876 thoughts on “Non-Compete Clauses”

1. Technically, you can continue to tutor in Naperville, as long as you don't offer services to the company's clients, which is essentially the same thing.

2. MikeN,
   Ahh… Yes. I see that which I missed that! Thanks. That does make it better.

   But of course, I need to figure out if potential clients are (or possibly were) Frog clients. Naturally, I would be in a position of not wanting to actually advertise for my competitor Frog. So, if operating on my own, I wouldn't want to ask potential clients if they are (or have been) Frog's clients. I'd be even worse off interviewing for a job at someone else's company. I can't work for them if any of their customers are customer's of Frog. They aren't going to want to check whether their customers are customers of Frog.

   The more reasonable purely anti-poaching clause would be to say I can't tutor clients whose existence I learned of through my association with Frog. Given the situation for tutoring, five years is a long time even at that.

   (Interestingly, at the forum where this company came up, I was more concerned about not being able to discuss how much they paid! )

3. The following is one libertarian's view of a non-compete agreement. I do not know whether this is a view that most courts have that inhibit them from enforcing non-compete agreements.

   http://archive.freecapitalists.org/forums/t/28198.aspx

   "Contracts can only be enforced when property rights are violated. When you sign this agreement (a non-compete agreement) and there is no property clause, then all you've broken is your word, and this cannot be punished. If, on the other hand, the contract says that you entitle your employer to some amount of money if you compete with them, the contract can be enforced, because as soon as you compete, property is transferred and they have full power over what used to be your money."

   Lucia, I am curious whether other organizations like Frog have non-compete agreements and further were there any other clues that Frog might not be a straight shooter. When an online entity wants you to sign agreement before obtaining any other information about them that would be signal for me to say a permanent good-bye.

4. Kenneth,
   Each company has a contract. Non-competes are all over the place.

   The one that brings me the most work at the best price does NOT have a non-compete. Like most contracts, they can dump you and you can dump them for any reason either prefers. So presumably, if they think you are cheating them, they dump you. After that, you can compete with them, but you don't get any more work through them. Since they actually bring tutors work, that's a pretty big loss to the tutor.

   Another company I worked with initially had a 1 year non-compete that was similar to the above. But I had just started and wanted access to students. I signed it. The then changed to a 2 year non-compete but limited to students that were somehow associated with the ones they brought you. (The wording of the association was unclear… which was annoying.) I didn't sign the 2 year noncompete, principally because their hourly rate is WAY too low and by that point, I was well able to get other students and make more. Plus, there were elements of annoying in dealing with the people who amounted to "sales staff" of that company. (They were called something else. Perhaps "educational consultants"?)

   A few others are just listing you on a web site: no non-compete. Some of these are utterly useless at bringing clients, some bring in one from time to time.

   Thumbtack has no non-compete, but the tutors pay to contact people who post ads. So they are just an adservice.

   Other provisions also vary. Some have insane sounding claims about ownership of materials the tutor might "create" while tutoring. Some have tons of self-indemnifying text. It really varies.

   The larger companies tend to have the less insane contracts. My theory is the larger companies have actually paid lawyers to come up with something that won't get thrown out of court if someone ever pursue it. They've also had someone explain the "independent contractor" "employee" distinction, which, hypothetically could be invalidated by a ridiculous non-compete and associated behavior that essentially turns the "contractors" into "employees". (And if invalidated, the Feds and State authorities would come after the company for finds, back taxes and a host of other things.)

5. Ken
   *When an online entity wants you to sign agreement before obtaining any other information about them that would be signal for me to say a permanent good-bye.*
   My theory is it's probably cluelessness. Companies often start out with vague notions about setting up a business. This might be one of them.

   But I agree that asking someone to sign an agreement that includes the $1 payment to make it enforceable before the person can even learn details of the job and or has not submitted credential to find out if they would even be offered the job merits a permanent good-bye. Still, oddly, they may never have stepped through the process and realized how whacked it is.

   Heck, there was no way for me to even know if they had any listings in physics in Naperville, ever. Obviously, it's ridiculous to agree to *any* non-compete that someone might even try to enforce (in Texas courts) when there might be a chance I could get zero jobs ever and I have no reason to expect I could get many. I generally want to be listed places if there is little work associated with listing, and I'm not giving away my right to do other business! But not in this case!

