A broken system. Why isn't the government doing more?
Whether people agree or disagree with Immigration Reform there needs to be a compassionate solution. It's a human rights issue...and it's a crisis.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/843/643/ … of-summer/
There need to be stricter and more stringent rules regarding immigration. Only those immigrants who possess relevant educational and work skills should be allowed to enter America. Conversely, immigrants who possess no such education nor skills should be turned away. America isn't a charity; America has enough problems of her own without adding immigrants who CAN'T contribute to America.
And you think you have problems!
Here in the UK we have absolutely no control over our borders. Anyone from Europe can enter, any criminal, any benefit scrounger, any health tourist, anyone in fact and we can't stop them. There is also an issue with immigrants/ asylum seekers from around the world, as long as they land in Europe they can all come here and no matter what they have done, from terrorism to murder and slavery we can't send them home because of the faceless bureaucrats in the ECHR interpreting the rules as they see them.
In the last 15 years there have been wildly different estates as to how many have come, the general consensus is between 3.5 and 5.5 million with one. Organisation suggesting almost 10 million.
Now don't forget this is not a country the size of the US, it's probably about the size of some of your Texas cattle ranches.
And there will be some that say that the immigrants have caused no problems at all but they really do have their heads buried firmly in their own butts.
Immigration really does need reform, the human rights act needs reform and article 8 needs reform.
Countries can't keep pushing their problems onto everyone else by encouraging their disaffected, underachieving, anti government dissidents and economic disasters onto any country that will have them.
There are so many flaws in that statement that I can't even begin to correct them all.
THANK YOU SILVERSPEEDER, A VOICE OF REASON. You see Silverspeeder, it is the socialist, entitlement, welfare mentality in progress. We just let them in and we'll pay for it. Well, ENOUGH is ENOUGH. America has enough socioeconomic problems with its OWN people without adding illegals to the mix as they are excess baggage that America DOESN't NEED.
But the problem with Silverspeeders response is that like your's, it is emotional and not based on reality.
Our borders are not open to anybody and we work hard to keep illegal aliens out of the country. Those that do manage to slip through have to live under the radar and if caught they are immediately deported and those employing them heavily fined, and I mean heavily.
I didn't know you had your butt firmly filled with your head John.
The reality is John is that we have 149000 illegals waiting for a decision on whether they are to be deported or not, whilst they wait there are an army of the liberal left and looney apologists calling for families and children of these illegals to be released from the detention centres.
And I am sorry to inform you John that you are wrong, there is no limitations to the amount of people who can come from the EU and as long as we stay in there never will be.
As you may of guessed GW John is one of those socialists who believe everybody has the right to take what you have.
DEFINITELY, but I have known that all along. Silverspeeder, the issue is illegals exhausting and draining our overworked social system. The American economy is precarious and highly tenuous. It is totally illogical to bring illegals in; they don't have skills. We do not need people w/o contributable and relevant skills. We have enough moochers in America. America needs to totally revamp its social systems, eliminating welfare by at least 75% and create jobs with living wage so American living standards can be high again. What the politicos in Washington under Obummy fail to realize that illegals will decrease the living standards of America.
In addition to exhausting social programs, they will also take jobs away from low income Americans, thus plummeting the latter into the underclass. There is already conflcits between illegals and low income Caucasians and Blacks. If the influx ocntinues, there IS going to be racial/ethnic war among illegals, Caucasians, and Blacks because of scarcity of rexources. In addition to that, there is going to be hatred of Latino in general.
No, YOU know nothing. I KNOW that the influx of illegals is going to further damage the American socioeconomic fabric. The illegals are to Americans what the Huns were to the Romans. America is going to HELL!
But Silverspeeder and I were discussing the UK. Perhaps you are unaware but the UK is not a part of the USA.
I KNOW THAT, JOHN. JEEZ. America is experiencing problems with illegals as are some European countries. Illegals are arriving in Europe, Australia, and America, using their social systems, draining their economy, and many Europeans, Australians, and Americans are getting tired of their tax dollars going to illegals, often to their detriment. The issue of illegals is a European, Australian, and American concern.
