Canada's Tech Firms Capitalize On Immigration Anxiety

Given a 90 minute drive (the time it takes to drive from San Jose at rush hour on a good day), one can find a house for $500k in Antioch or Brentwood. The markets are comparable.

I'll reply one last time to your philosophical/moral vacuity:

The foundations of libertarianism is a belief that individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.

A "moral" system that deprives people of human rights, is amoral, and not worthy of honor or respect.

By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Poles, and others. It was justified by the Nazi moral framework.

This is why moral relativism is a bane, and a curse, and the source of many evils.

With regards to immigration, you have no right to demand the loyalty of others towards you or anyone else, or make it a precondition to alleviating the deprivation of their rights.

You have no right to restrict who I can engage in commerce with, or really to restrict any sort of interpersonal relationship I can have. You trying to prevent me from doing so is a violation of my freedom.

Visa restrictions are similar to banning interracial marriage. Interracial marriage means X race has more competition from people Y, Z races. Great.

I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.

> Either way, I think they're in my interest.

I think I told you in my parent comment, that I give zero fucks about your self-interest, as long as you pursue your self-interest in a manner that respects the rights of others.

> ... the physical power to make us .... Yes, it was, and so they did it until someone more powerful made them stop

You're basically saying, I will continue to violate the rights of others, enslave others, oppress others -- until someone more powerful stops me.

In other words, your moral framework can be summed up in three words: might is right.

What a terrible moral framework.

Well, I don't believe in the Nazi-Darwinian crap. I believe in basic human dignity (as mentined in the EU Charter[1]), and in the inalienable rights of man, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence[2].

Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? No. I would fight against it, and with violence -- if necessary.

> If you want very badly to get what you want, and are not powerful enough to make it so, then you have no choice but to convince those that are powerful enough

Or I don't try to convince you under your depraved moral framework, and instead I get my gun, and shoot you and kill you.

All I'm asking for is that you respect my basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, I am justified in using violence against you, in self-defence, as I try to defend myself and others against the violence you try/wish to inflict upon me and others.

Things do get to the point of violence, in a situation like this, when parties can't agree on what is morally right. One party is willing to deprive the rights of others to forward their self-interest. The other party believes in respecting the rights of all human beings. When such a strong disagreement on such a fundamental moral issue occurs, violence ensues. I can't convince a slave owner that their self-interest won't be affected by them losing their slaves. Similarly, I'm not going to make a self-interest-based argument with you. This is about funamental human rights, which you seem to despise.

[1] http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/1-human-dignity

[2] http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jef...

> I believe individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.

You didn’t define these individual rights and human rights yet. Every few years someone invents a new ones. Should we have something so vague as a foundation of our system?

> By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Polet, and others.

You are conflating several things. The Germans weren’t acting in their jurisdiction, they invaded others. They were no longer keeping theirs whats theirs, they were taking from others.

> What a terrible moral framework.

If you say so. I’m still avoiding the judgement of yours, despite having a suspiction of confusion of ideas.

> No, restricting who I can engage in commerce with, or really any sort of interpersonal relationship, is a violation of my freedom. I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.

If you do not intend to respect the law of the land, you can still move out. Well, if someone other will accept you. You might find that the other countries are not as open as you think they are and you might be a subject of same or more restrictions.

And again, we are back to inventing a new “rights”. Why should be your “right” something, that possibly damages communities in your existing jurisdiction?

> Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? Fuck that. I would have fought against it, with violence, if necessary. All I'm asking for is that you respect basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, honestly, I am justified in using violence against you, to defend myself against your acts of violence against me.

At the time, your moral values would be different and you would do zilch. You still do not have objective criteria to define them, they are formed by the current prevailing ideology. Unsurprisingly, in different parts of the world, they are different. The adage “every nation deserves the government is has” is unbelievably true on many levels.

I would be very, very careful with inciting violence. The chances are, if you cannot persuade others about your ideas using communication, you definitely won’t persuade them using violence.

It doesn't. And the average joe isn't going to move either.

However, the Waterloo software engineering graduate who's making 150k+RSU+bonus is probably nailing a Principal engineer position at a famous american tech company in SF/SV/NYC/Boston and is absolutely going to nail big bucks. Thats some superstar material right there. The only places I've seen that approached those numbers in Canada were Canadian offices of Wall street banks. And having worked for those companies in the past, superstar engineers at Morgan/Goldman in NYC made me look poor.

And i'm far from poor.

The OQLF breathing down our neck bitching we didn't translate every single piece of internal software we had and exclusively use Quebec layout keyboard was fucking annoying. They apply their rules in a discretionary fashion so it affects different companies differently, but having to fend them off continually is a pain.

The caliber of engineer is just bad too. There's always the occasional superstar teams, but it's really, really hard to find a good spot unless you have connections...and even if you do, 2 years later as personnel shifts it goes to hell again.

I would have taken a pay -cut- to work in a different city. Fortunately, you'll never have to since the salaries are so bad.