I was brought to the US as a child in 2001, my parents applied for permanent residence, were declined, but stayed anyway. I was then deported in 2008 after being arrested for petty shoplifting then reported to ICE. Was also arrested for a couple of other things around this same time (shoplifting, fighting) but never convicted of anything serious (I was a problematic teenager). Upon deportation I was initially given a 3 year bar, since I was deported about 8 months after my 18th birthday.
Since then, I have lived in my homeland in Europe, and am now almost 30 years old, and have had a clean record the past 11 years, except for one stupid incident in 2016 where I got in a street fight and got a common assault conviction (no jail time, just a few hours community service).
My dad is still in the USA (undocumented). I have worked in technology for the past 11 years, CTO of my own startup. My question is, what are the odds of receiving a US visa to visit, given my transgressions as a teenager (and very stupid mistake 3 years ago)? It seems I am not ineligible under the crimes of moral turpitude clause, and my bar for overstay was up years ago, but I can't imagine my varous misdeeds make for the best impression.
Unofficially if I were to apply for something like an E-1 (which, I understand would require investing significant money in the USA) would that increase my odds?
Are there any steps I can take to make it likely in the future that I can receive a visitor visa?
It is almost universally accepted (outside of a few small echo chambers), men ("male bodied people") and women ("female bodied people") do have, on average, differing interests and propensities. Are you under the impression this isn't the case?
I’ve seen a few people on the internet who believe there are differences, but I’ve never met one in real life. And not for small sample size- the fact that there aren’t differences has always been a common topic of conversation in every social setting I’ve been in- my classrooms, workplaces, hanging out with friends, etc. It’s amounted to hundreds (thousands?) of people who know that there are not mental differences between sexes, and none who believe there are. Every family member, every girlfriend, every professor, every coworker, etc.
But none of been willing to explain to me why we know this; when I ask they think I’m trying to make a rhetorical argument that here are differences, and react poorly. I’ve stopped asking them.
I don't think it's surprising that there's little relevance between somebody's financial wellbeing/decision-making and their tendency to believe misleading or false news that concerns political identity/ideology.
Of course this thread is guaranteed to be an absolute shit show, but it's revealing the level of intense emotiveness shown by your post and the one before it, and most of all by the Google execs.
Were this directed at a tiny ideological fraction of the population it could be OK, but we are talking about give or take half of the voters of the USA, UK, Poland, Hungary, Austria, etc., etc.
And when Google has such a near monopoly on massive swathes of the web that is quite concerning.
Just two things. First, any hatred directed any group regardless of size is simply not acceptable in a free, modern society as it would undermine democratic principles.
Second, in a free and modern society it is ok to have diametrical oppossed views to any other Group. Which is an integral part of Democracy.
Funny enough, there are always people, mostly with pretty radical views, that are severly infuriated by contrarian views. The other way round it is just fine.
Not sure where you’re getting the numbers to back up your 50% claim. At most it is around 15% in UK, 30% in the US and somewhat higher in the Eastern European countries.
Alt right conservatism is not a mainstream ideology anywhere in the world. Nor will it ever the way things are going.
'Alt right' is a vague term, and has been since Richard Spencer claimed it and regular conservative folk stopped using it.
Strong border controls are quite obviously supported by far more than 15% of the UK population (and I say that as an immigrant to the UK) - look at the Brexit vote.
In proper terms, perhaps, but things like Trump, Brexit, and strongly anti-immigrant, populist conservative, leaders like Salvini, Orban, etc., in Europe, are all generally placed in the same camp by the media.
Ultimately we are discussing the visible rage and despisement towards the winnning side of a national US election vote. That is incredibly concerning coming from a company as powerful as Google, and we know the same sentiment is shared across Hollywood and the mass media.
Trump's stance is anti illegal immigrant which should not affect any Google execs.
Re: approval ratings, its a moot point. Trump has enjoyed generally similar approval ratings to Obama (at most single digit percentage points lower) and ultimately won a free and fair election in a first world Republic.
Having the leaders of a global monopoly megacorporation display this kind of disdain for the elected leader of the country and everyone who supports him, and (by implication) similar populist leaders across Europe (and their supporters), is extremely, deeply, disconcerting.
And I hope you are not seriously stating that a company cannot have political views opposed to the government? It's either a democratic election (to have a legitimate government) which implies different opinions regardless of majorites or not (so that nobody can oppose the government). You cannot have it both ways.
Yes, but it's SO impractical as to be unusable (remeber, that E=mc^2, so m=E/c^2, which means m is REALLY small).
Edit: You will get very small amounts of matter from energy. Small amounts of matter will mean very low thrust. Much better use of that amounts of energy is just collecting interstellar medium and accelerating it.
it is worse than impractical actually light is the best propulsion method per energy consumed (as propulsion efficiency depends on speed) it is just that to expel a given mass of light you also need a huge dead weight to emit it.
it would be way more useful to have a method to turn matter into light. this would be a fantastic low power space engine.
(not really an expert, but pretty sure about this)
Well, to turn matter into light is basically the same as turning matter into energy.. which will, of course, produce a lot of it: E=mc^2
That's really hard though, unless you use antimatter+matter. And then you'll have to produce the antimatter first, of course. And you're back to square one.
Well, not necessarily; if you could efficiently produce and store antimatter, that'd make a hell of an energy storage mechanism, and possibly make interstellar travel feasible. That's a HUGE if, obviously.
That right there is a fuel with a Roland Emmerich scale for potential (nuclear) fallout. Can you imagine trying to sell that to the public? "Combine the worst parts of both Challenger and Chernobyl." The public doesn't really accept normal nuclear power plants.
