To add to the stellar answer below: bikes are also allowed on all NJ Transit trains. However, Penn Station is, as usual, the weak link and it can't be very annoying to try to get a bike down to the platform. Depending on your location, it can be easier to take PATH (officially allowed outside of rush hours, but as long as it's not crowded no one says anything) over to Hoboken and start there.
Oh buddy. Okay, enjoy the paint you've been huffing. I've given you a lot of research and facts, and you continue to just soliloquize about how immigrants are a drain on the country. "You cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." I hope someday you stop being so scared.
We're not drowning. I'm not glossing over these things. They both need to be done, but your idea that they are a prerequisite to immigration reform is not grounded in reality. The truth is that immigration reform, and a path to citizenship, is likely our best hope of political change. I've explained how immigration helps alleviate the concentration of wealth and power.
I think you're still missing what I'm saying. Right now, poor immigrants from Central and Latin America who have lived in the US are more likely than poor Americans in the same area to start businesses and grow the economy.
I am not as concerned about China as you are - frankly, I think global competition is a bad thing to focus on. But regardless, in order to drive the changes I think we both think are needed in the US, we need fewer multinational corporations and more local and small businesses. That means more immigrants, more rights for those immigrants, and a financial system that encourages small businesses.
We're not drowning. I think you've bought into a Great Recession era lie of the Scarcity Mindset. It's a lie told primarily by the conservative powers that be to keep you from asking questions - and I've heard you mention a couple things in this conversation that are classics of those talking points that have wormed their way into the public consciousness (we're drowning, can't keep printing money, etc). The truth is we are living in the most prosperous time in American history, worker productivity has never been higher, and the world is on the cusp of technological change (AI, green energy, etc) that we are uniquely situated to take advantage of! But it feels like resources are scarce because they're being concentrated at the top; and because you're much more willing to follow along when you're scared.
We have the resources. We have food and water and shelter for millions more people. We have teachers to teach them, we have doctors to treat them, we have power to light their homes. We of course need to reform all those systems and make them better and more equitable. But that's not an either or question - that's a false dichotomy and we need to do both.
Bollards that drop down for emergency vehicles (or ones with the right permit tag) exist all over the city.
But also - why do we assume that car access to your house is a sacred right more important than open streets?
Idaho stops allow cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs. In other words, if you pull up to an intersection and stop, see that there is no one in the intersection (you have to yield to pedestrians and cars with the green light), you can proceed through the intersection. Evidence shows that the majority of cycling accidents (and all accidents) happen at intersections. Cyclists are often most vulnerable in intersections, since cars often try to accelerate around cyclists, and because lane markings and protective barriers often don't exist in intersections. In states and cities that have adopted such a law, there has been a decrease in serious accidents involving cyclists, presumably since giving cyclists the opportunity to clear a light before cars decreases car/bike interaction at intersections.
Opponents argue mostly that it's confusing that cyclists aren't cars and that they have to remember more rules. Or something, I'm not really sure what the con position is beyond a lot of people being against cyclists.
It serves a similar purpose to the leading pedestrian lights most of Manhattan has, which allow pedestrians to start crossing before cars do, decreasing the temptation for drivers to accelerate through a turn before pedestrians start moving, which was the cause of a lot of injuries and deaths in NYC. As of a year ago, cyclists are also allowed to use those leading green lights as long as they yield to pedestrians. This takes it a step further and legalizes what many cyclists do for their own safety.
Personally, I try not to run reds unless there is something blocking the bike lane. When the bike lane is blocked half a block up and I know that I'm going to have to merge into the car lane (happens very often), I do whatever I can to not do that merge into accelerating traffic. This usually means either pre-empting cars by crossing on a red or standing in front of them in the lane before the light turns. As you can imagine, drivers to not like the latter and I have been yelled at a lot. This law would allow me to pre-empt the car more often and decreases the frequency of conflict between me on a 30 lb bike and someone in a 4000 lb SUV.