But in the UK, unlike the USA, we have no open borders in mainland Britain. We do not pay any benefits to illegal aliens. We do not provide housing. In fact there are no comparisons between the US and the UK.
But John the original post was about immigration reform and somehow you have twisted into something about illegals.
Not all illegals are ejected from the UK either, the ones who get here and can not be identified as to which country they come from can not deported.
Those who get found claim asylum and sometimes stay that long that the courts rule it would be unjust to send them back.
No the UK is nothing like the US, it's smaller, has limited resources and yet let's more immigrants in as a percentage of the population each year.
"As of the beginning of 2012, the population of refugees, pending asylum cases and stateless persons made up just 0.27% of the population. That’s 149,765 refugees, 18,196 pending asylum cases and 205 stateless persons."
Isn't it strange that your figure for illegals matches the figure for asylum seekers!
You actually introduced the question of illegals. I just followed you.
Sorry John can you point out in my post where I mentioned illegals before you did, I can't seem to find it anywhere.
"as long as they land in Europe they can all come here and no matter what they have done, from terrorism to murder and slavery "
If someone manages to cross the channel from France (in Europe) and manage to avoid the border controls (let's face it non of those in the illegal camps in France are looking to get caught) and then later on are rounded up by the UKBA who then can't establish their country of origin or how they came into the country they can not then deport them. Please explain to me where they would deport them too!
And how many illegals could you possibly know there are in the country? Even the government doesn't know and I doubt very much whether the UNCHR care.
There have been some pretty infamous cases of criminals who have been caught and deported have turned up again and again in the UK, are you really going to tell us there are no illegals in the UK?
I will agree with you about one thing, it has nothing to do with the communists, it's the liberal left wing appeasers that are to blame.
Erm, their country of origin is the last country they were in before the hit the UK which is why so many hang out at Sangette making repeated, foiled, attempts to enter the country.
Even though you accept that even the government doesn't know how many illegal aliens are in the country, you seem to be much better informed than they are. You even cited a number in a previous post!
Of course I'm not going to tell you that there are no illegals in the UK! Many will come in with seemingly legitimate paperwork, beyond the reach of those that you seem to object to most.
The country if origin is the country they came from. If I drive from Birmingham to Barcelona my country of origin is England not France is it. Where you start the journey is the country of origin.
It must be difficult for them to admit they don't know how many illegals there are but they seem to find plenty for the TV shows that they pass of as entertainment and as a foil for those scudding the government of doing nothing and the UKBA of incompetence.
As I said anyway immigration policy should be reformed, unfortunately we are in a position where we have little or no say in it.
If you stop of in France for an indeterminate length of time your country of origin is France. I don't make the rules, I just understand them.
How many is plenty? And what TV shows? The ones where they show raids on places employing immigrants?
Sorry John it shows you do not understand anything. If you are an afghani without leave to stay in France your country of origin will be Afghanistan. Thinking like a liberal left winger you are now.
If their country if origin is France there would be absolutely no reason for them to be returned to France under the current EU migration laws.
You have seen the TV shows then John, I seem to remember the last one I saw was the one in Basingstoke where 5 Chinese takeaway workers were deported for being illegals, one was on his third deportation I remember.
OK, you say no more immigrants from any country. How do you stop them? No more tourists, because they might stay. No more students because they might stay, no more temporary workers, because they might stay.
I'd love to know how you'd achieve your sterile little england!
Now now john that's going a little to far and you would have me sounding like a fascist or something.
Of course there would still be immigration, well thought out immigration policy helps a country to grow, but you can not deny that we have had and continue to have a rediculious approach to immigration, form Blair unrestricted mass immigration of the 2000's to Cameron's idea of a renegotiation of the free movement in the EU rubbish of recent.
As you know I have been in hospital recently and must say that the doctors and nursing staff were excellent ( apart from one little incident), I spoke to a few of the Philpino nurses and they are wonderful, obviously these are the immigrants we need and they are thankful for the opportunity to come, live and work here.
I still can't help thinking there is still not a lot of opertunity or guide nice for our own youth and unemployed to move them towards careers in nursing or the NHS.
