I'm well aware of that section. It came up a great deal in Obama's initial election. However, when quoting law definitions you need to use the definitions given the in the same section of Law and not bounce around too much. Read the section I quoted. There's enough wiggle room in there that green card holders permanent residence, are considered Nationals.
This is why each major section of the US code starts out with definitions. You'll find a different definition in the IRS tax code section.
By the poor interpretation of overzealous DHS and immigration agents border checkpoints. You're right that on its face it looks perfectly legal, however the guidance given was improper and was implemented improperly. The ruling may simply be not that the order is overturned but the way it's being handled by the people at the border needs to be changed.
The complaint want exclusively based on H1-B visa holders. The judge doesn't have two faces ruling on everything just the totality. So he may look at it and say "something in this is going to stand, I'm not going to go through the details and tell you what will and what won't. Will let a full court do that."
You're right in assuming that part may not stand, but even that part is vague enough to warrant full heading by a court. That same section of law refers to refusing entry by refusing the issuance of visas. The assumption is if the visas were already issued, then due process must be followed to revoke them.
I'm not a lawyer, I've just worked with them for decades. And while I'm casually interested to see how this turns out, at this point I would have to start going through precedent to see where this is been ruled on in the past and I'm not that interested.:-)
The judge has the ability to block the entire order by injunction until it can be properly heard by a court. It will be the court's decision on whether the entire thing is voided or only parts.
All this judge is saying is "wait -- you're right, this looks wrong on its face and you will suffer harm. I'll suspend it until we can go through the process and figure it all out."
The President could amend or clarify the order any time he wants to make it clear it is only aliens and the court case would probably be dismissed.
The Executive Order included green card holders, which are permanent residents. They are considered "nationals" and not "aliens" under the same law you quoted, and the President does NOT have the authority to arbitrarily refuse entry of U.S. Nationals into the United States.
Back up a few sections to read the official definitions.
(a) As used in this chapter -- (3) The term âoealienâ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
(22) The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
The judge is not the one who needs to learn the law. For an injunction to be granted the plaintiff has to demonstrate standing, and convince the judge that they have a reasonable chance of success in their complaint.
At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.
The judge did exactly what the law required. He is not the one who needs to learn the law -- surprise, surprise, it is the random person on the Internet who thinks they know more about the subject than someone who has dedicated their life to it.
President Obama's order didn't apply to nationals of the United States, rather only to refugees or aliens.
You have no privacy to be respected in this area if you're a Federal employee. If you weren't willing to work for me because of that, then I wouldn't want you. You obviously don't know what you're getting in to and would rather believe your own illusions rather than face reality. That last thing I'd want in an employee is someone who metaphorically sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "la la la I can hear you".
It is always fun when someone new joins the Agencies I've worked for. They have the typical "I don't discuss salary" attitude of private sector employees. Then tell them their salary down to the penny and their eyes go wide like it is some terrible secret that has been told.
You, sir or madam, are a lying sack of dangerous shit.
Quote WebMD:
"Home Remedy No-No Number 4: Colloidal Silver
With hype and hope spread by word of mouth and the Internet, colloidal silver is believed by some to help treat a range of infections and diseases.
"People believe that colloidal silver can treat fungal infections, TB, HIV, herpes, and even cancer by boosting the immune system," says Ted Epperly, MD, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Unfortunately for colloidal sliver supporters, they're wrong, and the consequences of their mistake could be costly.
"One of the most well-known side effects of colloidal silver is that it turns a person's skin a greyish shade of blue," says Epperly.
The skin isn't the only organ affected by colloidal silver; so are the kidneys, stomach, and brain, as well as the nervous system. Silver is actually deposited into the cells of these organs, possibly causing cell damage and death, leading to organ failure.
"The effects of colloidal silver are toxic and cumulative," says Epperly. "Worse, they're irreversible."
Epperly urges people to ignore the hype and instead, talk to a health care provider about the proper way to treat infections and diseases.
Yes, they were considered people. For the purposes of enumeration for taxation and population, 3/5th of a person. They required their owner's permission because they were also property.
Yes, but it extends further than that. That government status also clears the way for things like visitation rights, insurance benefits, health benefits, custody rights, rights of survivorship and inheritance, etc.
While most of them could be handled through other legal contracts, the simplicity of one contract versus the myriad you'd need to cover everything should not be understated.
Not until a robot can be legally recognized as a person, having the ability to make legally binding decisions. We'd need AI personhood first.
This is the same silly argument fundamentalists were making about gay marriage -- that it'd lead to people marrying their pets or inanimate objects. Not until those things have legal capacity to enter into a contract.
MakeMKV rips BluRay fine. I've ripped scores of them, then encoded to h.264 m4v files using Handbrake -- from Avatar to Downton Abbey. Just about any SATA BR player should work fine under Linux.
