domain:betonit.substack.com
hydroacetylene
7m ago
Normal people do not use NFP to refer to anything other than using it as birth control, unfortunately.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
14m ago
The chances of actually striking it down in its face are actually zero. I mean that completely. Zero. If it happens I will shave my head and never comment anything about politics again ever on any website. Zero.
The chances of them weakening it via some kind of practical or legal obstacles, to the point where it is effectively dead is extremely low but not impossible. Under 5% surely. Maybe 1-2%? Still quite a reach. Maybe still that’s high.
The chances of some other procedural weakening where it is merely super annoying, that’s a little higher. I’m not sure exactly where to peg it.
The chances of practical and legal burdens and even unalterable mistakes for those currently giving birth in the next year or so are actually kinda high. But that’s by definition temporary. Not much comfort if you or your wife are pregnant right now and lack papers. Honestly I think this is the true target and goal of the administration. If you are cruel and capricious enough you might get enough people to self deport, or not make the trip over, and this helps the near term numbers and politics.
The long-term outlook for birthright citizenship is not really under any actual threat. You still need an amendment to change it. At most, beneficiaries will have to budget a little bit more on practical or legal bills surrounding the birth, but that’s already the case to some extent with any new baby birth (it’s never free)
hydroacetylene
14m ago
Just curious- other than one great grandfather, all of my ancestors were in the continental US before 1776(many were in then-Spanish Louisiana, but the rest were in the thirteen colonies). Do I count?
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
24m ago
I get your conflict theory view on law.
I don't understand this part though
You accepted violation of the law to allow illegal immigrants in. On what grounds do you appeal to the law now?
Where have I accepted violation of the law to allow illegal immigrants in?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26m ago
You mean the literal exact argument that leads to authoritarianism and the destruction of democracy? I think Democrats obviously freak out over stuff way too often and too loudly, but this is a pretty classically un-American view. The irony is rich here.
hydroacetylene
26m ago
The one who banned the abortion pill?
hydroacetylene
31m ago
This is about teenagers, not homeless people. It is, specifically, an age verification law- yes, getting around it is probably very doable for a motivated young lad, but we can reasonably assume that the people the law is explicitly targeted at are the ones most affected.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
31m ago
It’s not actually. This was briefly mentioned in the dissent, but birthright citizenship was already very established and practiced English law for a long time pre-Founding. So I’m sure you can continue to argue against it morally, but in a constitutional sense this is one of the most clear-cut issues ever, if you are an originalist OR a textualist OR even a living-documentist. Want to change it? You sure can! It will take an amendment, however.
You do have to remember that immigration now is very different than what it was. Just to name three of many reasons, generally if you immigrated somewhere you were effectively settling and living there, and two, international remittances were much less practical and common, and three, there was limited to nonexistent welfare.
hydroacetylene
37m ago
For comparison, the average Catholic(best ranked school system in the US) high school tuition nationwide is around $10k, public high schools in the US average around $19k in per student spending, no correlation between spending and outcomes.
For common denominator education, I'd guess $10k a kid is pretty close to the minimum.
hydroacetylene
42m ago
eah, you could just stick the kids in the library and leave them to their own devices and they'll come out okay.
Uh, no you couldn't. The kids would spend all their time in one, maybe two, sections and not get a balanced education. That's at best; worst case is they never progress because they get distracted by, say, Terry Pratchett books.
phailyoor
42m ago
In that case bush never defected against the dems. The dems started the defection.
hydroacetylene
45m ago
How much of the Asian academic system is spent on teaching/necessary repetition of core subjects, as opposed to ridiculous grinding scoremaxx training on standardized tests? Asian countries are rather famous for this.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
49m ago
Per what the majority seemed to strongly imply, class actions are the new method, though Alito wants the requirements to remain strict for class certification. The somewhat jarring thing for me (not a lawyer) is that class action suits are NOT constitutionally mandated or enforced. It’s national law set by Congress authorizing them. So it was a little strange to me to see the SC “take away” the universal injunction ability from district courts on constitutional-ish grounds (really just a bit of semi tortured originalism plus some practical consideration) in favor of something decidedly extra-constitutionally grounded. For all the too-casual tone criticisms of Jackson’s dissent, she’s not really wrong in the narrow sense that this gives the administration permission to routinely ignore rulings against it in all non-party districts even if the action is blatantly illegal. Seemingly the majority is fine with this, and feels the delay created by class creation and certification and the actual arguing of the issue and the ruling (remember all this wrangling is over what to do in the time period before a case actually gets argued in full even at the district level) won’t be too excessive. That’s… honestly a little questionable. Kavanaugh wrote that he hopes the court will fill the gap somewhat by being more willing to take actual action, and action sooner, but it’s unclear if his fellow justices are actually on board with that. I think this is an error and they probably should have been okay with universal injunctions as long as they complied with some kind of fairly strict test.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
57m ago
Congress has not decided that illegal immigrants since the last amnesty are legal. They could do so. Alternatively, they could decide that whatever laws my side has, is, or will violate weren't actually laws after all.
