SivaGanesha

aphid--and the article quoted--are right that there is an important difference between the two countries. Canadians living in the USA can legally sever their tax ties with Canada while remaining Canadians. An American living in Canada always has to file US tax returns. While no actual tax may be due if everything is done properly, the penalties for not reporting properly--even if technically no tax is due--can be draconian. You are right that is tough to enforce if one is not living in the country that wants your money. I guess one question is how far the USA will go to enforce this. If a dual citizen is living in Canada for 20 years with only ordinary middle class income from Canadian sources--will they be arrested at the border for tax evasion if they ever try to visit the USA again? Or will the IRS take a more reasonable approach when it comes to enforcement. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Certainly the fact that the US government is broke is part of the picture here. And I'd tend to agree that the 'punishment' here--even the 'reduced' punishment that is being proposed should people come forward 'voluntarily'--is way out of proportion with the 'crime'--and is indeed draconian or, as you put it, bullying. I'm sure there are a few multimillionaires who are, indeed, tax cheats and have transferred large sums of taxable income--that was earned in the USA--out of the US to foreign bank accounts without paying the appropriate tax. It's hard to have much sympathy for that group. But the vast majority of expats from the USA would be middle class (or lower) on the economic spectrum. These people wouldn't have owed any US tax--had they filed--and they have already paid all Canadian tax due on their income/assets. Seizing from 5% to 25% of these people's hard earned assets does seem way, way out of line. It is my understanding that Canada has pledged NOT to assist Uncle Sam in collecting the money allegedly due. Since it is, technically speaking, not a tax, the IRS cannot use the tax treaty to force Canada to force Canadian residents to comply. So as long as someone never returns to the US, I think they can just ignore this requirement as a dual citizen and be safe. However there is another side to this from my perspective. Once again I find myself surprised by the ignorance that some North Americans seem to have about dual citizenship issues. I think it may be a generational thing. I'm 47. I've noticed that North Americans even slightly older than I am have had a very laissez faire attitude about this kind of thing their whole lives and then are genuinely surprised when this sort of thing comes up to bite them. Whereas anyone in my age group or younger understands that citizenship/residency issues are a serious matter--and, if they have ties in both countries, they make sure that they keep their lives in order in that regard. This man who wrote this article appears to be in his sixties and clearly hasn't done so. And he's a full, tenured professor at a Canadian university--surely he must be an intelligent person. He claims that he wanted to renounce US citizenship when he became a Canadian citizen in 1986--but the question is why didn't he? There is some bureaucracy involved--you have to go to the consulate and take an oath--but people today who don't want to be a dual citizen deal with these issues--they don't let these things slide. This man appears to have moved to Canada as an intelligent, professional, adult--why didn't he research his responsibilities and take care of them? Again, the punishment proposed here is way out of proportion to this guy's mistake--but he still clearly made a mistake and the question is why he did so as an intelligent person? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Many of the examples you cite are related to the choices that men make--as opposed to specific laws that restrict the rights of men. Thus it becomes a bit harder to build a movement demanding certain rights--because the men already enjoy those rights, but may need to make different life choices in today's world. For example, if men are committing suicide at a much higher rate than women, that is unfortunate--but it is hard to know what specific right men need to demand to rectify this situation. The women's movement was very strong because it was fueled by some very specific things that women could and did demand. For a men's movement to be strong it would need IMHO to formulate some clearer demands rather than just enumerating a list of areas where the results achieved by men are disappointing as compared with women. There actually WAS an extraordinarily strong men's rights movement in this country at one time, although it wasn't generally referred to by that name. I'm referring, of course, to the movement opposing the military draft in Vietnam. Once that objective was achieved in early 1973, however, that movement came to an end. There definitely ARE areas in which men are falling behind women but to form a strong men's rights movement I think men would need to articulate more clearly what they wish to change. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

