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.
True. There's also the third approach (DACA) of giving people an official status that promises softer action and making said softer action policy, which again requires the law to not force a policy of must-act. The fourth approach, of course, is to automatically extend visas: we don't have a problem with you, your visa turns into a green card (permanent). That won't work for illegal entry; it works for the situation where we gave you a 6-month working period and there's no practical reason we'd benefit from terminating your work visa, but red tape is stupid and causes problems. Cut the Gordian knot.
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.
Actually, there isn't. The only immigration clause in the Constitution is possibly the last clause of Article 1, Section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The generic "make laws" clause. The Constitution considered people coming to be citizens, but never considered people just... coming here. Weird, huh? The Commerce Clause gives us a catch-all: immigrants (and trade) affect interstate and foreign commerce. The damned thing could have just said "it is the duty of Congress to ensure the good health of the Economy of the United States" but they had to go and write something over which people could argue, and then nobody cared to argue about it anyway.
As with all laws, however, Congress puts forth a legislative policy, and the Executive executes this by forming Executive policy. That has to fit within the Legislative policy. It's no different than any other law, such as that governing the DEA, FDA, or FCC.
I used to argue that executions work as a deterrent in low-crime, low-poverty areas where people are immediately fearful of execution, and not at all in high-crime areas where part of your day-to-day criminal life is the threat of death from everyone but the state (i.e. a state execution is the least-likely way you're going to die, so why would you care?).
The second argument there is probably correct. The first one has a flaw: most people are decent people anyway, and are hesitant to commit capital offense for their own internal reasons.
It turns out we can readily reduce crime with strong behavioral health programs and more attempts to stop the cycle of institutionalization--that committing a crime destroys your life such that you are unable to thrive and so are actively pressured to commit more crimes thanks to our criminal justice system's own actions against you--which takes things in the opposite direction. I've started collecting those things we need for the purpose.
Oh, sure. There's similar going on with gun control laws in Maryland, which was why there's a lead from one to the other ("following the same reasoning as these gun laws").
"Truth in Sentencing" is a common Conservative thread about how sentences should be harsh and permanent--you need to actually serve the long sentence, not get out on parole. It works about as well as 5-year mandatory minimum sentencing for having an illegal firearm--that is: not at all.
I like to point out where both sides are rebranding the same ideals as different and both attempts are failing. I'm trying to twist the Democratic party's arm into straightening out; the Republicans have unsalvageable ideals.
Why is the crime rate LOW in those adjacent territories where the gun laws are lax and all the guns are in the first place?
Typically, isolated cities like this start out as places where the crime rate (and violent crime rate) soars, and they try to curb it by enacting gun laws. In other words: everyone has the same gun laws; then the city has high crime; then the city enacts gun laws; the crime doesn't go away.
People come along and say, "Hey, look! The places without gun laws have low crime, and the strong gun law places have high crime!" Sometimes they leave it dangling; frequently they try to assert something about disarmament only disarming the citizenry so the criminals know they're easy--essentially narrating that the gun laws came first and brought crime.
Nobody seems to ask why the crime increased in the first place.
Nobody seems to ask why the approach of locking people up for long sentences (that's what these tough gun laws do) doesn't suppress the crime.
Then: Republicans start using words like "Truth in Sentencing", which follow the same reasoning as these gun laws whereby maybe if we lock people up more and longer people will stop doing bad things and the crime will go away.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. You'd get closer with medical reporting and some sort of social system (e.g. people anonymously notate details about their sexual partners and the data is correlated, so we can extrapolate sexual habits, risk behaviors, and contact with those infected to identify potential infections); but that involves the back-end to be aware of all of these facts about everyone.
The whole approach was to eliminate any third-party knowledge. That becomes... difficult at high connection rates. Shamir's Scheme doesn't help here.
If the law gives the Executive the power to take an action, the Executive has broad discretion.
If the law specifies that a certain condition shall illicit a certain action, the Executive is bound.
The law gets odd because it essentially gives power to the Executive and the Judiciary. For example: a State law against riding a dirt bike in the street can result in a fine, imprisonment, and seizure of property. The Executive has already created the State DOT, and the State DOT is now bound to include these laws as regulation. That means the DOT certifies certain things for road use, and may not certify those things--and so those things are illegal to operate on the road. The DOT could road-certify your dirt bike and the police couldn't take an action against you; however, the law prohibits the Executive from doing that.
So here's the thing: the Police are the executive, but also have discretion because the law does not specify a "must arrest" offense. The Prosecutor isn't required to prosecute.
We could give you a warning and tell you to walk the damned thing home. The Prosecutor could decline to arraign you because he thinks you're not a menace and you seem reasonable enough that prosecution will make things worse. The Courts have to rule on law (the Prosecutor has a huge amount of power), and are limited to what penalty they may apply.
Police don't deport immigrants.
We have a special enforcement unit called Immigration and Customs Enforcement for this. ICE has been created by the execution of our immigration and customs laws, so to provide the Executive wit the capacity to enforce them.
