World Politics

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The fog in the videos of the search is crazy thick. They are looking on foot because they can't see anything from the air.

Which begs to question why did they that helicopter take off in the first place, but then maybe they miss judged the weather developing as it did.

[cuervo72]

Eh, if he's not found the Guardian Council will just pick another figurehead.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Eh, if he's not found the Guardian Council will just pick another figurehead.

The big deal there is this guy wasn't just a figure head. He was largely expected to take over for the Supreme Leader once he retires/dies.


The searchers finally got to where the helicopter supposedly crashed and can't find any sign of it.

[GrantDawg]

They did find the crash site and pronounced them all dead at the scene. Of course, they blame the United States since the embargo doesn't allow them to get parts for their helicopters to keep them in good service.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

That's a shame.

[RainMaker]

The civil trial against the Saudis is bringing to light some stuff that has long been suspected.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...awsuit/678430/

[miami_fan]

UK general election: PM Rishi Sunak calls surprise July vote as his party seeks to defy dire polls | CNN

I am envious of the 43 day election cycle.

Here is a link to the local election results that were held earlier this month.

Local elections 2024 results in maps and charts

Labour won 1,158 seats in the 107 council elections across England, an increase of 186 councillors. The party won control of 51 councils, a net gain of eight.

The Liberal Democrats increased their number of councillors by 104 to 522 and their number of councils by two to 12.

The Conservatives were always likely to lose councillors at this election, as the last time these seats were contested was in 2021 when the party was doing well in the polls in the context of a successful Covid vaccine roll out.

They ended up with 515 councillors this time round, a fall of 474 on 2021. And they lost ten councils, holding on to just six.

Question for the Brits on the board. Is it required that the PM stand outside of 10 Downing St. in in a downpour to announce the election instead of inside a building somewhere? Those pictures seem like a weird gift to provide his opponents at the start of a campaign.

[SirFozzie]

Not to mention pretty much being drowned (ha!) out by someone playing a Labour song loudly.

[Super Ugly]

Rishi Sunak is a dork and can't wait to lose the election, so announcing the election in the rain felt faintly metaphorical. He wants to escape to California to enjoy his wealth and presumably embark on his next career as a tech bro. The Conservatives purged any half-decent MP from the party years ago, and have been uninterested in governing for some time. My local MP closed her constituency office months ago - just upped and left.

The prospect of Starmer as PM doesn't exactly inspire me, and under his leadership Labour appear to have tacked to the right more than I'm comfortable with. But he has some serious people around him and after 14 years of political dysfunction I'm hoping that things in Britain will feel slightly less broken.

[Edward64]

Don't understand French politics. If voting showed a lack of confidence, I wouldn't call snap elections, I'd bide my time and try regain some of the confidence.

I can respect it but suspect he's not long for power.

I'm not clear on Le Pen's stance on Ukrainian war or Israel-Hamas. But her immigration stance is clear cut. A good of time to fix/control that mess but admittedly she is more on the extreme (Trump) range.


EDIT: okay, read a little more on Le Pen. My simplified summary is negative towards Ukraine, positive towards Israel, big negative against France's current legal/illegal immigration.

[JPhillips]

A close aid to Rishi Sunak has been busted for placing a bet on the date of the election a few days before it was called by Sunak.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't understand French politics. If voting showed a lack of confidence, I wouldn't call snap elections, I'd bide my time and try regain some of the confidence.

Best I understand it, it's a calculated gamble.

The notion being "well, if it's for all the marbles then voters won't go so far down the other path"

It's a bold strategy Cotton ...

[Flasch186]

I remember how this played out with Brexit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Best I understand it, it's a calculated gamble.

The notion being "well, if it's for all the marbles then voters won't go so far down the other path"

It's a bold strategy Cotton ...

Looks like a 2-7 off suit pair of cards … not much to work with.

I read that political categories/parties continuously shift left-right and once radical parties (like Le Pens) are now not as radical but more mainstream. Sounds familiar …

[flere-imsaho]

As I understand it, Macron has come increasingly close to losing no-confidence votes in the past 2 years, including a few weeks ago, a result which would remove him from office and (I believe) force a general election anyway.

At some point trying to rule like this becomes untenable as you're in more-or-less a permanent state of crisis.

He probably figured this was the best possible time to try and extend, as much of the country will be distracted by Euro 2024 and the upcoming Olympics during the campaining period and, heck, you never know.

[SirFozzie]

He does it because they can get into a runoff against the far-right, and there's enough "Sane ones" looking rightward and saying "You know, that's a bit further then I'm comfortable with) and staying home or voting for the centrist candidate

[Edward64]

Chinese citizens grapple with Florida law that bars them from buying property | CNN Business

‘They’re treating us like we’re spies’: Florida property ban has Chinese citizens fuming

Under SB 264, citizens of Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria are prohibited from buying property within 10 miles of any “military installation or critical infrastructure facility” in Florida.

