> just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system.
This is a story about citizens being deported without due process, without access to lawyers, without access to healthcare.
You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those people to have basic human rights and to see the system have legitimate judicial review.
The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?
Do you not recognize that that letter was most likely signed under duress? She was probably offered to permit her baby to be deported with or or the baby goes into the foster care system, not to the husband. The Felon has specifically used separation from families and destroyed records as a weapon before, why do you think he's not doing it now??
Does it really matter? Of course it was stressful. Most parents would not opt to be separated from a child. Especially mother from a baby…
If you make a decision that comes with a great deal of risk to you and by extension your family (like crossing a border without following a proper immigration procedure). If that gamble doesn’t go your way would you really opt to leave your child if you could?
Perhaps you would. I wouldn’t. Apparently she didn’t want to do that either. I am not going to ascribe any alternative motive other than love between a parent and child.
> She was probably…
> The Felon yada yada yada…
Do you any evidence at all that is what is being done here or are you just inventing a backstory and trying to pass it off as evidence?
> this is a story that really attempts to justify the use of birthright citizenship to create chain immigration …
*Which is the current law of the land.* The existing jurisprudence states that all people born on US land (with the exception of some foreign diplomat children) are US citizens.
The ACLU is arguing to maintain the existing, settled law. Attempts to undo birthright citizenship need to argue how they think it should work and why they think it should be changed without a Constitutional amendment.
Yes, obviously the ACLU will pick a case that has good optics for them. That is how EVERY special interest tries to bring their preferred case up the appeals chain towards SCOTUS. We aren’t ignorant of that. That’s pan outgrowth of the fact that the US court system is adversarial.
Here’s a fun thought experiment: if birthright citizenship requires additional requirements (I think the Trump admin claims it should also require at least 1 parent be a US citizenship at the time of the birth in the USA), does the citizenship rollback apply retroactively? Does it retroactively apply to all generations going back to the founding of the country? Does it go back even further?
Scarier thought experiment: Has any country ever tried to remove citizenship from tens or hundreds of millions of citizens? How do we “deport” people who have known no other country as home and have no paperwork in any other country?
Birthright citizenship may be settled, but the citizen is not the one being deported, the mother is. If the mother has custody of the child and opts to bring the child with them…I doubt you can find any settled case law that establishes that a parent cannot be deported because of the citizenship status of the child….whether a child is minor or not a minor.
Perhaps I need to read it again, but nowhere do I recall reading that the citizenship of the child is being revoked, so this isn’t really challenging birthright citizenship, it’s more about challenging the notion of an anchor baby passing legal residency status to a parent.
And yet many people calling themselves "Libertarian" signed themselves up for full-throated support of this fascist wannabe dictator. Their supposed interest in "freedom" doesn't extend past their own interest in oppressing others. The dynamic is especially pronounced in the surveillance industry, where digital authoritarianism gets a pass by appealing to the individual fantasy of creating your very own digital authoritarian startup.
"Single" for the purposes of this just means "not married". They don't care if the man has a girlfriend, situationship or polycule. If a person isn't married, they're single for the sake of taxes, census data, etc.
> everyone thought "the economy" was bad for the last four years at the same time as they answered surveys saying they personally were doing great
Most of HN would rationally answer a survey that way. High paid tech job, flexible hours, good benefits. But also informed enough to know that many others are struggling and financially insecure.
Depending on how the questions were asked, even a person barely getting by might respond that they were personally doing OK (employed, insured, able to pay rent and groceries) while knowing that the economic situation for their friends, family, neighbors was rough and knowing that if they got laid off tomorrow that they'd struggle to find an equivalent replacement job.
What you said is always true, and was /less/ true during that period (because unemployment was down), so it doesn't make sense that people answered this way more often. They were just wrong.
Trump likes Putin more than he likes any European leader.
If the scenario here is that US invades Greenland leading to an EU vs US schism, then it might not be Russia today vs EU today. It could be EU minus US support vs Russia with US support.
That'd be a pretty different dynamic, and pretty bleak for democracy.
Huge swaths of midwestern farmers will go bankrupt if tariffs are imposed. Subsidies and exemptions are being specifically added to prevent the complete collapse of multiple red state economies due to the harm from the tariffs.
Even things like oil and mines aren't guaranteed safe, because of complexities around where refineries are, loss of export market, or weakness of dollar offsetting any nominal gains when looking at actual purchasing power.
I think you're taking the graph way too literally.
The Republicans and Democrats are both coalitions made up of many different groups, and their policies are constantly shifting depending on which individuals get elected and which of those sub-groups hold more power, as well as due to different sub-groups shifting allegiances.
It's statistically almost impossible that someone would agree 100% with the platform of the Republicans or Democrats at any given moment. Even if you just pretend there are exactly two stances on a given issue (R or D) you'd still be looking at like 2^1000 different possible outcomes (for 1,000 different issues). The more perfectly someone claims to align to one party, the more likely it is that they're doing so out of tribalism than because they actually matched the exact one-in-a-zillion set of opinions.