I distinguish execution and enforcement as a matter of policy: the Executive--the President (or whomever the law grants power) and the Enforcement Agencies create rules which fit into the power granted and the actions mandated by the law. You must X, you have the power to Y. To execute, you create agencies with procedures which absolutely achieve X and do not exceed the power of Y. Everything within that scope is up to the discretion of the Executive.
Enforcement involves actually carrying the law out to its conclusion. Without execution, you can't enforce. We now have the ICE agency, with ICE rules, with ICE agents, who can now take action within the scope of ICE rules against those who violate the law which ICE is intended to execute. When a person commits an offense against the law, ICE takes enforcement action against that offense.
If you think about that for a while, you reach an interesting conclusion: if the law does not include complete, air-tight language that a thing SHALL be an offense, the penalty SHALL be as specified, and a person committing the offense SHALL be arrested, SHALL be prosecuted, and SHALL be subject to the penalty if found guilty of the offense, then the law is not directly enforceable. A law which leaves any span of discretion must be executed by creating those refined rules, which are then enforced.
Think about when the FCC enforced Net Neutrality rules. Congress didn't pass a law for that; it gave the FCC those powers long ago, and the FCC never used them in that capacity. Then it did. The President didn't even have to issue an executive order. Now we've decided we like these rules, and want to restrict the Executive from failing to enforce them; so we will write a law (eventually), the Executive will execute the law, and those rules will become fixed once again and illegal to repeal. The FCC will thereafter be required to enforce those rules.
My understanding of immigration law is it doesn't require all action in all cases, but only gives the Executive the power of action. Note that it doesn't give the Executive the power to provide visas in excess of the legislative limits, so the Executive might be allowed to give "de-facto visas" as you put it by simply not enforcing--and can enforce the hell out of the law if you need to leave.
Poor stakeholder management and an organizational structure that doesn't involve the PM into the process before it's sold. It's fixable, but it requires the organization to not put on the face of "Our customers are complete retards and have no idea how anything works" and be willing to stand up and look like professionals.
You have an organization in which customers are assumed to not tolerate questions. "I need X Y Z" "... can we do that?... ok. YES we can sell you X Y Z! Leave it to us! We r smart! U PAY NOW!" A more-professional organization will identify that they can do X Y Z, then sit with the customer and go over the 2-minute explanation of their engagement process: they bring in a project manager and an engineer, they work out the precise requirements to ensure we're delivering the product you need, and then work out the basic project charter and plan. The customer is given the full project plan to review so they're aware of what's being done, what's not being done, how long it will take, and so forth.
Some organizations are filled with people who immediately cry that customers will give them a deer-in-headlights stare and wander away like lost children. The truth is customers like this kind of professional assurance. They like being involved. They like seeing that you are dedicated to ensuring they're getting what they expect and that the job is done right. They like knowing they're the most important factor in this project's success.
My organization just hired a new project manager who does not tolerate our purchasing habits. We've gotten terrible results by simply telling contracted firms to produce a thing, then waiting for them to deliver that thing. The process I describe above is what he's moving us toward: if they can't deliver a competent project plan and work with us each step of the way to ensure they're producing the product we need, we go somewhere else.
Our habit has developed from purchasing the lowest-priced thing we can find and ignoring all other aspects. Even then, everybody pointed out that whoever offered this kind of strong customer engagement was probably the better bid, "but too expensive". Spend $250k but the $300k option is too expensive. Seriously. What you get is a shambling pile of horse shit that costs you $2 million in lost productivity over the next three years, and then you bail out and look for another vendor to build another thing that works.
Long ago, I actually considered this when looking at the whole STD spread thing. I live in a community that has a considerably-high STD rate.
This lead down a rabbit hole of designing an ID card or bracelet that contains medical records (using high-security storage--military-grade chipsets are actually dirt cheap, e.g. what Yubikey uses in $20 devices) and uses RTC tracking. You bring yours up to someone else's, you both acknowledge (physical button press) the exchange, and they blink a color-coded code to show time-decayed status (recent STD test? Clean? Positive?). Doctor has to code the update into it, so you have to go for a blood test to keep your shiny, green rating.
"Stick your HIV status into an online user profile" seems like it would have really bad outcomes.
It really doesn't, but mostly because I'm bad at selling things. Working out how to construct data privacy laws isn't going to be a one-man weekend project, either; we need a special committee examining the data privacy laws in Europe, with lawyers and technology experts, with expert witness testimony, the lot.
We'll survive without these laws for any indefinite period of time. That gives us the opportunity to make this legislation an imperative, and to take the time necessary to do it right. It may take 3 months or a year for a dedicated body of knowledgeable individuals to build the right laws and regulations--although, as I've said, we have a good head start with data privacy laws in Europe.
At times, something is so big and so critically important that I am afraid to frame it out myself in my own haste. I don't know everything.
Just because what they do isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right
It means doing it gives them a hell of a lot of power (money or control), and so if they didn't do it than someone else would. In this case, everybody is doing it; Facebook happens to have a lucky position.
