Well that's all well and good, and I might even agree with some (but not all, see below) of your analysis. But there's a difference between a "de facto" visa as in not deporting, and a "pseudo-de jure" visa of an actual document issued by ICE that says you're allowed to be here for a certain period of time and allowed to work during that period. I don't see how one can ever be interpreted to be equivalent to the other, even with whatever leeway there might be in the law.
Which gets us back to the first point: laws can never be airtight. Then they would look even less like plain English and even more like computer code. Yet we still have an understanding that "rule of law" should mean that the law means what it says. We short-circuit some of the complexity by aiming to have fewer laws with the expectation that personal freedom and personal responsibility take up the slack.
But with immigration law, there is a binary. You're either here with authorization grounded in law written by Congress per its powers under Article I Section 8 or you aren't.
You seem to have understood my meaning quite correctly. What you did not do was jump to the assumption that people who go straight through are forever tainted as shiftless and aimless. I will repeat myself: I do not think grad school teaches you the things that you need to be successful at grad school as well as a couple of years in real employment outside of academia teaches you those things.
No, it's another way of saying that if you want to reduce gun ownership, you're sweeping your own incompetence at background checks and law enforcement under the rug and scapegoating the 99.99% of people who own guns without causing trouble to anyone.
The amount of gun violence per gun owner is the same. "Tough" gun laws do not do a better job at sorting out people who shouldn't have guns. Liberal Massachusetts also has a low per-capita gun crime rate, but the per-gunowner gun crime rate is actually higher than the national average.
You're not thinking clearly or reading properly. I made no such comparison and I condemned both, while explaining (but not excusing) how the first can cause the second. I stand by my statement as written.
Something like one out of every 10-50 thousand people who own a gun misuse them. California and neighboring states have tens of millions of people who own guns, most of whom are extra-miffed at YouTube these days. It would stand to reason that the couple dozen whackos in that population might take it too far.
It's just stupidity all around. People shouldn't shoot up offices and schools, and corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
If I'm reading your second link correctly, that was about neglecting to allocate resources, for which prioritization is a defense. You still haven't told me why you think handing out de-facto visas to people is the same as prioritization of limited resources.
You're also a bit fuzzy on the distinction between executing the law and enforcing it. The cops who arrest you for breaking a law passed by the legislature are "enforcing" it as much as the judge who sentences you to stand in the stocks in the center of town for punishment.
No you don't get it. You seem to think sentences stand on their own, and when a sentence in isolation disagrees with another taken in isolation from the same post or paragraph, that means the writer is insane, rather than making a point that can't be expressed in 140 characters.
Citation please? DACA never made its way to the supreme court. DAPA was shot down by a circuit court, if I remember correctly, and the same cast of characters that challenged DAPA were about to challenge DACA before Trump terminated it.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Congress can write the law any way it likes, but it can't delegate all of its authority away. Congress gave Bill Clinton a line-item veto by legislation. The courts found that law to be constitutional on the grounds that the executive is only empowered by the Constitution to either sign/ignore or veto a bill and send it back with a reason why, not to sign a fraction of it, and a line-item veto deviates too far from that to be allowed to be instituted by legislation and not an amendment.
Either way, that wasn't the situation with DACA. The executive was not empowered by existing law to give out work and residency permits to illegals the way Obama did.
You are correct. However, prioritization is a long way from handing out residence and work permits with zero authority to do so found anywhere in the United States Code. That scenario is more akin to handing out blank drivers licenses for 16 year olds to fill out themselves because there are only a finite number of slots to schedule a driving test.
Do you really think you can win an argument with me by pointing to individual snippets of what I said while ignoring the big picture of what I said in the same exact post? You act like you are a paid troll.
You really can't read. Or choose not to. I never said you don't have a work ethic, I said you don't learn it in school the way you learn it on the job. Hmmm...glanced at your sig again. I'm starting to lean against "can't read" and "don't read" and toward "can read and is paid to disagree."
You ought to learn how American government is meant to work before you try to accuse people of hypocrisy when they explain how it should work.
It doesn't work like it does in Britain where there are no real boundaries between lawmaking, law enforcement, and the judiciary, and the whole thing is duct tape, bailing wire, and tradition. We have a Constitution that delineates the bounds of authority of different branches of government and is deliberately set up to require broad consensus before major changes in policy like immigration law may be adopted. That's a feature, not a bug.
People who treat it as a bug do not have the law on their side. Obama treated it as a bug because for all the fake news about his skill as an orator, he was terrible at consensus building. Trump does not seem to be that good at it either, but to his credit he is pulling back on some of Obama's overreach instead of doubling down on it.
