A couple of nits

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the person is a US citizen leaving the US TO go to another country, they are emigrating from the US. Using the United States as the frame of reference, they are emigrating. If you use the place they are moving to as the frame of reference, they are immigrating. So, if you're in New York, watching them sail past the Statue of Liberty in some human scow, you'd say they are emigrants. Some time later, in (for example) Sri Lanka, someone watching them sail in an the aforementioned human scow would call them immigrants (and probably be holding signs saying "Yankee Go Home" to boot).

You can think if it as emigration == uploading people (emigrants), and immigration == downloading people (immigrants).

If he wanted to discuss both the inflow and outflow of people, he should have simply used the word "migration", as in "permitting unrestricted migration to and from the US", or to be even more specific considering the context, "permitting unrestricted labour migration to and from the US". However, he was specifically talking about the movement of US labour "to ANY country in the world", which means he's talking about emigration, not immigration.

Mind you, the US already has this in certain labour sectors: Mexican fruit pickers in California and Florida already represent an unrestricted flow of seasonal labour over one of their borders. However, it's not strictly speaking legal (though it's entirely possible that the blind eye has been turned for so long that an argument could be made that it is in fact legal due to lack of enforcement).

Of course, this leaves the question of how the US would force target countries to accept US immigrants completely open...

Post #138,510 by jake123 1/29/04 10:23:10 AM Reply	A couple of nits That would be "unrestricted Emigration to ANY country in the world". Also, that would be up to the countries receiving the immigrants, wouldn't it? --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,520 by CRConrad 1/29/04 10:38:02 AM Reply	Huh?!? Mongreahl Shaqq gets it all wrong: That would be "unrestricted Emigration to ANY country in the world". Why not IMmigration too??? Are you saying that the US (or Canuckistan, for that matter) does not accept an INflow of money?!? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,528 by jake123 1/29/04 10:49:48 AM Reply	Simple If the person is a US citizen leaving the US TO go to another country, they are emigrating from the US. Using the United States as the frame of reference, they are emigrating. If you use the place they are moving to as the frame of reference, they are immigrating. So, if you're in New York, watching them sail past the Statue of Liberty in some human scow, you'd say they are emigrants. Some time later, in (for example) Sri Lanka, someone watching them sail in an the aforementioned human scow would call them immigrants (and probably be holding signs saying "Yankee Go Home" to boot). You can think if it as emigration == uploading people (emigrants), and immigration == downloading people (immigrants). If he wanted to discuss both the inflow and outflow of people, he should have simply used the word "migration", as in "permitting unrestricted migration to and from the US", or to be even more specific considering the context, "permitting unrestricted labour migration to and from the US". However, he was specifically talking about the movement of US labour "to ANY country in the world", which means he's talking about emigration, not immigration. Mind you, the US already has this in certain labour sectors: Mexican fruit pickers in California and Florida already represent an unrestricted flow of seasonal labour over one of their borders. However, it's not strictly speaking legal (though it's entirely possible that the blind eye has been turned for so long that an argument could be made that it is in fact legal due to lack of enforcement). Of course, this leaves the question of how the US would force target countries to accept US immigrants completely open... --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,532 by CRConrad 1/29/04 10:55:17 AM Reply	Ya got it effing backwards, ya numbskull. Inthane was NOT "specifically talking about the movement of US labour 'to ANY country in the world'" -- he was talking about allowing movement of labour INTO the US. But thank you sooo much for explaining the difference between emigration and immigration to me. Are there any other simple words you think I need to know? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,535 by jake123 1/29/04 11:01:51 AM Reply	Here's the quote, dumbass "Either restrict the flow of money, or allow unfettered immigration to ANY country in the world." You can't allow "immigration to ANY country in the world", you can only allow "immigration from ANY country in the world". Of course, in real terms, the US does allow emigration to any country in the world; the problem is getting the countries to actually let them in to work. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,536 by ben_tilly 1/29/04 11:05:13 AM 1/29/04 11:31:22 AM Reply	I wish we did some forcible emigration My list of people that I'd like to see emmigrate includes Ashcroft, Bush, Karl Rove... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi] Edited by ben_tilly Jan. 29, 2004, 11:31:22 AM EST Expand All History
Post #138,537 by jake123 1/29/04 11:08:35 AM Reply	ObPedanticSpellingNit: emigration <- one m. Gotta keep the grammar/spelling flame alive... thanks for providing the opportunity to do so! ;) --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,543 by orion 1/29/04 11:20:53 AM Reply	Not possible other countries will not want them. :) *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,539 by hnick 1/29/04 11:11:05 AM Reply	FROM any country, and it also works
Post #138,542 by CRConrad 1/29/04 11:19:18 AM Reply	Here's the SIGNIFICANT quote, nitwit: Money flows in and out of the U.S. like water, without (significant) restrictions, yet the movement of labor is strongly restricted. Which way is it that "movement of labor is strongly restricted" in the US, ya think -- out of the country, or _into_ it? (You see any "ENS" rangers patrolling the Rio Grande, trying to keep the gringos IN?!? :-) You can't unilaterally "restrict the [international] flow of money", either; t'would take international regulations. And in that context, yes, you COULD make sure to "allow unfettered immigration to ANY country in the world". [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,541 by inthane-chan 1/29/04 11:15:20 AM Reply	"migration" works best for what I was trying to say. Thanks

Welcome to IWETHEY!