Trump's Immigration Reform

[Young Drachma]

What's funny (not ha funny) is that when Johnson-Reed Acts passed in 1924, one of the side effects was more black people moving to Northern cities to take the jobs left behind by immigrants who weren't being allowed from Southern and Eastern Europe, and prohibited immigration from Asia, among others.

Not sure there's a class of folks who want to take those jobs, nor do I speculate that wages will not remain flat for those roles. It's unrealistic and I cannot imagine they can get the votes to pass something as comprehensive as they're purporting to want to.

Wild we're gonna try to speed run that again 100 years later. What's old is new, I guess.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This is the second paragraph. I've included the first paragraph because it provides context to the second. Note that it is one after the other.

I was really trying my best not to engage with this strawman given that Maher clearly misrepresented the headline of Frum's piece. Yes, that first paragraph is Maher taking the paraphrasing of the title of Frum's essay to more of an extreme, not an actual quote from the author. David Frum has been clear that he did not say that nor was that the tenor of his essay. So givng Maher the benefit of the doubt, assuming he read more than the headline of the essay that Frum wrote and the followup that came afterwards, it seems pretty clear that Maher was talking about all facets of immigration and not "enforcing the border". That view also falls right in line with the second paragraph and specifically this level of immigration. What level? The level from the first paragraph of the essay that says the US admitted more immigrants in the 1990s and yes he specifically stated legally and illegally than we did from 1915 to 1975.

So, to be very clear ... connect the dots for me. Provide my quote where you believe I am incorrect or contradict or (whatever) with the Bill Maher 2 paragraph quote. Or rephrase your "no".

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

I believe otherwise re: legal. But if you have polling/survey evidence to show the "significant portion" (e.g. large minority, large majority?), please provide a link. And hopefully, it provides some clear delineation on attitudes on legal vs illegal immigration, and not conflate the two and just say "immigration".

Last December, a Republican presidential candidate said that he would close border on day 1 if elected. That person is now President Elect with about 50% of the popular vote. Significant enough for you?

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

Beyond that, I would like you to provide evidence that any criticism/negative view of "immigration" only refers to illegal immigration. Provide evidence that everyone just keeps forgetting to make a distinction when they just say immigration as opposed to specifying legal or illegal. I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case. Without such evidence, I think the attempts to convince people that it is the case is just as disingenuous as calling someone fascist for not wanting illegal immigration.

Your main focus is illegal immigration, limiting citizenship etc. You are not alone. You speak on legal immigration as well. From what I can tell, you are very clear when you want to make the distinction. But there are also people whose main focus is on limiting, reducing and yes doing away with all immigration at least for a short term. Those people make compelling cases for not wanting immigration including the ones made by David Frum in essay I posted. Most of those cases are not ones I would agree with but I am comfortable with them making the. I can also do so without suggesting any sort of discrimination because well their arguments are not based in any discrimination other not being American. People like Frum don't need you to provide cover for them who having issues with legal immigration as well by saying they actually mean illegal immigration. Other people don't want you to provide the cover of illegal immigration for people who are explicit when they make the case they don't want anyone from Country X or Country Z because those people are all (insert stereotype here) and thus provide them protection from having their cases accurately judged and portrayed. I promise you that when someone tells an immigrant to go back where they came from, most of the time they don't give two shits whether they are here legally or illegally. All that matters is they want them out of the country and some with go as far as to use whatever means necessary to make that happen. Even it is means hiring a fascist.

To be clear, I'm okay talking about (1) legal and (3) legal non-immigrant only, and in my mind they are 2 very different things. Just wanted to establish that baseline because I was NOT talking about (3) legal non-immigrant and your H1-B conversation threw me for a loop.

Given his wants from the first administration, a guy like Stephen Miller and his acolytes have made it clear all varieties of immigration is on the chopping block including de-naturalization.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I was really trying my best not to engage with this strawman given that Maher clearly misrepresented the headline of Frum's piece. Yes, that first paragraph is Maher taking the paraphrasing of the title of Frum's essay to more of an extreme, not an actual quote from the author.

Thank you. This is a lot more clear now. Specific to above, I think this is a secondary beef you have re: Maher quote misrepresented/misleads what Frum said.

The Maher quote is below, specifically first paragraph:

The HBO star (Bill Maher) then quoted The Atlantic’s David Frum, who warned “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do what liberals won’t.”

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

The Frum titled article on The Atlantic is:

If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will

Yes, its not exact quote but specific to "(Frum) did not say that", IMO close enough.

David Frum has been clear that he did not say that nor was that the tenor of his essay.

I tried googling on this and did not find it. I do believe Maher quoted Frum accurately based on the titles (see above). If you have a link about Frum saying he didn't say it or disavowed Maher's rephrasing, please post it.

