|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:what? Other than birth and immigration where are you saying people are coming from? Depending on the shape of the demographic pyramid, it can take a bit before sub-2.whatever fertility to lead to a decrease in population. Calling it replacement rate in this sense is the technically correct terminology but kind of confusing.
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ultimately, remember that the text of the law is just part of the equation - what matters is what the other branches of government (as well as the actual agency employees who carry out the work) are willing to enforce and what they're willing to let slide. While the law and legal interpretations have a massive amount of impact on those things, they're not the final word by any means. Even if the Supreme Court says "no, stop, that's unconstitutional", it doesn't have any enforcement power if Trump decides to ignore the Constitution - it's up to Congress to take action by defunding the unconstitutional programs in that case. If they refuse to act, then the only way the unconstitutional behavior could stop is if government employees refuse to follow those orders (unlikely) or if state and local agencies and populations act to obstruct the orders so badly that Trump gives up. that hasn't worked for donald trump so far (see, most notably, the muslim ban, but also family separations and a chunk of smaller / lesser known things) partly because individual government employees are not, as a general rule, interested in going to jail for contempt because the president wants to revoke green cards courts can, in fact, actually do things unless none of the institutions, including the US marshals, decide to cooperate I think the odds of the Supreme Court - yes, even this Supreme Court - ruling that birthright citizenship is gone are essentially nil. I'd say they're actually, literally nil, but none of the people on Plyler are current justices, so I dunno, maybe the 9-0 decision somehow turns into a 5-4 even though literally all precedent and also the actual originalist reading are against that. Instant Sunrise posted:
This is overall a very good post, but I disagree extremely strongly with that last sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Families are still separated and Muslim Ban 3: Return of the Muslim Ban did go through. Meanwhile the people affected were left in uncertainty and doubt at best, or in loving cages waiting for a resolution to come at worst. sure, it's unlikely but possible that some nonzero number of people might get screwed over in the hours between implementing the policy and courts telling them to knock it off (I think it's really unlikely since there are a lot of moving parts, but hey, maybe the parents really need the social security card urgently or... something?) and that was bad when it happened the other times, too but I was responding to a post that Donald Trump can go "lol john roberts has made his decision, let him enforce it" and it'll stick and whoops no citizens will be born to unauthorized resident parents until January 2021, and yeah, no. Parents are not currently being separated from their children as a matter of policy, and the eventual muslim ban was much narrower and non-retroactive unlike the illegal bullshit they tried to pull. Things matter, courts can do things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
for people who don't feel like reading the article, they discovered an angle (midwives in South Texas in the later 1900s did, in fact, commit some birth certificate fraud) to deny passports and occasionally initiate deportation proceedings against anyone they feel like who was midwived in that area at that time, plus deliveries by one particular gynecologist who had an unsubstantiated accusation of fraud against him as with the other successful-ish Trump bullshit, it's a completely disingenuous expansion of an existing policy, ie, bears no particular resemblance to trying to retroactively declare people with accepted-by-the-feds-as-valid birth certificates non-citizens, especially since there's not, you know, a blanket court order against the passport-denial-because-midwives practice, which there absolutely, positively would be instantly if Trump moved forward with trying to abolish birthright citizenship bonus from the end of the article: quote:This remains true because, crucially, the people being targeted still have recourse to the legal system. Even the South Texans whose birth certificates are challenged, the Post says, typically end up winning their cases — they just have to appeal to the federal courts to do it, which takes money (in the thousands) and time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
It's unclear to me whether ORR has space at the moment. The answer could be either "no, the slightly less worse agency is full", in which case the answer is expand capacity, or "yes but the ICE and CBP assholes could not care less about crowding kids together during a pandemic so why bother processing them in the legally required time", in which case part of the answer is yelling at ICE to get them transferred Or Else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I wouldn't call the "trial" you get in front of immigration "judges" (actually employees of the DOJ) "fair". a lot of that remains Jeff Sessions trash that has yet to be untangled - his single most successful initiatives were A) altering immigration judge rules such that nobody who failed the paper bag test could ever be shown mercy without the immediate firing of the immigration judge, and B) influencing the hiring of immigration