Lots of software like Kodi or OpenELEC will index and play series files just fine, looking up against thetvdb.com as long as you name them properly. I use "Name Season x Episode", like "Downton Abbey 1x02.m4v".
The next challenge is UltraHD -- 4K BluRay discs, which might take some time to get cracked.
It can encode files to different sizes, aspect ratios and formats. It is frequently used as a companion to something like MakeMKV, which will do the actual ripping from media to file.
The removal of the worker from the equation removes their ability to obtain capital, and this participate in private ownership and operation of property.
By removing what could eventually be upwards of 90% of the participants in the system you will break the system.
Boy, are you going to be surprised when you figure out how the Soviet Union used to dispose of nuclear reactors from ships and submarines. At least with the U.S. one it was an accident.
A Russian government report acknowledged in March 1993, that "during the period of 1965 to 1988 the Northern Fleet had dumped four reactor compartments with eight reactors (three containing damaged fuel) in the Abrosimov Gulf in 20 to 40 meters of water." Six other compartments, containing nine reactors in all, had also been dumped into the water in the 1960s and 1970s.
Yes, but you need to take into account Baby Boomers are retiring at an ever increasing rate, which impacts the rate. The age demographic of the nation plays heavily into the workforce participation numbers.
Actually, the numbers, as a percentage, haven't been this LOW since 1978. Go to the BLS, choose "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - LNS11300000", then change the date range to anything from as far back as 1948 to present.
Sorry, I'm totally non-partisan, being disgusted by political parties in general. It counts always.
And no, that number does NOT include those over the age of 18 only. The number it is based on is called the "civilian non-institutional population", of which the definition is:
In the United States, the civilian noninstitutional population refers to people 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (penal, mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
The age is 16+, which you can see in the BLS statistics for yourself.
So, it excludes young children, but assumes everyone 16 and older is working, which is a very outdated assumption. Retired doesn't count, unless you're actually in a nursing facility. Military doesn't count. Full-time students don't count. Housewives don't count. Etc.
There are too many caveats to that number for it to be useful as anything other than a misleading, FUD talking point. This article in the WSJ breaks this down nicely.
The real answer is complex, and you can't break it down to a single sound bite. I still maintain the U-6 is a more accurate representation for trying to convey the total unemployment/underemployment picture. I don't think you fall off of U-6 after a set period of time. As it is compiled from a survey, I think you fall off if you flat out say you've just given up looking.
While there are employment issues in the U.S., saying things like "there are 95 million people out of work" just isn't accurate. Most people have a basic understanding that there are approximately 300 million people in the U.S., and the go "OMG! 1/3 of the population is unemployed! Those people need jobs." And that just isn't true.
That the elections are over and Congress and the Senate are set for two years? The Republican establishment in power now is the one that will be in power until at least then -- not next year.
Using the number of Americans"not in the work force" is inaccurate and dishonest. That 95 million number includes both my parents, who are retired and living in a nursing home; my 18 month old grand daughter and my 8-year old son in elementary school; and my wife who is a traditional home maker and not interested in outside work.
None of the people in those categories should be considered in "unemployment" statistics, which is what you're doing by citing the 95 million non-working Americans.
U-6 from BLS is much more representative and is currently at 9.3â.... It includes people who want to work but have given up on despair, as well as people who want to work full time but can't get anything other than a few hours on a part-time gig.
Except, when its not. It all depends on what it is.
Case in point -- the Bradley Manning info from Wikileaks. I worked at an Executive Branch Agency where it was later found that some idiot had downloaded the material from Wikileaks and then e-mailed it to a couple of colleagues, internally to the Agency, before we blocked all access. This is on a non-classified e-mail server. It was discovered a couple of YEARS after the leaks actually happened. However, most of the material was STILL classified even after being out in the public for years.
So...destroy the drives in the Exchange servers that run the Agency e-mail? Destroy the drives of the various computers that had sent and/or received the e-mail? The SAN used for the storage array where the data was stored in a Windows shared drive?
Not according to DHS or the NSA. "Sigh. Just delete it. We have real shit to worry about." was what I was told by both Agencies.
The guy who did it got yelled at. "Officially counselled" is the term, though there was nothing put in his record. "You idiot!" was about the extent of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not until I read the order itself and see some details on what the complainants presented. :-) Give me a bit...
I'm well aware of that section. It came up a great deal in Obama's initial election. However, when quoting law definitions you need to use the definitions given the in the same section of Law and not bounce around too much. Read the section I quoted. There's enough wiggle room in there that green card holders permanent residence, are considered Nationals.
This is why each major section of the US code starts out with definitions. You'll find a different definition in the IRS tax code section.
