Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- From: Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:44:36 -0400
On 1 May 2006 09:15:16 -0700, the renowned mrdarrett@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On 30 Apr 2006 12:45:09 -0700, mrdarrett@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Luhan wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On 30 Apr 2006 11:18:11 -0700, mrdarrett@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/29/day.labor.ap/index.html
That's VERY common around here.
However, I have a method which seems to (somewhat) sort out the legals
from the illegals... "Do you have a checking account? Show me your
checkbook."
Tomorrow should be an interesting news day.
Also, I just could care less about 'illegal' aliens: If you didn't come
here to blow up something up or kill someone, you are not *even* on my
radar. Its not so much a question of legality, it a question of
priority.
Its also interesting that no one seems to mind all of 'illegal'
Canadians who live here.
Illegal Canadians? Where? Why would they bother to come here?
I guess you haven't checked out Yuma, AZ, recently. Almost as many
Canadians there as Mexicans. And I'm sure not all of them go back to
Canada in the summer.
That still doesn't make sense to me.
1. It's far, far away from Hollywood.
The snowbirds migrate there in winter quite legally and do little but
spend money and add to the local economy. Lots in South Florida too
(more Francophones there), and many own winter homes and vacation
properties. They're not allowed to work, of course. If they stay more
than so many days in a year (by a complex formula) they have to file a
US tax return showing world income. It's not double taxed because of
treaty, but it causes problems because the tax-shelter nature of
Canadian retirement plans is not recognized by the IRS. Lots of those
unassuming old farts have $1M++ in an RRSP and commensurate sheltered
investment income on which they pay zero tax. I'm not sure what the
legal limits are for maximum stay. In the past I don't think anyone
has tracked this very well, but it's probably different now.
2. That close to Yuma, why not go the whole hog and go to Tijuana, or
Cancun, if they want heat?
Lots do go to Cancun (closer by air than Arizona to the major central
population centers, and not much further than FL) and de islands, but
you can't realistically drive there. I don't know why anyone would
want to go to TJ for more than an afternoon (or perhaps evening if
you're into that sort of thing).
3. Why YUMA, of all places? (Not skiing in Flagstaff? Not
superheated Phoenix?)
Nice place, warm, dry, fairly friendly folks, rule of law, very
affordable, others of their ilk there. Not as safe as home, but
neither is Mexico or Jamaica. There's even a couple ex-pat newspapers
in FL.
4. If anything I'd expect negative flux: Americans fleeing to Canada
for the healthcare. ;)
Not available for free to non legal residents. There used to be a
small USian ghetto err 'community' during the Vietnam war in Toronto
(on Baldwin street, still a bit hippy-dippy).
Then again, so many things don't make sense to me.
When a crazy driver cut right in front of us, and drove my wife livid,
I told her we live in a non-ideal world: if everyone drove safely, car
insurance companies couldn't make a profit... ;)
If insurance is legally required, they might.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@xxxxxxxxxxxx Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- From: Richard Henry
- Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- References:
- Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- From: mrdarrett
- Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- Prev by Date: RoHS
- Next by Date: Re: Scanning electronic magazines
- Previous by thread: Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- Next by thread: Re: (OT) well there you have it...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