judges to lean towards people who are alright with A barr wasn't as excited about Make America White Again, but he was perfectly happy to carry on with the sessions policies i suspect that like many trump policies it's going to take a bit to untangle that garbage Herstory Begins Now posted:In this case it probably had more to do with completely neutering the immigration court system and just out of hand rejecting far and away the vast majority of southern hemisphere applicants for both visas and asylum requests yeah paranoid randroid posted:at what point does it become acceptable to call a facility that is overcrowded to the point of making it impossible to contain the spread of a virulent disease and is run by the kind of people who kick over water stockpiles so that prospective inhabitants of said facility are more likely to die in the desert a "concentration camp" as opposed to a "detention center" "horrible overcrowded intake camp run by Nazis" and "concentration camp" are not synonyms; as I have argued in the past and will argue in the future, intent matters concentration camps were historically designed to contain people entirely indefinitely, either for the purpose of removing them from their land or for the purpose of fighting an insurgency, or usually, both a subset of trump's deportation camps could plausibly be called concentration camps, insofar as he did not particularly give a poo poo about what happened to the residents and the intent was to remove them from the united states intake camps, no matter how horrific, are not concentration camps in the same way as that, and certainly not in the same way as Japanese-American internment camps or the various colonial "let's force everybody in this region into camps so we can starve the rebels of resources and/or shoot everybody not in the camps" the use of the term "concentration camps" here is at best an ill-analyzed misnomer Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:You're arguing about deportation law, I'm arguing about border detention law, Next. I don't think "CBP bad, CBP Nazis, CBP camps bad" are matters anyone here disputes greatly. and one of the more troubling things in the actual recent news content is that CBP is claiming they have actually done the paperwork to transfer kids but ORR facilities and cooperatives are full; imo that's at least as much of a Biden-admin failure as the CBP camps themselves ICE/CBP Nazis mistreating kids because they're Nazis is one thing, not being able to move kids to better conditions is another
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Also that at least one domestic government agency is actively rogue and refusing orders to stop committing atrocities. At what point do we start seeing ICE staff detained and prosecuted? Yesterday, ideally. Which is another matter that I think most everybody here agrees on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 05:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:or this argument could stop happening and we could just let people use detainment, concentration, and/or holding as a prefix to the word camps as they personally see fit "Concentration camp" is specifically designed to evoke a particular, enraging emotional response that none of the other terms do. Randomly tossing it into an otherwise normal post is a good way to make people angrier at a very low cost (generally, to match the poster's own anger), and if nobody is allowed to rebut it then the cost is even lower. If you don't want people to rebut the terminology, use another term.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
Homora Gaykemi posted:Have another look at those pictures, you should be angry paranoid randroid posted:this is a sincere question - given that we were instructed to "push biden left" as part of the compromise of him being the nominee, shouldn't we be just as angry and forceful with him as we would be under trump Within the bounds of the debate and discussion subforum, anger is not an adequate substitute for supported arguments. There is another politics subforum where angryposting as praxis is encouraged. CBP and ICE being full of Nazis, and the Biden administration's failures to date to make the intake process not-horrible, are worth getting angry about. There is no need to use incorrect terminology to make people angrier. I should note that I am not saying, MODHAT ON, that calling them concentration camps is illegal. I am saying MODHAT OFF that I disagree with it. I am, however, saying MODHAT ON that disagreeing with the 'concentration camps' terminology is legal, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Using an incendiary and arguable term and then objecting to the existence of counterarguments is unacceptable in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 06:17
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Are there any groups or organizations that can be supported financially or otherwise by non-US citizens to pressure the government or at least aid the prisoners somehow? Watching this unfold from the outside is grim as gently caress, and I'm sure as hell the EU won't stick their neck out with sanctions, much less China or Russia. there are many many many NGOs working on this, many of them working with the Biden administration to house immigrants currently or in the near future i'm not real up on the details of which can accept foreign donations, unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:With regards to the southern border, specifically, it is the most militarized and hardest to cross it has ever been. For most of American history, the southern border was essentially open, and you'd get seasonal migration in and out from Mexico and Central America. I've had some success with this angle when arguing with people who are less uh extremely pro open borders than I am, who are worried that the population of America will be two billion if we make immigration easy and humane. Turns out even (or especially) the people right next door who would have an easy time logistically tend to be fond of their extended family etc back home. We've had much looser borders in the past, at least with Mexico / Central America, and it went fine by any sane evaluation. admittedly for a chunk of that time we were also incredibly astonishingly racist about East Asia