But we could do without the millions of unskilled workers that have flooded here in the last 15 years, I thought you may have agreed with that John, surely we have had enough of our own unemployed to so the jobs they have filled and because of a glut of workers it has kept wages low and rich people even richer, it's almost accepted that the only people who have benefited from this glut is the wealthy of London.
Are you sure we could do without the millions (?) of unskilled workers?
I mean, when the price of fruit and veg shot up would you be happy? At least we'd have got rid of all those scuzzy immigrants willing to come over here and be exploited so that we can buy cheap food.
Yes John I am sure, it might take some of those millions off the dole as well.
There's always Aldi.......
I wonder how they do it?
You want your fellow countrymen to be exploited like we exploit immigrants? Charming.
How Aldi do what?
So John you think it's demeaning and we should use immigrants to do it then!
How do Aldi sell the same products, packed or packaged, grown and processes in on the same farms in the same factories as the big four yet can sell at considerably lower prices. And on top of all that they pay above average industry pay.
Silverspeeder, why does anyone elect to have a discourse with John?
I find it quite educational and he does come up with some good points some of the time (I try not to let him know this though). Let's face it when people agree with you all the time it becomes boring.
As I am invalided at the moment it helps to pass the time.
Grace, why does anybody elect to have a discourse with you?
It is not about should or ought at this point--this is how things are. Our economy rests squarely on cheap manual labor. If we just remove that labor the economy (agricultural and service) will collapse. We have only four rational options. Use illegal immigrants, legalize this use of foreign labor, conscript local unemployed labor against their will, or change the system so that labor is remunerated enough for Americans to voluntarily do it.
Do you think it demeaning to use immigrant labour?
Well Aldi selling the same products at much lower prices when bought off the same suppliers suggests that others are making much larger profits. They only pay above average wages to their own employees, those working for gang masters will be paid as little as all the rest.
Gang masters traditionally use immigrant labour ( some illegal) so wouldn't or be a good idea to stop the source of their supply?
So do crop farmers, dairy farms and all the major hotel chains.
Whoever uses them is not right?
Here in the UK we are importing cheap labour even though we have 2 million people unemployed.
Seems like madness to me.
But I thought you loved capitalism and could see no fault with it!
I don't love capitalism john and certainly not your definition of it. But I don't see anything else to replace it even with its flaws.
Up until a few hundred years ago the world got by with neither capitalism nor socialism and yet you can't see anything else to replace capitalism!
I think you will find that forms of capitalism are far older than you imply. Coins - money - have been in use for far longer than a "few" hundred years and were almost always associated with capitalism. "I have this you may buy for that" (whether coin or barter).
No, the possession of money is not capitalism.
A simple transaction as you state, is not capitalism.
Before capitalism the nearest thing we had to capitalism was slavery.
No, money is not capitalism.
But what society/system 1,000 years ago, that had money, did not use capitalism and what DID it use?
If a transaction, with price mutually agreed to without interference with any group force, is not capitalism what is it?
Before capitalism, was a distinct lack of commerce. Theft, not trading, in other words.
The root of capitalism is capital and what is capital? Money. Don't distort the truth or don't use words that you don't understand.
What did they use before capitalism? Commerce, which is not capitalism, it does not depend on the capital being held by the few and used as a tool to oppress the many.
Capitalism only became possible with the introduction of the factory system.
But capitalism doesn't depend on oppressing anyone, either. Just on commerce between two people that mutually agree to a price. Without a committee somewhere, totally ignorant of actual value, doing it FOR them.
And that has been going on for a long, long time.
Come on! You think the minimum wage or even ;lower isn't oppressing anyone, you'be wrong.
At it's worst, offering one penny per days work isn't oppression. Accepting that figure as an equitable trade and giving that days work might be, but then it is a person oppressing themselves. Which, although not very PC to admit, is not uncommon - people do it all the time whether by working for peanuts, boiling their brains out with coke, freon or other chemicals or ruining their bodies for a temporary high (adrenaline or endorphins, maybe) of some kind.
Of course it is oppression. How can any body live life to the full when they are taken up with earning enough money to merely exist.
To suggest that people do that by choice shows a total lack of empathy.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I have no empathy. I worked myself through college, without help, I landed a decent job, without help. I made a career change without help, and again worked myself through a 4 year training course. I worked myself up in the new job, without help.
