Has the apparent spike in cases led to spikes in case rate for non-college students? Has it led to an increase in hospitalizations? Or do we need to "wait two weeks" for that? It's an extremely low risk population, it's very unlikely any of them will be harmed. As you said, they're adults, perhaps they are taking a calculated risk.
SCOTUS is already clearly partisan if the newly departed justice's final wish is for a different president to appoint her replacement. Playing politics up until the end.
Genuine question for anyone following Supreme Court decisions since the inclusion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. How have either of those two nominations contributed to decisions in a way that undes RBG's life work? If they haven't, on what basis are you coming to the conclusion that the third nominee to SCOTUS would somehow be radically different than the first two?
I personally haven't read an opinion from either that most democrats would be disappointed with. Most people actually don't follow what the supreme court does and the extent of the attention they pay is just making sure that the president they support gets to pick SCOTUS justices.
We can compare the stated philosophies of RBG against those of the two most recent nominees and the shortlisted candidates put forth in the past week and see that they're very different. It seems very plausible to guess that, given a large majority, these people will enact these philosophies. No?
Damn right it is. Once she passes the President and Senate get to nominate a replacement. RBG isn't somehow deserving of a candidate that maintains her legacy. In fact, she has zero say in who her replacement is.
“Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.”
—John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861
But we're not talking about your decision or his, we're talking about the decision made by the government whose literal job description is to make rules for this country alone!
As a nationalist, I think it would be better for those other countries to keep their skilled workers and so benefit. I think every nation has a right to its own existence, space, and policies. And they also get to decide what's right for them 'as a people'. Always optimizing for performance of 'the economy' is not in the best interest of the actual citizens of this country.
I think each nation[0] should be entitled to make decisions for themselves and have a right to run their state the way they see fit. I wouldn't presume to move to, say, Japan and then start telling them that they're doing things wrong.
What if they moved to Japan because of an opportunity provided by a Japanese organisation that needed their skills, and then they spent enough time there that they had buy in to the community and were a recognised member in it and were valued by that community?
I don't think this is too hard to imagine applying to a person living long term in Japan and definitely not hard to imagine in the US, where there are no true "Americans" in the first place, apart from maybe the indigenous peoples.
If I lived there a long time, I still wouldn't be Japanese. Look, it's definitely an emotionally charged issue the longer someone has been in a place, but that doesn't change the basic facts. We can discuss the merits all day long but not the legitimacy of the government to decide who can and cannot stay.
For the purposes of this debate, "Americans" means citizens and those that can vote, the ones to whom the government answers.
Geopolitics is inevitable: everything's interlinked--trade, laws, defense, research--everything. If a nation wants to persist and prosper, it needs to play the game; being an aloof loner or a blatant bully won't get you far.
Conquest fell out of fashion with the bomb; it's all proxy wars, psyops, and deniable covert/cyber attacks now. Slamming the door on H-1B’s (while it might be nice for my own income) weakens American companies and sends world talent elsewhere, like China. Who's only too happy to fund infrastructure in Greenland/Africa/Europe to extend soft power across the globe while siezing harder power closer to home (Hong Kong, South Sea expansionism, etc). Sitting out the game isn't an option, and going at it alone ain't much better.
Are you linking to "a politically organized body of people under a single government" or "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language"?
Politics is downstream of culture, and as the demographics of the country shift more towards those of Mexico or Argentina (for instance) we should not be surprised when our political climate reflects that.
If that were true, I would expect the demographics of the supporters of the current administration to be skewed towards immigrants, especially from Central and South America, and I would expect to see opposition to the current political climate from the demographics most culturally different from those- non-immigrant, white males.
But it seems to me the opposite is instead true. Are you perhaps suggesting the non-immigrant, white males supporting the current political climate look up to the immigrants as role models?