Chastising Facebook for not voluntarily behaving is the weird sort of socialist idealism you get out of Republicans, where having no regulations and no rule of law will automatically produce well-behaved and upstanding Corporate citizens.
The fun part is people complain about these rules and assert that they're at odds with the law, and we often just pass laws making these rules the law. I've encountered people on the campaign trail that tell me that's stupid and I need to focus on enforcing the law; I point out that enforcing the law is the Judicial's problem, executing it is the Executives, and that the job I'm going for is making the law--which means when I say it's fine and several hundred others in the room nod in agreement, that is the law.
Good catch, though. I'm working off fourth-hand information in this case, and should seek better sources.
Organizational decision making can put projects at risk. Project management is actually pretty easy to digest, but kind of bland; your best bet is to drop $250 on RMC Project's CAPM Exam Prep kit and a copy of the PMBOK 5e. CAPM Exam Prep lists the section of the PMBOK 5e related to the topic at hand under each heading, which lets you cross-reference without having to digest the entire PMBOK all at once (it's not entertaining).
I got certified in about 2 months of independent study.
It gives you a good understanding of everything involved with managing projects, a lot of tools for planning, and a way to specifically deal with your project manager when they don't function well.
Adding out-of-scope work is broken. Adding out-of-scope work for a perceived benefit is called "gold plating": delivering the project (scope) with unimportant (out-of-scope) extra stuff tacked on (gold plating). Project managers are supposed to stop you from doing that.
The supreme court actually had found all deferred action programs within the bounds of the law in prior cases, and the Executive took advantage of that.
We have all kinds of problems with both American and foreign workers. Those problems stopped when we brought in project managers who didn't tolerate the backwards, broken way we manage projects.
All bureaucracy should facilitate, not impede. Bureaucracy typically either fails to facilitate (too little red tape) or impedes (too much red tape--see: THE IRS). PMI is essentially an organization tasked with the ongoing study of making bureaucracy efficient; there are, however, a lot of really bad project managers.
Because we could just leave them in India or Germany and tell them to build it and upload it to the SFTP server. They wouldn't pay their taxes to the US Government, they wouldn't spend their wage at US small business restaurants, and we'd have more money flowing out.
I don't believe a trade deficit is a bad thing; that doesn't mean I don't see the economic difference between money being spent locally and money being spent importing something that costs exactly the same price either way. Imports are only good for your economy when they're significantly-cheaper than paying local labor to do the same thing.
That should allow you to ask the next question; although you can spend a little time thinking on it to make sure you need somebody else to answer it for you. I might or might not have all the answers, so you might have to ask someone else.
and is deliberately set up to require broad consensus before major changes in policy like immigration law may be adopted.
Many laws grant the President a broad discretion of powers, and so he creates administrative agencies (by executive order) to exercise those powers. Those agencies change the rules now and then; sometimes, the President orders them to change the rules.
What is within the power granted to the Executive and not mandated the specific duty of the Executive may or may not be done by the Executive, and so the Executive may set policy. Some laws say "The Attorney General shall...", others simply specify what shall be--leaving it to the Chief Executive to order into existence whatever satisfies the described circumstance.
The President can, in fact, make major policy changes.
What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?
It's all over the place.
Liberals want to support the humanitarian side--we want to protect people who have been here long, integrated with our society, and would be harmed by deportation--as a general rule. We also want to keep those programs which provide a place for people to go when fleeing humanitarian crisis (saving lives).
The rest is economics, and liberals are divided. I have a fairly well-developed economic position, and would like to start with some background.
I'd like to first point out that immigration and trade are similar: in trade, the labor is physically in another nation, rather than here. Immigration has one special advantage: the local consumption driven by that labor is in our own nation, directly. A bunch of immigrant workers might import Chinese clothes, but they aren't eating at a Chinese McDonalds.
Population doesn't simply double every generation, or otherwise grow. There's an economic carry capacity: as you scale, you also scale labor needs, and so population grows and nothing changes. When you hit carry capacity for producing a particular good or service, you require more labor per unit.
As an example: raising production from 500,000 units to 1,000,000 units may require doubling the number of working hours in total (1M = 500k * 2). Raising production from 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 may require 1.15x as much labor (10% more production, 15% more labor) or such.
That causes financial pressure as population expands, which largely discourages family growth. Poorer and middle-class families have fewer financial resources and either decide they can't afford children or they have children and then fail to care for them and so they die. Population numbers for an entire economic unit (generally a nation or the world) show this trend, although individual families will bob above and below the trend (i.e. you can get really big welfare families sometimes, but your welfare system can't provide enough to force your total population to grow beyond your economic capacity--it's physically-impossible).
Okay, what's all this mean?
Immigrants who have been here for a while (even several months) no longer have a real impact on our economy. We have a fast-response system (length of college tenure, variations in age of retirement, work visa program) and a slow-response system (birth and death rate) to adjust labor force, and the fast-response system integrates working immigrants rapidly. Removing them would cause a back-fill with new American labor--either earlier transition from college to the workforce or later retirement.