I certainly believe that Congress should decide that violations of the law I support are no longer violations of the law. I think they should not do that for violations of the law I don't support.
To say the law is useless is an overstatement. People like you might still follow it, even though people like myself will not. That's useful!
Throwaway05
1hr ago
What is your proposal.
stuckinbathroom
1hr ago
(Not OP)
As stated, I think the claim is hyperbolic and TTBOMK wrong.
Having said that, the Bush-era GOP-controlled White House and Congress could have prodded states to mandate that all employers use E-Verify, by threatening to withhold various federal moneys from noncompliant states, but they didn’t.
I grant you that this would have required Congress to pass new legislation, so the blame doesn’t lie solely with Bush, but Bush had a trifecta for a decent chunk of his 2 terms and easily could have made such legislation a priority. That he didn’t speaks volumes about the values of the GOP establishment of that era.
Anecdatally, it feels like the backlash against (what was perceived as) the Bush-era GOP establishment cucking on illegal immigration was one of two initial rifts within the party that first emerged in the late 2000s/early 2010s, then metastasized and eventually led to Trump’s 2016 takeover (the other rift being the Ron Paul libertarian/Tea Party movement)
Would you say that your basic argument is that the rules shouldn't be changed, de facto or de jure, because the change might be weaponized against a given group, and that instead we should accept the status quo because its formal strictures provide better protection from such weaponization?
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
What The Motte theme are you running?
I'm usually partial to blue (dramblr).
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
1hr ago
The ones against illegal immigration.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
1hr ago
Planned Parenthood does more than just provide abortions. If you can't see the difference between "Medicaid doesn't cover abortion" and "Medicaid can't cover non-abortion care if the provider also provides abortions" I don't know what to tell you.
wqnm
1hr ago
Reminds me of the old Moldbug quip about socialism working in Iceland because anything would work in Iceland.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
1hr ago
I had had to head down to London twice to attend the sessions. Beyond that? Not much to say, it was a bog-standard NHS hospital.
You go in, they take your vitals and your measurements, primarily focusing on making sure your blood pressure is okay (psilocybin affects it, not that the risk is notable). By that point in time, you've gone through phone screening, but on arrival, they conduct drug screening. They're looking for any illicit substances that might confound their results.
Once you get the all clear, you swallow a dose, then head to a clinic room. I was alone, but I think I saw a few other people who were probably participants. They had extremely dull music playing, and offered me eye covers if I wanted them. I had a pressure cuff on, with continuous monitoring. A nurse would swing around every few minutes at the staff to make sure I was okay, but eventually I told her I felt fine and she didn't really bother. There was also a psychologist on staff, but I told them I didn't need anything in particular at the time.
Once 8 hours was up (I think they could have let me leave earlier, but I didn't want to risk it since I was unsure about the come down), they took another set of measurements and I was good to go.
Overall, very boring and clinical. Not that there was much else to do, it was a rainy day out there.
Rov_Scam
1hr ago
Well, you should be concerned, at least theoretically, because I can all but guarantee you can't do this. The only chance I'd give you of actually being able to is if your parents are relatively recent immigrants who naturalized before you were born, and you have access to their naturalization papers. Otherwise it's damn near impossible. I did a fair amount of genealogical work when I was in oil and gas and simply proving a bloodline back 100 years can take a significant amount of work, and that's including unofficial sources like obituaries and affidavits. In particular, anyone whose ancestors came here before about 1890 you can forget about entirely, as vital records simply weren't kept before then and estate records didn't normally include a list of all the heirs. And this work didn't even get into naturalization records, which are filed with the District Court where the person was naturalized, which, good luck that they were properly archived. So I guess you'd agree then that we should establish a system where the most recent immigrants and their descendants are the most likely to be allowed to stay and the people whose families have been here the longest are the most likely to be given the boot?
aceventura
1hr ago
Yeah, I'm hoping that is the total for all three and not 40K each because holy crap.
40K a year per child not an usually large amount of money to pay for a top ranked private school in many states.
But yes, this is all pretty stupid. My kids go to a public high school ranked in the top 10 in a demographically "desirable" county in my state and are turning out fine. Just get your kids into a good school district, stay engaged in their personal lives and what's happening at school, and the rest will work itself out.
NFP is overwhelmingly a method used by hardcore Catholics and not the underclass; actual lower class people use condoms.
More options
Context Copy link