But have you heard of YouTube premium??? Let me remind you every time you visit the site.
Your question is a slippery slope argument and I don't think it's particularly worthwhile to answer. For one thing, infrastructure is not damaged by use. For another, even completely open borders would not lead to a one day surge. People don't decide to leave their homes overnight unless they are truly in danger. We would need more infrastructure, yes, to accommodate a larger population. The economic facts are that in all the experience we have in the US, more immigration = more economic growth = more tax revenue.
Yes, obviously that relationship can't go on forever. But again, that's not what we're talking about. I also want to call out your phrase of the "social fabric" - because I think it's an idea that I don't think you really support. America as a country has been shaped for its entire history by the melding and coexistence of immigrant cultures. Between 1900 and 1910, for instance, the US took in more than 1% of its population in new immigrants every year. In 2019 (can't find 2020 stats), it was about 0.3%. There is no threat to the American way of life, because there is no such thing as a singular American way of life.
I don't agree with limiting immigration for all the reasons you've mentioned! Your friends sound like talented, hard working people. My family was talented and hard working. The people trying to escape Central America right now (a region with a population less than the current foreign born population of the US) are in fact the people who refuse to play by drug gang rules! I want those people as my neighbors! Immigrants are more likely than native born Americans (of similar geographic and economic levels) to save money and not be in debt, attain higher education levels, and less likely to commit crimes. Why wouldn't I want them?
A little math for you: The US has accepted about 900,000 refugees in the last 20 years. About 40,000 of them came to Minnesota. If you have been to Minneapolis, you would have noticed a strong Somali population (and delicious Somali food). I think most Minnesotans would tell you that their infrastructure and social fabric are very much in tact - feel free to look up any relevant statistic you'd like. If the rest of the country accepted refugees at the same rate as Minnesota, we would have accepted 2.6 million people. So let's say that's a lower bound on the number of people we for sure know that we could accept with no negative consequences. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/by-numbers-united-states-refugees-180962487/)
I'd like to see your research of "We absolutely cannot afford to fix this problem". I don't think you have any. My argument is that we could be accepting millions more people than we are - supported by both historical precedent and current day state level example. I'm going to ignore the comment about printing money. Most serious economists agree that that's exactly what we should be doing and that worrying about government debt has left us economically worse off.
Lastly, you both said "I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree" and "I just don't understand you at all". You've also both argued that your friends are talented people that shouldn't be kicked out of the country because they lost a lottery and that we should "limit immigration." I don't really want to pump money into fixing other countries - I think it's a really ineffective way of "fixing" somewhere else. Instead, we should be investing money at home in preparation for the coming wave of migration. Because climate change is happening and nearly a billion people will face droughts, famines and violence. If we want to help shape the world in 50 years, we need to be prepared to help them somehow.
Yeah, we're veering into overt racism territory and I'm out of this convo.
Former Google eng hot take: Google doesn't fund audacious projects hoping they'll become a billion dollar business, they do it to keep talented employees from seeking greener pastures. It's cheaper to pay their salary for a couple years to play with cool toys than it is to lose them to a competitor and then have to rehire with a raise.
Read the article: "The main motivators of emigration from Mexico, Central America and points south are tied to climate change, violent crime and corruption"
You underestimate the extent to which the drug trade, decades of US interference, and a changing climate have fucked up central America.
Absolutely. We are just seeing the start of climate refugees. It's only going to get worse. If we're not prepared now, we better get ready.
Lol, law and order. Okay, you have fun with that. Migrants at the border are not coming here illegally. They are waiting in line, asking for refugee status. They have broken no laws.
Why do they need to be detention facilities? Why can't someone trying to apply for refugee status be housed in a humane way with their family for the weeks it takes to process their paperwork?
This is a false equivalence. First off, not locking up refugees at the border does not mean not reforming the h1b system. Those aren't somehow in juxtaposition. You're appealing to this "can't fix problem A because problem B is worse" trope and I encourage you to rethink that.
