Who the fuck cares about the hypothetical performance of the plane in some scenario that didn't come to be? What we have is a track record of A-10 performing a stellar job in the wars that have actually happened, from Iraq in 1991 onward. And with ISIS it looks like there will be more of that kind of thing in the future. Retiring a highly successful piece of military hardware when there's clear need for it now and in the future, and no suitable replacement, is just retarded.
What about western Europe?
They don't really rely on skilled immigration to a significant extent. And for what they do, they have states in EU itself to cover it (Poland, Romania etc).
The US is the most populous developed country therefore in absolute terms will always have more jobs and more immigrants.
Even if you look at per capita numbers, US does beat Canada, which I would argue to be the most skilled immigration-friendly country.
However the quality of life is really debatable. Many people would prefer the quality of life of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia. Personally I think oil rich Norway seems to offer the best quality of life.
The mistake that is often made when estimating said quality is looking at the averaged stats. Thing is, if you're immigrating for the sake of a good job, you need to look at what that job (and others like it) will give you, as opposed to the average or the median. In US, the average is indeed lower than most other western countries because of the wealth gap and piss-poor welfare policies. But people coming here for high-paid jobs (like IT) are getting a deal that's much better than average. And with enough money, you can absolutely have a great experience in US - a good house safe low-crime neighborhood, a great school for your kids in the same neighborhood, solid healthcare, and a private pension fund for retirement. And plenty of jobs to pick from.
If you compare to a hundred years ago, yeah, it's better on most counts.
If you compare to, say, 50 years ago, then e.g. wealth concentration was better then, and the average middle and worker class income when accounted for purchasing power parity was better, too.
I can assure you that even the most pessimistic prognoses that I hear here in US are still way better off than where my home country is, much less where it's heading with all the recent events.
Unless you're into the whole TEOTWAKI stuff. But even taken that for granted, the consequences of such a thing would be just as severe everywhere else. In fact, I would dare say that US (well, at least some parts of it) would be more likely to survive pretty much any conceivable doomsday scenario with something resembling a functional society.
The point is that US effectively does have a program to bring high tech workers into the country as immigrants. It's just that it's not actually designed as such, and so the end results are much worse (for everyone) than a properly designed and managed program like that.
I don't see the point of comparing with most of those other 160 countries. Unlike US, they don't have a history of relying on immigration to maintain population and workforce growth. OTOH, the countries that I have named do. But unlike US, they're smart about how they do it.
This is already the law with respect to H1B. The problem is that it's not enforced well, and there are many legal tricks to artificially lower the target wage level.
What you and a lot of other people don't understand is that for many of us, H1B visas are the only viable path to a green card. US immigration policy is rather ridiculous in that respect in that it doesn't have a properly designed, dedicated skilled immigration track, the way e.g. Canada, Australia or New Zealand do. So in practice that role is subsumed by the "dual-intent" H1B, where you come into the country on that as a "temp worker", and then get your employer to sponsor you for a green card.
Thus, H1B has two kinds of people lumped together into it: the true temp workers, usually paid low wages, and kicked out as soon as their visa expires; and people who are trying to actually immigrate and using it as a stepping stone. In most other countries, the two pools are separated much earlier on.
Why not stay in whatever country they currently reside and try to have an impact there?
As an H1-B from Russia, let me give you the answer:
Because I get paid waaaay more in US (even accounting for cost of living and cost of property). Because this is a more stable and prospering society with crime levels several times less. Because I can actually get into politics here on any level from local to national without risking my neck.
Basically, because the grass is greener on this side of the fence.
TFS assumes that all great programmers actually want to live in the US.
It doesn't. It assumes that there is a sufficient number of great programmers who don't want to live where they currently live, and for whom a country like US that is easy for them to move into and that would offer great career opportunities would be very attractive. That is certainly true for pretty much anyone from a third world shithole somewhere in Africa or Asia, and even for many from relatively well off middle class families in Eastern Europe or Latin America.
Now it's true that US is not the only one offering this deal. The main players in the market today are US, Canada and Australia. Of these, US is the hardest to immigrate to and has the most associated red tape and the least clarity; Canada is arguably the easiest. OTOH, US generally offers the best career prospects, and the highest quality of life in terms of how much to earn vs cost of living, so it's still the #1 destination for skilled immigration.
Why don't you let them decide where they want to stay and what they want to improve? They're not slaves, you know.
If company X wants to hire the top 20 programmers in India then they can do that. And those programmers can work from home (in India).
They can, and do. But when that happens, people start complaining about how those programmers working in India (and hence being paid proportionally to the cost of living there) undercut them. And they also pay their taxes in India, and spend that money there, thereby subsidizing Indian economy. So from your perspective, it's better that those same people are employed in US - where they have to contend with the cost of living here (and demand the appropriate wage), pay income and property taxes here, and spend their earned money here.
Unless, that is, you're one of the people who are complaining about the "curry stench".
If you get SWATed by mistake, you won't even get a chance to "be calm" - the first thing you'll know is your door being broken in and a flashbang flying in. Go ahead, stay calm.
Don't forget that states themselves can initiate an amendment (through convention). Then you basically just need 3/4 of the states - first to submit the amendment, and then to ratify it.
Here's a fun fact: because of the disparity in state size and population, it's actually possible for the Constitution to be amended with less than 50% of electorate in favor, so long as they are all in smaller states (if you take the list of states and sort by population, you'll see that the top 1/4 adds up to more than 50%).
The constitution (hence the name) legislates the rights of the government versus its citizens and the rights of the citizens versus the government
And any law enacted that restricts citizens' speech (whether it is directed against government, or other citizens, or something else entirely), is enacted by the government. By Congress, specifically.
And the Constitution specifically prohibits the government to enact such laws.
Seriously, you're arguing against the literal meaning of the amendment. Even ignoring the centuries of precedence on the subject (which convincingly say that you're wrong - have a look at Brandenburg v. Ohio), even just the text itself makes it blatantly clear: Congress shall make no law. Don't embarrass yourself.
And the proof or evidence that this will happen is where?
In the fact that it happened in every other communist country to date that has underwent a similar process.
Are we so naive that we trust their government and corrupt to do what we think they should for the good of the people?
No, but I trust their government to be pragmatic. It's easier to rule over fed people than it is to rule over hungry people. And when there's a fresh new revenue stream, and not even crumbs from it get to the people, the latter get restless, and restlessness leads to riots. Any smart and successful dictator knows that. Judging by how long the Castros have been going, they're not deficient on both counts. So yes, they will share. Not much, perhaps, but even a little helps.
All of Europe has been in free trade with Cuba. By your logic, if it were to really help, it would already have.
And it did help, of course. If everyone would embargo Cuba, it would be as much of a shithole as DPRK is. But it's not.