By the poor interpretation of overzealous DHS and immigration agents border checkpoints. You're right that on its face it looks perfectly legal, however the guidance given was improper and was implemented improperly. The ruling may simply be not that the order is overturned but the way it's being handled by the people at the border needs to be changed.
The complaint want exclusively based on H1-B visa holders. The judge doesn't have two faces ruling on everything just the totality. So he may look at it and say "something in this is going to stand, I'm not going to go through the details and tell you what will and what won't. Will let a full court do that."
You're right in assuming that part may not stand, but even that part is vague enough to warrant full heading by a court. That same section of law refers to refusing entry by refusing the issuance of visas. The assumption is if the visas were already issued, then due process must be followed to revoke them.
I'm not a lawyer, I've just worked with them for decades. And while I'm casually interested to see how this turns out, at this point I would have to start going through precedent to see where this is been ruled on in the past and I'm not that interested. :-)
The judge has the ability to block the entire order by injunction until it can be properly heard by a court. It will be the court's decision on whether the entire thing is voided or only parts.
All this judge is saying is "wait -- you're right, this looks wrong on its face and you will suffer harm. I'll suspend it until we can go through the process and figure it all out."
The President could amend or clarify the order any time he wants to make it clear it is only aliens and the court case would probably be dismissed.
The Executive Order included green card holders, which are permanent residents. They are considered "nationals" and not "aliens" under the same law you quoted, and the President does NOT have the authority to arbitrarily refuse entry of U.S. Nationals into the United States.
Back up a few sections to read the official definitions.
8 U.S. Code 1101 - Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter --
(3) The term âoealienâ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
(22) The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
The judge is not the one who needs to learn the law. For an injunction to be granted the plaintiff has to demonstrate standing, and convince the judge that they have a reasonable chance of success in their complaint.
At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.
The judge did exactly what the law required. He is not the one who needs to learn the law -- surprise, surprise, it is the random person on the Internet who thinks they know more about the subject than someone who has dedicated their life to it.
President Obama's order didn't apply to nationals of the United States, rather only to refugees or aliens.
You have no privacy to be respected in this area if you're a Federal employee. If you weren't willing to work for me because of that, then I wouldn't want you. You obviously don't know what you're getting in to and would rather believe your own illusions rather than face reality. That last thing I'd want in an employee is someone who metaphorically sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "la la la I can hear you".
Unless, of course, you work for the Federal Government. Then they can just go look up your entire salary history, plus bonuses.
https://www.federalpay.org/employees
It is always fun when someone new joins the Agencies I've worked for. They have the typical "I don't discuss salary" attitude of private sector employees. Then tell them their salary down to the penny and their eyes go wide like it is some terrible secret that has been told.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the machines are going to be rackmounts and/or blade servers. No one uses towers anymore.
And they just added Tor support, with their own .onion address.
https://protonirockerxow.onion/
For when you absolutely, positively want your e-mail to be slower than traditional post service.
You, sir or madam, are a lying sack of dangerous shit.
Quote WebMD:
"Home Remedy No-No Number 4: Colloidal Silver
With hype and hope spread by word of mouth and the Internet, colloidal silver is believed by some to help treat a range of infections and diseases.
"People believe that colloidal silver can treat fungal infections, TB, HIV, herpes, and even cancer by boosting the immune system," says Ted Epperly, MD, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Unfortunately for colloidal sliver supporters, they're wrong, and the consequences of their mistake could be costly.
"One of the most well-known side effects of colloidal silver is that it turns a person's skin a greyish shade of blue," says Epperly.
The skin isn't the only organ affected by colloidal silver; so are the kidneys, stomach, and brain, as well as the nervous system. Silver is actually deposited into the cells of these organs, possibly causing cell damage and death, leading to organ failure.
"The effects of colloidal silver are toxic and cumulative," says Epperly. "Worse, they're irreversible."
Epperly urges people to ignore the hype and instead, talk to a health care provider about the proper way to treat infections and diseases.
http://www.webmd.com/women/features/5-home-remedy-no-nos#3
Yes, they were considered people. For the purposes of enumeration for taxation and population, 3/5th of a person. They required their owner's permission because they were also property.
Yes, but it extends further than that. That government status also clears the way for things like visitation rights, insurance benefits, health benefits, custody rights, rights of survivorship and inheritance, etc.
While most of them could be handled through other legal contracts, the simplicity of one contract versus the myriad you'd need to cover everything should not be understated.
Not until a robot can be legally recognized as a person, having the ability to make legally binding decisions. We'd need AI personhood first.
This is the same silly argument fundamentalists were making about gay marriage -- that it'd lead to people marrying their pets or inanimate objects. Not until those things have legal capacity to enter into a contract.