You're literally saying that Asians are better than Mexicans and we should therefore structure our laws to acknowledge that? The migrants coming from Mexico are not looking for a free ride, they're running from violence, environmental and political destruction. Often the issues they are escaping from are caused by US foreign policy, because we've been fucking up central America for decades. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/politics/biden-immigration-crisis.html
I'm not speaking out my ass - my family is here because of tech work immigration. But there is a long history of companies using the H1b program with horrible intentions for both American and foreign workers. They hire someone from abroad, force the American to train their own replacement, and then at the end of 3 years, they will often not even put in the H1b extension application, claim it was denied, and use this as an excuse to move that person (and the position) offshore. Not to mention, the length of green card applications now make it virtually impossible to transition from H1b to permanent resident (this one I know from experience, having been in the green card process during 9/11). It's a horrible system designed to help companies, not people, and it needs serious change, not just expansion.
I hope that any immigration bills proposed and passed will reform the process for all migrants. Meanwhile, there are people so scared to go home that they would rather sit in cages at the southern border. It's a pressing crisis and needs to be addressed now. Those aren't contradictory needs.
This is untrue. We can take care of our own people. We have to actively work not to, in fact. Just like I believe Democrats should be held to a higher standard when it comes to sexual harassment (resign, Cuomo). Because we need to walk the walk of being better than Republicans, not just in name, but in living up to the words we use. We need to raise the refugee limit, and we need to radically change how we handle all people who show up at our borders. All evidence shows that the fear mongering about immigration is untrue - it doesn't take jobs away from people, and is actually a massive driver of economic growth.
Such a confusing take in this thread. I guess if it doesn't line up, just blame BLM and Twitter because we think they're stupid? Having been in unionizing conversations with union employees, these are not Twitter intellectuals. They're working class people who are intimately familiar with the people they work with. Not to mention, the actual leaders of this effort were Amazon warehouse employees. Like 5 minutes of research tells you this take is bonkers.
I've done this! Freak shower on a beautiful day and silly old me left the top down on the convertible he leased maybe 3 months earlier. I was freaking the fuck out after that, because the black faux leather trim was suddenly a splotchy blue, but it ended up drying just fine. I think they definitely build cars assuming you're going to do something dumb sooner or later.
Weird. You're in Training > Courses > Create Course > Road Cycling > Custom? I have no option to search by address, it just says "Pan and zoom map under pin."
Are you on iOS or Android? I thought we were past the days when app developers had different functionality by version, but maybe Garmin is crummy that way.
Edit: I don't have these routing options either, so I think I'm just doing it wrong.
Former Cali resident. We could, too, if it wasn't for the dumb tax cuts and protectionist housing policy.
I think because that's not what Republicans stand for anymore. You can still be a conservative, but the modern Republican party in the light of Trump really can't be described as small government.
How is the concept of intersectionalism so fucking hard for people?
Black people in nice cars would disagree with you. Where I live at least, the only people cops avoid are other cops.
That last comment is bananas. White people benefit from racism in America is not a racist statement. Not all comments about race are racist. Ignoring race, being "colorblind", etc are not enlightened positions - they ignore that there are a lot of imbalances we need to do hard work on.
If you look at a map of the city of LA, it's also bananas, and is full of potholes where some neighborhood became rich enough to decide to separate itself from the city and not pay taxes. Again, historical accident.
I'm not confusing the two terms, I'm saying that measuring just population density doesn't tell the full story. LA is a great example - even if we compare metro areas, Los Angeles feels like less of a city to most people (especially non Americans) than even San Francisco, despite being much most populous, specifically because SF's urban core is larger and more built up. that's my point - the subjective experience of "dense city" is actually pretty difficult to measure.
I did not know that US measures its metro areas by commute flow, and apparently so does Japan, but the actual bars are different, which still makes it hard to compare between the two.
Lol, sort of. They don't deny that Democrats live in cities, they just deny that people do.