For Chinese citizens without the permanent right to live in the US, specifically, the law goes a step further, barring the group from purchasing any property in the state.

Today's article above reminded me of the below discussion from May 2023, specifically bolded section.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I googled on "does FL bill 264 apply to US citizens". In the returned headlines, I got ...
:
I guess it's possible you are correct that the proposed bill is unclear in this specific topic and does really apply to US citizens/PR (whereas I believe it does not). That would mean the Bill's summary was wrong, and the media nor ACLU/Asian American Legal Defense teams have not picked up on this issue yet.

Per my earlier statement below ... as this point is central to my position and I've been unable to convince you otherwise, I'll avoid continuing this discussion until sometime in the future where (1) media does start reporting it applies to US citizens/PR, and/or (2) there is enough evidence to convince you it does not.

I googled to find the latest happenings. ACLU won an appeals case but it was specifically for 2 Chinese nationals who had pending land deals. The ACLU article mentions "immigrants" but does not delineate between (1) immigrants that have permanent residency vs (2) those that do not.

Below is the Shen vs Simpson motion that Shen won. The bolded lends weight to my orig POV that this bill does NOT apply to US Citizens or PR originally from China.

Chinese Immigrants Urge Appeals Court to Block Florida’s Discriminatory Housing Law | American Civil Liberties Union

Access Denied

The State of Florida recently enacted a statute that imposes new prohibitions on owning or purchasing land in the State. Among other provisions, Senate Bill 264 (“SB 264”) prohibits individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose “domicile” is in China, or other so-called “foreign countries of concern,” from owning or purchasing real property.

And yeah, it does suck that regular Chinese citizens are restricted from buying/owning property in the Florida but until US citizens can do the same in China, I'm all for it (and should be for the whole US). This should be one of those reciprocal understandings between US and any other country.

[miami_fan]

Can't we have Chinese people just wear some sort of badge or other symbol to identify them as a means to segregate them, to watch and control their movements, and to prepare for deportation just in case they are spies? If they are not deported, because they are all segregated to specific zip codes, we can then deny them access to home loans credit based on where they live.

Policies similar to these have worked in the past and would accomplish the same goal without the unnecessary confusion over what "domiciled" means and frankly would be much more honest than the scary spies.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Can't we have Chinese people just wear some sort of badge or other symbol to identify them as a means to segregate them, to watch and control their movements, and to prepare for deportation just in case they are spies? If they are not deported, because they are all segregated to specific zip codes, we can then deny them access to home loans credit based on where they live.

Policies similar to these have worked in the past and would accomplish the same goal without the unnecessary confusion over what "domiciled" means and frankly would be much more honest than the scary spies.

There may be some confusion on what "domiciled" means, but there is no confusion between "US Citizen/PR immigrated from China" (rule does NOT apply) vs "from China, not a US Citizen/PR" (rule mostly applies with some exceptions being worked thru the courts).

No need for badges (or scarlet letter) but there should be a clear record of US Citizens/PR vs non US Citizens/PR regardless of national origin. There may have been an excuse back then, but nowadays with <30 min background checks for gun purchases, the technology is there.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There may be some confusion on what "domiciled" means, but there is no confusion between "US Citizen/PR immigrated from China" (rule does NOT apply) vs "from China, not a US Citizen/PR" (rule mostly applies with some exceptions being worked thru the courts).

No need for badges (or scarlet letter) but there should be a clear record of US Citizens/PR vs non US Citizens/PR regardless of national origin. There may have been an excuse back then, but nowadays with <30 min background checks for gun purchases, the technology is there.

What does any of that have to do with preventing members of the Chinese Communist Party buying and owning property within 10 miles of a military installation?

“Florida is taking action to stand against the United States’ greatest geopolitical threat — the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),” DeSantis said in a statement last year.

“The Chinese Communist Party, a dangerous foreign adversary, should not own Virginia’s farmland,” Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin said on social media last year. “That’s common sense.”

If the goal is to prevent members of the CCP from owing or buying property in the United States as is being claimed, then the law would state that members of the CCP are not allowed to own or buy property. Ironically, that would also be consistent with US law which says the following:

U.S. immigration law says that any membership in or affiliation with the CCP or another totalitarian party makes you “inadmissible” for a U.S. green card. Being “inadmissible” means that you are not permitted to enter the United States and not allowed to obtain U.S. permanent residence.

I agree. Based on the above law, worry about members of the CCP owning and buying property seems a bit unnecessary. Regardless, the law even went through the trouble to clearly define what inadmissible means in relation to the law and provides a few exceptions to the law on the USCIS website. See, it is possible to write laws without a bunch of blurry language to tie up the court system.

