borne by everyone.
If the vaccine became available in the 90s, and it was given to kids mostly, those people are 40 at most now, so how is the increase in shingles measured? More cases when younger? More older people getting it?
Thinking about it within this context doesn't make much sense.
The increase in shingles is in people who weren't vaccinated as kids. People who were vaccinated as kids and never got infected don't get shingles at all AFAIK.
So this is why earlier in the thread they said, less wild chicken pox, more shingles, because immune system goes stupid as there is no wild chicken pox?
I had chicken pox as a kid, the vaccine became available in my country in 98, several years after, so it seems I'm screwed for shingles.
WA, specially Seattle, has done the same as CA with the same results.
They shouldn't just enable them, as a lot of homeless are happy in their situation as long as they get food and drugs, they should force them to get clean and become a responsible adult if they want benefits.
Is it so hard for them to say, FU, office time now because I like it, or because we want to force attrition, or we bought all this RE and by god we are going to use it?
I mean, if they give the honest non vibe reasons, it would be the same, but at least honest.
Wall Street doesn't care as long as the stock goes up.
Customers don't care as long as they get the product.
And employees can't do anything other than vote with their feet.
If I get red cherries in winter from Chile, they are not as good as the ones from eastern Washington in the summer. Local seasonal fruit in WA is amazing (cherries, peaches, apples, now is pear season)
reply