Shipping Mexican citizens into the US won't fix the problems in Mexico.

Those Mexican citizens aren't trying to solve the problems of Mexico as a whole. They're trying to solve the problems that they have as individuals.

And, of course, no-one asked them if they want to be citizens of Mexico when they were born, so Mexico is not entitled to having them solve its problems, either.

They don't have sovereignty, the Mexican state does. To what extent it actually represents the citizens in general, and these citizens in particular, is a question that you should ask before pursuing this line of argument any further.

Saying that green card lottery is a viable way to legally immigrate is like saying that gambling is a viable way to legally earn money for a living. It's true in a very pedantic way, but practically meaningless.

I'm not saying anything of a kind. In fact, I didn't say a single word about what government should or shouldn't do, only about your attitude towards people who break that particular law. I don't know about you, but I know dozens of people who break the law - most of them smoke weed. I don't see why it should affect my opinion of them in any way, since it's obviously a bad and stupid law that I don't have to respect.

I am an H1B as well, so I can relate. But ...

Let me make this clear: you are being abused (the terms of H1 visas are effectively abusive for would-be immigrants due to the way they tie you to a specific employer with a very complicated switching process, and reset your green card application if you switch while it's still ongoing), and so you don't like it when other people - who don't get even the abusive option that you do - dodge that?

(And of course being in US as an illegal immigrant is still a very subpar experience to being legal ... hell, just try opening a bank account that way!)

The point is, people tout the illegal status of an immigrant as some kind of huge moral character flaw or failure, sufficient in and of itself to treat them as scum. I'm merely point out that it's not true in general, and specifically depends on how easy it is to immigrate legally for the same person, and how strong are the reasons that prompt them to immigrate. As I'm sure you know full well from your own experience, it's not a light decision to take in the first place, and US immigration system in particular is a mess of gigantic proportions with no coherent immigration policy whatsoever - just a confusing mish-mash of random decisions made over the last few decades.

Can you give an example of an immigration track for an average Mexican, then? What visa he should apply for first etc.

The only thing I can think of is the green card lottery. But it is just that, a lottery, it's not something you can actually rely on to get you there, no matter how long you wait.

Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?

I don't see any sexual insults, but I do see a slang term used by the 'Tea Party,' for a while, to describe themselves.

Also, he should read a correct translation. The commandment is 'do not murder,' not 'do not kill.' The Bible is perfectly clear that there's a time and a place for killing. Both Testaments are pretty clear on that.

Lets not forget, Christianity is, above all, an apocalyptic religion.

If you buy a game that requires steam (Orange Box, W40K: DoW, etc) I'd say that qualifies as having spent money on steam.

Honestly I think the kind of person who is likely to go off on such a petty rant isn't going to give a damn if there's a camera there or not. Their sense of superiority and ego is such that they don't actually think at any moment that they are wrong, so what difference would a camera make? It's like saying that the guy with anger issues will not have a road rage episode because of a camera. He's not thinking about the camera - he's off in his own little rage world temporarily but completely disconnected from reality.

The ease of being swayed has nothing to do with knowing what is true and what is not.

It's not so much that others are idiots, it's that they actively resist any attempt at being enlightened. They rejoice in their stupidity.

Just simplify it, most of psychology is immature people who don't want to take responsibility, complaining that they might have to take responsibility for there actions. For the real cases of people who have chemical imbalance, it's about understanding how the brain forms attachment and reason.

Sure, but that's essentially it's current state, and everybody knows that. But some people do want to experiment with a microkernel still, and so here we are.

Well, a large company has more senior and chief managers, too. Obviously one guy cutting his paycheck wouldn't make much difference, but several dozen just might.

Well, the standing hypothesis for domestication is that it wasn't really conscious, it just happened to be beneficial for both species - but for wolves first. Presumably they started by scavenging on edible remains left in the vicinity of human camps. The wolves that were less shy (so they approached the camps more) and exhibited less aggressiveness (so they would be chased away less) had an evolutionary advantage in that population, and so they bred for those traits. At some point that could have produced a wolf tame enough for people to take notice and try to consciously domesticate and breed them from there, presumably as hunting companions initially (or maybe even that was originally just a natural symbiosis).