   Other ridiculous provisions:
   Not being able to talk to other tutors about wages? Also a no-no. Not being able to discuss the contract on a blog? Also a no-no.

6. Lucia, do you have all your tutoring stuff under a single "category"? I noticed this last post was under "data comparisons" like your past couple of posts… My daughter-in-law is currently a HS math teacher and unhappy with the environment. I would like her to read about your experience getting into online tutoring without plowing through other subjects talked about here. 🙂

7. Sue,
   No. I don't have it under a category. "data comparisons" is the default. Unfortunately, WordPress recently changed it's interface to be horrible in many ways and it's much harder to find *every* setting.

8. sue,
   There are good and bad things about tutoring. Since I'm semi-retired and only want 10-15 hours a week covered, the balance is great for me. (I usually have 10 hours on the weekend, and the other five sprinkled around.)

   If her hope is full time: she does need to know that covering 40 hours a week is very difficult and can only be done by having hours sprinkled willi-nilly all over the place. (It's really, really difficult to pack a schedule.)

   Is she hoping for full time?
   Even if she is, her first step would be to start part time taking a few students on the weekends during the school year. She also should start pretty much as soon as possible. There is no need to wait– just set up accounts at Varsity Tutors and Wyzant. Start attracting some students. (It's summer. Demand is low. She may not get any until August. But there is still no reason not to sign up now to test things out.)

   Initially, she needs to be open to tutoring both local and online.

   (By the way, she will want to quit Varsity within 6 months and should. They underpay *drastically* especially for local and STEM. But it's still useful to get your first few students and figure out what you will and won't tolerate in tutoring.)

9. My decoding here is that they are worried about you (a) directly contracting with the student and the verbiage about compensation is that (b) they don't want you comparing notes on the rates paid with the student which would lead to (a). I wish it wasn't necessary to decode intent which could be plainly written instead of having to know contract law to figure it out.
   .
   You are correct that the length of the non-compete clause is a big red flag, ha ha. I think these insecure middleman companies tell their lawyers to write a bulletproof non-compete and the outcome is overdone legalese. They do have legitimate value in their services they are trying to protect. They don't give a lot of thought to what else the clauses may excessively cover beyond their intent. I think primarily it is there to scare someone if they find out you bypassed them. The cost to litigate this on small scale tutoring isn't worth the effort unless they are really mad at you, aka emotional entanglement.
   .
   It's a balancing test for them because these excessive non-competes are more likely to be thrown out. They have to be limited in scope and time which is done here. Usually it's 2 years and city or state limited. A 5 mile radius is quite small IMO. A judge can throw out portions of the non-compete or the entire thing.

10. The rule of the thumb I use is never sign anything in which you aren't receiving something obvious in return. The exception to this is a standard NDA (non-disclosure agreement).

11. Not sure if you sign your contracts as a company or a person. It's probably not a big deal in tutoring but in other areas of contracting it can be a huge deal. If you get sued as a company then all that can be recovered is company assets. This can render you effectively "judgment proof" if your company doesn't have much.
    .
    Signing up as a person means you are personally liable and all your personal assets are at risk. What you can lose varies by state. Generally speaking your retirement accounts are safe and in FL your house is also protected.
    .
    Pay attention to the scope of potential losses of a non-compete. If you want the work, a reasonable clause to add is a limitation of liability to the amount paid to the contractor.

12. Lucia, thank you so much for the response. It was very helpful.

13. Tom:

    *My decoding here is that they are worried about you (a) directly contracting with the student and the verbiage about compensation is that *
    Absolutely. I think it's fair for them to be concerned that their role is to find client, and to be compensated for that role. In cases of some companies the spread between what is charged the client ($80-$150)/hr and what is paid the tutor ($15-$20)/hr is so huge the companies know the only way to prevent either the tutor or the client from developing the idea of cutting the company out is to keep both in the dark.

    The contract also has a clause that if you poach away a student they found you, you automatically owe $1,500.
    (I don't know what the clients sign.) So they already have *that* there directly in the tutor agreement. There is no need to decode they are worried tutors will poach clients. But yep, keeping fees secret is part of that.

