Normally I’d agree. For this admin the cruelty does actually look intentional as a deterrent. Making it intentionally turbulent to discourage people from trying in the first place.
I think the whole point of making someone leave is the possibility that they may not be allowed back in. If staying was a foregone conclusion then there’d be no point in leaving.
Isn't there's a special case with Canada where you can return within x days even if your visa has expired, if your status is valid? Many go there for "consular processing" for that reason if I recall correctly.
I can’t think of any other rationale. What, only border officers are able to process a visa renewal? Please. We can have offices inside the country handle this stuff, just like offices handle Trusted Traveler applications and Social Security card issuances.
The point is surely to get another chance to grill the immigrant and potentially bar them entry. Other countries don’t always do this: Canada for example has inland changes of status and I believe renewals.
For many visas, people are expected to maintain a home that they intend to return to in their country of origin. Forcing people to leave every once in a while makes this more likely (at least in theory.)
See the recent events and pushback on immigration enforcement, to answer this, with whole cities (with their judicial system and police) refusing to participate, and governors condemning enforcement.
Those cities had very little problem when Obama was deporting millions.
Almost like what I have an actual problem with isn't deporting illegal immigrants, but armed thugs kidnapping citizens, harassing my neighbors, and murdering several citizens
Our police department hired a guy, did a background check, yup, he can be here legally. So of course ICE tracks him down and abducts him for a month. That drove our sheriff, who is not fucking liberal, to basically say "Uh, what the fuck, how can you possibly be this incompetent?"
If you have actual evidence of some kind that a human being does not have their paperwork in order, the correct thing is to give them a summons, get a judge to declare them not legal, and deport them. Very simple.
If your complaint is that too many immigrants just come back, then we should try enforcing the law against hiring illegal immigrants which we put on the books under Reagan, 50 years ago, and have never enforced because it hurts the profits of well connected Agriculture industry people.
Why hasn't Trump done that? Why hasn't Trump done the one thing everyone involved has suggested for decades, which is known to be the primary reason immigrants come here? Why did Trump tell Republicans to reject the Boarder bill proposed by democrats in 2024? One which absolutely would have provided more funding for the boarder?
> Those cities had very little problem when Obama was deporting millions.
Incorrect. They were "sanctuary" cities during Obama, as well.
> the correct thing is to give them a summons, get a judge to declare them not legal, and deport them.
Correct, and this is a popular right wing perspective. You should look into this more. These sanctuary cities and states are specifically against this. They release people with deportation orders back into the public, and ban city and state employees from helping. See "California sanctuary state laws" and "sanctuary city list".
The visa holder is forced to expend nominal financial resources and time in their home country (where they agreed they would return to.) Most people can't afford to maintain a facade of residency or two actual residences (and those who can aren't the intended targets of this type of restriction.)
You do not need to do it in your "home country" at all, though, is the thing. People plan vacations around appointments they manage to land for this, in countries they want to go for their summer holidays.
Additionally, it doesn't really do that either, you don't need a valid visa (only valid status) if you don't plan to leave and re-enter US, so this mainly forces people to stay within US rather than going elsewhere for visiting family, vacation and whatnot. I'd not be surprised if the net effect was less time/money spent in "home country".
Not sure if things have changed recently, but up until at least 2019 (last time I had to do it iirc) you definitely had to do a "flagpole" (drive through the border and immediately turn back) to change your status in Canada.
Canada effectively requires leaving and re-entering. It can take multiple months for an online visa to get processed, meanwhile leaving and reentering takes hours.
there were other dumb factors pushing people to do border runs, like your paperwork says "expired" but your status still being valid while being processed.
Except you had zero paperwork to show to an employer and they had no way to verify themselves. Even if an employer understood the process and accepted some proof that you submitted an application, they would have no idea if you were rejected and became out-of-status.
"Must leave to renew" certain visas has been policy for decades - through at least the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations.
Most visas are for temporary guests: obtaining a visa doesn't normally give someone the right to permanently reside, and most don't permit their holders to work.
Prior administrations were not full-throated nativists. Having a presidential campaign promise of mass deportation (happily consumed by The Base) is proof positive of the mindset of this administration.
I don’t think airlines are a special case? They should compensate you for cancelled flights, delays etc, which sounds like they did. What you seem to be asking for is compensation for… actually I’m not sure what. What is the value of the missed meeting they should compensate?