That capacity is limited. It's bigger than our inflow, but it's not infinite.
2/3 of all unauthorized immigrants are visa overstays. That means they're here, they're working, we've integrated them, and then it's time for them to leave and they don't. That has approximately zero economic impact.
The remainder are illegal border crossings.
Even with the illegal border crossings and the unauthorized immigrants, we have incredibly-low unemployment rates at this time, and pull around 300,000 new authorized workers into the nation every year.
We're doing pretty well.
My position should be obvious in some part.
First, the immigrants who have been here for a year or so and are working are equivalent to any other working American. The only argument to eject them is a social argument: person A doesn't have a job (there's going to be unemployment even with zero immigrants) and believes person B is less of a human being and so has fewer human rights, thus should move to the back of the bus. Such an isolationist policy will eventually exhaust our sacrificial immigrant population, leaving us with many persons A who have nobody left to mug for their employment.
Thus we should seek to extend these visa overstays, perhaps grantin
They stuck me on stimulants for ADHD. I actually perform at that extremely-high level without medication, but only after 9pm; I'm still going at 2am. They put me on enough stims to make me wide awake during the day and keep me focused, and so I was like that all freaking day.
So I could make it through high school with grades and SAT scores that got me into university largely because I was on shitloads of stimulants. Therefor, I can be expected to perform at the same level because I can beat the insurance companies and get them to give me shitloads of stimulants even though they make you get bi-annual authorization for any ADHD medication after you turn 18.
... or we could have the NIH or the CDC research sleep, then find a way to adjust our society to the findings. Considering the epidemic of sleep deprivation, the CDC seems the right place to go. Also, maybe I only take a little stimulant--just enough to compensate for the ADHD, not enough to drive me into super-high-performance mode all the time. (Stimulants aren't cognitive enhancers; they only make you very awake.)
this is a situation where people sleep the "wrong" hours, not a situation where they never sleep
It's a situation where a person gets less sleep due to their body deciding they should be awake during the time they're trying to be asleep. Losing 1 hour of sleep for 3 days in a row is roughly equivalent to skipping an entire night of sleep; now consider when every single night is 30%-50% less efficient.
still causes far less psychological damage than gay conversion therapy
Both are considered torture under several international conventions. I wouldn't know: I'm largely-immune to psychological damage as such (everything my mind does seems like something I'm observing, rather than something integral to my own experience as self; it's one hell of a shield, but does carry a rather large cost I don't personally care about).
We've used several forms of psychological torture since exiting the ICC. Obama was going to re-enter the ICC but didn't: if we sign back on, we'd be obligated to extradite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to the UN to face trial for war crimes. Signing a UN treaty and then sending an ex-President to be tried for high crimes by the UN would terrify the United States population: the United Nations has very little actual enforceable power because nations value their sovereignty as nation-states, and much conservative rhetoric centers around the threat of the UN as a one-world-government organization coming to strip our rights and imprison us etc. etc. (this dialogue actually surfaced a lot in conspiracy theories about Obama trying to demilitarize the US and use only NATO troops because US troops can't operate on US soil, but the President could deploy NATO against American citizens).
Sleep deprivation in the extreme causes death. In the acute, it causes brain damage. One person stayed awake without drugs for 11 days and suffered measurable brain damage.
Chronic sleep deprivation increases the risk of depression and suicide. It lowers the capacity to feel pleasure and reduces the ability to thrive. Adults with chronic sleep loss report excess mental distress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and alcohol use.
The third effect is: you wake up at 4:30AM and are still tired and try to fall asleep again
My cats figured out that I do this and now come to pester me for attention.
I've adapted to this mostly, and have to keep strict use of melatonin and cognitive therapy to continue sleeping well. I have 3-4 good nights in a row and then a bad night, usually 2-3 bad nights a week. It was so much better when I worked 3pm-11pm and just went to sleep at 2am; and I've found now and then that just staying up until 1am causes me to sleep much better for the first half of the night, but I'm now trained to wake up early and will readily develop terminal insomnia.
I basically can't sleep longer than 7.5 hours, and have trouble not coming up just shy of 7. I'm still recovering, slowly, and managing to force myself into this obviously-inappropriate sleeping schedule. If only work generally started at 10:30am, life would be awesome.
Yes, and nobody has actually run for his seat since 96. A bunch of people put their name on the ballot every year. Not one of them raises funds. No campaign committee (you legally must have one if you spend over $5,000), no Web site, no TV interviews, nothing.
He's been sitting there unchallenged for 20 years, with 10% of the vote going to people who did nothing more than put their name on the ballot.
Even the power brokers around here are excited that I'm actually running. I could beat this guy in $100k easily and there's nothing he can do to stop me. He's going to spend $3M either way.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
True. There's also the third approach (DACA) of giving people an official status that promises softer action and making said softer action policy, which again requires the law to not force a policy of must-act. The fourth approach, of course, is to automatically extend visas: we don't have a problem with you, your visa turns into a green card (permanent). That won't work for illegal entry; it works for the situation where we gave you a 6-month working period and there's no practical reason we'd benefit from terminating your work visa, but red tape is stupid and causes problems. Cut the Gordian knot.