If you don't want non US Citizens/PR to purchase or own property then write a law that does not allow non US Citizens/PR to purchase or own property. If the reason you don't want that software engineer in the CNN article (a recipient of an H-1B visa so I assume a clear record exist for him btw) to purchase a house is because we can't own property over in China, say that when you are making your justification. Preventing all Chinese people who are non US Citizens/PR from owning/buying property with legislation supposedly designed to prevent members of the CCP from buying/owning property at the very least suggest that all Chinese people who are non US Citizens/PR are linked to the CCP.

Susan Li, a 47-year-old small business owner in Orlando, Florida, who holds a green card, said she “really felt the discrimination” when she learned about the bill.

Like Bian, Li had been searching for a new home when the law passed. Despite the fact that she is a legal resident of the US, her family decided to halt their housing search for fear of potential legal complications.

“I thought maybe it’s too much to bother, so I’m not looking right now,” she said. “No matter if I have a green card or I’m a citizen, I still have a Chinese face.”

Teresa Jin, a mortgage lender in Florida, said she no longer works with clients who are not permanent residents or citizens of the US, but the grey area around the law’s definition of “domiciled” has created uncertainty. Other lenders have agreed to close on deals that she previously rejected for fear of legal repercussions.

“The law has caused us so much confusion,” she said. “It definitely hurts business.”

Zhu said that some mortgage lenders and brokers in Florida have even begun refusing to work with clients with Chinese passports — even if they are legal residents.

Again, I know. These people should be brave, sue and if the courts agree collect huge settlements. By putting on actually badges and scarlet letters, I am suggesting the lawmakers can be brave about their intentions instead of hiding behind flawed legislation and the legal system which ends up having the same effect on those people.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

What does any of that have to do with preventing members of the Chinese Communist Party buying and owning property within 10 miles of a military installation?

If the goal is to prevent members of the CCP from owing or buying property in the United States as is being claimed, then the law would state that members of the CCP are not allowed to own or buy property. Ironically, that would also be consistent with US law which says the following:

The net casted is all non-US Citizen/PR from China being restricted, not just CCP. The CCP population is a subset of the broader group.

Per the summary of the bill, it says below. The bill as written reinforces it is not just CCP. I'm going to guess that you'll say the original intent was about CCP. I won't deny that, but like the other FL bill, it doesn't matter what the intent was, it matters what was written in the bill itself.

Prohibits China, Chinese Communist Party or other Chinese political party officials or members, Chinese business organizations, and persons domiciled in China, but who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the U.S., from purchasing or acquiring any interest in real property in the state.

I agree. Based on the above law, worry about members of the CCP owning and buying property seems a bit unnecessary. Regardless, the law even went through the trouble to clearly define what inadmissible means in relation to the law and provides a few exceptions to the law on the USCIS website. See, it is possible to write laws without a bunch of blurry language to tie up the court system.

See above. Not just about CCP card holders.

If you don't want non US Citizens/PR to purchase or own property then write a law that does not allow non US Citizens/PR to purchase or own property.

? that is what the bill does for Chinese non-Citizen/PR.

The bill was written for several "foreign countries of interest". Specifically, it calls out those from China and gives them extra treatment. Definitely discriminatory ... but so what? China discriminates against US citizens buying land in China.

If the reason you don't want that software engineer in the CNN article (a recipient of an H-1B visa so I assume a clear record exist for him btw) to purchase a house is because we can't own property over in China, say that when you are making your justification.

That is not DeSantis' justification, he's doing it for politics, optics etc. I've never claimed or quoted any article (that I remember) that says it's DeSantis' pov.

That is my rationale. Instead of talking about geopolitical stuff, it comes down to "why not, they do it to us". Sorry for any confusion.

For the H1-B, he is up to 5 years away from getting a PR (last I checked). He can wait, get vetted by INS, become a PR and then get the privileges. I wonder how long it'll take a black American citizen to do the same in China (maybe like never).

Preventing all Chinese people who are non US Citizens/PR from owning/buying property with legislation supposedly designed to prevent members of the CCP from buying/owning property at the very least suggest that all Chinese people who are non US Citizens/PR are linked to the CCP.

See above. Not just about CCP card holders.

Again, I know. These people should be brave, sue and if the courts agree collect huge settlements. By putting on actually badges and scarlet letters, I am suggesting the lawmakers can be brave about their intentions instead of hiding behind flawed legislation and the legal system which ends up having the same effect on those people.

I'm all for them suing.

But why should you expect lawmakers be "brave" about their intentions? It happens all the time and not just these FL politicians. It's a given vast majority of politicians will be as nebulous, vague, flexible etc. as much as possible until they can't be anymore.

Question - why are you against discriminating against these citizens from these "countries of concern", specifically China? Is it because it is discriminatory?