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
while i think the comparative discussion of white western nation immigration remains interesting (and horrible), i think we have largely exhausted the useful discussion of camp terminology for the moment please also refrain from being assholes about it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
It's unclear to me how much cause has to be shown to yank a conditional offer of federal employment. Iirc immigration judges (despite the name) are a perfectly normal justice department employee, subject to all the usual federal employment procedures and protections. My takeaway from the clickbaity article in a moderately clickbaity publication, that goes into absolutely no detail on whether Garland could feasibly pull the offers without getting sued is that it's mostly a nothingburger but Biden needs to get right on appointing actual good immigration judges. also quote:Biden’s budget calls for hiring 100 new immigration court judges — a figure many argue will hardly make a dent in a backlog of 1.3 million cases that will take an estimated four years to get through. quote:["Blah blah blah,"] Greg Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told The Hill by email. totally right, jeff sessions did a whole lot more than appoint judges he hoped would be bad, he also completely tied their hands as far as offering mercy. garland needs to get right on undoing that and indeed, quote:DOJ pushed back against criticism that the new judges would contribute to a pattern of rulings that favor government attorneys over immigrants, saying it “takes seriously any claims of unjustified and significant anomalies in adjudicator decision-making and takes steps to evaluate disparities.” Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
yes, yes nyt oped, but there's some short-term fix stuff that i find more interesting than "should we abolish federal labor protections to fire seventeen immigration judges, y/n" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/opinion/sunday/immigration-courts-trump-biden.html most notably quote:This is why another important fix is to stop a large number of those cases from being heard in the first place. The Justice Department has the power to immediately remove as many as 700,000 cases from the courts’ calendar, most of them for low-level immigration violations — people who have entered the country illegally, most from Mexico or Central America, or those who have overstayed a visa. Many of these cases are years old, or involve people who are likely to get a green card. Forcing judges to hear cases like these clutters the docket and makes it hard to focus on the small number of more serious cases, like those involving terrorism or national-security threats, or defendants facing aggravated felony charges. At the moment, barely 1 percent of all cases in the system fall into one of these categories. we already knew Garland could unilaterally undo Sessions' horrible actions and even do some reverse-sessionsing - forcing even trump hires to operate under better immigration rules. this seems like a thing he can legally do that would free up the immigration court backlog and be good for immigrants also, Biden blew up a Trump rule on immigrant/visa biometrics: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/uscis-announces-two-year-suspension-biometric-screening-requirement-h-4-l-2-and-e quote:U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be suspending biometric screening requirements for H-4, L-2, E-1, E-2, and E-3 dependent visa holders for two years beginning May 17, 2021. This suspension will automatically expire May 17, 2023, subject to affirmative extension or revocation by the USCIS Director. The suspension will apply to Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status applications that are pending on the effective date of the policy and have not yet received a biometric services appointment notice. It will also apply to newly filed applications received by USCIS after the effective date of the policy through the expiration date. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:trying to imply people who want the concentration camps empty are actually fascist enablers.  p sure nobody here wants immigrants, kid or otherwise, in concentration camps p sure you're doing the thing you're complaining about
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:you're right I should have said it's not the law that the person the president appoints to head the DOJ is not bound by law to rubber stamp these, which makes the handwringing even dumber I mean, it might be the law. I don't know for sure how conditional offering with the feds works, nor what the conditions are - but it looks to me from googling the other night like they can't be pulled completely arbitrarily. If anyone can find details on the process i might very well change my mind about these seventeen hires.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