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.
Actually, there isn't. The only immigration clause in the Constitution is possibly the last clause of Article 1, Section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The generic "make laws" clause. The Constitution considered people coming to be citizens, but never considered people just ... coming here. Weird, huh? The Commerce Clause gives us a catch-all: immigrants (and trade) affect interstate and foreign commerce. The damned thing could have just said "it is the duty of Congress to ensure the good health of the Economy of the United States" but they had to go and write something over which people could argue, and then nobody cared to argue about it anyway.
As with all laws, however, Congress puts forth a legislative policy, and the Executive executes this by forming Executive policy. That has to fit within the Legislative policy. It's no different than any other law, such as that governing the DEA, FDA, or FCC.
I used to argue that executions work as a deterrent in low-crime, low-poverty areas where people are immediately fearful of execution, and not at all in high-crime areas where part of your day-to-day criminal life is the threat of death from everyone but the state (i.e. a state execution is the least-likely way you're going to die, so why would you care?).
The second argument there is probably correct. The first one has a flaw: most people are decent people anyway, and are hesitant to commit capital offense for their own internal reasons.
It turns out we can readily reduce crime with strong behavioral health programs and more attempts to stop the cycle of institutionalization--that committing a crime destroys your life such that you are unable to thrive and so are actively pressured to commit more crimes thanks to our criminal justice system's own actions against you--which takes things in the opposite direction. I've started collecting those things we need for the purpose.
Oh, sure. There's similar going on with gun control laws in Maryland, which was why there's a lead from one to the other ("following the same reasoning as these gun laws").
"Truth in Sentencing" is a common Conservative thread about how sentences should be harsh and permanent--you need to actually serve the long sentence, not get out on parole. It works about as well as 5-year mandatory minimum sentencing for having an illegal firearm--that is: not at all.
I like to point out where both sides are rebranding the same ideals as different and both attempts are failing. I'm trying to twist the Democratic party's arm into straightening out; the Republicans have unsalvageable ideals.
Why is the crime rate LOW in those adjacent territories where the gun laws are lax and all the guns are in the first place?
Typically, isolated cities like this start out as places where the crime rate (and violent crime rate) soars, and they try to curb it by enacting gun laws. In other words: everyone has the same gun laws; then the city has high crime; then the city enacts gun laws; the crime doesn't go away.
People come along and say, "Hey, look! The places without gun laws have low crime, and the strong gun law places have high crime!" Sometimes they leave it dangling; frequently they try to assert something about disarmament only disarming the citizenry so the criminals know they're easy--essentially narrating that the gun laws came first and brought crime.
Nobody seems to ask why the crime increased in the first place.
Nobody seems to ask why the approach of locking people up for long sentences (that's what these tough gun laws do) doesn't suppress the crime.
Then: Republicans start using words like "Truth in Sentencing", which follow the same reasoning as these gun laws whereby maybe if we lock people up more and longer people will stop doing bad things and the crime will go away.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. You'd get closer with medical reporting and some sort of social system (e.g. people anonymously notate details about their sexual partners and the data is correlated, so we can extrapolate sexual habits, risk behaviors, and contact with those infected to identify potential infections); but that involves the back-end to be aware of all of these facts about everyone.
The whole approach was to eliminate any third-party knowledge. That becomes ... difficult at high connection rates. Shamir's Scheme doesn't help here.
If the law gives the Executive the power to take an action, the Executive has broad discretion.
If the law specifies that a certain condition shall illicit a certain action, the Executive is bound.
The law gets odd because it essentially gives power to the Executive and the Judiciary. For example: a State law against riding a dirt bike in the street can result in a fine, imprisonment, and seizure of property. The Executive has already created the State DOT, and the State DOT is now bound to include these laws as regulation. That means the DOT certifies certain things for road use, and may not certify those things--and so those things are illegal to operate on the road. The DOT could road-certify your dirt bike and the police couldn't take an action against you; however, the law prohibits the Executive from doing that.
So here's the thing: the Police are the executive, but also have discretion because the law does not specify a "must arrest" offense. The Prosecutor isn't required to prosecute.
We could give you a warning and tell you to walk the damned thing home. The Prosecutor could decline to arraign you because he thinks you're not a menace and you seem reasonable enough that prosecution will make things worse. The Courts have to rule on law (the Prosecutor has a huge amount of power), and are limited to what penalty they may apply.
Police don't deport immigrants.
We have a special enforcement unit called Immigration and Customs Enforcement for this. ICE has been created by the execution of our immigration and customs laws, so to provide the Executive wit the capacity to enforce them.