If he cracks down on H1B abuse, that's a good thing in both the short and the long run, regardless of what the vested interests that are big media and big tech have to say on the subject. And given past reporting on the economics of H1B, it is fair to say that much of the program is abuse. Good on Trump.
As to the rest of it...that's right: Congress needs to change the law in order for the law to be changed. I understand why this may come as unexpected news given the previous administration's looser interpretation of the separation of powers and big media's unabashed cheerleading of that loose interpretation but it is indeed the case that if we want merit-based immigration, then we need to change the law from what we have now to what we would like to have.
Enforcing the letter of the existing laws to highlight their inadequacy is about the only thing the President can do to force the issue. That's what happened with terminating DACA. The lefties couldn't stomach actually having to vote on amnesty for an ever-changing and open-ended number of illegal immigrants so they sued in a friendly court where an Obama-appointed judge made the curious ruling that the Trump administration could not terminate DACA on the grounds of its illegality because only a court could find something illegal. We'll see what sort of contortions the left will make in their inevitable court challenge. Perhaps they will find a judge who is willing to rule that only even-numbered presidents may issue executive orders while odd-numbered presidents are obliged to keep on enforcing them, on the grounds that no one wants odd governance and an even-handed approach is more mathematically beautiful.
I think you're reading someone else's comments and responding to mine. Then again, judging by your signature, you may well be reading my comments and substituting your own alternative text somewhere between the back of your retina and your visual cortex.
Nearly all of the people who go to school first and shuffle off to six figure salaries in industry are successful by the metric of being gainfully employed but not successful by the metric of becoming the next Feynman or Salk. That much should be uncontroversial.
What you seem to find controversial and for some reason personally offensive is my further statement that an academic enterprise that sells the idea that everyone can, or should want to, become the next Feynman or Salk is selling a lie. They don't go right out and sell you this, of course, but they heavily imply it and they heavily encourage their graduates to pursue academic careers over industry careers. I am again speaking of my own experience, my friends' experiences, and my wife's experience.
Attack the idea, not the man. I'm quite content with how my twenties turned out. I'm telling you what I've seen in friends and colleagues who went the traditional route.
As for history, for every one of yours that achieved greatness by age 27, there are hundreds who shuffled off into obscure mediocrity and would have done better not going to grad school. My statement stands.
The lie is that a 22 year old kid fresh out of school can become an effective scientist by staying in school some more. This is false. When you're 22 and just finished college, you have no idea what the working world is like, you have no idea what a paycheck really gets you, and more importantly, you have no idea what avenues of research are actually interesting to the world at large rather than to do for the sake of doing something.
And on the personal side, marriage and children are the undiscovered country and five or six years aren't really meaningful numbers to you if all you have known is school, school, and more school.
The result is that if you go straight through, as you are encouraged to by all your professors, you have no aim, you have no real work ethic, and you have no adulthood. And you don't find out until you're in your mid twenties, adrift in your research, have no savings, and have had limited opportunities to gain the confidence of having exercised basic adult skills that you might have made a mistake.
A solution to this would be for PhD programs to reject any applicants who have not had at least 5 or 6 years of industry experience. You'd have fewer people, and you'd have to pay them more, but the quality of the research would go up while the quantity of drama would go down. One way of achieving this would be for universities to partner up with companies who sponsor their junior or early mid-career employees to pursue research of interest to the company.
I am partaking of this arrangement that my not-so-well-known employer has with a well-known tech school. I worked for nine years at this place before they sent me off to school, and while a cake-walk it isn't, thinking back to how I handled myself and the sheer volume of stuff I didn't know when I had just graduated from college, I am convinced that I would not have done well at all had I gone straight through.
Of the people I know who did go straight through, some did better than others but they were lucky or innately talented. The rest floundered and graduated after a length of time by writing a "franken-thesis," which reads like, "I did this, then I did this other thing that's kind of related to the first thing, and then I did a third thing, and now I'm done!" To some extent, that can't be avoided if you're doing something new, but it would serve everyone better if that journey of self-discovery which inevitably occurs in one's twenties happened in the course of doing serious work for a serious employer and not dicking around in academia.
With a name like "autopilot" it's completely understandable. And the fact that he was an Apple engineer means nothing. It's 50/50 whether he was a hard-nosed nerd who knew enough to tell you how it worked to ten decimal places or whether he was a start-eyed utopian who believed all the propaganda. The summary implies the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's all well and good, and I might even agree with some (but not all, see below) of your analysis. But there's a difference between a "de facto" visa as in not deporting, and a "pseudo-de jure" visa of an actual document issued by ICE that says you're allowed to be here for a certain period of time and allowed to work during that period. I don't see how one can ever be interpreted to be equivalent to the other, even with whatever leeway there might be in the law.