My desire for a wider-scale cleanup is in fact why I am tentatively dubious of "just don't hire these guys". It doesn't have much large scale impact - and building a history of doing things in an arbitrary and capricious way actually did wind up biting Trump in the rear end in his administration's arguments in court that they were doing things for legally valid reasons no seriously. I don't want Biden's future efforts to be hosed for the sake of a fight that doesn't really matter, and rn it looks to me like both "might be a problem" and "doesn't much matter" are the case.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:You all are derailing the thread to excuse talking about the actual topic at hand, Joe Biden continuing to offer employment to 17 Trump judges who had not yet been seated. might be illegal to do so, might be overturned as arbitrary / in violation of federal labor law, which would potentially interfere with going after a much, much bigger number of Trump hires than seventeen
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
I'm not even thinking the other hundreds of immigration judges, I'm thinking housecleaning in, say, CBP and ICE. If there's longstanding, many-examples pattern of Biden firing federal employees because "hired by Trump" or "is Republican", and those being struck down? Then when Biden actually does have good reason to fire a batch of horrible people, there's a serious risk of the judges for the appeals / lawsuits going "lol pull the other one, the Biden admin's been fabricating reasons to fire people illegally over and over again, we're not going to take your word on this poo poo anymore". see: wilbur ross's fuckery with the census et al getting exploded My presumption is that Garland would, at minimum, quite like to have more Garland hires and less Barr hires, and as such that if he could trivially fire / not-hire these people, he would. This dovetails with what little I've been able to find so far (and what Vox said) about conditional offers not being totally arbitrarily reversible. Josef bugman posted:It's a conditional offer. Why on earth is "we are not the same regime" not considered a fair reason? Especially when it is obvious that there are no required reasons that these people are better than any others who might be considered? because federal workforce protection laws are actually quite strong in the United States i have absolutely no idea what they are like in the UK, but these folks are not being hired by Bojo to review French unauthorized immigrants, they're being hired by the Biden DOJ Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 00:50 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
trump was not, in fact, able to fire the entire federal government and replace it with card-carrying nazis we can be reasonably confident that he wanted to he made some - too much - headway in making conditions uncomfortable enough that a lot of people quit, and in refusing to hire more people, but he was not able to legally abolish the FDA, or replace HUD with people who would pay all of the money to Trump properties
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I don't think Trump personally gave a single poo poo about the government as an organization and I'm going to need you to prove he did just like apparently that other guy had to 'back up' his claim that less white supremacists in charge of immigration is good. perhaps i gave a little too much credit to the "replace" side of the coin, but he certainly had a go at getting rid of as many employees as possible from departments he didn't like / didn't care about and not replacing them https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/11/trump-has-slashed-jobs-nearly-every-federal-agency-biden-promises-reversal/170203/  quote:At the department level, the Biden team will have the steepest hole to climb out of at Education, which has seen a 15% decline in employees since late 2016. That is up from 11% about halfway through Trump’s term. Both State and Labor employ about 12% fewer workers than they did prior to Trump's presidency. State kept a hiring freeze in place for 16 months until Secretary Mike Pompeo ended it in 2018. While he and department officials said they had instituted plans to restore hiring, State has only seen its net reduction in civil service workers continue to grow. The State inspector general has said the hiring freeze’s impact was deep and widespread and would not be fully reversed until 2021, though the most up-to-date figures show the department is still trending in the wrong direction.  I think "the Trump administration would have directly fired people if it could legally get away with it" is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Anyway, if there is in fact a legal way to non-hire these judges, my position on the topic will move from "whatever, fine" to "should have non-hired them but whatever". I am dubious of the ability of Garland/Biden to blow up the background review process, and whether it would be a good idea. Even if not hiring them is feasible, I'm much more interested in the larger-scale remedies. Telling the FBI or whoever to deep six the security clearance review of hundreds of current immigration judges and thousands of CBP and ICE officers does not sound legally feasible to me. What does sound feasible is several reform proposals re Garland - many of which directly impact current immigration judges and these immigration judges. Indeed, even the somewhat clickbaity Hill article that started all this got into some of the big picture, once it moved away from "Biden is hiring Trump's judges - should we be angry, or furious? plz click 4 more".