People's choices of words are IMHO significant even when those choices admittedly do involve a level of hyperbole. For example, I often hear men--outside of this thread--using very submissive language to describe their relationships with women, referring to their female partners with terms like "The Boss" or "She Who Must Be Obeyed". Such terms may be used with a sense of love and/or humor and/or hyperbole. But I think it is nevertheless significant that I never hear women using the reverse terms to refer to their male partners--one never hears the women referring to their male partners as "The Boss" or "He Who Must Be Obeyed", etc. So, yes, certain choices of words are clearly not meant to be taken 100% literally but the fact that a particular word was chosen still communicates something significant about the underlying human relationships. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I think the pendulum is already beginning to swing back, though. I'm male and in my 40's. I don't have hard statistics but my impression is that young women today--early to mid 20's--are far less interested in feminism than the women of my generation and older were when they were young. Feminism has already won the younger generation of women most of what they could want/need so it is not as relevant as it once was. Again, I could be mistaken but it seems to me that the kind of intense, man hating, ball busting, bra burning feminism that I remember from my youth has largely gone out of style. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes, I believe the most recent was Franklin Roosevelt. John Garner of Texas was the Vice president his first two terms, Henry Wallace of Iowa for his third term, and Truman for his fourth (who of course, seceded him. Nelson Rockefeller, who was Gerald Ford's appointed VP, was dropped as Ford's running mate in the 1976 election in favor of Bob Dole. Of course the Ford-Dole ticket lost to Carter-Mondale. But it's not quite the same situation as there was never a Ford-Rockefeller ticket--indeed, neither of them were on the ticket in 1972. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Where would veterans who have come home and now make more than $250k / year fit in under your proposal? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

So who, specifically, WILL stop thinking that Penn State won a bowl game? If the answer is "no one"--then what is the point of vacating the wins in the first place? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Not yet. But the same witchhunt mentality that led to the wins being taken away could just as easily lead to the degrees being taken away. I agree that such a decision would not be up to the NCAA--it would be up to the school. If one bureaucratic organization can take the wins away, what would prevent another bureaucratic organization from taking the degrees away? And losing a degree WILL have a real present day effect on anyone with a job that requires a degree. Plus sometimes life isn't just about tangible practicalities. Sometimes one wants to be able to look back with pride on past successes...even when those successes have little impact on one's "real life". When you take that away from these ex players...they can no longer say honestly say, hey, I played on an Orange Bowl champion (for example). At that point something very intangible...but also very important...has been lost. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

You seem to be saying here that of the following two crimes: A: Sexual abuse of a child B: Covering up the sexual abuse of a child for financial gain --you seem to be saying that A is the more serious crime. I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. Certainly A is one of the most despicable crimes imaginable. But I think a strong case could be made that B is even worse. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I doubt there is any joy for Penn State's opponents, but I'm sure there is sorrow for the former Penn State players who have essentially had their college football careers taken away from them by this retroactive decision to vacate their wins. That seems very wrong to me. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

That is why 99.44% of the time you need a statute of limitations. The child abuse charges themselves--by this I am referring to the criminal charges against Sandusky and, had he lived, Paterno--should carry no statute of limitations. The absolute most serious criminal charges should not carry a statute of limitations. But everything else should. Let's say years down the road you nullify a marriage because of some sort of misconduct--be it child abuse or impersonation of a priest or whatever. Assume the couple had absolutely no knowledge that the contract of marriage wasn't valid. What then? Let's assume the couple gained various benefits--perhaps tax and/or immigration and/or insurance--from the marriage. Do you retroactively charge the couple criminally for the fact that they obtained those benefits illegally? In my opinion, no. If it has only been a few months since the wedding, you might ask the couple to have another ceremony (civil or religious) just to make things legal. But if years have gone by, you accept the fact that the statute of limitations has expired and the marriage is perfectly valid. Again--for 97 year old Nazi Holocaust perpetrators--for child molesters--there is no statute of limitations. But ONLY for the heinous crimes themselves--not for anything else. You DON'T make a criminal out of every innocent person their lives may have touched. The philosophy you are espousing makes some sense but the penalty imposed isn't really consistent