The graph isn't "agrees with Republican" and "agrees with Democrat" as the axis (I also would say you can agree with people and still be a free thinker, viewing positions as independent doesn't really make sense, there's underlying ideology that heavily correlates them but all of this is besides the point). The idea that the far left is agreeing dogmatically with the democratic platform is clearly factually incorrect to anyone who has met people actually on the far left (they rarely even agree with other people on the far left) and a similar thing can be said about the far right.
The really obvious example of this is look how much of a thorn in the side of the Republican Congressional leadership the far right has been. Agreeing rigidly with a party will not put you at the edge of the graphs at all (for most parties globally it would put you somewhere in the middle)
The graph X axis could just as well have been labelled "agrees with Republicans" and "agrees with Democrats"; perhaps it would've been clearer that way. But really, any polarization axis would've worked.
The ideal graph would have two opposing labels dynamically generated according to the beliefs of the reader to be along a polarization axis for which the reader exists in the middle.
It's not just that the axes are wrong, there's a fundamental problem with the idea of the graph in an article about considering viewpoints and overcoming tribalism. Fundamentally the author put a graph in the article about tribalism and not considering other views where only people close to him ideologically are "free thinkers" (it's especially weird since "free thinkers" are congregated where most people are). You can sorta see this problem with the rest of the article, there are a lot of claims about how other people think badly and how he thinks is good. This is his perogative but it makes the article deeply insular and not really about how to understand and reason with other people.
It's particularly frustrating to me since from my experience I think both sides thinking he is farther away ideologically than he is is from then is from this tendency. I have the opposite problem, people generally think I'm much closer ideologically than I am even though I'm uncompromising in my principles (I'm very far left and even a vegan, which is anathema to many people). I've found if I listen to people and, more importantly, am willing to understand and speak to their values the more my experience is the exact opposite of the writer's. People's political views are often irrational but also they are driven by a diverse set of underlying ideologies and values and if you think "independent thought" is going to cluster in particular spot in an ideological spectrum and everyone else is just subject to groupthink (but you aren't somehow) then of course talking to other people who aren't ideologically close to you is going to be miserable.
Even more so when you see how quickly these coalitions will shift their beliefs or take on new beliefs when they’re signaled to do so by leaders of the coalition.
You often see this in real time during political conversations (both online and offline). Someone will say, “No one on my side ever said X, that’s a vicious smear perpetrated by the other side.” Someone will response with an example of a prominent leader on their side saying X. The first person will suddenly do a 180, and start explaining why X is just a commonsense position and it’s silly for anyone to be offended by it.
AI's ability to sift through text is almost to the point of being able to pick out these idiots so they can be ignored.
We're not too far off from a future where anyone can mouse over their username and a browser extension will tell them whether the username they are mousing over is consistent in their beliefs or if they're a flip flopping POS shill for whatever color party they're peddling the policy of.
> The meals for kids at schools is a “dei” program
I have never heard of such a thing, can you link to where such a program existed?
Free or reduced cost school lunch is a very common program, but it's based entirely on income, not race, gender or sexuality, which is what everyone means when they talk about "dei programs".
If that’s what they mean it’s because they have been played like a fiddle.
If I were to offer lunches for kids in an impoverished community that happens to be predominantly X race, the sensationalists will say “RACE” “DISCRIMINATION”, while the program is simply addressing one region.
Now the funny thing is that the Democratic Party has repeatedly pushed for universally free lunches to take any potential concerns over race out of the picture and the republic party keeps voting those down.
I have never observed the phenomenon you're describing and would like to learn more.
Can you link me to one of these stories where "sensationalists said race discrimination" about a program to alleviate poverty which was not actually racially biased?
> I don't get it, are the corporations making a shit ton of money or is it cheaper for the school? If both of these things are true, then it's a win-win
It's a win for the corporation, but a loss for the children and the healthcare system. They're selling unhealthy food that causes diseases at a good profit margin.
> They would almost certainly accommodate very quickly, because you know, they're making a shit ton of money
No they wouldn't. They'd tell you apple slices will raise the price by 50 cents per student per day (or whatever) and then you're back to the school budget issue.
The US system has for decades managed agricultural subsidies to ensure massive amounts of corn and soybeans are grown and sold at low prices to food processors and as livestock feed. The outcome is that your high-fructose corn syrup drink, white bread bun made with high fructose corn syrup and hamburger from a cow that got 80% of its lifetime calories from corn is very cheap, but many fruits, vegetables and nuts are expensive. (With occasional carve-outs for things like almonds being cheaper than they should be due to water management in California, but that's a separate issue).
This is a story about citizens being deported without due process, without access to lawyers, without access to healthcare.
You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those people to have basic human rights and to see the system have legitimate judicial review.
The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?
reply