Is there an exemption, say, if a Chinese person were immigrating to the US and they already owned an EV for several years and wanted to bring it with them? Or is there a massive import duty on things like that?

What happens when a Chinese person immigrates to the US and wants to bring their car with them?

There's nothing quite like buying a new one of some lost thing and upon deciding on the perfect place to keep it, finding the original...

edit: bonus ADD points if you find two originals there

Have often thought an electric chair w someone strapped to it more adequately conveys the shock and shame that a crucifixion did in the first century. It was something that only happened if you were a terrible person. Can see why the Jews thought Christianity was incomprehensible and why the Greeks thought it was mental..

I'm probably at about a 1/10 in ampscript. I just don't use it enough. I tried something like what you are describing but it didn't work very well. Trying to debug ampscript that runs in an email template at send time by copying into a cloud page and then trying to mimick the various properties only available at send time was just maddening. I can't comprehend how Salesforce bought such a buggy and poorly thought through piece of junk. It's a coin toss whether some of the main menus even load half the time. Ergh...

I loathe debugging ampscript and anything to do with marketing cloud with a passion..

With about 12 years in my primary language I'd say my expertise is expressed in knowing exactly what to Google..

R

U

Couldn't God have just populated the earth with male and female copies of Jesus, who would all just tell the serpent to fuck off? Wouldn't that have been fine? Less child rape and cancer of the eye etc. Just sayin..

Yawn

Amazon's cloud based Simple Storage Service (hence the S3). It is, in ELI5 terms, a file storage service like Microsoft's OneDrive or Apple's iCloud. A bit like a harddrive reached over the internet. You transfer files to and from it.

That's grossly oversimplifying of course. S3 has some important technical differences to a straight up "cloud drive". And it comes with a mind boggling array of options so it can be customised to be the storage of all sorts of very large real world applications and websites.

Hmm...

"Churchill held a hierarchical perspective on race, believing white Protestant Christians to be at the top of this hierarchy, and white Catholics beneath them, while Indians were higher on this hierarchy than black Africans."

"Churchill saw British imperialism as a form of altruism that benefited its subject peoples because "by conquering and dominating other peoples, the British were also elevating and protecting them"

"Churchill stated that the "great barbaric nations" would "menace civilised nations", and that "The Aryan stock is bound to triumph""

On the matter of Jews conquering Palestine: "I do not agree... for example, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not agree that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

"During a White House lunch in May 1943 Churchill said "why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior?""

In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" with regards to immigration from the West Indies

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill

Etc

Ah yes, well known leftie Winston Churchill...

That's definitely the case for some, depends what kind of politician they are.

Since you asked nicely :)

A few more where "churchy" words are invented rather than the bog standard everyday term that was used..

Repent - this just straight up means "change your mind" (perhaps "change your heart / ways"). It doesn't connote anything to do with church confession or being on your knees or talking to a church leader. It sort of means "sort yourself out". I find it slightly more endearing (and less preachy) to imagine first century Jewish men walking around Judea saying "change your ways! The rule of God is about to happen!". That almost sounds exciting. Artificially translating it as a word that we nearly never use outside of a church context makes "repent!" sounds far more judgemental and confrontational than it actually is.

Apostle - this means being "sent out" and there are far more suitable everyday words that mean exactly what a first century hearer would have heard. "Emissary" is one. But also the sense of "ambassador". So Jesus appoints 12 ambassadors to go out and spread the message. Makes sense. It ties far more nicely with the fact that Jesus conceived of a "government of God" that was heavenly rather than earthly. So since we already have a well working concept of an ambassador for that, there's no need to keep the Greek and invent a church word like "apostle". (I also think "ambassador" trends to spell out the special role that these original people had being sent directly by Jesus, whereas there are all sorts of Christian sects today using the title "apostle" in a somewhat casual way that I think, in part, is because no-one knows what an "apostle" is - it's a church word - and that means the meaning can be bent at will)

Deacon - this just straight up means "helper". In Acts 6 the "ambassadors" find that haven't enough time to distribute food, so 7 helpers (deaconos) are recruited. Less high faluting, and far more down to earth. Every assembly of believers has a helper or two. Makes sense.