So givng Maher the benefit of the doubt, assuming he read more than the headline of the essay that Frum wrote and the followup that came afterwards, it seems pretty clear that Maher was talking about all facets of immigration and not "enforcing the border". That view also falls right in line with the second paragraph and specifically this level of immigration. What level? The level from the first paragraph of the essay that says the US admitted more immigrants in the 1990s and yes he specifically stated legally and illegally than we did from 1915 to 1975.

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

I think this is the primary issue you bring up. You believe when I was quoting Maher, I was referring specifically to illegal immigration and not legal immigration?

I asked for quotes where you believe I was "incorrect or contradict or (whatever) with the Bill Maher 2 paragraph quote". You did not provide any. Therefore, I am going to provide my quotes below which immediately preceded the 4 times I had the Maher 2 paragraph quote.

If you search on "Maher", the 4 times starts on pg 9 and here are sentences immediately preceding ...

(1) I'll leave with you the thought below. We need a holistic immigration reform, which will certainly have compromises, to address illegal immigration and the broader legal immigration.

Pretty clear I was talking about illegal and legal.

(2) So yes, the Nordics don't necessarily have as big of illegal immigration problem as the US, but they have a (legal) refugee migration issue that their citizens & politicians are coming to realization with.

The Nordic wonderland statement was reinforcing how real the immigration problem is. Even progressive countries feel the pressure from their citizens reacting negatively, and their politics are paying attention. The US is not alone. I'll re-quote Bill Maher because it hits perfectly

It's pretty clear we were talking about legal also.

(3) In below link, there is a chart of "TOP 5 NATIONALITIES SEEKING ASYLUM IN DENMARK 2019-2023". A fair number are non-Ukrainian.

How many refugees are coming to Denmark

I think the Bill Maher quote applies to Denmark. I mean, if Denmark/Nordics, the paragon of progressive thinking believes they have a problem, then I guess there is a problem. And if you believe Denmark is a racist country, I don't personally believe it, but okay. So?

Another evidence that we are talking about legal as asylum is a "legal" status

(4) I thought it was self evident? Enforcing border would primarily allude to illegals?

I believe is the time I used the quote that alluded to "illegals" specifically vs both. And you have taken this to mean I misquoted Maher (or Maher misquoted Frum) because I claimed the statement was for "illegals".

I did say that. However, in the same post, the paragraph preceding it was in response to another member.

... for illegals.

Hopefully the detention centers won't be like real concentration camps where there was gassing/shooting the illegals, or starvation, or forced labor, or beatings & rapes, or plucking out gold teeth etc.

(4) I thought it was self evident? Enforcing border would primarily allude to illegals?

Bottom line - yes, I can see how you took quote (4) as me believing Maher/Frum's quote was only specific to illegals. Hopefully, I have shown you the other 3 occasions where I used it for both legal & illegals.

A following point, if you search for the phrase "legal and illegal" and "legal & illegal", you'll see multitudes of hits attributed to me. Or in other words, my default is to talk about legal & illegal immigration, not one or another, unless I explicitly state so ... which I did with (4).

We seem to miscommunicate. I talk about legal & illegal immigration. You talk about legal immigration only and sometimes allude to legal non-immigrant. That's all fine, I (and probably you) need to be more explicit when debating each other.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

See above discussion on the 4 times I used Maher's quote.

Last December, a Republican presidential candidate said that he would close border on day 1 if elected. That person is now President Elect with about 50% of the popular vote. Significant enough for you?

You did not delineate between legal and illegal (which I like to do and I believe is the cause of much confusion between you and me). I want to say you only meant illegal, but then there are times when you say you are only talking about legal.

Question - Can you rephrase your position and explicitly say "legal, illegal, all" for closing the border?

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

I can't prove this. I never said I could.

However, I can provide evidence that the American public see "legal" and "illegal" immigration differently (e.g. approval levels). I'll dig that up later.

Beyond that, I would like you to provide evidence that any criticism/negative view of "immigration" only refers to illegal immigration. Provide evidence that everyone just keeps forgetting to make a distinction when they just say immigration as opposed to specifying legal or illegal. I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case. Without such evidence, I think the attempts to convince people that it is the case is just as disingenuous as calling someone fascist for not wanting illegal immigration.

This is fair and per above, I'll dig it up later.

However, to set expectations, I've told you before that I've not found a single Pew/Gallup poll that delineates between legal & illegal. They do talk about it but they never ask the very straight forward question "Do you approve of legal immigration Yes/No" and then immediately followed with "Do you approve of illegal immigration Yes/No".