with that philosophy. Your position is that Penn State was ineligible to compete from 1998-2011. If that is true, all of their games--including their losses, not just their wins--should have been vacated. If Penn State was fundamentally ineligible to compete, then their opponents should NOT gain the benefit of being credited with a win against Penn State. By vacating only the wins, not the losses--an outcome determined on the football field--it seems to me that somehow results on the field are being linked to a child abuse scandal. And that makes no sense at all to me. Another consideration, perhaps a minor one but one that gives me pause for thought--is why was the last win in 2011 after Paterno was fired also vacated? Clearly the justification you cite--that Penn State was participating in a cover up--no longer applied at that point. By firing Paterno they made clear that they were acknowledging that there was a serious problem. True, that was only one win out of the 112 wins that were vacated. But it still calls into question whether the principle you cited was truly the justification for the decision. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The fine, the bowl ban, and the criminal prosecution of Sandusky all seem reasonable under the circumstances. Where the sanctions go too far, IMHO, is when they vacated all of Penn State's wins from 1998-2011. The accusations against Sandusky and Paterno--serious though they are--have nothing whatsoever to do with performance on the football field. This sanction formally takes away all on field accomplishments achieved by Penn State players for a period of 14 years--putting a retroactive mark of shame on the careers of players who had nothing whatsoever to do with this scandal. That's much worse than punishing current players, because the current players at least have a chance to consider other options (transferring to another school perhaps?) that they might pursue to make things right. Vacating Penn State's wins would be roughly equivalent to annulling all marriages performed by the Catholic Church from 1998 - 2011 because of that church's own child abuse scandal. It's punishing one group of innocent victims to make up for the real suffering of another group of innocent victims. Way out of line IMHO. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Only a guess but I'm guessing it didn't originate with the parents. I'm guessing the message your daughter picked up originated with older girls going through puberty. As girls hit puberty they begin to 'notice' the boys and, in particular, they notice that the boys who are into math/science are nerdy/geeky. That's not the kind of guy that the girls want to hang out with at that point, so they abandon their own interest in math/science to get out of that neighborhood, so to speak. To increase female participation in math/science I think you need to first improve the image of the male participants in those fields. Why would a young woman choose a career where she will be surrounded by men she finds unattractive? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The imperative IS on the visitor. It is up to you to persuade them to let you in. The fact that you are proposing to spend money in the US economy is, indeed, often quite persuasive but there CAN be other factors come into consideration. There are risks involved in everything in life like skydiving, driving, or crossing an international border as a visitor. As I've said before in this thread, I think you were unusually unlucky in how you were treated but the decision to take that risk was yours. Again, risk management. The more documents you carry the lower the risk but at a certain point the risk is low enough that it may be silly to worry. If someone is attending their green card interview where their entire future may be on the line, they often will bring all of the above and more. For crossing the border in tourist status it would be very rare to carry this much paperwork. But I assure you it is NOT unusual--in general, I cannot comment on skydiving in particular--for someone crossing the border for some specific US event to carry some documentation about the event--especially if the event might not be familiar to CBP people. Yes, that is the law. The problem is that sometimes Canadians misunderstand what this law means and somehow think that a Canadian passport is a guarantee of risk-free entry to the USA. It's not and never has been. What it does mean is that, for many nationalities, they have to first apply for a visa at a consulate and then actually attempt to enter the country. Both the consulate (State Dept) and the border (CBP) have the power to reject such a person. For a Canadian, they may legally skip the first step and avoid the consulate entirely--but the border (CBP) still has the power to reject them. US immigration law has an international reputation for being very strict--and this has always been the case even before 9/11--here's another post by a non-US skydiver considering steering clear of the US because of its tough immigration laws: change of career/ cutting away The "visa exempt" status does NOT--contrary to the apparent belief of many Canadians--excuse Canadians from these tough laws. It simply means there is a bit less bureaucracy in some cases. "Better educated and less hostile"? I'll agree with you on the "less hostile" part but I have to disagree on the "better