Presbyter - this is a church leader in some branches of church. It means "elder". Through the new testament, the believer communities have multiple "elders" the same way any village would have its own gathering of elders. It was a mundane everyday social role that connoted maturity and wisdom. Timothy, a young leader appointed by Paul, gets told not to worry that he's young for this reason. When Paul finally goes up to Jerusalem to meet Peter and the other original believers after many years he's not even interested in "job titles". He just seeks out "those reputed to be pillars of the community" (Galatians 2:9). Leadership in the new testament was far more relational and communal that the profession it turned into. Keeping the original mundane descriptive terms (which were not job titles) would help with this.

Pastor - means shepherd. I'll let this one pass because "Pastor Barney" sounds infinitely less weird than having "Shepherd Jim" and "Shepherd Tom". Though I believe these are some corners of Christianity where this is done. Even so, no-one has the title "pastor" in the new testament. And Jesus positively discourages the disciples from using titles in multiple places.

Bishop - again this is from a Greek word that's ended creating its own word instead of being translated. It originates from the Greek word "overseer". Or, perhaps even more mundanely, "manager". In the new testament it's somewhat interchangeable with "elder".

Priest - this is a complicated one. In the old testament, the people doing the sacrifices at the temple were kohen. We translate that now as "priest" in English but - badly. As we saw above in the new testament the new Christian communities had elders (or managers) with a handful of helpers. The word for elder - the Greek presbyteros - is what eventually morphed into the English "priest". But this simply meant an elder in a community and had nothing to do with offering sacrifices in a temple. So why in English translations is it the old testament temple workers who are called "priests" whereas the new testament leaders are now called "elders"? Well. In the first century, having communities of believers looked after by elders had a distinctly communal feel and was a far cry from the old Jewish temple system, lead by "sacred men" who did the sacrifices. However, Christian thought slowly evolved to understand that even though Jesus' sacrifice on the cross had done away with the need for the Jewish temple system, the "elders" in church were sort of invoking Jesus' sacrifice when they organised the communion meal (eucharist). So eventually what started as a mundane word for village elder came to absorb the idea of being a holy man making sacrifices, a "priest" by our modern understanding of the word. So then both new testament leaders and Jewish temple leaders got called "priests" even though the words used for their respective roles in the bible are totally different. But this suited the then Catholic church just fine, as it had evolved to see a similarity of sorts between the old temple priests and the new church priests. Then the reformation happened (16th century). And a bunch of Bible scholars said "wait a minute... these aren't the same thing at all" and on their way out of the Catholic church as Protestants they decided the new testament leaders are very much not making sacrifices and if the old testament is going to have "priests" then the new testament translation should revert to "elder" to keep things nice and clear. And that's what we've got now in most English translations like the NASB, NIV and so on. Meanwhile, Catholic translations of the Bible tend to keep both the old testament and new testament leaders both called "priests".

This is simplified and there's more to it but you get the idea.

End of part 2

Having 0% chance of ending up in the UK because you're processed offshore and automatically denied entry is what actually works.

This is what Australia did and they reduced deaths from illegal crossings to 0.

They also reduced trafficking in Indonesia because it turned out a lot of that was making its way to the south coast to illegally enter Australia.

Stopping the system of exploitation from working has benefits that ripple outwards.

If we didn't have an asylum system breaking under the strain of false and bogus claims we might actually be able to open new legal routes to those facing a real emergencies. The largest cohort arriving in 2022 was working aged Albanian men. There is no emergency in Albania. About 90% of claims were rejected at enormous cost via accommodation, legal fees, court time etc. This is grossly unfair on those we should actually be helping.

You need to know who exactly you're dealing with on the French coast.

I think there should be more safe, legal routes to the UK away from danger. But I think these have to be political decisions supported by voters and passed by parliament. (Like we had for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, there should be more of that, so long as the UK population supports it). I think we should also take our fair share of refugees entering Europe (obviously that's now complicated by Brexit).

The decision being made on the coast in France is not whether or not to flee some horrible thing in, say, Pakistan. They've already done that. The actual decision being made is whether to stay in France or risk going to the UK. So the question really is "What's so bad about France?" (Or any other safe country passed through for that matter).