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
Because as i mentioned earlier, if they are fired, and they sue, and they're reinstated, that's one link in the "the Biden administration arbitrarily and illegally fires people and their fake reasons cannot be trusted" precedent chain. When horrible people are fired by the Biden administration, we want them to stay fired. Firing horrible people for being Republicans, or being hired by Trump, may not keep them fired. If Biden makes a habit of that, he may well have difficulty firing horrible people for good and legal reasons. also it would be mildly irritating to have to waste resources on the court case and then pay extra restitution to Trump hires, but that's not as important a policy matter Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 01:36 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And if they sue and they aren't? Is the harm that they could inflict worse than the harm they will inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in the modern world if left in post? Then my current assessment that non-hiring them is probably illegal is wrong, and my primary concern* about "just fire them for being trump hires lol" is invalid. I repeat yet again: if firing them is legal, my position moves from "whatever fine" to "should have fired them, but whatever". It would be a comparatively very small, but positive, action. * - there's some chance repeated indecorous actions might impact Biden's reelection chances more negatively than positively, and it's conceivable that some norm erosions might in fact turn out to have been bad ideas. but for the same reasons i am more interested in the big picture and large-scale remedies to the immigration / immigration judge system, i don't really think the firing of seventeen immigration judges would be an earthshaking national scandal that dooms us to destruction in 2022 and 2024
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:In this very particular case of 17 Trump-hired immigration judges, there are alternatives to straight up firing them such as clearing the court calendar, DOJ writing new rules for how to handle immigration cases, etc. GreyjoyBastard pointed out here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3848439&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=23#post514601002 I forget if it was from that article, but another thing I read mentioned the option of reassigning "bad" judges to slam-dunk cases / cases Garland (or whichever Garland subordinate handles this stuff) doesn't really care about or want mercy for, eg convicts of violent crime and such. whether we should deport those convicts is a separate question but practically speaking i don't think even president bernard sanders would change that Hire a shitload of immigration judges - way more than the 100 Biden suggested in whatever bill - from good backgrounds, shuffle the Deadly Seventeen and the other hundreds of trump hires et al to cases where Good Judges would probably rule about the same way. same sort of thing as reassigning ICE officials to carefully inventorying corn exports in the Des Moines Kate Mulgrew International Airport Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 02:53 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:If we're gonna mention immigration advocates I mean, one of the major points in that quote is "apparently the Biden administration doesn't have the staff yet to do better on this thing", which isn't a rapid thing to fix at the federal level. It also dovetails with what I have anecdotally seen as far as federal job notifications. It's not a Trump admin "lol why would we staff these offices or do these things" protocol. Pentecoastal Elites posted:
based on this post the proposed remedy is to occasionally post "I am very mad at Joe Biden", which is obviously neither very interesting nor very productive or to not argue against mischaracterizations and not talk about what positive things the Biden admin is trying to do, which sorry, that's not an acceptable norm to establish in this thread Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
sure, those other proposals seem either objectively good, or like things i don't adequately understand to have an opinion on (does rescinding title 42 lead to putting people in already overcrowded facilities before processing? is that nevertheless preferable to what they do if turned away? I have no idea! and therefore I have no opinion) Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