    Other companies have different "keep mum" clauses, but none quite a specific as this.

    *Pay attention to the scope of potential losses of a non-compete. If you want the work, a reasonable clause to add is a limitation of liability to the amount paid to the contractor.*
    Yep. Obviously, this particular one had no limitation. It's also a "take it or leave it" contract. I left it!

14. Tom Scharf
    * Usually it's 2 years and city or state limited. A 5 mile radius is quite small IMO. *

    Whether 5 miles is small sort of depends on the service. This is all of Naperville *plus* five miles. So, that's pretty big. (By the way, the reason the contract lists "Naperville" and not "Lisle" is they limited choice of cities. I don't know if they intentionally only listed cities that had incorporated vast amounts of area… or what. But Naperville sprawls. )

    Imagine if it was 5 miles around all of Chicago? Or LA. That's actually a large area. The non-compete could still be a reasonalbe limitation though– it sort of depends on the job or service type.

    To understand how big a hit this would be on tutoring… remember, this is in person tutoring. Tutoring *usually* involves a series of once a weekly 1 hour gigs. So, you clearly don't want to drive 1 hour, tutor 1 hour and drive back. You can't pack all 12 hours into one big session– they need to be spread out.

    Also, 5 miles is as the crow flies, not as the car drives. So it basically, for me, that non-compete would knock out all of naperville, all of Lisle (where I live), Woodridge, half of Aurora, most of Wheaton and quite a few more towns.

    For me, 5 miles as the crow flies from the edges of Naperville pretty much covers 50%-60% of potential clientele within reasonable commuting distance *for 1 hour tutoring sessions*.

    Yeah, I could tutor kids in Hinsdale (and I do), but at a certain point, the commute time equals the tutoring time and that doesn't make sense given the service. So, for example, Oak Park is toooooo far to make a job make economic sense if I have to drive and most parents are going to figure out it makes no sense for them either. It makes more sense to find a tutor nearer.

    Mind you, a judge might think the limitation is fair and not throw it out. But make no mistake– that's big limitation on working *given the service*. Five years is also a long time given the service. So I would be giving up a lot by ceding the right to tutor in that small sounding region.

15. Lucia, I see online that Frog is a nationwide tutorial franchise and contracts mainly with students and graduates (maintaining at least a 3.4 GPA) for tutors. They pay around $20 an hour for the first 2 hours and less for any overage hours. A contract tutor noted that Frog charges clients much more than is paid to the tutor. It would appear from the comments I saw online that their training is minimal and their "proprietary" methods are far from that. I would guess that Frog would not want tutors to know how much they are charging clients.

    When I had aids for my wife hired through an agency the aids got more than half the hourly rate charged by agency. I used an agency because it provided backups when the regular aid could not show up. The agency had agreements with the client and the aids that were frequently violated and as far as I know without consequences – although it could have inhibited some violations. The agreements involved preventing the client from hiring an agency aid on their own terms. The aids I had were all competent, friendly and well-mannered.

    My siblings hired an aid for my father (actually my sisters hired him because he was a good looking young man) who was a foreign student studying to pass his doctor exams. No agency was involved. My father could be and was very difficult in these situations, but with this aid, Peter, he got along very well. Peter became known to the family as St. Peter.

16. Kenneth,
    Yep. I looked at them only because another tutor on the Wyzant forum was complaining about Wyzant taking too large a chunk of what people pay and telling us Frog was a viable alternative. That particular person suggested the amount Frog paid tutors was negotiable. I never got far enough along to learn whether that was true. (She also claimed she got paid more than $20/hr. Also don't know if that was true.)

    But yes, what I found online made it sound like Frog charged clients a lot and paid tutors a little.

    Reading Frog's contract made me want to hug Wyzant's owners! Wyzant basically takes 34% of what clients pay and they are transparent about that. I raise and lower rates during the year based on demand. So, right now I'm listed at $70/online and will stay there during the summer. In may I was listed at something like $120/hr online because… well… I was really busy and didn't actually want a client. But if they paid that, I'd take them!