I distinguish execution and enforcement as a matter of policy: the Executive--the President (or whomever the law grants power) and the Enforcement Agencies create rules which fit into the power granted and the actions mandated by the law. You must X, you have the power to Y. To execute, you create agencies with procedures which absolutely achieve X and do not exceed the power of Y. Everything within that scope is up to the discretion of the Executive.
Enforcement involves actually carrying the law out to its conclusion. Without execution, you can't enforce. We now have the ICE agency, with ICE rules, with ICE agents, who can now take action within the scope of ICE rules against those who violate the law which ICE is intended to execute. When a person commits an offense against the law, ICE takes enforcement action against that offense.
If you think about that for a while, you reach an interesting conclusion: if the law does not include complete, air-tight language that a thing SHALL be an offense, the penalty SHALL be as specified, and a person committing the offense SHALL be arrested, SHALL be prosecuted, and SHALL be subject to the penalty if found guilty of the offense, then the law is not directly enforceable. A law which leaves any span of discretion must be executed by creating those refined rules, which are then enforced.
Think about when the FCC enforced Net Neutrality rules. Congress didn't pass a law for that; it gave the FCC those powers long ago, and the FCC never used them in that capacity. Then it did. The President didn't even have to issue an executive order. Now we've decided we like these rules, and want to restrict the Executive from failing to enforce them; so we will write a law (eventually), the Executive will execute the law, and those rules will become fixed once again and illegal to repeal. The FCC will thereafter be required to enforce those rules.
My understanding of immigration law is it doesn't require all action in all cases, but only gives the Executive the power of action. Note that it doesn't give the Executive the power to provide visas in excess of the legislative limits, so the Executive might be allowed to give "de-facto visas" as you put it by simply not enforcing--and can enforce the hell out of the law if you need to leave.
Amusingl
Poor stakeholder management and an organizational structure that doesn't involve the PM into the process before it's sold. It's fixable, but it requires the organization to not put on the face of "Our customers are complete retards and have no idea how anything works" and be willing to stand up and look like professionals.
You have an organization in which customers are assumed to not tolerate questions. "I need X Y Z" "... can we do that? ... ok. YES we can sell you X Y Z! Leave it to us! We r smart! U PAY NOW!" A more-professional organization will identify that they can do X Y Z, then sit with the customer and go over the 2-minute explanation of their engagement process: they bring in a project manager and an engineer, they work out the precise requirements to ensure we're delivering the product you need, and then work out the basic project charter and plan. The customer is given the full project plan to review so they're aware of what's being done, what's not being done, how long it will take, and so forth.
Some organizations are filled with people who immediately cry that customers will give them a deer-in-headlights stare and wander away like lost children. The truth is customers like this kind of professional assurance. They like being involved. They like seeing that you are dedicated to ensuring they're getting what they expect and that the job is done right. They like knowing they're the most important factor in this project's success.
My organization just hired a new project manager who does not tolerate our purchasing habits. We've gotten terrible results by simply telling contracted firms to produce a thing, then waiting for them to deliver that thing. The process I describe above is what he's moving us toward: if they can't deliver a competent project plan and work with us each step of the way to ensure they're producing the product we need, we go somewhere else.
Our habit has developed from purchasing the lowest-priced thing we can find and ignoring all other aspects. Even then, everybody pointed out that whoever offered this kind of strong customer engagement was probably the better bid, "but too expensive". Spend $250k but the $300k option is too expensive. Seriously. What you get is a shambling pile of horse shit that costs you $2 million in lost productivity over the next three years, and then you bail out and look for another vendor to build another thing that works.
Long ago, I actually considered this when looking at the whole STD spread thing. I live in a community that has a considerably-high STD rate.
This lead down a rabbit hole of designing an ID card or bracelet that contains medical records (using high-security storage--military-grade chipsets are actually dirt cheap, e.g. what Yubikey uses in $20 devices) and uses RTC tracking. You bring yours up to someone else's, you both acknowledge (physical button press) the exchange, and they blink a color-coded code to show time-decayed status (recent STD test? Clean? Positive?). Doctor has to code the update into it, so you have to go for a blood test to keep your shiny, green rating.
"Stick your HIV status into an online user profile" seems like it would have really bad outcomes.
Tesla is selling S3X and S3X sells.
Why do you rich kids all have to be Canadian?
It really doesn't, but mostly because I'm bad at selling things. Working out how to construct data privacy laws isn't going to be a one-man weekend project, either; we need a special committee examining the data privacy laws in Europe, with lawyers and technology experts, with expert witness testimony, the lot.
We'll survive without these laws for any indefinite period of time. That gives us the opportunity to make this legislation an imperative, and to take the time necessary to do it right. It may take 3 months or a year for a dedicated body of knowledgeable individuals to build the right laws and regulations--although, as I've said, we have a good head start with data privacy laws in Europe.
At times, something is so big and so critically important that I am afraid to frame it out myself in my own haste. I don't know everything.
Just because what they do isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right
It means doing it gives them a hell of a lot of power (money or control), and so if they didn't do it than someone else would. In this case, everybody is doing it; Facebook happens to have a lucky position.