Maybe I don't understand people too stupid to learn. Maybe I don't get that they are simply too lazy to work hard, or had a bad childhood with a bully chasing them. Maybe I don't get that jobs can be hard to find (although mine were both 3000 miles from where I lived). So maybe I have no empathy, but either way I think it is mostly a matter of choice. After years of working a poor paying job it becomes obvious that it is a choice, and a very poor one.
Absolutely there are disabled people out there that need help, and I have no qualms about giving it. I just draw the line when some do-good left winger passes a law that says I HAVE to support, complete with luxuries, people that don't want to work, don't want to learn, don't want to move, or have made a slew of poor decisions in their life. If that's lack of empathy, so be it.
But that is your capitalist system for you! It needs the unemployed to keep wages down and it doesn't care about the unemployed as long as they just have enough to keep them quiet and complacent, not questioning too much why they are unemployed.
They are lying to you, just as capitalism is pitched as some benign and eternal system, the unemployed are some sort of left wing plot. Neither is the case.
Before the industrial revolution there was no mechanism where a man with no skill in a trade and no interest beyond making money could dominate a trade and exploit those working in the trade,
A man would not get involved in a trade just to get uninvolved when his shares fell in value.
As an aside since you mentioned the disabled, in this country we had a government sponsored company explicitly making work for the disabled who, whilst capable of some work, were not capable of working at the rate required of more commercial enterprises.
It did not fit with our governments capitalist creed so Remploy was abolished and all the folk it gave work to were thrown on the dole.
"Before the industrial revolution there was no mechanism where a man with no skill in a trade and no interest beyond making money could dominate a trade and exploit those working in the trade,"
Explain it to the slaves of early America. Tell that to the serfs working the barons fields. Tell it to the kings, queens and other royalty in medieval days. Explain it to the laborers building King Tuts tomb. Tell it to the peon, bringing food to the Shaman to placate the gods.
As far as destroying the world, it has produced the tractors that feed billions more than horses ever could. It took us to the moon. It gave us the computer. Capitalism has produced all that we use to day to allow people to survive in greater luxury and in greater numbers than ever before. Communism, socialism, etc. was never a factor in creation of these things; they virtually ALL came out of capitalistic systems.
It is true that with the success of capitalism, socialism now has "plenty" for all and the system can work a little better, but it still stamps on inventiveness and creativity; in the long run it cannot compete with a free, capitalistic society.
Slavery in America blossomed with the industrial revolution-I did say that "Before capitalism the nearest thing we had to capitalism was slavery."
Do you know how much work the serfs had to do for the Barons? It was measured in days per year.
All these things that you claim could only be produced by capitalism were actually produced by men and only exploited by capitalism.
A free capitalist society is an oxymoron.
Remploy. Who/what paid for those salaries? Profits from the production or the tax base? If profits, how and why did government "abolish" a successful business? If the tax base, how was it different than "the dole" except to require work to eat (not a bad thing)?
Wages paid out of production with a guarantee from the government.
How do you put a price on the raised self esteem of providing something useful?
"Wages paid out of production with a guarantee from the government. "
That typically means government is picking up the tab. Perhaps it was shut down because it couldn't compete and support itself, then; government really has no business subsidizing ANY business, regardless of how noble the purpose.
"How do you put a price on the raised self esteem of providing something useful?"
You don't. Does that mean government must pay for all the wonderful causes people come up with, regardless of price or ability to pay that price? The point is, the price of self esteem has no place in the business/work world. Keep it at home or in the psychologists office and never, ever expect folding green stuff to bolster your self esteem. Especially when it is a gift, without regard for value returned.
But all businesses receive government subsidy! You don't have income support and tax credits in the USA?
It does seem both more humane and better business to let people work even if some cannot produce enough to cover all their wages. Putting otherwise unemployable people out of work and at a greater cost to the taxpayer does not seem like a sound strategy to me.
As you keep saying, government has no place in business but it does have a big part in our lives.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in agreement!
It's no good Wilderness John won't accept that making and selling of goods is capitalism. That the dictionary definition of ownership of the means of manufacture for profit does not apply to the blacksmith who made a profit or the wine maker or farmer who all sold their wares for profit.
