5 ms·

That is a mutable document.

by haliskerbas 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago
You think that the anti-immigration party would galvanize around that issue?
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  You mean the anti-immigration pro-hypocrisy party? What do you think?
  - klyrs 4y ago
    They're all hypocrites. But the final hurdle of ratifying an amendment requires 3/4 of state legislatures to be on board. And while the rural gerrymander projects have been alarmingly successful, that's still pretty far off. https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legisl... So on the balance, I feel pretty good about this. For at least the next 3 elections. And if Musk keeps following in Ye's footsteps, he'll be a washed-out has-been by then.
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    the idea that only one of the two major US political parties is "pro-hypocrisy" (with the implication being, the other one is not) is hilarious
- pannSun 4y ago
  With the recent exception of COVID, there has not been a significant reduction of even legal immigration during the periods when the supposedly "anti-immigration" party was in power.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  The US has no pro-immigration party. Both parties are anti-immigration in practice. The only difference is in their posturing to their respective bases around election time. Consider that the last major amnesty was under Reagan and the last major tightening of immigration rules was the IIRAIRA under Clinton. The modern deportation machine was really spun up by Obama - he removed more people from the US than any other president, almost 1% of the entire US population was deported by Obama. 50% more than Dubya and more than Trump. [1] It's been two years under full-on Democratic party rule, the remain-in-Mexico policy is being walked back but still in effect. [2] Children are still being separated from their parents at the border. [3] [edit] The public charge rule still exists, but was returned to the classical definition. [4] Indian-born folks are still in 50+ year queues to get green cards subject to deportation at the whims of their employers. Consulates abroad still have year-long backlogs for appointments to get visa foils so people here, legally, in the US, cannot leave the US as they wouldn't be able to get back in without a new foil. I have friends who haven't left the US in years to see their families. More of the US-Mexico border wall was built under Obama/Biden than it was under Trump, and Obama was behind the implementation of the biometric exit control program. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-perspective https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-persp... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-suspends-biden-administration-termination-of-remain-in-mexico-border-policy/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-suspends-biden-administra... [3] https://www.vera.org/news/children-are-still-being-separated-from-their-families-at-the-border https://www.vera.org/news/children-are-still-being-separated... [4] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/09/08/dhs-publishes-fair-and-humane-public-charge-rule https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/09/08/dhs-publishes-fair-and-h...
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I would definitely say that the progressive caucus inside the Democratic party is pro-immigration. If it were not for the two party system, this would be its own party. Regrettably this sub-group does not have a ton of influence on their party’s policies, but their influence has been growing for sure since 2018, getting almost a 100 seats in this years mid-term election. Not all districts have the option of voting a progressive (which most likely happens in a democratic primary vote), and quite a lot of times a progressive actually looses to a moderate (or even a conservative in the case of Cisneros vs. Cuellar in TX-28). But my feeling is that the progressive caucus has not stopped growing, my hope is that this will result in a significant reform in the kind of immigration policy the democratic party endorses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Cauc...
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    "Both parties are anti-immigration in practice. The only difference is in their posturing to their respective bases around election time." Looking at the vast share of immigrant population in the US, "anti-immigration" means something very different from what I would expect. Orbán's government in Hungary is anti-immigration in the classical sense. Last year, they received 40 asylum requests - out of more than half a million total in the entire EU. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-appli... That is what I would call a real anti-immigration policy, at least when we judge policies by their visible results.
  - 8note 4y ago
    I'd lean that vs the reast of the world, both US parties are very pro immigrant For example, neither party has revoked all visas and sent everyone home, and both parties have presided over plenty of immigrants both entering the country and becoming citizens. The long queues and things are that the US is immigrant friendly, but with rate limits. It's one thing to leave the rate limits alone, another to reduce them, and another to increase them
    - runarberg 4y ago
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  Maybe, but 2/3 of both the house and senate and then 3/4 of the states as well? No.
- monocasa 4y ago
  I mean, Ted Cruz wasn't born in the US either.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    With Ted, as with many politicians like him, it's always certain to be grift.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    The exact definition of natural-born citizen has never been tested. This is literally the only part of the constitution which uses that term, and it isn’t defined. Some interpret it to mean born of US parents, regardless of actual birthplace. Regardless, we can be confident that a naturalized citizen like Musk doesn’t meet the requirement.
    - monocasa 4y ago
      You'd be surprised about how much wiggle room there is there. Particularly given that the first few presidents weren't US citizens at birth either.
arcticbull 4y ago
I wish that were true, but I think at this point it's technically mutable but ossified, much like the Bitcoin genesis block. You could change it, but you'd have to do a lot of work. So much work that it's just not gonna happen.

