UwU
5d ago
However devoid of rigor you think the H-1B selection process was, the Canadian immigration system in the past decade was even more so. At least for H-1B, new approvals are capped at 85k max a year, and you need to have a job for which the median salary is over six figures. For Canada, it was infamously relaxed enough to let in millions of Indian students with nothing but an offer letter to a school.
Even if this is true, there's a few implications to it. One is that no one should even try to compete for immigrants, because they're all going to go to the top country anyway, and then ones you will get, will only cause economic stagnation. Another is that even for America this would probably mean mass deportations are a good idea, as you can just keep the absolute best performence, and get rid of everyone else.
I never said we needed to compete for immigrants -- just to let the talented and skilled ones in. I don't see evidence that skilled immigration causes economic stagnation. There are many immigrants or second generation immigrants here that contributed a lot to our economy. I already think it's a good idea to deport illegals, and economic immigrants who no longer meet the bar. H-1B already has a provision for this. If you are no longer employed at a job that sponsors the H-1B, you're gone.
You could say the question was rhetorical (because I already know the answer to it), but in no way is it sarcastic. It means exactly what it's straightforward, literal interpretation would imply.
So when you described the influx of millions of Indians to Canada as "talented", you were being earnest and not mocking? That's not a word that I would have used to describe them and I would not count them as skilled immigrants. If you were being earnest then I would like you to substantiate your "opposite" claim -- that the Canadian global competitive edge decreased because of the greater immigration, not that it merely didn't increase because of it.
UwU
6d ago
If you actually disagree with what I posted specifically, please articulate it better instead of posting sarcastic snark so I don't have guess what you mean. But from what I can infer, I reject your premise because it's unrelated to what I was arguing.
- The vast majority of the indian immigrant influx to Canada during the early 2020s went in on study permits and not an H-1B analog that's a lot more rigorous
- The US didn't curb skilled immigration during that time, so at best they were getting second-rate talent even if they had rigorous screening
UwU
6d ago
"If the US stop skilled immigration then the skilled immigrants will go elsewhere" is a less exciting claim than "the US has magical dirt"
UwU
6d ago
If the Democratic party in fact succeeded in using the legislature to stop the war, then I'm sure they would have been scapegoated. Which indeed would have made it a bad political maneuver. However, since they didn't, and they couldn't because they lacked the votes in both chambers of congress, it made it a great political maneuver. They managed to publicly disavow the war while forcing their opponents own it and its consequences in their entirety.
UwU
7d ago
If we stop the brain drain, global talent will eventually cluster elsewhere. Over time, the capital and infrastructure will follow the talent, and the US dirt will become just regular dirt again.
Could it be that the most motivated and skilled Indians are all leaving to first world countries, with the US being the most coveted destination? If we ban Indian immigration to the US, it would still be a poor policy choice if it makes Indians in Toronto, Sydney and London more competitive against us on the global market, even if it doesn't meaningfully change the competitiveness of Indians in Bangalore.
UwU
23d ago
Do you disagree with the more general legislative branch framing to specifically call out the democrats as evil? I imagine the "compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex" descriptor fits the political class in America in general, rather than just the Democrats. Hell, if we had to choose which side is more apt for the descriptor, I'd have chosen the Republicans. Furthermore, I thought the Republican base was supposed to be the ones who despise war with Iran more, as evidenced by the countless media campaigns and memes I've seen during the 2024 election season about Kamala wishing to start a war with Iran if elected, and the no-war president Donald Trump. So if any side is more duplicitous, I'd also say it's the Republicans. And let's not forget that they currently control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the presidency. Yet somehow the continuation of the Iran war is more evidence that the democrats are the dishonest evildoers.
UwU
2mo ago
It's just posts becoming popular and then getting on /r/all or /r/popular which makes even more redditors upvote it.
UwU
2mo ago
let me ask, is this actually your point of view?
It is my point of view.
The NYT poll suggested deportation approval was 50% vs 47% and ICE approval was 63% vs 37%. Furthermore there was a question about ICE tactics which got 61%/26%/11% for gone-too-far/just-right/not-far-enough.
Put together it means that deportations are still popular but ICE tactics are not. There's about 11-13% of the electorate who holds these two opinions simultaneously. It's not everyone, but it is certainly sizable enough to swing elections. This poll was conducted prior to the most recent shooting, so if anything I'd expect even less support for ICE tactics now.
UwU
3mo ago
The only restraining principle is the expense.
Yes and that is the key here isn't it? There's no infinite amount of federal agents available, and there's clearly diminishing returns dependent on the amount of illegal immigrants actually in the city and the number of federal agents present. Add on the current volatile circumstances, I hardly think this is the most efficient strategy if your goal is to maximize deportations. I would expect any good defense to actually address the part that Minneapolis is singled out compared to the other cities, which was the main point of the comment you initially replied to.