Over history many terms have been abused to make them more acceptable.
Capitalism is one of them. Now everybody no matter how lowly, believes them self to be a capitalist when in fact they are no more than lackeys.
It is entirely possible to make and sell things without being a capitalist. Look at all the workers co-ops, they are certainly not capitalist.
The workers co-operatives live in a capitalist system, they operate in that system otherwise they would be trading goods for coconuts from Cuba.
Its quite simple john, ownership is capitalism.
Communal ownership is communism.
You can dress it up how you like, many have tried with their own special interpretations ( I believe you have one yourself about socialism), but in the end its all about whether you own the means or whether someone else does.
No, ownership is not capitalism, it's ownership.
The fact that cooperatives work in a capitalist system does not make them capitalists.
If you trade in the capitalist system you are capitalising, which is capitalism.
Ownership of the means of production is capitalism.
If you trade in the capitalist system you are a capitalist! Hogwash, I bought a bottle of milk, that doesn't make me a dairy farmer.
Ownership of the means of production is nothing more than that. It can be capitalism but it can also be straightforward commerce or even socialism.
You miss two essential words off your definition of capitalism and they are for profit
I am sure that I already said for profit in a previous post.
Commerce is part of the capitalist system.
Socialism has no mechanism for profit.
But "for private profit" is an essential part of capitalism.
Commerce is not part of the capitalist system, capitalism may be a part of the commercial system but that does not mean that all commerce is capitalist.
And of course socialism has a mechanism for profit! Just not private profit.
Well, of course not! It didn't go into a common pot for redistribution and yet it has made the world turn for thousands of years. It can't be capitalism, then, or socialism really DOES deserve the black eye it has.
But commerce isn't capitalism, it didn't make the world turn for thousands of years and now after only a few hundred years of capitalism we see it destroying the world.
Well, let's see. Commerce; the trading/selling of goods/services. Someone has something (and go back in the sequence far enough, something they made themselves from their own skill/tools/stock of raw materials, and wish to sell/trade it.
Capitalism; the trading/selling of goods/services (without govt. interference). Someone has something (and go back in the sequence far enough, something they made themselves from their own skill/tools/stock of raw materials, and wish to sell/trade it.
I'm just not seeing the difference. Can you explain it? The farmer, owning the land, seeds, tools (capital) to grow food, does so and then trades it for a tractor, horse, deer carcass, or a new dress for his wife. Is it capitalism or commerce? Is it capitalism or socialism? Because this has been going on since agriculture was invented and before that a hunting prize might have been traded for a new spear point chipped from the stone. All commerce, all capitalism.
The farmer owning his land and planting the seed he has grown is purely commerce.
The farmer who has his land mortgaged, has his land mortgaged to the capitalists, forced to buy his seed off Monsanto, he's buying his seed off capitalists. The farmer who leases his tackle off the leasing company is leasing off capitalists. The commodity brokers he sells his crops to are capitalists.
None of this action makes the farmer a capitalist, only those he has to deal with are capitalists. You'll notice that none of the people he has to deal with are farmers, they provide him with capital taking back their capital with no regard to the profitability or not of the farmer.
Where do you get the information that helps you feel so confident about strident opinions? Or are your opinions just your emotional responses, and as such don't need any facts to validate them?
Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson has taken Obama to task for putting the needs of the illegals before the needs of America. Reverend Jackson indicated that Obama should help American children as they are the country's priority before helping illegal children. Mr. Jackson believes that Black families are going to be displaced socioeconomically because of the influx of illegals. In essence, it's going to be the poorest America, regardless of race, who will be negatively impacted by the influx of illegals.
I suppose I should not be surprised that your answer to my question would be to quote such a credible authority as the Rev, Jackson.
I was just using him as an example. I am not fond of Rev. Jackson. However, from reading several articles and seeing news shows, it is obvious that these illegals are going to have more of a negative impact upon the American socioeconomic system. First of all, they have no relevant nor contributable skills. They aren't exactly the brain drain. Since they have no contributable skills, they are going to be on welfare and use our social systems for FREE.