educated" part. If you are crossing the border to take part in an unusual activity--such as skydiving--expecting the CBP to be well educated on that activity seems a bit unreasonable to me. Bringing some documentation to help them understand seems like common courtesy to me. You asked earlier about how much documentation a person is expected to carry. Usually people bring along extra documentation only for aspects of their situation that might be a bit unusual. Agree with you that there should be some due process. Bear in mind, though, that due process takes time and it generally requires entering into evidence some of that documentation you seem reluctant to carry with you. Does Canada offer such a thing to Americans denied entry? Like I said I think you were unusually unlucky but--as in the link I posted--other skydivers do seem to understand that US immigration law is quite strict. I believe you but I don't think it has anything to do with their gender or looks--because definitely young single women DO have problems on occasion. Your friends have simply been lucky so far and you were not. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

True. But I get the sense that it isn't usually the people who are clearly coming in as tourists who have a problem. It is the people who are staying a bit longer but calling themselves 'tourists' (from an immigration, not a skydiving, perspective) who tend to have trouble. Thank you for the correction--although even being rated in Canada it still could raise questions. If you were formally representing Canada during a trip to a foreign country, did you bring along a letter from CSPA explaining that you were representing Canada, stating you wouldn't be paid for your services while oustide Canada, and stating that you would return to Canada afterward? Did you bring a similar letter from the US hosting organization--probably either the DZ or USPA--providing a similar assurance? Did you cross the border at a time when these organizations would be open to receive a telephone call in case CBP wanted to call to verify? That's usually how these matters are handled to minimize the chance of trouble. Of course, it is possible you did all these things and still encountered an unusually difficult officer such as this Officer from Helle--in which case, again, I wish you well in your legal battle. As noted above, usually this is done by bringing along some documentation beyond just hoping they will take your word for it. Single young women who are crossing the border for indefinite time periods get hassled every day by CBP. However in that case the assumption tends to be made--and also considering a packer doesn't really need to bring much across the border besides their own gear--that they are going to visit and essentially live with a US boyfriend. Usually in that situation they are allowed in but with an I-94 for some limited time period (eg 1 month). Often that is when they decide it is time to marry the US boyfriend to end the hassles. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Thank you for the correction - I think my lawyers are using habeas to request the right of due process. Although I confess, much of the jargon ultimately exceeds my grasp. What Andy9o8 said. Actually I also participated in response to your earlier message. To be clear on myself--I am NOT an attorney. However I'm very familiar with the process because I've been through it. I grew up in Canada but came to the US as a very young adult and have now spent more than half my life in the US. I'm now a dual citizen and am very familiar with all the games that need to be played to deal effectively with CBP, USCIS, ICE, etc. I wish you the best of luck but agree w/Andy9o8 that if you are currently represented by counsel they should be your primary source of info. It would not make any more sense for someone to offer legal advice over and above what your own attorney is saying than it would to for someone to try to correct online the skydiving advice of someone's skydiving instructors. Having said that it would seem to me that a two pronged approach would be desirable here. One is to cut down the clear cut cases of abuse by CBP that occur at the Canadian border (and elsewhere). And the other is for Canadians who cross the border regularly to become MUCH more familiar with US rules in regard to customs and immigration. Some of these abusive situations might be avoided if Canadians put some effort into better learning the rules. See, I completely agree with you that CBP expressed its concerns to you in an abusive manner. But I also understand why CBP might have had some concerns in your case. A quick look at your profile shows that you are a "USPA Coach, Pro Rating". And in the CBC article in which you are quoted you say that you are a videographer--"takes professional-level photographs and videos [of skydiving]". So you are qualified professionally to work in your field--both as a coach and a videographer. Moreover you have a USPA coach rating--not a CSPA coach rating--meaning you have taken the time to earn the appropriate professional rating to work in your field IN THE USA--as opposed to Canada. So just playing devil's advocate--I can understand why CBP asked some questions about your intentions. Now I believe you when you say that, despite the fact that you are qualified, you had no intention of working for pay in your field in the