Best I can do is find evidence from differing polls/surveys. The hole in this is they have different timeframes, different methodologies (sampling size, question phrasing etc.).

But yes, I can provide you evidence based on my caveat above.

Your main focus is illegal immigration, limiting citizenship etc. You are not alone. You speak on legal immigration as well. From what I can tell, you are very clear when you want to make the distinction.

It is fair to say that illegal immigration is primary on my mind. But legal immigration is a very high second. Per above, search on "legal and illegal" or "legal & illegal" and you'll see that I am very concerned about both.

Assume if I do not preface a statement/discussion with one or the other that I am talking about both.

But there are also people whose main focus is on limiting, reducing and yes doing away with all immigration at least for a short term. Those people make compelling cases for not wanting immigration including the ones made by David Frum in essay I posted.

I did not read The Atlantic but read NPR interviewing Frum. It's clear that he is concerned about both legal & illegal immigration.

'The Atlantic': If Liberals Won't Enforce Borders, Fascists Will : NPR

Re: Frum and your statement he "not wanting immigration" is not accurate IMO. If you have a quote from The Atlantic, please post it.

From my reading, Frum wants to control the "pace" of the immigration. This is quote from NPR link

FRUM: I don't ground very much of my argument on that at all. What I ground my argument upon is a tendency of the human mind, perceived by psychologists in people of all backgrounds, to be stressed by rapid change.

MARTIN: What's the problem with becoming majority minority?

FRUM: So I'm saying - it's not - that's not the - relevant. I'm saying that - people say this, that your argument is driven by concerns about being majority minority. I'm saying that decision's already made. The question for us is how do we make a success of this? And on present policy, we are in real danger of not making a success of it.

I promise you that when someone tells an immigrant to go back where they came from, most of the time they don't give two shits whether they are here legally or illegally. All that matters is they want them out of the country and some with go as far as to use whatever means necessary to make that happen. Even it is means hiring a fascist.

You've made similar statements about legal/illegal distinction is irrelevant and I've disagreed each time.

Given his wants from the first administration, a guy like Stephen Miller and his acolytes have made it clear all varieties of immigration is on the chopping block including de-naturalization.

Illegal immigration, goes without saying. And apparently, well supported with Trump's significant victory & mandate. I cannot defend how Trump will do this (don't know the methods & process yet) so we'll see once the plan is revealed. You already know how President Edward would do it.

For legal immigration, absolutely no problem with more merit based and less family based immigration. Makes complete sense to me (even pre-2016 Trump).

For legal, non-immigrants, the only one I have real background on is F-1 student and H1-B. I do believe we should get more quality F-1 students (not fake ones that I read about entering Canada and UK) and we definitely should reform H1-B. There are definitely some bad practices there.

De-naturalization is an interesting one. I'll break it out separately as it's new topic on this thread and may be worthy of its own thread.

[Edward64]

re: fears of de-naturalization. The link below discusses the conditions for de-naturalization and provides additional notes.

https://www.aila.org/library/feature...forts-by-uscis

Too much to quote, so just some high level bullets and go into link for more details.

A) A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally
B) A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.
C) A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization.
D) Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

There is a note that Trump 2016 got a lot more aggressive on de-naturalization.

According to the New York Times, “denaturalizations have ramped up under the Trump administration: Of the 228 denaturalization cases that the department has filed since 2008, about 40 percent of them were filed since 2017, according to official department numbers. And over the past three years, denaturalization case referrals to the department have increased 600 percent.”

This happened pre-Trump and assume the conditions were established also pre-Trump. I'm sure there are alot of possible "buts" in there but, in general, the conditions A-D for de-naturalization seems reasonable to me.

Assuming the laws are followed and the evidence does show A-D happened, what's the issue? Has Trump/Miller proposed additional conditions that are unreasonable? Or is it because they are more aggressive looking into violations of A-D?

[Edward64]

To set the stage, I am recapping what I believe I am answering to (and the caveats) ...

I believe it is important to make a distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. Because American view the 2 population differently. My quote below still stands

I am saying its important to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration because one is more significantly accepted than the other which, in theory, translates to the media, public awareness, and politics.

Miami_fan does not believe its important to make the distinction and has challenged me

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case.

Prove is too strong of requirement. So, instead my caveat below and my evidence ...

... to set expectations, I've told you before that I've not found a single Pew/Gallup poll that delineates between legal & illegal. They do talk about it but they never ask the very straight forward question "Do you approve of legal immigration Yes/No" and then immediately followed with "Do you approve of illegal immigration Yes/No".

Best I can do is find evidence from differing polls/surveys. The hole in this is they have different timeframes, different methodologies (sampling size, question phrasing etc.).
:
I can provide evidence that the American public see "legal" and "illegal" immigration differently (e.g. approval levels).