on a reread, i see how it may have been unclear the argument in that post (or at least the conclusion as I read it) was basically: other people shouldn't be allowed, or at least should be discouraged, from posting positive things about Biden you are not required to post positive things about Biden, but other posters are allowed to Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-migrant-children-government-facilities-sponsors/quote:Overcrowding at these facilities has since eased and the number of unaccompanied children in Border Patrol custody has plummeted by over 90%, falling below 600 this week. However, there are still more than 20,000 unaccompanied children in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which houses them until it can release them to sponsors, who tend to be family members in the U.S. I'd been having a little trouble finding data, especially on how long kids were staying in ORR facilities. Iirc 29 days is within the statutory maximum, and cutting it by a third is a good start. also decidedly not concentration-campy Apparently Mayorkas testified before congress on border stuff this week, too. Not seeing anything terribly interesting, or at least not anything terribly interesting that isn't reported in the above article etc. otoh, there's a time article on him that is at least informative about how he wants himself and his DHS to be perceived: https://time.com/6048061/alejandro-mayorkas-dhs-profile/ quote:t was around 4 a.m. on April 28 when Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas jolted himself awake. As he lay in the dark, his mind locked onto the decision he had made the day before to limit the Trump-era practice of arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants who show up at local courthouses for legal proceedings. quote:One of Mayorkas’ first law-and-order steps has been getting his own house in order. In March, he dismissed the department’s entire advisory council, concluding that some of its members were there to advance political agendas rather than offer policy expertise. He followed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s lead in launching an internal investigation into domestic extremism within his own department. Other than reading about reports of social media profiles, he says, he has “no greater information” than what’s in the public domain about this threat, but he says he has an obligation to “ensure that we do not have violent extremists within our ranks.” On May 11, the department announced it was forming a Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships to further target domestic extremism. some reason for optimism here imo Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
we had a thing from attorneys posted that included some fort bliss stuff, but it was in usnews not here this is a more thorough look at fort bliss and it seems rather worse than that reporting. where the really unpleasant poo poo was at a contractor and the fort bliss reporting was "kids are not provided with the resources they need and are bored and it's terrible for their formative years", which is Bad but not this "average of 31 days" is also, while technically an improvement, still unacceptable since pretty early on i've been beating the drum of reducing the length of stay - moderately trash conditions in, say, CBP/ICE camps can be remedied by getting people out within 24 hours conversely, even mediocre conditions kinda suck if they're in them for 90+ days edit: articlepost and discussion starts here in usnews https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3965530&pagenumber=410&perpage=40#post515680624 Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:The other thing we said was that the administration can only do so much without additional funding from Congress. Another thing that came up in USNews is that one of the counterproposals was "well house them with a decent charity", and then that interdenominational church group hosed up catastrophically and it wasn't noticed until, charitably, shortly before the attorneys were due to visit. uncharitably, they were reviewed because of the pending visit and HHS went "oh poo poo"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
There are a couple underlying principles for why the senate parliamentarian's office exists and is not especially elected. - It's notionally supposed to be nonpartisan. As far as I can tell this works okay. - It's notionally supposed to provide continuity and stability of rules policy between Senate terms. Current guy has been there nine years and also has a staff, so i guess that works. - Individual senators, in addition to being the people the parliamentarian is supposed to keep following the rules, have a lot on their plate that isn't "keep track of the rules and bill analyses for the hundred member body". None of these reasons strike me as especially evil or insane, so I'm not sure how big a fan i am of "just fire the guy and put in a drinky bird that always agrees with the Democrats". The other remedy is for fifty? senators to decide something is important enough to overrule him on, which seems to me like a fairly democratic outcome. Given that the reasons aren't inherently evil or insane, it does not surprise me that our extremely Senator-brained president would apparently be in favor of the parliamentarian and senate rules existing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:All branches of US federal and state governments are absolute jokes and people should stop pretending we have a functioning democracy. i will not stand by and watch the continued tyranny of the new hampshire amusement ride safety commission
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2021 21:30
|
|