For me, it was for a nearly 100ft run that try as I may to get a good termination, I'd often find my Mac Studio and Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch struggle to negotiate at more than 5gbps. So I got a smaller switch upstairs, ran 10GbE to it, approximately 10ft, and then ran OM-3 fiber for the 100ft up into my attic, across my house and down into the garage. Rock solid at 10 Gbps.
Aetna has their own scumminess. Want the convenience of 90 day refills? Have to use their mail order service. They'll refuse to authorize >30 day supplies of medication through any other pharmacy.
Oh yes, because the vast majority of employers in the US say "pick whatever healthcare plan you want from whatever carrier you want, we'll make it work" and not "You'll get what you're given and be glad for it".
Even in tech spaces with money to throw around, that just means that maybe your partner and dependent's premiums will be covered/negligible, or that your deductible will be low.
You're still going to be fucked by their policies, though.
> "If I focused on my health, ate clean and exercised daily, why should I also be subsidizing Billy "video-games-are-my-exercise" fatass's chronic health conditions?"
Then why are you not asking your insurer why they cover a lot less preventative health or other options. For example, Kaiser flat out refuses to prescribe GLP-1s for weight loss, others insurers are the same with gym subsidies or not covering nutritionists.
Yup. My immigration attorney said that (when I was dealing with a brief lapse in status, due to a divorce and moving and due dates) "as a white person, and a man working in a high paying job", I was "pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole for USCIS enforcement efforts" while we resolved my case.
And sorry, given ICE's mandates, ruled temporarily okay by SCOTUS, that color of skin, accent, name are effectively "probable cause" for detention, I'd say her perspective is absolutely aligned with current enforcement priorities.
If the government was prioritizing people with darker skin, it would go after visa overstays first, because that’s the primary illegal immigration route for asia and africa. (There is virtually zero illegal immigration from Europe. E.g. only 0.6% of DACA recipients are European. They don’t factor into this discussion at all.) Instead, the government has been focused on border crossings from latin america, where the average person is half white. Maduro’s wife whom they just arrested is a white blonde lady! Kilmar Garcia and his wife are whiter than anyone on The Jersey Shore. Meanwhile, illegal Indians are flying under the ICE radar.
Clearly the distinguishing factor is money, not melanin.
By Europe you are excluding Russia right? Mexican/Latin American wealth is correlated to skin color like it is in the USA, so most of the illegal border crossings are from those with darker skin, not just the “average Mexican.”
I’m not excluding Russians. They make up a vanishingly small percentage of DACA recipients, for example: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/daca.... I don’t know where folks got this idea that there were tons of europeans overstaying their visas. Visa overstays are a route for Asian and African illegal immigrants. And however you slice it, those folks are going to be darker, on average, than the folks coming over illegally from latin america.
This whole narrative is silly. The government is prioritizing stopping the flow of poor people more than people who can afford a plane ticket. Obviously.
DACA are just dreamers, by that measure most DACA holders are probably South Korean (left over from babies who came here in the 80s and early 90s, and can’t go back because to South Korea of harsh conscription rules). I’m not sure what you think DACA has to do with real illegal immigration (actual adults coming to the USA and overstaying their visas, not just babies).
It seems odd that the US government doesn't have enough resources to just go after everyone whose in the country illegal, and instead has to prioritize and triage based on e.g. money or melanin. I think people would find it more fair if they just went after everyone whose illegal.
Even the fiance visa program (K-1), which I went through 19 years ago. is affected by similar requirements.
It's set up with a number of safeguards:
The USC has to apply for it on behalf of the immigrant, while the USC is physically in the country, and the immigrant must not be (to prevent coercion).
But the visa is set up to expect the USC to be the primary breadwinner. I get that part of this is to dissuade "buying a visa" (but these days, hah).
But my USC fiance was a student while I was an Australian IT professional. The government wanted us to demonstrate that we could support ourselves for months while I found a job, but literally didn't care what finances I contributed to that.
Ended up that her mother had to sponsor my visa using her house as surety. For which I am entirely grateful, but bleh.
They didn't expect her to pay for our lives, but meant that if I used any government resource such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security in my first ten years as a resident, that the IRS (I think) could be asked to effectively bill her for reimbursement of every dollar.
> People with connection to January 6 United States Capitol attack are all pardoned
Hah, many of them have been hired by ICE since.
> The president himself is also a convict.
Funnily enough, Florida made an exemption for him that allowed him to vote, despite their laws against convicted felons voting. They decided that since he had only been found guilty, and not sentenced, that he was not, yet, a convicted felon.
I wonder how many other people in Florida in the same situation could vote, or whether they'd be laughed at.
Yeah, though who would enforce those laws? At this point you have the head of DHS stating at press conferences that she's directing ICE to disregard federal court rulings.
It's not. I was a "90 day fiance" immigrant (the concept, not the show).
We had a sincere relationship, but we both agreed that our marriage, while genuine, was earlier than it would have otherwise been other than logistics of an trans-Pacific romance.
We stayed together 5 years, then separated/divorced, amicably. In the midst of all that I missed a USCIS filing date.
I was out of status briefly, but also in a situation where I was ostensibly entitled to stay (USCIS would have to demonstrate a belief that the marriage was under false pretences), so I hired an immigration attorney to straighten things out (which basically involved filing paperwork that I needed to file, and a letter from her and one from me explaining why I missed it.
She did make the comment to me during all that though that I had no cause for concern above and beyond that, quote:
"I hate that I can say it, but the reality is you're both 'the right color' and a high-earning male. USCIS has you so far down the list of their priorities for reconciliation you could stay here decades before them calling you to account".
Most K1 applications are approved, most are female, most are not white.
I doubt your case would have been any different had you not been a "'the right color' and a high-earning male".
She wasn't referring to K1 visas specifically, she was referring to USCIS and how they'd prioritize dealing with enforcement actions against people in non-compliance with their visa obligations.
And I'd suspect as an immigration attorney, she likely had first-hand experience of same.
Would be unlikely that the USCIS radically changed their approach when dealing with paperwork messups for populations if these different countries while apparently approving applications at basically the same exact rate.
You're not understanding. This has nothing to do with the K1 visa. Or approval rates. I came from a low risk country.
This is about adjustments of status, for any visa, and people who fall out of compliance and are in a period of being "unauthorized" to be/stay/work in the country.
And sorry, given ICE's mandates, ruled temporarily okay by SCOTUS, that color of skin, accent, name are effectively "probable cause" for detention, I'd say her perspective is absolutely aligned with current enforcement priorities.
I think you are not understanding me. My contention is adjustments of status snafus isn't going to be much different than K1 approval rates in terms of how people are treated. It seems by the numbers, people are treated the same as it relates K1 whether they come from a "right skin color" country or not. Why is that going to be wildly different when it comes to minor issues?
reply