American's negative on illegal immigrants:

https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-72-am...lity-immigrate

(1) Nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans say it is “unacceptable” for people to illegally immigrate to the U.S

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/...migration.aspx

(2) Seventy-six percent are in favor of the U.S. hiring significantly more border patrol agents, and 63% favor allowing the president and the secretary of Homeland Security to temporarily prohibit individuals from seeking asylum when the U.S. Southwest border is overwhelmed.

Just a moment...

(3) Half of Americans — including 42% of Democrats — say they'd support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll.

(4) ... nearly two-thirds of Americans said illegal immigration is a real crisis, not a politically driven media narrative.

(5) The big picture: The survey still found Americans strongly support immigration as long as it is lawful. "Illegal" immigration is what's giving people anxiety.

Immigration attitudes, Biden and Trump voters ahead of election 2024 | Pew Research Center

(6) While a 59% majority of voters say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally, this is a substantial drop compared with recent years. In June of 2020, 74% of voters said that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally.

(7) Democratic voters have also become somewhat more likely to say that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay legally.

Americans positive on legal immigrants:

Just a moment...

(8) The big picture: The survey still found Americans strongly support immigration as long as it is lawful. "Illegal" immigration is what's giving people anxiety.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

(9) Thinking now about immigrants -- that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States, in your view, should LEGAL immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? (Increased 34%, Present Level 38%, Decreased 25%)

(10) On the whole, do you think LEGAL immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today? (Good Thing 84%, Bad Thing 13%)

AP-NORC/AAPI Data poll: AAPI adults see benefits from legal immigration | AP News

(11) About 8 in 10 AAPI adults say legal immigration to the U.S. is a “major benefit” contributing to economic growth ...
:
But many AAPI adults view illegal immigration very differently. Only about 4 in 10 AAPI adults say immigrants who are in the country without legal permission contribute to economic growth, similar to the share of the general adult population who say the same

Bottom-line.

Pretty obvious and self evident to me. IMO above links & quotes show plenty of evidence that Americans view legals & illegals differently.

But until there is a reputable Pew/Gallup poll that specifically asks the question(s) directly while comparing/contrasting the 2 populations, all we are left with is tidbits of insight from different polls ... with different timelines, methodologies etc. And that is the best we can do for now.

Question - If you find contradictory poll/survey evidence, provide the links.

e.g.
Americans do not prefer legal vs illegal immigrants
Americans want legal immigrants to be deported/de-naturalized in similar scope as illegals
Americans negative views on legal immigrants that supersedes/exceeds the negative view on illegals

Edit: FWIW, I can't prove it but IMO articles post-election are now more specific when talking about illegal/undocumented immigration. Wish I knew how to code Python and scrape the articles pre/post election and come up with a count.

I've been complaining about the lack of distinction. MSM seem to purposely shift the narrative with adjectives "illegal --> undocumented --> migrants/immigrants" and conflating between legal & illegal (e.g. "Trump's going to deport immigrants" without making the distinction). So, bringing back these adjectives, reduces confusion and is a welcome change.

[Edward64]

My healthcare.gov got moved to the new georgiaaccess.gov for 2025.

Relatively painless, just had to get a new signon, review the info etc. Our info was correct, defaulted to 2024 plans, but it asked for a couple new pieces of info including my citizenship status.

Answered I was a naturalized citizen and it asked me to upload any one of several documents. I have photos of all our key docs so not a big deal. Just thought to share the below info as far as what State of GA would be satisfied with to prove citizenship.

Primary Document Types of the following

• U.S. passport
• Certificate of Naturalization (N-550/N-570)
• Certificate of Citizenship (N-560/N-561)
• State-issued enhanced driver's license (available in Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington)
• Document from federally recognized Indian tribe that includes your name and the name of the federally recognized Indian tribe that issued the document, and shows your membership, enrollment, or affiliation with the tribe.

If you don't have a primary doc, there was a list of 2-other-combo that could be used. I'm sure this was all already in progress even before the Nov elections. So, something that GA wanted to do.

I didn't know this but apparently there are already some state DL that shows/identifies citizenship per above.

[GrantDawg]

Mine does. The last couple of years they have the "True ID" thing.

[GrantDawg]

Dola: Same experience with the new Georgia insurance marketplace (expect I didn't need extra citizenship verification). My only beef was they originally were supposed to have a way to early shop for insurance, and they only sort of did. Pre-November 1st you would have to go to each companies website and fill out certain information to get an estimate. Made it harder to compare different offers. In the end we stayed with the same plan, $60 more a month.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Mine does. The last couple of years they have the "True ID" thing.