Chastising Facebook for not voluntarily behaving is the weird sort of socialist idealism you get out of Republicans, where having no regulations and no rule of law will automatically produce well-behaved and upstanding Corporate citizens.
DAPA was shot down by a circuit court and the Supreme Court split 4-4 on it with no opinion.
Interesting... I can't find prior rulings on deferred action programs at this time. There have been a great many. Someone did sue the Clinton administration and lose, and on pretty good grounds.
The fun part is people complain about these rules and assert that they're at odds with the law, and we often just pass laws making these rules the law. I've encountered people on the campaign trail that tell me that's stupid and I need to focus on enforcing the law; I point out that enforcing the law is the Judicial's problem, executing it is the Executives, and that the job I'm going for is making the law--which means when I say it's fine and several hundred others in the room nod in agreement, that is the law.
Good catch, though. I'm working off fourth-hand information in this case, and should seek better sources.
Organizational decision making can put projects at risk. Project management is actually pretty easy to digest, but kind of bland; your best bet is to drop $250 on RMC Project's CAPM Exam Prep kit and a copy of the PMBOK 5e. CAPM Exam Prep lists the section of the PMBOK 5e related to the topic at hand under each heading, which lets you cross-reference without having to digest the entire PMBOK all at once (it's not entertaining).
I got certified in about 2 months of independent study.
It gives you a good understanding of everything involved with managing projects, a lot of tools for planning, and a way to specifically deal with your project manager when they don't function well.
Adding out-of-scope work is broken. Adding out-of-scope work for a perceived benefit is called "gold plating": delivering the project (scope) with unimportant (out-of-scope) extra stuff tacked on (gold plating). Project managers are supposed to stop you from doing that.
The supreme court actually had found all deferred action programs within the bounds of the law in prior cases, and the Executive took advantage of that.
We have all kinds of problems with both American and foreign workers. Those problems stopped when we brought in project managers who didn't tolerate the backwards, broken way we manage projects.
All bureaucracy should facilitate, not impede. Bureaucracy typically either fails to facilitate (too little red tape) or impedes (too much red tape--see: THE IRS). PMI is essentially an organization tasked with the ongoing study of making bureaucracy efficient; there are, however, a lot of really bad project managers.
Because we could just leave them in India or Germany and tell them to build it and upload it to the SFTP server. They wouldn't pay their taxes to the US Government, they wouldn't spend their wage at US small business restaurants, and we'd have more money flowing out.
I don't believe a trade deficit is a bad thing; that doesn't mean I don't see the economic difference between money being spent locally and money being spent importing something that costs exactly the same price either way. Imports are only good for your economy when they're significantly-cheaper than paying local labor to do the same thing.
That should allow you to ask the next question; although you can spend a little time thinking on it to make sure you need somebody else to answer it for you. I might or might not have all the answers, so you might have to ask someone else.
and is deliberately set up to require broad consensus before major changes in policy like immigration law may be adopted.
Many laws grant the President a broad discretion of powers, and so he creates administrative agencies (by executive order) to exercise those powers. Those agencies change the rules now and then; sometimes, the President orders them to change the rules.
What is within the power granted to the Executive and not mandated the specific duty of the Executive may or may not be done by the Executive, and so the Executive may set policy. Some laws say "The Attorney General shall...", others simply specify what shall be--leaving it to the Chief Executive to order into existence whatever satisfies the described circumstance.
The President can, in fact, make major policy changes.
What is the Liberal position on immigration, and how will that position benefit America?
It's all over the place.
Liberals want to support the humanitarian side--we want to protect people who have been here long, integrated with our society, and would be harmed by deportation--as a general rule. We also want to keep those programs which provide a place for people to go when fleeing humanitarian crisis (saving lives).
The rest is economics, and liberals are divided. I have a fairly well-developed economic position, and would like to start with some background.
I'd like to first point out that immigration and trade are similar: in trade, the labor is physically in another nation, rather than here. Immigration has one special advantage: the local consumption driven by that labor is in our own nation, directly. A bunch of immigrant workers might import Chinese clothes, but they aren't eating at a Chinese McDonalds.
Population doesn't simply double every generation, or otherwise grow. There's an economic carry capacity: as you scale, you also scale labor needs, and so population grows and nothing changes. When you hit carry capacity for producing a particular good or service, you require more labor per unit.
As an example: raising production from 500,000 units to 1,000,000 units may require doubling the number of working hours in total (1M = 500k * 2). Raising production from 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 may require 1.15x as much labor (10% more production, 15% more labor) or such.
That causes financial pressure as population expands, which largely discourages family growth. Poorer and middle-class families have fewer financial resources and either decide they can't afford children or they have children and then fail to care for them and so they die. Population numbers for an entire economic unit (generally a nation or the world) show this trend, although individual families will bob above and below the trend (i.e. you can get really big welfare families sometimes, but your welfare system can't provide enough to force your total population to grow beyond your economic capacity--it's physically-impossible).
Okay, what's all this mean?