MakeMKV rips BluRay fine. I've ripped scores of them, then encoded to h.264 m4v files using Handbrake -- from Avatar to Downton Abbey. Just about any SATA BR player should work fine under Linux.
Lots of software like Kodi or OpenELEC will index and play series files just fine, looking up against thetvdb.com as long as you name them properly. I use "Name Season x Episode", like "Downton Abbey 1x02.m4v".
The next challenge is UltraHD -- 4K BluRay discs, which might take some time to get cracked.
It can encode files to different sizes, aspect ratios and formats. It is frequently used as a companion to something like MakeMKV, which will do the actual ripping from media to file.
You're not taking it to the logical conclusion.
The removal of the worker from the equation removes their ability to obtain capital, and this participate in private ownership and operation of property.
By removing what could eventually be upwards of 90% of the participants in the system you will break the system.
Boy, are you going to be surprised when you figure out how the Soviet Union used to dispose of nuclear reactors from ships and submarines. At least with the U.S. one it was an accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning_of_Russian_nuclear-powered_vessels
A Russian government report acknowledged in March 1993, that "during the period of 1965 to 1988 the Northern Fleet had dumped four reactor compartments with eight reactors (three containing damaged fuel) in the Abrosimov Gulf in 20 to 40 meters of water." Six other compartments, containing nine reactors in all, had also been dumped into the water in the 1960s and 1970s.
Yes, but you need to take into account Baby Boomers are retiring at an ever increasing rate, which impacts the rate. The age demographic of the nation plays heavily into the workforce participation numbers.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2014/07/22/12-baby-boomer-retirement-trends
Actually, the numbers, as a percentage, haven't been this LOW since 1978. Go to the BLS, choose "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - LNS11300000", then change the date range to anything from as far back as 1948 to present.
Sorry, I'm totally non-partisan, being disgusted by political parties in general. It counts always.
And no, that number does NOT include those over the age of 18 only. The number it is based on is called the "civilian non-institutional population", of which the definition is:
In the United States, the civilian noninstitutional population refers to people 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (penal, mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
The age is 16+, which you can see in the BLS statistics for yourself.
So, it excludes young children, but assumes everyone 16 and older is working, which is a very outdated assumption. Retired doesn't count, unless you're actually in a nursing facility. Military doesn't count. Full-time students don't count. Housewives don't count. Etc.
There are too many caveats to that number for it to be useful as anything other than a misleading, FUD talking point. This article in the WSJ breaks this down nicely.
The real answer is complex, and you can't break it down to a single sound bite. I still maintain the U-6 is a more accurate representation for trying to convey the total unemployment/underemployment picture. I don't think you fall off of U-6 after a set period of time. As it is compiled from a survey, I think you fall off if you flat out say you've just given up looking.
While there are employment issues in the U.S., saying things like "there are 95 million people out of work" just isn't accurate. Most people have a basic understanding that there are approximately 300 million people in the U.S., and the go "OMG! 1/3 of the population is unemployed! Those people need jobs." And that just isn't true.
That the elections are over and Congress and the Senate are set for two years? The Republican establishment in power now is the one that will be in power until at least then -- not next year.
Using the number of Americans"not in the work force" is inaccurate and dishonest. That 95 million number includes both my parents, who are retired and living in a nursing home; my 18 month old grand daughter and my 8-year old son in elementary school; and my wife who is a traditional home maker and not interested in outside work.
None of the people in those categories should be considered in "unemployment" statistics, which is what you're doing by citing the 95 million non-working Americans.
U-6 from BLS is much more representative and is currently at 9.3â.... It includes people who want to work but have given up on despair, as well as people who want to work full time but can't get anything other than a few hours on a part-time gig.
Did you just make a subtle "period" joke about women? :-) Impressive. Most impressive.
Except, when its not. It all depends on what it is.
Case in point -- the Bradley Manning info from Wikileaks. I worked at an Executive Branch Agency where it was later found that some idiot had downloaded the material from Wikileaks and then e-mailed it to a couple of colleagues, internally to the Agency, before we blocked all access. This is on a non-classified e-mail server. It was discovered a couple of YEARS after the leaks actually happened. However, most of the material was STILL classified even after being out in the public for years.
So...destroy the drives in the Exchange servers that run the Agency e-mail? Destroy the drives of the various computers that had sent and/or received the e-mail? The SAN used for the storage array where the data was stored in a Windows shared drive?
Not according to DHS or the NSA. "Sigh. Just delete it. We have real shit to worry about." was what I was told by both Agencies.
The guy who did it got yelled at. "Officially counselled" is the term, though there was nothing put in his record. "You idiot!" was about the extent of it.
Stein is only on 45 ballots, including DC.