Does it matter to this conversation that deportations in the abstract is popular? The whole point is how they are being done. If the administration maintains their current tactics and ICE continues to shoot a US citizen every couple of weeks, would you say it would improve their electoral chances or lessen them?
UwU
3mo ago
This defense is a bit thin since you can use it to justify an uncapped amount of federal agents as long as there's non-zero illegal immigrants in Minneapolis, which applies to basically every American city.
A much more reasonable defense is that they are doing it as a punitive expedition to make Minneapolis an example so other sanctuary cities start to less resistant to federal authority on immigration. However, it is still a punitive expedition. And after these shootings, it has clearly failed, because I don't see how it will be effective at persuading other liberal strongholds to cooperate with ICE rather than digging in their heels and be even more resistant.
Indeed a strange statement. I'm seeing people on social media claim that ICE had already disarmed the victim, holster and all, prior to the shooting, and I'm also seeing people claim that he was pulling his gun and the first few gunshots were from him, which lead to his death. As far as I'm aware there's no good evidence for either of these interpretations. But judging by the fact the government is merely claiming that "he had a weapon", rather than "he fired at the officers", I'm inclined to believe it's a bad shoot and this is damage control.
EDIT: With more evidence coming out it looks like they DID disarm the guy before shooting.
UwU
3mo ago
Yes, the "europoors" care more about their sovereign territory than tariffs or hypothetical pull backs of Ukraine aid.
UwU
3mo ago
They had enough time to say "get out of the (fucking) car" 3 times. When people are insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation when an SUV is accelerating towards you, then that 3+ second gap cannot be considered "suddenly". I wouldn't call it a lie, but it's not an accurate characterisation of events.
But you aren't arguing with people insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation. Neither @magicalkittycat nor I made that claim. Taking that into context, isn't it possible for us to characterize a few seconds as "suddenly" and still be logically consistent? And you did call it a lie, not just inaccurate.
I was also not overselling how much time we could see her. It was literally less than a second we get to see her mouth open after they try to forcefully open the door. She can enjoy LARPing as a plucky rebel when the single ICE officer was filming and circling her vehicle and then get spooked by the escalation when multiple other agents approach and try to grab her door. They are not mutually exclusive.
UwU
3mo ago
The latter 99% of his post was about how attacking Iran wouldn't overthrow the regime?
UwU
3mo ago
Not that it matters at all because it certainly wouldn't move the needle in anyone's mind, but:
- it was 2 guys approaching her from the left, not one. https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9CJY5p0xz4
- it's not clear how "suddenly" was a lie. That seems subjective and open to interpretation. It's 3 seconds between the guy getting out of his truck and trying to open her door
- we got like half a second of grainy vid to interpret that she smirked and smiled after the guy grabbed her door, afterwards she looked down and closed her mouth. So even if her initial expression was a smile (inconclusively), it's not unreasonable to assume her expression simply stayed frozen for a moment when that occurred and her inner emotions were more panicky than what can be gleaned from the few frames of visual evidence. See the 39th second of this video: https://x.com/alphanews/status/2009679932289626385.
Anyway, I just think she wasn't obviously not terrified. Could she have been terrified? Yes. The situation was scary to a reasonable person, and she tried to escape, quickly, which is certainly evidence, not conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Would it also be reasonable to conclude that she wasn't terrified based on the video evidence and your priors? Also yes.
UwU
3mo ago
You can still disagree and say it's not factually correct without calling them intellectually dishonest.
UwU
3mo ago
How do you feel about the Trump administration calling her a domestic terrorist who was participating in a violent riot?
UwU
3mo ago
I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)
Like, when @LiberalRetvrn said the ICE agent was yelling "get out of the fucking car", but actually the agent was just saying it very firmly in a confrontational way - not actually yelling. So he's technically factually wrong so now everyone gets to sneer and dunk on him. Or when he claimed the woman was panicked, but people here are certain that she wasn't panicked based on half a second of low pixel facial expressions in that video. So he's factually wrong again and is being a dishonest troll and everyone gets to dunk on him.
UwU
3mo ago
I think what you say is very reasonable.
I just know if I'm on the jury and the victim has 3 bullet holes from a semi-automatic weapon and the defendant claims it was accidental discharge, I would not find that super credible.
UwU
3mo ago
Agreed he didn't go down. I thought it was a bodycam footage as shakes claimed.
I doubt it was accidental though. The first shot was the best defensible shot whereas the others were through the open driver side window as the car was going by. If he didn't mean to fire the first one, I don't see why he would follow through with the rest. Also "I accidentally fired the first shot and then my training took over so I fired the rest" makes him look real bad.
I don't really see what this is supposed to prove one way or the other. You are still stuck in the timescale framing of the most fervent AI bros. Opus 4.6 came out in February, 2 months ago. So what if Opus 4.7 is not a revolutionary upgrade? If AI were truly stagnant, we won't really find out until someone posts in 2028 that Opus 6.7 is only a marginal upgrade over Opus 4.7.
More options
Context Copy link