This cost is going to be transferred to the American taxpayer who will eventually foot the bill. When they do get jobs, they will be in competition with those Americans with the poorest skills and education. Many of these illegals are going to replace the poorest Americans, taking jobs away from the latter thus putting the latter into a socioeconomic underclass.
This is not opinion but analysis based upon reading books, articles, and listening to news shows. Don't you see what the illegals are doing TO the American economic fabric, if the influx of illegals continue, America will soon be bankrupt. The SMART thing to do is to SEND THEM PACKING to wherever they came from, pure and simple!
It is opinion based on the opinion of other like minded people.
gmwilliams, after reading your bio it shocks me to hear you speak about these people as if they are worthless trash...should we just bound them together and throw them from the planes to the ocean..oh yea we already helped to do that in the 80's didn't we? We helped to create this mess and these children are flocking from certain death to a possibility of hope and you want to send them back? If I understood your bio correctly you spent a joyful career in human rights. I do not want America to be known as the country of snobs when we are the country of immigrants...we are suppose to be leaders and messengers of hope. We should be reaching out to our neighbors and then they wouldn't need to flee their homes. God willing the extreme right wing never takes the controls in this country or I predict Canada building 100 foot iron clad walls to keep us out!
I think it is you who has their head firmly up their butt.
By definition EU citizens are not illegal aliens, neither are refugees awaiting a decision.
Illegals are deported as soon as they are found, how else would some of those at Sangette make daily attempts to access the UK?
Simple we are ran by communisim and no we do not need immigration reform but we need to enforce the laws that are already in place. Send them back we can not afford them and we have millions in need here that are here LEGEALY.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-yet ANOTHER voice of reason and logic.
Illegals are also the only reason the crops get harvested and linens changed in the hotels. That is why big business does not support a crack down. Americans demonstrably will not take minimum wage seasonal laboring jobs. Our economy depends on have access to people who will. No amount of ideology will change that. You cannot make Americans work like immigrants. IMHO, the answers is a proper working visa system for manual laborers with clean records--which does allow eventual naturalization. ...Or paying a living age for those jobs, which is even more of a pipe dream.
It has also been illustrated that people unused to agricultural work (i.e. crop picking) can not do it for long at any level of remuneration.
Probably because its frickin brutal. As a student I mucked out pig stalls and picked berries. Bloody hard work which. I also would not do it for minimum wage unless there was no other option at all.
When I was younger I worked in forestry, harvesting. That is crippling hard work and requires super fitness.
One summer when work was a bit slack we decided to go strawberry picking. I worked from dawn to dusk, could hardly stand up when finished and by the time we got home having stopped for a couple of pints and a couple of gallons of petrol arrived home with almost exactly the same amount of money we'd left with in the morning.
You make good points, and one of the"answers" you speak of already exists - the use of the H2-A temporary worker program, that with employer assistance could lead to a green card.
When the Pilgrims arrived they were immigrants. We need compassion and new rules - yes, it is a human rights issue. There has to be a good reason why these parents are paying dearly to send their children to another country.
My problem is why suddenly the media gives such importance to immigration? Which agenda are they trying to hide by emphasizing on immigration? Which country are we going to attack this time? Or which act of terrorism are they going to implement domestically to blame it on Russia in order to justify a nuclear attack? Isn't it what our governmental bubbleheads want?
by MikeNV6 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on...
by Eric Dierker3 years ago
I cannot find a group that supports illegal immigration. Yet we cannot stop it. Now that is pathetic. So we must conclude that without saying it, some - many in America support it and do what they can to stop control of...
by OLYHOOCH6 years ago
What the HECK kind of a game is Obama playing now. Could one of you tell me what part of this picture, I don't get.I see that, WE, still do not have a voice in the issues that are ruining our country.OLYThe White House...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
I think Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform speech was one of the best he has given. He touched on all the right points. And I like the content of his proposed action.Here is the...
by tobey1007 years ago
Yesterday the President of Mexico addressed a joint session of Congress and took the opportunity to not only point the finger of blame at America for Mexico's current out of control drug wars but to castigate the...
by SealBeach4 years ago
Suddenly, the idea hopelessly is setting-in on the American people. Americans are becoming more and more passive when it comes to constructive oversight over our political leaders. How can taxpayers now cope with a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.