USA. Unfortunately, however, the legal test is a bit stronger than that if you want to enter the USA legally. Even if you intend not to work for money, are you performing services (for free) that--if you weren't there at Eloy--an American might have been hired to do (for a fee)? By performing services for free, are you taking a job away from an American who might have been hired to do the job if you weren't there? That's the actual test. I don't know the answer to that question because I've never been to a boogie at Eloy and don't know how they do things there. But, clearly, there are times when American videographers and coaches do get paid for their services. But, again, having expressed some sympathy for the fact that CBP might have had some concerns, clearly their response of a 5 year bar was extremely abusive. At worst it seems to me you were guilty of a little lack of familiarity with the law--and certainly NOT of intentionally misrepresenting yourself. So at worst they should have told you they couldn't let you in THAT DAY and invited you to try again in a day or two once you could better document your situation and what you were planning to do at Eloy. So I wish you the best in your legal battle. But I also hope that other Canadian skydivers who cross the border frequently for boogies will learn from your experience and will try to understand the other perspective as well--that maybe CBP DID have some legitimate concerns. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The phrase "Register to Resume or Retain Citizenship" refers to a process by which women could regain US citizenship after losing it because of marriage to a foreign man. The law that women would lose citizenship in the first place by marrying a foreign man was repealed in 1922--that law belonged to a different era before women won the right to vote--so that is well before even your grandmother's time and doesn't apply here. Prior to 1967 it was easier to lose US citizenship than it is now--I don't know how long your grandmother/step grandfather have been married--but even then it could only happen if you actively sought the citizenship of another country--not just by staying out of the US. And, also, seeking legal residency in another country is NOT the same thing as seeking citizenship--and was always allowed. The reasonable thing--assuming his health is well enough for him to deal with the bureaucracy--would be for your step grandfather to sponsor your grandmother for residency. She will NOT lose US citizenship by doing so and, moreover, she'd be eligible for Canadian health care benefits. Presumably at age 87 that is something she will want/need even if your step grandfather is the one who is ill. Muffie is not quite correct in that there ARE two other ways to lose US citizenship--but neither is likely to apply here. One is by accepting a policy level position in a foreign government and the other is serving voluntarily in the military of a country at war with the USA. I don't think an 87 year old woman is likely to be involved in either scenario, though. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not sure what I think of this decision by President Obama but just to clarify: this is NOT a full amnesty and it does NOT provide a guarantee against deportation. Basically once it is implemented a young person will need to sign a form stating that they are here unlawfully but are asking for a two year (renewable) deferment of enforcement action. After the two years, if Romney (or Obama if his priorities change) denies the renewal, they are still subject to deportation. How much this actually buys the young person will depend a lot in what state they live in. Some of the more liberal states--eg California and Washington--will consider the person sufficiently legal to get a driver's license legally. In more conservative states--eg Arizona and Virgina--they will still not be legally allowed to drive. In Arizona they may still be sufficiently illegal that they would run afoul of Arizona's controversial immigration law--depending of course on what the Supreme Court does with that law. It is a very tenuous status that this action grants and those eligible would face a difficult decision as to whether to apply. The biggest problem is that such people must make themselves known to immigration as unlawful immigrants and basically throw themselves on the mercy of the immigration system. I'm strongly against illegal immigration but any comprehensive immigration reform would need to include compromise and this group--law abiding immigrants who came here through no fault of their own--are definitely a sympathetic group to show some flexibility with. I'd prefer, however, if this was part of some larger legislation to better enforce existing immigration law. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