Which gets us back to the first point: laws can never be airtight. Then they would look even less like plain English and even more like computer code. Yet we still have an understanding that "rule of law" should mean that the law means what it says. We short-circuit some of the complexity by aiming to have fewer laws with the expectation that personal freedom and personal responsibility take up the slack.
But with immigration law, there is a binary. You're either here with authorization grounded in law written by Congress per its powers under Article I Section 8 or you aren't.
You seem to have understood my meaning quite correctly. What you did not do was jump to the assumption that people who go straight through are forever tainted as shiftless and aimless. I will repeat myself: I do not think grad school teaches you the things that you need to be successful at grad school as well as a couple of years in real employment outside of academia teaches you those things.
No, it's another way of saying that if you want to reduce gun ownership, you're sweeping your own incompetence at background checks and law enforcement under the rug and scapegoating the 99.99% of people who own guns without causing trouble to anyone.
The amount of gun violence per gun owner is the same. "Tough" gun laws do not do a better job at sorting out people who shouldn't have guns. Liberal Massachusetts also has a low per-capita gun crime rate, but the per-gunowner gun crime rate is actually higher than the national average.
You're not thinking clearly or reading properly. I made no such comparison and I condemned both, while explaining (but not excusing) how the first can cause the second. I stand by my statement as written.
Did I say it was? Or did I in fact imply it was not?
Something like one out of every 10-50 thousand people who own a gun misuse them. California and neighboring states have tens of millions of people who own guns, most of whom are extra-miffed at YouTube these days. It would stand to reason that the couple dozen whackos in that population might take it too far.
It's just stupidity all around. People shouldn't shoot up offices and schools, and corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
If I'm reading your second link correctly, that was about neglecting to allocate resources, for which prioritization is a defense. You still haven't told me why you think handing out de-facto visas to people is the same as prioritization of limited resources.
You're also a bit fuzzy on the distinction between executing the law and enforcing it. The cops who arrest you for breaking a law passed by the legislature are "enforcing" it as much as the judge who sentences you to stand in the stocks in the center of town for punishment.
No you don't get it. You seem to think sentences stand on their own, and when a sentence in isolation disagrees with another taken in isolation from the same post or paragraph, that means the writer is insane, rather than making a point that can't be expressed in 140 characters.
Leave food behind shrub to the left of the park bench. Place chalk mark on mailbox after you've made the drop. You're right, that is interesting.
Hmm...paid by the post or paid by the character?
Citation please? DACA never made its way to the supreme court. DAPA was shot down by a circuit court, if I remember correctly, and the same cast of characters that challenged DAPA were about to challenge DACA before Trump terminated it.
I'm looking for a second job. Which troll farm do you work for and how does one apply?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Congress can write the law any way it likes, but it can't delegate all of its authority away. Congress gave Bill Clinton a line-item veto by legislation. The courts found that law to be constitutional on the grounds that the executive is only empowered by the Constitution to either sign/ignore or veto a bill and send it back with a reason why, not to sign a fraction of it, and a line-item veto deviates too far from that to be allowed to be instituted by legislation and not an amendment.
Either way, that wasn't the situation with DACA. The executive was not empowered by existing law to give out work and residency permits to illegals the way Obama did.
You are correct. However, prioritization is a long way from handing out residence and work permits with zero authority to do so found anywhere in the United States Code. That scenario is more akin to handing out blank drivers licenses for 16 year olds to fill out themselves because there are only a finite number of slots to schedule a driving test.
Do you really think you can win an argument with me by pointing to individual snippets of what I said while ignoring the big picture of what I said in the same exact post? You act like you are a paid troll.
your neighbors are less likely to be purple-haired weirdos who sexually identify as their own house.
You really can't read. Or choose not to. I never said you don't have a work ethic, I said you don't learn it in school the way you learn it on the job. Hmmm...glanced at your sig again. I'm starting to lean against "can't read" and "don't read" and toward "can read and is paid to disagree."
You ought to learn how American government is meant to work before you try to accuse people of hypocrisy when they explain how it should work.
It doesn't work like it does in Britain where there are no real boundaries between lawmaking, law enforcement, and the judiciary, and the whole thing is duct tape, bailing wire, and tradition. We have a Constitution that delineates the bounds of authority of different branches of government and is deliberately set up to require broad consensus before major changes in policy like immigration law may be adopted. That's a feature, not a bug.