That is a mutable document.

klyrs 4y ago

You think that the anti-immigration party would galvanize around that issue?

DonHopkins 4y ago
You mean the anti-immigration pro-hypocrisy party? What do you think?
- klyrs 4y ago
  They're all hypocrites. But the final hurdle of ratifying an amendment requires 3/4 of state legislatures to be on board. And while the rural gerrymander projects have been alarmingly successful, that's still pretty far off. https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legisl... So on the balance, I feel pretty good about this. For at least the next 3 elections. And if Musk keeps following in Ye's footsteps, he'll be a washed-out has-been by then.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  the idea that only one of the two major US political parties is "pro-hypocrisy" (with the implication being, the other one is not) is hilarious
pannSun 4y ago
With the recent exception of COVID, there has not been a significant reduction of even legal immigration during the periods when the supposedly "anti-immigration" party was in power.
arcticbull 4y ago
The US has no pro-immigration party. Both parties are anti-immigration in practice. The only difference is in their posturing to their respective bases around election time. Consider that the last major amnesty was under Reagan and the last major tightening of immigration rules was the IIRAIRA under Clinton. The modern deportation machine was really spun up by Obama - he removed more people from the US than any other president, almost 1% of the entire US population was deported by Obama. 50% more than Dubya and more than Trump. [1] It's been two years under full-on Democratic party rule, the remain-in-Mexico policy is being walked back but still in effect. [2] Children are still being separated from their parents at the border. [3] [edit] The public charge rule still exists, but was returned to the classical definition. [4] Indian-born folks are still in 50+ year queues to get green cards subject to deportation at the whims of their employers. Consulates abroad still have year-long backlogs for appointments to get visa foils so people here, legally, in the US, cannot leave the US as they wouldn't be able to get back in without a new foil. I have friends who haven't left the US in years to see their families. More of the US-Mexico border wall was built under Obama/Biden than it was under Trump, and Obama was behind the implementation of the biometric exit control program. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-perspective https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-persp... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-suspends-biden-administration-termination-of-remain-in-mexico-border-policy/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-suspends-biden-administra... [3] https://www.vera.org/news/children-are-still-being-separated-from-their-families-at-the-border https://www.vera.org/news/children-are-still-being-separated... [4] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/09/08/dhs-publishes-fair-and-humane-public-charge-rule https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/09/08/dhs-publishes-fair-and-h...
- runarberg 4y ago
  I would definitely say that the progressive caucus inside the Democratic party is pro-immigration. If it were not for the two party system, this would be its own party. Regrettably this sub-group does not have a ton of influence on their party’s policies, but their influence has been growing for sure since 2018, getting almost a 100 seats in this years mid-term election. Not all districts have the option of voting a progressive (which most likely happens in a democratic primary vote), and quite a lot of times a progressive actually looses to a moderate (or even a conservative in the case of Cisneros vs. Cuellar in TX-28). But my feeling is that the progressive caucus has not stopped growing, my hope is that this will result in a significant reform in the kind of immigration policy the democratic party endorses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Cauc...
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "Both parties are anti-immigration in practice. The only difference is in their posturing to their respective bases around election time." Looking at the vast share of immigrant population in the US, "anti-immigration" means something very different from what I would expect. Orbán's government in Hungary is anti-immigration in the classical sense. Last year, they received 40 asylum requests - out of more than half a million total in the entire EU. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-appli... That is what I would call a real anti-immigration policy, at least when we judge policies by their visible results.
- 8note 4y ago
  I'd lean that vs the reast of the world, both US parties are very pro immigrant For example, neither party has revoked all visas and sent everyone home, and both parties have presided over plenty of immigrants both entering the country and becoming citizens. The long queues and things are that the US is immigrant friendly, but with rate limits. It's one thing to leave the rate limits alone, another to reduce them, and another to increase them
  - runarberg 4y ago
hprotagonist 4y ago
Maybe, but 2/3 of both the house and senate and then 3/4 of the states as well? No.
monocasa 4y ago
I mean, Ted Cruz wasn't born in the US either.
- r00fus 4y ago
  With Ted, as with many politicians like him, it's always certain to be grift.
- adastra22 4y ago
  The exact definition of natural-born citizen has never been tested. This is literally the only part of the constitution which uses that term, and it isn’t defined. Some interpret it to mean born of US parents, regardless of actual birthplace. Regardless, we can be confident that a naturalized citizen like Musk doesn’t meet the requirement.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    You'd be surprised about how much wiggle room there is there. Particularly given that the first few presidents weren't US citizens at birth either.

arcticbull 4y ago

I wish that were true, but I think at this point it's technically mutable but ossified, much like the Bitcoin genesis block. You could change it, but you'd have to do a lot of work. So much work that it's just not gonna happen.