    *I saw online that their training is minimal and their "proprietary" methods are far from that*

    In fact, if the tutors are "independent contractors", the training can't be more than minimal! If it's extensive and tutors have to use the "Frog method", the tutors would be *employees*. That's one of the ironies of all the hypothetical stuff justifying the non-compete. Much of it either (a) would never be relevant to a tutor or (b) can't be relevant to an *independent contractor* who is hired precisely because they have their own expertise which is not available at the firm hiring them.

    I did ask the woman at the forum what sort of "training" Frog gave. It seemed limited to learning how to fill out their web forms to deal with accepting a client, billing a client and so on. If true, that "training" would hardly justify a vast non-compete.

    Of course all online platforms have similar "training". It generally consists of a video explaining "how to use the online whiteboard" and some such. These same videos are available to clients– since the board needs to be used by both student and tutor.

17. Lucia,
    FWIW, my wife has tutored chemistry (mostly advanced high school and college level) for about 7 years. I believe the (small) company she usually works with charges $75 per hour, and she pockets $50. They have not asked for a non-compete… which makes sense in light of the modest mark-up they charge… there is something to be said for a fixed location and a company that generates the 1099 form that makes taxes easier. Most of the students she tutors for the company come from local public high schools or community colleges, but usually have relatively wealthy parents (doctors, lawyers).
    .
    She also works independently, with advertising by word of mouth, and charges $75 per hour. Those students are mostly the offspring of fabulously wealthy parents (think 100 foot yachts) who attend a private school which charges $30,000 per year for day-only students (much more for live-ins), and who are usually expecting to get into ivy's.

18. Steve,
    There's are a couple of local outfits around here. They might be ok. Most are focused on pre-school-8th, plus SAT and ACT and many operate out of strip malls.

    The non-strip mall one I've talked seem to want to charge all clients the same hourly rate and pay all tutors the same hourly rate. It's less than I can make for online tutoring, so not very attractive. I suspect it's more than tutors in many non-STEM areas make, even after they tutor a while.

    One thing about Wyzant is tutors can set their rates. If you look and screen for tutors who have at least *some* number of hours of tutoring logged, you can see that some topics tend to charge more; others less. Online charges less, in person more. (I charge less online. My "commute time" for in person is small since I make kids meet me at my library, but, it's still not zero. So, online is cheaper.)

    (Note that when comparing, you need to compare tutors who have at least 30 hours tutoring listed. Earlier on, some post "loss leader" prices, or have no idea what to charge. Eventually, they charge more or less the amount that gets them an amount of business they find acceptable. Also: very high prices can be fake. For example, I posted something like $120 in May because I didn't want any new students contacting me the two weeks before AP tests. I could have posted $10,000 hr, but I figured I might as well experiment to see if anyone *would* pay $120. I had gotten one college student for a one time emergency "I have a test tomorrow" session at $100 /hr.

    I'm pretty sure other tutors do the same thing with prices. I once saw a physics tutors listed at $5000/hr and thought… huh? But later I found myself posting what I thought was a price no one would pay… and I then understood the $5000/hr listing! 🙂 (You can make your listing invisible instead of jacking the price. But there are reasons jacking the prices is a useful strategy.)

19. The problem I see is what does 'offer' mean? If you are advertising your services as a tutor in a general setting, then does this count as offering your services to Frog customers?

20. MikeN,
    I don't know whether "offer" means in a the second thing. I've assumed it does NOT. I've assumed it would mean that *after* I advertise in a general way, take a client and tutor them, it better not turn out that they were or are also clients of Frog.

    Notice it doesn't really define "clients of Frog" either. For all I know, they could be someone who hired a Frog tutor 1 time, over a year ago, were dissatisfied, and hunted around for other options *because they were dissatisfied*.

    In terms of fairness: the only *reasonable* people a tutor hired as an independent contractor should not be able to hire are those the tutor learned of by working at Frog.

21. Lucia, I had a number of questions for you on tutoring but for this post I will limit it to a couple. (I was surprised by the demand for tutors in our area and evidently the country as well).

    Do you think that FROG tends to hire students and recent grads because they might demand less pay?

    By students for tutoring assignments I do not know whether FROG means college or both college and HS, but do you surmise that younger people in general would have all the people skills for tutoring that an older person would have?