The criticism about how genuine some of these claims are is that someone actually fleeing truly terrible things would kiss the ground as soon as they got to Italy, or Greece or Germany or France and so on. Unless, perhaps, they're not in a genuine emergency, rather they're just fed up of home and want better economic prospects elsewhere. That's what we find when we look back at, say, 2022. The largest cohort arriving illegally in the UK was working aged men from Albania. There is no emergency in Albania. About 90% of their asylum claims were rejected.

So why the UK for these guys? Well it's probably due to the fact that's it's much easier to work here illegally partially due to us lacking an ID card system like the rest of Europe. Plus our particularly humane welfare net providing free accommodation, free healthcare and free legal costs is easily taken advantage of while a bogus asylum claim can be strung out for years and years.

That's why a portion of them are thinking a risky channel crossing is better than staying in France. If they know their asylum claim is bogus, far better to spend some years working cash in hand (illegally) in the UK than having a rougher time in France, or be found out sooner in Germany and so on.

Many claimants are genuine, of course, primarily women and children were granted asylum in the UK. But the question again is, if one is fleeing a genuine emergency, what's so bad about the rest of Europe?

Many are trafficked there. So their decision to cross the channel illegally is not really theirs. But rather it's the assumption of their abuser that they're more easily exploited in the UK. Again, the lack of an ID card system makes this more likely.

Ultimately it may be impossible to have a full window on to how the decision to get into a bad dingy is made when you're already standing in a safe country like France. But what is certain, is they would not do it if it meant a 0% chance of ending up in the UK.

Almost all illegal crossings are intercepted. They're then documented and put in the UK asylum system. If instead being intercepted meant you would be processed offshore and denied entry to the UK automatically then that takes away the single biggest cause of dangerous crossings. In other words, an actual deterrent.

Obviously the Rwanda plan was flawed. But the portion of it that has automatic offshore processing and automatic denial of entry to the UK are the parts that actually worked and started having an effect on decisions.

This is what Australia did too and they managed to reduce deaths from illegal crossings to 0.

I think there should be more safe and legal routes to the UK for genuine emergencies. I think we should take our fair share of refugees entering Europe that are found to have genuine claims. I think illegal crossings to the UK should be 100% precessed offshore and should have automatic disqualification from ever entering the UK. I think the asylum system needs far more investment so that cases are progressed quicker. I think we should not be afraid to deport false claimants to dangerous parts of the world. All in all I think our asylum system should be rigourously defended from false claimants, gangs and traffickers so that resources can be prioritised for those in genuine need of help and rescue.

Oh I get it now. Gave me a giggle.

Joking aside. The state of the UK is no deterrent to economic migrants who are coming to work cash in hand. The largest cohort arriving illegally in 2022 was working age Albanian men. There is no crisis in Albania. About 90% of male asylum applications were rejected. It was a bunch of guys taking advantage of the fact that they were one dodgy dinghy ride away from grifting in the UK. Our lack of ability to deport most people means they get free accommodation, free healthcare free legal representation for years on end.

A special agreement to allow deportation to Albania was signed last year but that's just one country out of many.

Having a more efficient asylum system won't deter anyone that we can't actually deport. The incentives are basically all wrong and encourage fake asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They generally don't stop in other safe countries in Europe because I) for many their goal is not safety, it's the UK ii) the lack of ID cards in the UK makes working illegally trivial compared to many other European countries iii) the UK is more attractive because it's more easily taken advantage of (generous legal system, free housing etc) compared to other countries and especially compared to when they've come from.

I think there should be safe ways to claim asylum from actual disaster zones that parliament has approved. There are a couple, but getting more agreed is something that voters should support.

I think the UK should take its fair share of refugees arriving in Europe. Again, this should be a formal legal process. Not dangerous illegal boat crossings.

The last piece then had to be a guarantee that if you arrive via an illegal boat you will not end up in the UK. That is the only thing that will stop them. Nearly 100% of illegal crossings are intercepted, it's just that current that means they're housed in the UK and enter the legal system.

If that was changed so that 100% of illegal boat arrivals are processed outside the UK without any prospect of asylum then illegal boat crossings (and deaths) would end. This is exactly how Australia stopped the same problem.

Obviously the Rwanda plan did not work. But an actual deterrent means arranging a safe 3rd country when illegal entrants are moved to automatically.

I think legal paths into the UK should be more generous. But again that needs to be a voter / political process.