I have one of those updated GA DL also because of TSA requirements. I googled and you’re right, it is used for citizenship/legal status. Did not know that.

[miami_fan]

Have we gotten the translation of Vivek Ramaswamy's Twitter post to clear up all the misunderstandings it seems to have caused? I thought it was pretty straight forward myself but it does not seemed to go over that well on the ol' interwebs.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Have we gotten the translation of Vivek Ramaswamy's Twitter post to clear up all the misunderstandings it seems to have caused? I thought it was pretty straight forward myself but it does not seemed to go over that well on the ol' interwebs.

You mean where he suggested US workers are lazy and entitled and they can pay foreign workers less to work more hours by holding their visa status over their heads?

Yeah that's going over really well with the white nationalist party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You mean where he suggested US workers are lazy and entitled

I loathe Vivek for reasons unrelated to this stuff, but he nailed it exceptionally well on that point.

You'd be hard pressed to find a lazier society with a shittier work ethic than what we've allowed to come about.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I loathe Vivek for reasons unrelated to this stuff, but he nailed it exceptionally well on that point.

You'd be hard pressed to find a lazier society with a shittier work ethic than what we've allowed to come about.

My experience in hiring and as a manager is you get what you pay for. We offered pay well below industry standard for our area and had terrible employees for years. We've since significantly upped our pay and had a complete turnover of employees and our department has since excelled in all measurable areas with the new hires. We went from years of begging people to work for us to people reaching out to me asking about openings and I've had multiple employees over the past few months that I've had to encourage to take promotions so that we don't get too stagnant.

EDIT:

I could tell so many stories of how bad it was when I started at our hospital. Our IT team was god awful but we were also paying about half of our people 35-45k and our help desk 28-30k. That's embarrassing for IT in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Those numbers didn't move much until a couple of years ago despite the state offering the same positions 80k starting salary. The few competent workers we had cycle through moved to the state. Quite literally, half of their IT department is the good employees we had at our hospital. I'm not sure where all of our bad employees landed but every couple months it seems like I get a different company calling me about one of them because they put me down as a reference.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You mean where he suggested US workers are lazy and entitled and they can pay foreign workers less to work more hours by holding their visa status over their heads?

Yeah that's going over really well with the white nationalist party.

Don't forget dissing Jocks and Prom Queens and something something about Sitcoms.

Don't forget Aparthelons contributions here, who really showed what a Free Speech Absolutist he is again btw, telling the (other) crazy people to "fuck yourself in the face".

[Lathum]

I’m starting to think it’s a bad idea to give these two clowns any semblance of authority.

[Edward64]

I wouldn't use the words or examples that he used, but generally, do agree with the US is falling behind in STEM and it is, at least, partially due to our culture.

But there's a balance. The impression I get from below is he wants the US to be like the highly competitive Indian, Japanese, Asian etc. kids and I definitely do not want that extreme culture brought over to the US.

But yeah, we should do something more to encourage STEM if we want to remain competitive. Selective immigration is part of the answer. I do want more H1B visa, but do believe it needs to be revamped.

The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if…

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) December 26, 2024

FWIW just a data point. I've met numerous locals in different countries; we talk about the US & politics & guns (and food!) etc.; often times they talk about how they are surprised and like how friendly, first to initiate talk etc. Americans are.

I know those Indians, Japanese, Chinese "nerds" don't do this near as much. Those Asian STEM superstars that I've seen (at least the first generation) generally lag behind in these social skills, and that is part of US culture I do not want to lose.

Also, to the point of jocks. Yeah, I want a healthy population of jocks in US sports. Soccer & cricket are boring as heck. And prom queens? Not as if those other STEM countries have great track record on women's rights and equal opportunities.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I’m starting to think it’s a bad idea to give these two clowns any semblance of authority.

At this rate, they won't be anywhere near positions of power by the time Trump even becomes President.

[miami_fan]

The examples made the statement for me. I did not watch Saved By The Bell or Boy Meets World but the idea that audiences stayed away from STEM because they preferred Stefan to Steve Urkel sounds like someone who did not watch the show then or was struggling to find a show that looked different that the two previously mentioned.

He would have been better off saying what Jon said if that is what he was trying to say instead of taking shots at the Beckys, Stacys and Chads.

[Danny]

Im pretty sure just about everyone rooted for Urkel over Stephan

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I wouldn't use the words or examples that he used, but generally, do agree with the US is falling behind in STEM and it is, at least, partially due to our culture.

But there's a balance. The impression I get from below is he wants the US to be like the highly competitive Indian, Japanese, Asian etc. kids and I definitely do not want that extreme culture brought over to the US.