    I have grand daughters in high school who I think might have the maturity and skills for tutoring. They take a lot of initiative in finding summer work. Of course, I am biased in this matter.

    My youngest son's sister and brother-in-laws who are HS teachers do or did tutoring during the summer. It paid well for them and I think being teachers they had a ready made client base.

    As an older person who is about as mature as you can get, I do not think I would be or would have been a good tutor because I would not have had the patience. I learned patience dealing with my autistic grandson and I suspect I would have had more patience with someone outside the family, but I think it would have been a major weakness for me. At one point in my working career I did have many technical people reporting to me and that was a very satisfying and learning experience for me – with the "tutoring" there being in the opposite direction.

22. Kenneth
    *Do you think that FROG tends to hire students and recent grads because they might demand less pay?*
    Yes. This is true of some other companies too. It's worth noting that according to reviews at pages like Glassdoor, Frog also seems to have a model where tutors doing inhome tutoring commute to students homes, with the costs of commuting generally not reimbursed. So the tutor will spend time driving to and from the students home but only be paid for contact time. In principal that can be fair. But obviously at $20 hr or so, if commute time back and forth is 30 minutes and tutoring time is 1 hr 30 minutes, the tutor is being paid $30 for 2 hours, which is $15 hour.

    Beyond that, when shuffling a number of students with commutes hither and yon, and having to go through a third party to obtain them, as a practical matter it is not possible to cluster the clients together. Tutors will have periods with no students. (Hair dressers and restaurants have similar issues with "light traffic" periods. )

    Established tutors know they can do better both on nominal hourly rates and on imposing restrictions for how far they will drive without charging extra for that time. If a decent tutor in a STEM area can't make more than $15 /hour, they'll almost certainly look for a job doing something else.

    To answer this:
    *that younger people in general would have all the people skills for tutoring that an older person would have?*

    They might have perfectly adequate people skills. I don't think younger people necessarily lack the maturity required. The real problems are different.

    More often the problem will be that even if they are great students, the depth and breadth of a high school or college students understanding may not allow them to come up with a variety of ways to help students with a range of needs. For example: A sophomore who took Physics 1&2 at Caltech might be great at helping freshman at Caltech now taking Physics 1. But they might not be so good at helping a kid taking "Regents Physics" or a high school freshman taking "Physics First" who has barely mastered trig and is trying to better understand some concept with little mathematical application.

    Heck, a kid from "great, famous rigorous school A" who nailed an A t might not be able to take kids at a medium level competitive state school in Florida taking "physics 1" because *some* schools include some thermo, fluids, waves or optics in physics 1 and some *other* schools go deeper into mechanics– using heavy mathematical treatments– and leave those other topics until "physics 3". The choice has to do with physics being a service course for other fields, and so the order of topics is often selected to provide pre-requisite material for specific fields.

    Meanwhile a student in education might be able to handle the Freshman taking conceptual physics, but be thrown when she suddenly has to discuss something she hasn't boned up on recently.

    Some high school kids would be perfect at helping kids on topics the high school kid has truly mastered. Also, a student who got an A in subject Y at "school X" can probably help kids in the "School X/Subject Y" combination because she will have mastered those precise subjects. She isn't going to be thrown by the sudden appearance of a topic she isn't familiar with. However, she might not be able to help kids from another school. (For example, the "AP Physics 1" students from Naperville don't cover magnetism. The ones at Hinsdale do. So a former Naperville student, no matter how terrific, is not going to be able to easily help the Hinsdale student when magentism comes up.)

    *It paid well for them and I think being teachers they had a ready made client base.*
    Teachers definitely have an edge in advertising. Parents tend to ask teachers for recommendations, teachers know other teachers. Teachers often don't know their students are being tutored, so even if a tutor does a good job, the teacher doesn't learn the tutor exists from a student. So, word of mouth works great for teachers. It's not as easy for non-teachers or even teachers who have just moved into a new neighborhood.

    High school kids who want to tutor would do well to make sure their teacher knows. Perhaps get some card blanks from Walmart, print some cards and give them to their teacher.

23. The non-compete clauses discussed here show lawyers at their worst and companies at their worst. In Ohio, (and I expect most other places) non-compete clauses must be reasonable, and it appears that there are many unreasonable aspects of the non-competes discussed by Lucia. What we have here is an unreasonable and legalistic company being assisted by lawyers who are writing up garbage.