When a President (a federal politican) says he's for or against something, it always raises a question in my mind. Is the president just expressing his personal views? Or is he also expressing his support for imposing his views on the states, perhaps against those states' wishes? Do I favor same-sex marriage? Yes. Do I favor states legalizing same-sex marriage? Yes. Do I favor the federal government forcing states to legalize same-sex marriage? No. Do I favor the federal government forcing states to outlaw same-sex marriage? No. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It seems the way to bring some sanity to the TSA would be for business travelers to sue their employers en masse for the emotional trauma caused when forced to travel on business and subjected to an invasive search at the security checkpoint. If this were done, it would matter not one bit if the lawsuits were laughed out of court. To defend a lawsuit for sufficiently long for it to get laughed out of court by the judge will still cost an employer a lot of money in legal bills. It wouldn't take long before big employers--who have much more leverage than the little guy--started to demand a change. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Just to remind everyone of the context here: The original question in this thread was how can DZ's change to increase the number of students who stick with the sport after completing various stages of their training. Rogersmoke made some suggestions based on his own experiences. His experiences may not be everyone's experiences but based on what I've read on here from others, I don't think Rogersmoke is the first young skydiver to ever have an experience like this where he has trouble fitting in after getting off student status. The response to Rogersmoke was that it is totally unrealistic for the DZ to change and he is the one who has to change. Can't anyone else see what I can see--that if the goal truly is to increase the number of students who stick with the sport, then neither the DZ (if Rogersmoke's story is true which I cannot verify) nor the community on here are being especially helpful? If the DZ's goal truly is to increase the number of returning students (the stated subject of this thread) then just possibly it is indeed the DZ that needs to change. Now if the sport wants to treat all new skydivers (except, perhaps, the young attractive females) as tourists who aren't fully welcomed until they go through some extended rites of passage, then certainly it is the right of the sport and the DZ to act that way. The newbie is indeed new and not in a position to decide how the sport or the DZ is run. But understand that if the sport/DZ chooses to act that way, then the number of students who want to become active skydivers is likely to be small and isn't likely to increase much. Edited to add: Actually rereading this thread I guess the original question was how to convince students to become licensed jumpers. But if students become licensed and then quit shortly thereafter because they are ignored and aren't being challenged anymore, that doesn't seem like an optimal outcome to me. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not clear whether he (or anyone else) really has much of a choice in this regard. Can you name a profession where the businesses are NOT focused on a ruthless desire to make money? The problems he describes are not unique to Wall Street. Indeed one reason why I think the Occupy Wall Street movement spread so quickly last fall beyond Zuccotti Park is that the basic criticisms offered by Occupy Wall Street really apply to the whole business community throughout the country and the world--not just to a few very well heeled Wall Street firms. One thing about Wall Street, though, is that it tends to be a world where you either get the big bonuses or get asked to leave pretty quickly. If he was there for 12 years, it probably means he was rising pretty steadily in the ranks--they would have cut him loose earlier otherwise. The culture hasn't changed--what's changed is that as he's moved up the ranks, he's interacting more and more with the top brass and gets to see more and more what GS is really all about. Finally I can't help but notice that, despite his claiming the higher ground ethically, he is still leaving a Wall Street firm at the usual time to leave a Wall Street firm: early in the year just after bonuses are paid in January. He still waited around to get his bonus (or, alternatively, to find out he wasn't getting much of a bonus this year). "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

As someone who tends to think like a libertarian, in theory I'd prefer if this was how it worked. In practice there are problems, of course. One is if this privilege isn't granted, on a reciprocal basis, to Americans wanting to work in the other country. If it isn't reciprocal, you have a situation where the foreigners have access to both labor markets whereas the Americans (unless dual citizens) have access only to one labor market. That isn't a situation that Congress, sworn to represent the interests of US citizens, should be supporting. Additionally, even if someone isn't a convicted criminal, they might have other less than savory reasons for coming. They could be escaping other legitimate obligations in their home country--eg child support or legitimate taxes. Or they could be a criminal who hasn't been caught yet and they are hoping to escape to the USA before the local authorities catch up with them. Finally there is the issue that some would say that, in general, people should abide by laws even if they don't agree with them. So illegal aliens who are already here have broken a law by coming here--true, it might arguably be a bad law--so that doesn't bode well for them staying. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

MA might need to look into some of its other age-related laws if they have 20 year old grandfathers. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014