But yeah, we should do something more to encourage STEM if we want to remain competitive. Selective immigration is part of the answer. I do want more H1B visa, but do believe it needs to be revamped.

The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if…

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) December 26, 2024

FWIW just a data point. I've met numerous locals in different countries; we talk about the US & politics & guns (and food!) etc.; often times they talk about how they are surprised and like how friendly, first to initiate talk etc. Americans are.

I know those Indians, Japanese, Chinese "nerds" don't do this near as much. Those Asian STEM superstars that I've seen (at least the first generation) generally lag behind in these social skills, and that is part of US culture I do not want to lose.

Also, to the point of jocks. Yeah, I want a healthy population of jocks in US sports. Soccer & cricket are boring as heck. And prom queens? Not as if those other STEM countries have great track record on women's rights and equal opportunities.

The problem is that the same people wanting more STEM "superstars" are the ones trying to limit education in the country. We're not going to produce more STEM students without addressing wealth and education disparity.

[RainMaker]

It's not complicated. You can bring in H1-B visa folks to work for less and you have full control over them. There are plenty of STEM grads here, they just tend to cost more and can leave for better jobs if they're available.

Businesses require cheap immigrant labor to maximize profit margins. That's why all this talk about deporting people was never going to happen. Big business calls the shots.

[RainMaker]

These people also don't believe in the meritocracy they talk about either. Elon is still demanding that BYD be banned from the United States because they make a superior product to his.

[JPhillips]

Watching Dinesh Dsouza degrade himself saying, sure lots of Indians need to be deported but he's one of the good ones who should stay, is fun.

[Atocep]

So Elon used an alt account under the name Adrian Dittmann to post voice messages on twitter using a voice changer but it was so obvious it was him he got outed fairly quickly. In the message he trashed and made fun of MAGA. He's now banning people making fun of him for it.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Danny

Im pretty sure just about everyone rooted for Urkel over Stephan

Politics in 2025. I really wish they'd just stop and try and make this be a real actual point of discussion on the news. Just to drive the point of how hopeless this group of leaders is. trump literally wants the game show apprentice to be how the government runs. Whomever can debase themselves, scheme, backstab and get gains for themselves, and also lift or defend trump wins. It's really that simple.

[Edward64]

The text of the birthright Executive Order.

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House

Section 1 documents the rationale and preps for the legal fights ahead. Section 2 has the details.

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:

Mother is illegal + father not a citizen/PR ...

(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or

Mother is lawful temporary but not citizen/PR + father not a citizen/PR.

(2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

I'm not sure I understand the definition of "lawful but temporary". I'd think it includes H-1Bs but does that include asylees/refugees? More to come.

I'm reading below as this is not retroactive.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

Does not affect lawful PR (or naturalized citizens).

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

I can see where this is not constitutional but am okay with Trump challenging it. I'm rooting for it but also np/understand if SCOTUS strikes it down. I hope this is escalated to them quickly and they can make the call this year.

[Lathum]

As long as you are OK with the next Dem president striking down the second amendment through EO.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

As long as you are OK with the next Dem president striking down the second amendment through EO.

I'm definitely okay with the next Dem doing EO and it being challenged to SCOTUS. In fact, Obama & Joe should have tried it already but suspect they knew the political calculus reality, the cons >>> pros.

[Lathum]

Call me crazy but i prefer the president uphold the oath he takes to defend the constitution, not change it or circumvent it based on partisan politics.

[Ghost Econ]

Crazy

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Call me crazy but i prefer the president uphold the oath he takes to defend the constitution, not change it or circumvent it based on partisan politics.

From prior SCOTUS discussions in FOFC and their approach to pragmatism vs textualism vs etc., I infer that most of us believe the constitution is a living document and subject/adapt to different interpretations over time.

So, if Trump wants to challenge birthright now and not continue an interpretation from an 1898 ruling, I say go for it. And this hold true for anything else in the constitution, including 2A.

1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clarified that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

[JPhillips]

Amending the Constitution through EO is an absolutely terrible idea. No one person should have that authority.

[Brian Swartz]

The problem with the living document idea is that it means the Constitution can mean anything at any time. That also means it means nothing. What matters is the opinion of SCOTUS/Congress/POTUS whoever else, not what the Constitution actually says.

I'm fully in agreement with JPhillips that a President just deciding they don't like what it means is so bad that it's hard to put it into words.

We do have a process for constitutional amendments. I'm for that process actually being used when we want to change the constitution. I know that's extremely radical in our day, but I'm standing by it.

Part of the President's job is to enforce the laws as they are. Not to enforce the laws they wish existed. That's what a monarch does. I think it's a good thing that we don't have one.

[Edward64]

I would like to see it go through the amendment process and see the process in my adult life.