    …..
    Too bad that a lot of people will think that the clauses are entirely enforceable and forgo reasonable employment opportunities that they would otherwise have. I understand that some tutors would take advantage of their company, but more reasonable clauses and actions could be taken other than those discussed by Lucia here.

    JD

24. JD,
    The internet aspect of the issue compounds some problems. One problem for the tutor is the contract states it will be enforced in Texas according to Texas law. Frog is a TX company, so that's not necessarily unfair. But it means if there was every a dispute, I would need to figure out TX law and likely find a TX attorney. At least with a local company using IL law, I can probably easily find a IL employment attorney.

    (I have googled some IL law and I know some of the provisions in this contract would not make it through IL law. But perhaps they work on in TX!)

25. Does Hinsdale offer an AP Physics 2 that targets the C exam?

26. Hinsdale central offers AP Physics C that targets the C exam. I haven't had any Hinsdale students taking AP Physics 2.

    There are 4 AP Physics exams. Algebra based: "1", "2" Calculus based: C ME, C EM.

    Naperville Central offers AP Physics 2. That course is offered by very few schools and the test taken by the fewest students. It's the only on of the four that includes anything on thermo, fluids, thermal expansion, and optics.

    It's a bit sad that the combination of the college board's choices and parents and childrens focus on "AP to impress college admissions personel" means the vast majority of students in high school no longer see anything whatsoever about those topics.

    The kids who take physics are now going straight to 'AP' (supposedly college level) and skipping what used to be "high school physics". With respect to physics it means they are never exposed to lots of basic principles that it would be nice educated people were aware of.

27. I hope you have a "no phone" rule during tutoring sessions, ha ha.

28. I've never had a problem with students using phones. I did have an online student who had his discord server on once…. It got turned off.

    Sadly, distractions are an issue for some student. This particular college kid had a dad who thought he had "ADHD". What he may have had was "too much video gaming syndrome". It's not something I can tell for sure because there are things a tutor c_a_n_n_o_t check. I tried to explain some of these things for the parent:

    1) No, I can't log into the kids mastering physics and keep track of whether he has done his homework. That might be violating the federal anti-hacking statute and IPs in Illinois are going to be pretty obvious.

    2) No, I can't log into the kids university account and keep track of his grade s on homework of tests. Once again: anti-hacking statutes.

    There are other things a tutor can't easily do. The *easiest* thing to do is to *explain* things to kids who are actually *trying* to learn and who want to get a good grade. That just requires some mental flexibility, picking out what they are having trouble with, modeling how to do it and so n. (One might need to show several ways.)

    The hardest thing to do is to help a kid who (for whatever reason) wants to skate through, doesn't really care to learn stuff or doesn't think he has to, is hoping to use "the curve" to just barely pass and thinks you are a resource who can magically predict the precise problems that might be on the test so he can avoid studying anything that might *remotely* be "extra" based on the precise test question choices his prof is going to make this year.

    No student would admit this is what they have in their mind. But seriously… There are a few students who seem to operate that way. If their parents are rich enough, I'm pretty sure they know the kids aren't doing squat, but hope that having homework methods *explained* for an hour or two a day is "better" than the kid doing nothing and that extra will squeak them through. You know…. it might work as a short term strategy. If the kid is bright enough, it probably worked in high school where a kid who could have gotten A's gets Bs which is still relative to all the not-remotely-college material kids in the HS. It craters when they hit college and their grade "competition" no longer contains the kids with IQs less than 110.)

29. What type of things are in a high school physics vs AP physics? My school just had physics, and people who wanted to took the AP test.

30. Traditionally, 'high school physics' covered a broad range of topics, without calculus and at a less deep level. So, the topics in "1" and "2" got covered by many schools.

    The thing is "AP Physics C" which is calculus based covers fewer topics, but those it covers are extended to treatments with calculus and have more difficult problems that require better algebra skills.

    With the new AP emphasis, lots of schools do not cover AP Physics 2. Students take "1", then go on to calculus based physics. The reason for this is the kids in STEM don't get credit for algebra based physics. So 1 and 2 don't advance them to graduation. So, the kids end up not having topics in "2", which they used to cover — though at a less deep level.

