This is the same pattern we see again and again (see also, Jewish refugees before WWII, Iraq War military translators).
1. US govt promises visa spots to particular group. 2. US govt uses administrative burdens to make it nearly impossible for groups to redeem the promise.
Step 1. Increase learning costs by failing to inform the population they are eligible for visas. Then provide contradictory directives so people are unsure what they need to do to apply.
Step 2. Impose high compliance costs. $1000 fee. Limit acceptable documentation to one that is hard to get: A current passport from a country you have not been to for years, which requires travel during a pandemic.
Reject if people fail to fill in a non-relevant blanks on a form
Any immigration lawyer, or student of administrative burden knows these tricks, and knows their intended outcome, which is to subvert the intent of the law. The President takes an oath that the laws be faithfully executed, rather than frustrated as they are here.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A public university fires an outspoken professor outside of the tenure process, after he had been critical of private donors.
On the face of it, little real justification, raising real concerns about first amendment violations and attack on academic freedom.
Not a historian, but Felber's CV (Phd granted in 2017) and progress (received a fellowship at Harvard, a few journal articles and book project) does not suggest someone who was removed for his academic performance history.olemiss.edu/wp-content/upl…
I've been a department chair - the idea you would fire a junior faculty member for not talking with you is absolutely crazy. Removal of any tenure track faculty member without consulting the rest of the faculty is also something I have never seen.
Wisconsin Supreme rejects Trump campaigns efforts to overturn the election (again). Two observations: 1) Again, it was 4-3 with one conservative joining the liberal minority. That is really too close for comfort. 2) Great football metaphor.
Justice Patience Roggensack argues the court should have heard the case because of low confidence in the election. But the low confidence is entirely driven by false partisan claims of fraud. "Successful conspiracy theory" should not be grounds for hearing cases.
The dissenting Judges do not say they would have thrown out absentee votes, but signal they were open to such arguments, writing that guidance that the state election Commission provided to jurisdictions and voters was "erroneous." Not reassuring. wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/Dis…
All signs point to Biden being confirmed as President. This is cause for celebration, but lets take a moment to push back against a simple narrative of an anti-democratic putsch failing against strong institutions.
It's not that black and white. 1/
In the aftermath of a pretty routine election where Biden won more convincingly than Trump did in 2016 we have:
*a majority of GOP supporters say they do not trust the outcomes
*the majority of the GOP House Congressional delegation and 18 AGs proposed overturning the election 2
*Courts pushed back against fairily bizarre claims, but in some cases (MI and WI) decisions were 4-3, suggesting more openness to those claims than we would like
*significant and routine disinformation from Fox and other media platforms that people trust 3/
I regret to inform you the Wall St. Journal opinion page is at it again. wsj.com/articles/is-th…
"Hello, Jill Biden, I'd like to request, in the most condescending way possible, that you do not use the title that you earned because its not a MD"
This debate comes every so often on twitter, so here is the conclusion:
*PhDs predate MDs, and the medical profession grabbed the title of doctor to make themselves appear more credible
*Female & POC scholars often as a way to insist people fo not overlook their real credentials
This feels like a good example of someone being smart and accomplished and having strong opinions about government (and probably lots of stuff) while not knowing much about how it works. cnbc.com/2020/12/11/mar…
Cuban advocates for means-tested cash payments that have an economic multiplier effect. Well, that sounds a lot like SNAP, the program he proposes replacing.
And what about health insurance? Given people a 1K a month will not help them replace Medicaid.
I am all for minimizing bureaucracy, but if you want something to do to "those really in need" that implies means-testing, which is where you get bureaucracy.
One major US political party supports democracy; letting people vote, free and fair elections, losers handing power over to the winners, that sort of thing.
To make it easy to remember, that party is called "The Democratic Party."
The other major US party, well, not so much.
Very good thread on how polarization as an explanatory framework can blind us to even bigger problems, like one party becoming less and less supportive of democratic norms.