But we are where we are. Trump knows it likely won't get the 2/3 so he's going roundabout it by saying the 14a has being misinterpreted (see my link above to section 1 of the executive order for their stance).

My guess is it'll fail but I won't be put out if SCOTUS ruling goes either way. It's good that law are occasionally challenged (even by executive order), especially those that are from late 1800's where "context" has changed.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Part of the President's job is to enforce the laws as they are. Not to enforce the laws they wish existed. That's what a monarch does. I think it's a good thing that we don't have one.

re: 2A, are you saying that Presidents should not try to "chip away" at established 2A rights as they have been legally interpreted today e.g. the laws as they are. Seems to me there's always some wiggle room for interpretation re: "laws as they are"

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Part of the President's job is to enforce the laws as they are. Not to enforce the laws they wish existed. That's what a monarch does. I think it's a good thing that we don't have one.

If there is one thing that has become very evident over the last 10-15 years is you are increasingly in the minority when it comes to not wanting a monarchy. I would go further but you only mentioned the role of a monarch.

And yes, I am actually talking about majorities on both sides of the aisle.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

And yes, I am actually talking about majorities on both sides of the aisle.

Hah. I don't think I agree with you with "both sides" but I appreciate you using "both sides".

Pretty clear to me that even if there was some "both sides", the GOP is more in degree & scale.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump knows it likely won't get the 2/3 so he's going roundabout it by saying the 14a has being misinterpreted (see my link above to section 1 of the executive order for their stance).

Serious question; under that approach why even have a constitution?

It is far better to have laws not get passed/changed that we want, than just taking the 'we can't do it the right way, so we'll do it whatever way we can make work' approach.

Originally Posted by Edward64

re: 2A, are you saying that Presidents should not try to "chip away" at established 2A rights as they have been legally interpreted today e.g. the laws as they are.

Yes, that's not the job of the President. Issues where there isn't a clearly existing constitutional position are absolutely within the authority of Congress. They're the ones that make the laws, and the President has a role in setting the agenda, signing and vetoing, etc. But where there is a constitutional principle, either follow the amendment process or accept the law the way it is. There's no acceptable third option.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

If there is one thing that has become very evident over the last 10-15 years is you are increasingly in the minority when it comes to not wanting a monarchy.

Fully agree, and as I have said previously, I think some form of more authoritarian government is inevitable. But I don't think it's good.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Hah. I don't think I agree with you with "both sides" but I appreciate you using "both sides".

Pretty clear to me that even if there was some "both sides", the GOP is more in degree & scale.

Maybe, but I don't even mean it as praise or disdain for either side. I am also not limiting it to the political realm but since this is a more political thread I will stay there.

Without going on and on, here is the short version. I believe that Americans are trusting less and less in the Constitution and the government structure it defines to give them the country they want to live in and seem more inclined to prefer an all powerful "monarch" who can provide their preferred country with a royal edict than our current lawmaking process.

[RainMaker]

I don't know if people want a monarchy as much as they are OK with anything that allows their side to win. A consequence of the hyperpartisanship of the last few decades. You have people on the right worshipping a man who cheated on his wife with a pornstar, has a left-wing protectionist view of the economy, wants stricter government control of private enterprise, and called to nationalize a social media company. These would have been ideas too far to the left of even most Democrats.

And then liberals who threw away decades of institutions they build up (anti-war movement, media, minority support) so they could prop up a dementia-riddled moron so that he could provide unlimited weapons to the most far-right government in the world to commit genocide. Imagine explaining that to a liberal in 2006.

So we're just left with people invested in politics where nothing matters to them besides their team winning. Your leader can switch a long standing view of the party overnight and it's fine. You can run on the same policies as your opponent that you trashed just a few years earlier. Your supporters showed they really don't care about any of that.

Not sure what changes that outside of some kind of other outlet to express their tribalistic urges.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Serious question; under that approach why even have a constitution?

It is far better to have laws not get passed/changed that we want, than just taking the 'we can't do it the right way, so we'll do it whatever way we can make work' approach.

Because I believe the constitution is a living document and the challenges (resulting in clarification, reconfirmation, precedence etc.) to its parts should be continuous (aka in my line of work, there is a concept called "continuous improvement").

Sometimes laws are not as clear cut, concise, applicable etc. as they should be (I mean, how could they be with stuff written pre-1900s or even pre-2000s with all the innovations, changing culture etc.). This constant "tension" on laws/interpretations is good as it results in clarification, reconfirmation, precedence etc.

I know you are not saying that constitution/amendments should not be challenged by Congress, and I agree in an ideal world that Congress should lead. Your argument is the President should not be doing this, and I disagree. Presidents should be able to dispute the legal boundaries ... just as long as there is a timely process to resolve the dispute (e.g. all the way to SCOTUS or leading Congress to write/amend laws etc).