People who treat it as a bug do not have the law on their side. Obama treated it as a bug because for all the fake news about his skill as an orator, he was terrible at consensus building. Trump does not seem to be that good at it either, but to his credit he is pulling back on some of Obama's overreach instead of doubling down on it.
If he cracks down on H1B abuse, that's a good thing in both the short and the long run, regardless of what the vested interests that are big media and big tech have to say on the subject. And given past reporting on the economics of H1B, it is fair to say that much of the program is abuse. Good on Trump.
As to the rest of it...that's right: Congress needs to change the law in order for the law to be changed. I understand why this may come as unexpected news given the previous administration's looser interpretation of the separation of powers and big media's unabashed cheerleading of that loose interpretation but it is indeed the case that if we want merit-based immigration, then we need to change the law from what we have now to what we would like to have.
Enforcing the letter of the existing laws to highlight their inadequacy is about the only thing the President can do to force the issue. That's what happened with terminating DACA. The lefties couldn't stomach actually having to vote on amnesty for an ever-changing and open-ended number of illegal immigrants so they sued in a friendly court where an Obama-appointed judge made the curious ruling that the Trump administration could not terminate DACA on the grounds of its illegality because only a court could find something illegal. We'll see what sort of contortions the left will make in their inevitable court challenge. Perhaps they will find a judge who is willing to rule that only even-numbered presidents may issue executive orders while odd-numbered presidents are obliged to keep on enforcing them, on the grounds that no one wants odd governance and an even-handed approach is more mathematically beautiful.
I think you're reading someone else's comments and responding to mine. Then again, judging by your signature, you may well be reading my comments and substituting your own alternative text somewhere between the back of your retina and your visual cortex.
Nearly all of the people who go to school first and shuffle off to six figure salaries in industry are successful by the metric of being gainfully employed but not successful by the metric of becoming the next Feynman or Salk. That much should be uncontroversial.
What you seem to find controversial and for some reason personally offensive is my further statement that an academic enterprise that sells the idea that everyone can, or should want to, become the next Feynman or Salk is selling a lie. They don't go right out and sell you this, of course, but they heavily imply it and they heavily encourage their graduates to pursue academic careers over industry careers. I am again speaking of my own experience, my friends' experiences, and my wife's experience.
Attack the idea, not the man. I'm quite content with how my twenties turned out. I'm telling you what I've seen in friends and colleagues who went the traditional route. As for history, for every one of yours that achieved greatness by age 27, there are hundreds who shuffled off into obscure mediocrity and would have done better not going to grad school. My statement stands.
The lie is that a 22 year old kid fresh out of school can become an effective scientist by staying in school some more. This is false. When you're 22 and just finished college, you have no idea what the working world is like, you have no idea what a paycheck really gets you, and more importantly, you have no idea what avenues of research are actually interesting to the world at large rather than to do for the sake of doing something.
And on the personal side, marriage and children are the undiscovered country and five or six years aren't really meaningful numbers to you if all you have known is school, school, and more school.
The result is that if you go straight through, as you are encouraged to by all your professors, you have no aim, you have no real work ethic, and you have no adulthood. And you don't find out until you're in your mid twenties, adrift in your research, have no savings, and have had limited opportunities to gain the confidence of having exercised basic adult skills that you might have made a mistake.
A solution to this would be for PhD programs to reject any applicants who have not had at least 5 or 6 years of industry experience. You'd have fewer people, and you'd have to pay them more, but the quality of the research would go up while the quantity of drama would go down. One way of achieving this would be for universities to partner up with companies who sponsor their junior or early mid-career employees to pursue research of interest to the company.
I am partaking of this arrangement that my not-so-well-known employer has with a well-known tech school. I worked for nine years at this place before they sent me off to school, and while a cake-walk it isn't, thinking back to how I handled myself and the sheer volume of stuff I didn't know when I had just graduated from college, I am convinced that I would not have done well at all had I gone straight through.
Of the people I know who did go straight through, some did better than others but they were lucky or innately talented. The rest floundered and graduated after a length of time by writing a "franken-thesis," which reads like, "I did this, then I did this other thing that's kind of related to the first thing, and then I did a third thing, and now I'm done!" To some extent, that can't be avoided if you're doing something new, but it would serve everyone better if that journey of self-discovery which inevitably occurs in one's twenties happened in the course of doing serious work for a serious employer and not dicking around in academia.
With a name like "autopilot" it's completely understandable. And the fact that he was an Apple engineer means nothing. It's 50/50 whether he was a hard-nosed nerd who knew enough to tell you how it worked to ten decimal places or whether he was a start-eyed utopian who believed all the propaganda. The summary implies the latter.
Are you asking for a friend?