Immigrants who have been here for a while (even several months) no longer have a real impact on our economy. We have a fast-response system (length of college tenure, variations in age of retirement, work visa program) and a slow-response system (birth and death rate) to adjust labor force, and the fast-response system integrates working immigrants rapidly. Removing them would cause a back-fill with new American labor--either earlier transition from college to the workforce or later retirement.
That capacity is limited. It's bigger than our inflow, but it's not infinite.
2/3 of all unauthorized immigrants are visa overstays. That means they're here, they're working, we've integrated them, and then it's time for them to leave and they don't. That has approximately zero economic impact.
The remainder are illegal border crossings.
Even with the illegal border crossings and the unauthorized immigrants, we have incredibly-low unemployment rates at this time, and pull around 300,000 new authorized workers into the nation every year.
We're doing pretty well.
My position should be obvious in some part.
First, the immigrants who have been here for a year or so and are working are equivalent to any other working American. The only argument to eject them is a social argument: person A doesn't have a job (there's going to be unemployment even with zero immigrants) and believes person B is less of a human being and so has fewer human rights, thus should move to the back of the bus. Such an isolationist policy will eventually exhaust our sacrificial immigrant population, leaving us with many persons A who have nobody left to mug for their employment.
Thus we should seek to extend these visa overstays, perhaps grantin
You must be young
32.
I was getting three or four hours a night of sleep and became psychotic and suicidal
Oh, that happens. I have built-in defenses against all that, but it's a real thing.
why would you need to outperform anyone?
Shrug.
They stuck me on stimulants for ADHD. I actually perform at that extremely-high level without medication, but only after 9pm; I'm still going at 2am. They put me on enough stims to make me wide awake during the day and keep me focused, and so I was like that all freaking day.
So I could make it through high school with grades and SAT scores that got me into university largely because I was on shitloads of stimulants. Therefor, I can be expected to perform at the same level because I can beat the insurance companies and get them to give me shitloads of stimulants even though they make you get bi-annual authorization for any ADHD medication after you turn 18.
this is a situation where people sleep the "wrong" hours, not a situation where they never sleep
It's a situation where a person gets less sleep due to their body deciding they should be awake during the time they're trying to be asleep. Losing 1 hour of sleep for 3 days in a row is roughly equivalent to skipping an entire night of sleep; now consider when every single night is 30%-50% less efficient.
still causes far less psychological damage than gay conversion therapy
Both are considered torture under several international conventions. I wouldn't know: I'm largely-immune to psychological damage as such (everything my mind does seems like something I'm observing, rather than something integral to my own experience as self; it's one hell of a shield, but does carry a rather large cost I don't personally care about).
We've used several forms of psychological torture since exiting the ICC. Obama was going to re-enter the ICC but didn't: if we sign back on, we'd be obligated to extradite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to the UN to face trial for war crimes. Signing a UN treaty and then sending an ex-President to be tried for high crimes by the UN would terrify the United States population: the United Nations has very little actual enforceable power because nations value their sovereignty as nation-states, and much conservative rhetoric centers around the threat of the UN as a one-world-government organization coming to strip our rights and imprison us etc. etc. (this dialogue actually surfaced a lot in conspiracy theories about Obama trying to demilitarize the US and use only NATO troops because US troops can't operate on US soil, but the President could deploy NATO against American citizens).
Interesting, right?
Sleep deprivation in the extreme causes death. In the acute, it causes brain damage. One person stayed awake without drugs for 11 days and suffered measurable brain damage.
Chronic sleep deprivation increases the risk of depression and suicide. It lowers the capacity to feel pleasure and reduces the ability to thrive. Adults with chronic sleep loss report excess mental distress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and alcohol use.
The third effect is: you wake up at 4:30AM and are still tired and try to fall asleep again
My cats figured out that I do this and now come to pester me for attention.
I've adapted to this mostly, and have to keep strict use of melatonin and cognitive therapy to continue sleeping well. I have 3-4 good nights in a row and then a bad night, usually 2-3 bad nights a week. It was so much better when I worked 3pm-11pm and just went to sleep at 2am; and I've found now and then that just staying up until 1am causes me to sleep much better for the first half of the night, but I'm now trained to wake up early and will readily develop terminal insomnia.
I basically can't sleep longer than 7.5 hours, and have trouble not coming up just shy of 7. I'm still recovering, slowly, and managing to force myself into this obviously-inappropriate sleeping schedule. If only work generally started at 10:30am, life would be awesome.
He's been in his seat since 96
Yes, and nobody has actually run for his seat since 96. A bunch of people put their name on the ballot every year. Not one of them raises funds. No campaign committee (you legally must have one if you spend over $5,000), no Web site, no TV interviews, nothing.
He's been sitting there unchallenged for 20 years, with 10% of the vote going to people who did nothing more than put their name on the ballot.
Even the power brokers around here are excited that I'm actually running. I could beat this guy in $100k easily and there's nothing he can do to stop me. He's going to spend $3M either way.