🧵 Once upon a time, I was an immigration squish. I was never open borders as that is a ridiculous position. I was, however, pro very easy and very open immigration. If people wanted to move here, let them! This is the best country to ever exist, let people immigrate.
I still had some conditions to that. 1. The people coming here had to be coming here to immigrate, not simply to live here and make money to send to family back in country of origin. If you were immigrating here, it was to become American, not just to work.
That included a requirement to learn English to at least the ability to communicate on a basic level. No forms in language other than English, no press 2 for Spanish, none of that. America uses English, learn that.
II. The compromise for easier and broader immigration was absolute enforcement of immigration laws. If someone entered illegally or overstayed a visa, that person was subject to immediate deportation. Once illegal entry/visa overstay was established, that was it. No appeal.
Also, any employer who knowingly or with careless disregard employed someone here illegally, that employer was subject to fines starting at $100,000 per person with mandatory one year in jail per person.
The penalties had to have teeth to them. That was the trade off. I got more open immigration in return for those who wanted stricter controls getting deportation and employer consequences.
Why has my position changed to limited legal immigration, absolutely strict enforecement of H1Bs (if any are even allowed), and nearly no or no asylum claims? Because I have paid moderate attention to the world around me for the last nearly 40 years.
1986. 1986. 1986. I was a junior in high school when amnesty passed and I remember all the promises that it would never happen again. I remember every Republican presidential candidate promising to build the damn wall.
I watched employers evade any real consequences, or even any consequences at all, for being caught employing illegal aliens. I watched every attempt at enforcement be met with screams of racism and accusations of human rights violations.
I watched as the expectation became that I learn Spanish to accomodate those moving into America instead of those moving here making any attempt to learn English.
I watched as the notion of moving to America to become American was pushed aside for moving to America to get a better job. I watched as the idea that there should be any attempt to apply current immigration law was deemed horrific.
I watched as the H1B program, which was presented as a way to get non-immigrant employees to work in America for an American company because there just weren't enough Americans to fill those jobs, turn into fire Americans and make them train their H1B replacements.
You can make me care. You cannot control how I care. And now? Now I care deeply. Very deeply. And I care that immigration has turned into what is best for individuals instead of what is best for America.
That's not rain drops that are falling on my head and I'm furious at being expected to believe otherwise. No. No more. I'm done with all the lies that people no longer even try to make pretty.
To the extent that there should be legal immigration, there must be limits and who and from where and why those people want to immigrate should focus on what is best for America.
If a company does a round of layoffs and then applies for a single H1B visa, then that company should have any right to request an H1B visa revoked for a decade.
There should be precisely one immigration hearing prior to deportation and it should take 30 minutes maximum. Did you enter illegally/did you overstay visa? If yes, then deportation to be carried out within 14 days. No appeal.
When an employer is caught employing illegal aliens, then the presumption is that the employer knew and is subject to $250,000 per employee/2 years in jail per employee and it's on the employer to prove the employees engaged in fraud in providing documents showing right to work.
When all the portions of the compromises regarding enforcement are ignored, the only option left is to make no compromises on enforcement. All or nothing.
And to those who say where is your compassion, where is your care for the families ripped apart, where is your concern for the employers who will have no employees, I believe the meme below sums up my response nicely. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵I'm going to use this, with permission, as a starting point for a discussion about IEPs, the use of the "model peer", the abuse of confidentiality, and the abrogation of parental consent in the education context. Get caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it.
What is an IEP? An IEP is an Individualized Educational Plan. This is a plan developed under the IDEA statute (20 USC 1400 et seq.) to meet the educational needs of a child with some kind of physical or emotional disorder or disturbance.
The key issue is that an IEP is a legal document. Public schools are required under Federal law and various and sundry implementing state laws to follow the terms of the IEP. The school can, and will, be sued for not following a student's IEP.
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we'll be doing a very high level overview of what is medical malpractice, what is the standard of care, and what is informed consent. Get caffeine conveyance of choice, a nice little nosh, and let's get it.
Very important caveat here: this is going to be a very generalized overview. Every state has different laws and rules on med mal. This is a very generalized overview that, of necessity, is not going to get into much nuance. This is merely to provide a conceptual framework.
Medical malpractice is when a medical provider violates the standard of care that a reasonably competent medical provider in that provider's specialty in that provider's geographic region would use in treating a patient.
🧵A significant problem in modern life, both in and out of politics, is the refusal to accept that both sides of an agreement must be honored or people will no longer be willing to agree. When only one side of a bargain receives the benefit of that bargain, why bargain at all?
I'll start with the obvious - immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed in 1986 with explicit statements that the amnesty would be the only one ever done and that enforcement would be implemented promptly and fully. We've seen how that's worked out.
It's nearly 40 years now that every attempt to implement the enforcement provisions that are current Federal law are met with backlash and immediate law suits to stop the laws on the books from being followed.
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Let's chat about the FBI and the DOJ, Brady violations, the hiding of evidence, and why this has all happened before, it will all happen again is clear to anyone who has paid attention at all. I'll use the Bundy ranchers case.
Let's start with what a Brady violation is. The Supreme Court decision in Brady vs Maryland made very clear what should have been obvious all along: the prosecution's withholding of evidence material to a determination of guilt or punishment is a due process violation.
On the Federal level, the DOJ has an absolute and unwaivable obligation to provide to the defendant any material exculpatory evidence. The DOJ's obligation extends down to the agencies who investigate matters, such as the FBI.
Below are screenshots of my conversation with Grok in which Grok completely made up a quote on that page, denied that the actual language on the page existed, provided an inaccurate transcript, and finally had to be pushed to cite the information I could see with my own eyes.
🧵I'm going to use an article that reports on a tragedy with an outrageous outcome to illustrate just how many questions a person has to know to ask to determine if the outcome was improper. I chose this because it's not a complex issue. The article. cbsnews.com/colorado/news/…
Screenshots of the article in the next two tweets.