If you take a taxi to a meeting and the taxi broke down so you missed some important meeting, should the taxi driver / company compensate you for that too? Or do they just refund you the fare, or pay for a different taxi?
Life expectancy is a function of demographics, which averages ignore.
Income is also an assertion not supported by data. For simple procedures such as a knee or hip replacement, many people earning under $80K CAD opt for US treatment.
Likely because Canada has extremely bad waitlists which are continuing to deteriorate. That coupled with a lack of specialist medical options and lesser quality.
In Canada, a woman with breast cancer could be waiting 2 months to even start treatment. In the US, you'll be starting next week.
It's just because America is big and has a lot of hospitals and has changed dramatically many times over the past 100 years.
There's lots of places in America with spare hospital capacity. In those places, locals still cannot get affordable treatment, because our health insurance system is bad.
Meanwhile, plenty of places in the US have the absurdity of our broken healthcare system, and get to wait 4 months to see a doctor after having a stroke, like my mother had.
Or like my ex, who had to wait TWO YEARS for an MRI and neurology appointment, and that took so long that by the time her appointment was coming up, her situation had changed and needed other investigation and that appointment was not really a good fit anymore.
The situation is so mediocre in most of the US, that you have to travel hundreds of miles to see specialists anyway.
Nearly every single person in Maine who needs to see a specialist is waiting months. If you are in northern maine, you will have to wait months and travel to southern maine, or wait a year for a traveling specialist who has to fit a hundred patients into a timetable meant for 20. If you need to see a special specialist, you will be triaged on the same list as the entirety of New England for the one doctor in Boston who can actually do anything for that condition.
The same guild system that keeps US doctor compensation high is also keeping supply low! Someone is going to be waiting to see a doctor! If they weren't, US doctors wouldn't be paid as much!
For these topics I don't think there is anything wrong with using your own experience. Yes it's one person's perspective and anecdote (mine), but that's what informs my opinion. I've worked at a couple of unionized places before, for me they're terrible. You can say those are bad unions, or unions in Europe etc are better. This may be true, but my own experience tells me to avoid them.
This is a good point about quality of life. I focused on money in my original comment, but I've heard a lot of people complain that unions have kept them working with their worst coworkers. That alone is a dealbreaker for me.
Isn’t there a e) have investment at the federal level in R&D, specifically for industries that matter (economy, national security etc)? For automotive, China didn’t become the EV leader by accident. It was a deliberate national strategy, with funding to back it up. Yes there is cheaper labor, different regulations etc. But also in no small part to federal funding, investment in R&D etc. why are we surprised then that the US is in general falling behind?
The US could invest more in battery tech, manufacturing automation, robotics etc. This both lowers cost and increases product competitiveness.
> The US could invest more in battery tech, manufacturing automation, robotics etc
The US is investing in batteries. Domestic production has increased rapidly over the last couple of years and is continuing to do so. The US can now produce domestically all of its battery needs for grid storage, for example.
This is due to government incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.
In this case though it's a conflicting view. Let's say 40% of the province don't want to be separated, so they vote to rejoin canada (or form their own thing). Does the now independent Alberta allow it? If not, then why are they allowed to split from Canada? If they do, now this opens up the door for a infinite amount of splits.
Well, it would depend on how the new Alberta is structured. It would be its own country with its own rules. Practically speaking, it would highly depend on whether those 40% are geographically separated from the rest enough to geographically split the new Alberta.
The unit economics of orbital DC just doesn't work with today's technology. Assuming 0 ongoing OpEx(free energy), the launch cost of the satellite itself, along with solar panels, radiators as well as the chip themselves just doesn't make sense given the ~5 year operational lifespan of both the chips and the satellites.
LEO satellite orbits decay. e.g. starlink sats are ~5 year lifespan. But assuming a higher, more stable orbit, how do you replace them? There will be tens of thousands of these orbital DCs, so not really feasible to go to each one to replace some chips.
Or alternatively I guess a few massive ones, but those would need to be truly massive to accommodate the solar panels and radiator fins required.
These numbers would be ridiculous even for a software play. < 20B in revenue at almost 2T valuation? That's almost 100x revenue multiples at a not so great revenue growth rate.
Of course it can. Terms of service and contractual obligation (should) apply to governments as well. Google is perfectly capable of outlining what's acceptable use and what's not, and the government is free to accept or reject and not use the product. Google is choosing not to set the boundaries.
