I’m pretty sure Ohio has property tax and registering a yacht in Cayman islands is a tax doge. Or ten yachts.
Some enterprising government tax investigator can guarantee a couple of his kids college education (maybe not at a “for profit” swindleship) by starting an audit.
I mean a successful audit will only get him a coffee mug - quashing the audit is where the real money is - and maybe a nice political appointment.
Betsy is having a great week. Big time favors and kickbacks from the “for profit” schools for quashing an Obama administration set of rules that are too hard on bullshit schools like Trump University.
I think my favorite part about this is the implication that the same algorithms that set out to ban trolls and harassers somehow targeted mainstream republican politicians. Geez, I wonder how that could have happened…
Mister Wright has an image of a CFSG tweet (why are tweets always in fucking image form) in which the parasite says,
“… Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of immigration based on MERIT! …”
Because there are absolutely no weaknesses in such a concept, and it is not at all in any way fascistic-sounding.
…Okay we can’t seriously be arguing against merit-based immigration, can we? The article brings up one example where “merit” went wrong - an example which is profoundly unfair, unless we have reason to believe that accomplished super-geniuses are somehow more likely to become criminals or terrorists than the average person. The example of Trump’s relative is even less fair - why yes, she got here despite a lack of “merit”; that doesn’t make the idea bad, it just means that in the past we haven’t enforced it. The fact we can’t exactly quantify what “merit” means doesn’t mean we can’t reasonably say that the country would be better off importing, say, a professional software engineer, rather than a day laborer or a single mother of three with no work skills. Unless you’re making the case for open borders, this is silly.
Does a lottery make any more sense to anyone? Should we be apportioning based on need, and taking in only the most desperate and impoverished? Should we, at no point, consider the effects of individual immigrants on our society at large? Because that’s all that merit-based immigration is doing - asking that, if we’re only letting some people in, that we let in the people who will best serve our society. I don’t think that’s unreasonable in the context of closed borders.
Again, if we’re arguing for open borders, that’s another thing. If we’re not arguing for open borders, then we need to be clear on what we actually are arguing for, and how that makes any sense in the context of selective and limited immigration.
See, if you want open borders, just argue for that. I don’t think it’s an argument we can win, politically, but it at least makes some sense.
Arguing in favor of admitting refugees is not arguing for open borders. It is arguing for humanitarian ideals. Some people deserve to be admitted solely on the basis of saving them from the torture or death they are running away from. The wretched refuse of the worlds teeming shores may not have resumes that help corporate America fill formerly high paying jobs without raising wages, but it is the right thing to do.
If you’re admitting people solely on merit, then someone needs to evaluate that merit, and make decisions as to who beats who. Such decisions are open to influence by bribery or blackmail, which obviously degrades the integrity of the system. But a system that gives an equal chance to everyone who meets objective minimum standards is largely immune to such pressures.
There’s also value in a random choice, in that you don’t establish current biases in selection that end up biting you in the ass later on. A call to focus on professionals in Job X, because we’re short on Job X people this year, creates a glut of Job X immigrants, crashing the market. It’s happened before. It will happen again.
That article is a little misleading. Nunes threatened to withdraw federal defamation immunity laws that protect Twitter and other content aggregators, not to sue them.
Maybe we should have a system that balances the needs of the nation and the opportunity for others to lift themselves out of poverty, by admitting a limited number of applicants based on their qualifications and a limited number based on need. You know, kind of like the system we have now. I think we even had a name for it when impoverished people came here and built themselves a new life out of nothing. Something something dream, wasn’t it?
At the risk of completely hijacking this thread: not all immigrants are in the same category. Refugees and asylum seekers are not the same as economic migrants; numbers of the former ebb and flow suddenly as crises crystallize, and the consequences of denying them entry may be fatal to the rejected applicants. Economic migrant numbers wax and wane more gradually, and failure to obtain entry is not necessarily a life-or-death situation. There are also immigrants with special skills who are actively desired and invited to come, which are a whole other category, and there are migrant workers who could potentially enter the country on a seasonal basis and return home (e.g. fruit pickers). Immigration policy needs to take account of the different needs of all groups and the projected numbers, and balance those against the country’s needs and capacity without unduly pitting one category against the other. And not all categories would necessarily require the same approach; applying a lottery to refugees could be cruel, but economic migrants without sought-after skills or other extenuating circumstances could well be fairly served by a lottery system of selection.