Sometimes, it takes a President to jump start the process and not wait on Congress (source: the dysfunction and lethargy in the past 10+ years). If Congress disagrees, they can write a law to strike it down or it goes to SCOTUS.

See below list of "10 most important executive orders". Where would we be without executive orders.

10 of the Most Consequential Executive Orders and Proclamations | HISTORY

Yes, that's not the job of the President. Issues where there isn't a clearly existing constitutional position are absolutely within the authority of Congress. They're the ones that make the laws, and the President has a role in setting the agenda, signing and vetoing, etc. But where there is a constitutional principle, either follow the amendment process or accept the law the way it is. There's no acceptable third option.

Using 2A as an example of "constitutional principle", I disagree. Sometimes Presidents need to take the lead and, like in the recent past, chip away at open ended 2A in bits and pieces. I really do wish recent Democratic Presidents did issue more Executive Orders (frak the political suicide) to implement what I'd consider more rationale 2A restrictions (and I own multiple weapons) and force the issue. And some laws are so broad that it inevitably touches on "some constitutional principle", so do what you believe is right and let it play out through the process.

Bottom-line. Sometimes, the President needs to "ready, shoot, aim" to get things done and challenge laws, including constitutional principles just as long as the process is played out. In this example, "aim" is Congress/SCOTUS recalibrating to take another shot, adjust, strike down etc. if needed. Or in other words, Congress very often too damn slow to act.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know if people want a monarchy as much as they are OK with anything that allows their side to win. A consequence of the hyperpartisanship of the last few decades. You have people on the right worshipping a man who cheated on his wife with a pornstar, has a left-wing protectionist view of the economy, wants stricter government control of private enterprise, and called to nationalize a social media company. These would have been ideas too far to the left of even most Democrats.

And then liberals who threw away decades of institutions they build up (anti-war movement, media, minority support) so they could prop up a dementia-riddled moron so that he could provide unlimited weapons to the most far-right government in the world to commit genocide. Imagine explaining that to a liberal in 2006.

So we're just left with people invested in politics where nothing matters to them besides their team winning. Your leader can switch a long standing view of the party overnight and it's fine. You can run on the same policies as your opponent that you trashed just a few years earlier. Your supporters showed they really don't care about any of that.

Not sure what changes that outside of some kind of other outlet to express their tribalistic urges.

I hear what you are saying but this is why I say the desire for a monarch encompasses more than just politics from what I can tell. Does everyone want to win? Sure. I am saying that many would prefer not even running the risk of having a competition. In theory, it should be nice to have your party in control of the White House, super-majorities in both The House and The Senate and have a 9-0 control of the Supreme Court. Nothing in that scenario compares to having the monarch making a royal decree and having that be law of the land on the spot. The monarch is the political ruler. The monarch is the moral authority. The monarch is the everything especially if you see the monarch as having a divine right to power. The monarch decides everything political and otherwise.

[Atocep]

Birthright EO already blocked and called "blatantly unconstitutional" by the judge.

[Lathum]

MAGA absolutely wants a king. They would all sign up for Trump to rule until he dies and they already think he has absolute authority. The scary thing between his first term and now is there are a lot of lawmakers who also feel that way. They think they are there to do his bidding, not act as a check on his authority.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Birthright EO already blocked and called "blatantly unconstitutional" by the judge.

That government lawyer got absolutely roasted and the judge was a Reagan appointee.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That government lawyer got absolutely roasted and the judge was a Reagan appointee.

the same useless twit that was reversed on appeal for being too soft on a terrorist despite clear cut sentencing guidelines.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

MAGA absolutely wants a king. They would all sign up for Trump to rule until he dies and they already think he has absolute authority. The scary thing between his first term and now is there are a lot of lawmakers who also feel that way. They think they are there to do his bidding, not act as a check on his authority.

I think that sums up a lot of right-wing politics. The tough, masculine act is just that, an act. Projection for their deep desires to be submissive to another man that they are terrified to admit. Just look how mad they get when Daddy doesn't get his way.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

the same useless twit that was reversed on appeal for being too soft on a terrorist despite clear cut sentencing guidelines.

Be that as it may, the 14th amendment is abundantly clear on this specific topic (much more clear than the 2nd is). This was always going to be the black-and-white outcome. For once remove your right-wing blinders and face facts.

[GrantDawg]

There was a warrant-less ICE raid today in Newark where a number of US citizens were detained, including a military vet that was accused of having false veteran's paperwork. Just having papers are not enough if you are brown. New normal.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Flasch186]

Link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk