domain:streamable.com
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
16hr ago
But were deportations always so Kafka-esque, or is this new?
There's definitely been a lot of this since Trump came onto the scene. Trump's first term had a lot of this sort of nonsense, trying to do deportations in the middle of the night before the EO's got shredded by the courts. Then Biden's reaction was Kafka-esque in the other direction, letting immigrants say some magic words "credible fear" to basically ensure open borders via loophole. Instead of doing legislation to fix any of these things, both sides just try to keep pulling fast ones, and then seethe when courts intervene or the other side undoes their EO's with EO's of their own. Just complete nonsense from start to finish. Of course the MAGA-leaning sectarian cheerleaders like Catturd are now screeching that the judicial system should be broadly destroyed since they won't give Trump rubber stamps on everything he wants.
Rov_Scam
16hr ago
Probably nothing, assuming she's allowed in. She has civil judgments against her, but so do a lot of people. Theoretically, if she opened a bank account or bought real property they would be subject to levies/liens from her creditors, and if she were to get a job her paycheck could be garnished if she were in a state that allowed garnishment for normal civil judgments, but any of that would require additional litigation.
Dean
Flairless
16hr ago
Perhaps!
...but this is not the argument the OP made for their source.
There were 76 million people in the US circa 1900 and they were 88% white. The American Empire followed, and it wasn't Chinese students building it. We did have a glut of Jewish talent but if anything the peak of our Empire was smaller than it would have been as their contribution was hastening the inevitable that was American victory.
The gulf between the West and the Rest was greater then.
Some nations may not have come as far as they think but China definitely isn't one of them. Even if we do the whole DR special pleading thing and assume that Asiatic bugmen are worth less than one intrepid Western autistic genius no matter what the overall IQ score says , no one can deny that China has the numbers, at least close human capital, and doesn't seem to be doing badly enough that Western quality is guaranteed a win.
Thoroughlygruntled
16hr ago
The fact that the country's foremost conservative legal figure, considered by most to be an intellectual titan of his age, specifically chose someone to be a principled devil's advocate pushing back against his own assumptions would definitely be a credit bolstering their credibility. It speaks to a level of intellect and open-mindedness far beyond that of most commentators.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
16hr ago
Ok fair, I have a history degree I should have known. I guess the recent past is harder for me to grok than the ancient past sometimes.
hydroacetylene
16hr ago
Or Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the one Elon was fighting. Does he want to go to America? Absolutely not.
For a latin American elite, it is actually a bit implausible that he doesn’t want to go to America. It may not be his highest priority, but he almost certainly would like to go.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
16hr ago
What exactly would propping up the various State U's in flyover country accomplish?
The Chinese students bring in dollars which they then spend on things which create economic opportunity for the locals.
hydroacetylene
16hr ago
Nobody is stopping a pro-free-speech US company from telling country X, "fuck you, block us if you want, we are out of here".
And indeed, Gab has done this. But social media companies aiming for a more mainstream audience don’t.
HereAndGone
16hr ago
This is an example of not understanding the past. How could people be so stupid as to not know where spaghetti comes from?
Well if you don't eat spaghetti, it's not a common dish in any restaurant in your area, you haven't gone on foreign holidays, and all you know is the name of it as a food from abroad, how do you know where it comes from or how it's made? You don't care about it so you don't go to the bother of finding out "what is spaghetti and how is it made", all you've ever seen of it might be a packet of it on a shop shelf.
And this is the BBC, with the gravitas of its history behind it as the Reithian project to "to educate, inform and entertain" the public. You would no more expect a joke item on the Serious Current Affairs Programme than modern Americans would expect an Oscars musical number in the middle of the State of the Union address:
Panorama cameraman Charles de Jaeger dreamed up the story after remembering how teachers at his school in Austria teased his classmates for being so stupid that if they were told that spaghetti grew on trees, they would believe it. The editor of Panorama, Michael Peacock, told the BBC in 2014 how he gave de Jaeger a budget of £100 and sent him off. The report was made more believable through its voice-over by respected broadcaster Richard Dimbleby. Peacock said Dimbleby knew they were using his authority to make the joke work, and that Dimbleby loved the idea and went at it eagerly.
In an American context, imagine Walter Cronkite presenting a similar story.
It wasn't everybody, "hundreds" out of an audience of millions, which is probably reasonable to expect regarding general levels of public credulousness:
At the time, 7 million of the 15.8 million homes (about 44%) in Britain had television receivers. Pasta was not an everyday food in 1950s Britain, and it was known mainly from tinned spaghetti in tomato sauce and considered by many to be an exotic delicacy. An estimated eight million people watched the programme on 1 April 1957, and hundreds phoned in the following day to question the authenticity of the story or ask for more information about spaghetti cultivation and how they could grow their own spaghetti trees; the BBC told them to "place a sprig of spaghetti in a tin of tomato sauce and hope for the best".
Right now, there's probably some exotic foodstuff that in ten years will be introduced to us in the West, but which right now we're unfamiliar with, and if a trusted source (probably AI, the way things are going) said "this food item is harvested by pixies after being fertilised with unicorn dung", we'd fall for it. Hell, we're probably already falling for AI generated slop as evidenced by the posts above re: the Tim Walz fake quote.
hydroacetylene
16hr ago
Chinamen make good immigrants and don’t have ginormous extended families, it doesn’t seem difficult to just bring over the families of high value immigrants- there is, after all, plenty of extra space in flyover. That’s what will eventually happen anyways due to chain migration.
hydroacetylene
16hr ago
Thé US population is also far older than it was at the peak of the empire and can’t afford to be turning away talented youngsters to maintain its edge.
Obviously I don’t know how many of these youngsters are ‘talented’ vs ‘cheating’, and how many of them are spies, but brain drain is a tried and tested way of keeping empires afloat.
On May 21st, a woman in Galway commenced a hunger strike in protest over a) food not being let into Gaza (?) and b) the Irish government's failure to pass the Occupied Territories Bill, which would "ban trade with and economic suport for illegal settlements in territories deemed occupied under international law". In other words, it's a Boycott, Divest and Sanction bill, which would criminalise economic actors from doing business with Israeli companies. Last I checked she was on day 6 of her strike - she should now be on day 9, assuming she hasn't given up or been hospitalised yet.
Now, obviously a hunger strike isn't quite as dramatic as setting yourself on fire, but same ballpark. And I have to ask - what is it about this issue that seems to attract so many histrionic, mentally ill people? If you take them at their word, the Free Palestine people believe that, if left to their own devices, Israel will exterminate the entire population of Palestine (~5.5 million people), while the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion think that, unless we acquiesce to their demands, literally everyone on the planet will die in a matter of decades. Given the respective stakes, you would logically expect the latter group to engage in more dramatic forms of protest than the former - 1,470 times as dramatic, to be precise. But instead it's the reverse: it's the Free Palestine people who are going on hunger strike and setting themselves alight, while the worst the Extinction Rebellion people can muster is hurling soup at paintings and gluing their palms to tarmac.
I interpreted @Goodguy's comment to mean that someone arguing for reducing women's liberties for the sake of improving their own dating prospects is loser-coded. Caesar and Augustus probably had more conservative sexual ethics than most western people do today, but I imagine that was for reasons other than worrying that they'd lose out to chad if women could choose their own suitors.
12 hours doesn't seem like enough to me.
'Enough to what to what purpose?' is the natural question.
'To deliver due process' is a predictable response, but this itself isn't defining what 'due process' actually entails in a deportation case. For something to be 'insufficient,' there must be a standard of what 'sufficient' is. However, what is sufficient due process in one context is not sufficient in another.
This has been why a lot of the political opposition to migrant deportations has been on trying to equivocate deportation due process to other due process contexts. Consider the media focus several weeks ago of an illegal migrant mother who was deported and took her infant US citizen child with her. This was raised and framed as 'administration deports American citizen without due process!', as if the due process was a US child custody court case between US citizens, rather than the due process of letting a foreign citizen keep custody of their child when there was no immediate US family. Naturally, that line of argument fell quiet soon after when the 'just give the father custody!' process arguments ran into the issues of the father's legal relationship to the mother (and for being in the US).
The political struggle / contest is who gets to define due process requirements when.
If I directly asked you if you thought due process required being defended in court by a crusading ACLU lawyer, I doubt you would say yes in those terms. Certainly the law does not require that. If it did, there would be no 'you can ask for it with your phone call' option, because it wouldn't be an option, it would be the requirement. However, arguments of 'you are violating due process if you do not give them that' are in practice demanding a procedural requirement.
The issues with this are multiple. First and most importantly, it tends to be a bad idea to let people who are not in the position of creating legal requirements for the state to create legal requirements for the state. Similarly, institutional and professional legitimacy can easily be burned in advancing institutional power increases as a means to win political arguments- see the (probable) result of national injunctions, or the long-running Democratic attack on Republican partisanship in the Supreme Court (pick your preference).
But a third point is that process demands are not inherently legitimate when arguments are used as soldiers, and can gradually undercut the nominally claimed principle's value to/from/by society.
This has already happened globally in terms of how global views of refugee and asylum laws has evolved over the last quarter century. Asylum and refuge was a principle won from the post-WW2 context, it was leveraged to advance economic migration, and public support has declined as people bite the bullet and diminished asylum's social / political sanctity to prevent it's use as an argument-as-soldier for a cause. Similarly, free trade was a political value, until the costs were increasingly untenable, and now market efficiency arguments are hobbled as the people who justified their preferences on the basis of free trade have discredited themselves and the arguments they used as soldiers.
There is no reason it cannot or will not happen with other dynamics.
The point of this isn't that you shouldn't feel that 12 hours and a phone call is enough due process for illegal migrants. The point is that you should be clear what is enough due process for illegal migrants, and where it ends vis-a-vis due process for legal migrants, and where that due process compares to citizens.
There are (well established) distinctions. Careless equivocation will be indistinguishable from those who would use that argument as soldiers, and it stands to lose if / when they lose the social argument as a whole, and take their supporting arguments with them for all others who might have wanted that (no longer shared) principle.
Rov_Scam
17hr ago
Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringement be done for purposes of financial gain. The classic case of this would be somebody selling bootleg copies of movies or other copyrighted material. As she's giving the material away for free and has long been outspoken about her ideological motivations, it would be very difficult to prove that Sci-hub exists for commercial purposes.
HereAndGone
17hr ago
Pass a law which makes it easy to exclude Chinese citizens who have not credibly renounced their citizenship
"Hello, you have now gotten all your family back home exiled, imprisoned, or executed. Love and kisses, the CCP".
Gosh, with this one neat trick, there will be no chance at all of the Chinese government setting it up so that certain trusted agents sure look like they have renounced their citizenship credibly and are now deeply embedded!
G.K. Chesterton, "What I Saw In America":
When I went to the American consulate to regularise my passports, I was capable of expecting the American consulate to be American. ...They put in my hands a form to be filled up, to all appearance like other forms I had filled up in other passport offices. But in reality it was very different from any form I had ever filled up in my life. At least it was a little like a freer form of the game called 'Confessions' which my friends and I invented in our youth; an examination paper containing questions like, 'If you saw a rhinoceros in the front garden, what would you do?' One of my friends, I remember, wrote, 'Take the pledge.' But that is another story, and might bring Mr. Pussyfoot Johnson on the scene before his time.
...But among many things that amused me almost to the point of treating the form thus disrespectfully, the most amusing was the thought of the ruthless outlaw who should feel compelled to treat it respectfully. I like to think of the foreign desperado, seeking to slip into America with official papers under official protection, and sitting down to write with a beautiful gravity, 'I am an anarchist. I hate you all and wish to destroy you.' Or, 'I intend to subvert by force the government of the United States as soon as possible, sticking the long sheath-knife in my left trouser-pocket into Mr. Harding at the earliest opportunity.' Or again, 'Yes, I am a polygamist all right, and my forty-seven wives are accompanying me on the voyage disguised as secretaries.' There seems to be a certain simplicity of mind about these answers; and it is reassuring to know that anarchists and polygamists are so pure and good that the police have only to ask them questions and they are certain to tell no lies.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
17hr ago
HereAndGone
17hr ago
Does seeing a man this sexually successful just make you insecure? Is it something deeper?
No more deep than I think he's not especially All That and could do himself some favours. If men think of certain women as fuckable for short-term fun but not wife material, women think the same about some men.
HereAndGone
17hr ago
It's not that individual women have no power, it's that the group "women" does not comprise a meaningful political bloc. Thus "female sociopolitical power will collapse"
Sociopolitical power in harem situations is wielded by being the mother of the heir. Look at Mohammed bin Salman - son of the third wife, so plainly she manoeuvred her way into getting her son made the heir:
He is the eldest of his mother's six children and the eighth child and seventh son of his father.
And Salman's father was the (reputed) twenty-fifth son of his father. The strongest alliances are those between children of the same mother (though of course this does not rule out intra-clan scheming to replace one likely successor with another, which is another theme in Chinese history when you have harems and multiple sons by multiple wives/concubines):
The Sudairi Seven is the commonly used name for a powerful alliance of seven full brothers within the Saudi royal family. They are also sometimes referred to as the Sudairi clan or the Sudairi faction. They are among the forty-five sons of the country's founder, King Abdulaziz. The King had more sons with their mother, Hussa bint Ahmed Al Sudairi, than he did with any of his other wives.
This has been the tradition: the sultan's mother and the sultan's favourite wife/concubine are the women with power, so it's worth scheming to make sure you're either the favourite of the current sultan, or the mother of his heir (best of all, of course, is to be both). That's one reason why monogamy makes for stronger dynastic lines - if there's only one legitimate wife and bastards by favourites, mistresses, or concubines have little to no hope of being in the line of succession, you cut way down on intra-family slaughter over succession (and the Wars of the Roses show how important reducing conflict over heirs is). If you look at the Al-Saud family, the succession bounces around between potential Heirs Presumptive who get replaced (and often imprisoned) as they rise and fall in favour, which means instability and public concern and unrest. By contrast, everyone knows that William is the heir of Charles, and it's not going to be "Charles decides to name one or another of his nephews, nieces, or grandkids as heir then changes his mind and names another".
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
17hr ago
some reason
My best guess is that reason comes in the form of black suitcases full of colored rectangles with nice pictures on them.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
17hr ago
No. It's an analogy. The pattern can be seen in other contexts. Radical feminists who said "gender is a social construct" inspired the transgender movement when people took literally what was supposed to be hyperbolic propaganda, a movement that would later turn on them.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
17hr ago
I thought that the Immigration and Nationality Act gave extensive power to POTUS to discriminate between non-citizens on the sole basis of his judgement that their entry may be "detrimental to the interests of the United States".
In particular, it seems entirely appropriate that you would decide to ban entry to anyone from an enemy nation. It's going to be hard to argue that the law wasn't written with that in mind.
You might argue the pretense of nationality is flimsy and that China isn't an enemy nation, but the courts don't make the foreign policy of the United States.
cjet79
17hr ago
I am sometimes reminded of how bad life can get.
My dad's cousin has a 14 year old grandson, that he wants to bring on their annual fishing trip.
Turns out the boy is a furry (hearing my dad describe it without the word or understanding of what a furry is was entertaining), but this was the least bad thing. The boy was recently arrested for molesting his younger ten year old brother. His younger brother lives with his mom (who is apparently a prostitute). His dad remarried and has a younger daughter, he has threatened to molest his step sister too if he moves in with his dad. The boy can't be placed in foster care because he is a danger to other children. It's looking like the main option might be juvi.
It's zero-sum thinking. He thinks a Chinese kid going to university is why his cousin Billy Bob went to trade school.
More options
Context Copy link