    That means kids often take 2 years of physics and don't learn nothing about relativity, nothing about heat transfer, nothing about thermo, nothing about buoyancy or pressure, nothing about optics, nothing about.

    Most kids used to learn a little about these things. Now the get credit for calculus based mechanics and electricity and magnetism. Oh. Well.

31. MikeN
    *My school just had physics, and people who wanted to took the AP test.*
    There used to be two types of tests.
    Physics C (EM and ME) and
    B (algebra based. All the topics now in 1 and 2.)

    Now there
    Physics C (EM and ME) and
    Physics 1 (algebra based mostly mechanics with some circuits.)
    Physics 2 (algebra based a little more mechanics, more electricity and magnetism and lots of other topics.)

    The "1" and "2" are a rather odd division that doesn't match the way any universities anywhere divide material. But if you take both, it's collectively like taking two semesters of algebra based physics in college, and mostly covers what used to be in the "B" test.

    So kids used to take all the topics now in 1 and 2. Then if they thought they learned them well enough, they took the "B" test.

    Now at most schools the first physics class is "AP Physics 1". They never see the many of the topics in the "2" test.

32. I grew up in farm town Illinois. We had a physics class in high school but it was for idiots, when I went to Purdue it was like someone threw me in the deep end of the pool and said “swim”. I was always chapped about that.

    My daughter took AP Physics from our local well funded high school here in Colorado, her first year of Physics at CU boulder was like they threw her in the deep end of the pool and said “swim”. I’m no longer so angry at my 400 kid high school.

33. I only bring that useless bit of anecdote to this board to say, damn, I would have paid someone to explain physics to my incredibly math smart daughter. She didn’t get EM type stuff at all. Her prof was a “physics” type guy who decided everyone should learn the way he spoke.

34. Jerry,
    When I first started tutoring, I didn't know if I'd pick math, physics or both. I discovered there is more demand in physics. It's less work to tutor only one subject. So… physics.

    More kids take math and I know that there are plenty of math tutors out there. But parents hire physics tutors for high school kids. I get some college students, but not as many. Most the requests at the job board are high school.

35. My high school had a 1 semester physics class that was pretty useless. Physics at my college was the main "weed them out" class for most engineers. They should have passed out business school applications at the end of Physics I for engineers, ha ha. I think it was intentionally difficult for that reason. Lots of people struggled. There were 4 major night time tests and a final and it was high stakes every time. Nobody cruised through physics at my school.
    .
    My daughter had to retake physics at UF because of the calculus based physics high school requirement. She was in an IB high school and they only offered broad based physics. It turned out that it was an easy A because she had a demanding high school class and only had to pickup the calculus parts.

36. Tom
    Honestly, the hard part of physics is the physics. Sure, if your math is weak, the calculus part of physics is hard. But in that case, the trig and algebra I & II part are also hard!

    Generally, 'college' (i.e. algebra based) physics I & II has taken in college covers the *topics* covered in calc based physics I, II and III! So algebra based college physics can be very difficult too.

    A *good* high school physics class is very useful. (Some high school physics classes are hopeless. Some are good… with "issues". Some are great.)

    (For those wondering, engineers not taking certain topics in the *physics* department doesn't necessarily mean they don't take them. For example: two weeks of fluids might not be in Calc based Physics 1 and 2, but many students student then take it in the ME, ChE or CE departments. Admittedly, some engineers might never see "special relativity" in college. That's why it's sort of a shame given the intersection of the current choices of the College board and high schools, many engineering students are now unlikely to have seen it in high school either. )

37. Many, many years ago I was a chem major and math minor in college and took a freshman physics course that was algebra based. I like a previous poster went to tiny school in a farm town in IL and did not take calculus until my first year in college. They did not even have a trig course until the principal decided that he and I would learn trig together. I enjoyed school and learning and never minded the limited offering in the school. The courses that were taught were taught very competently and enthusiastically and the graduates who went onto college and were there to learn did very well.

    That first year physics course was taught by a memorable professor who was by far the worst instructor I ever had. He was an older man who would have a student who was having trouble with an assigned problem (and never someone who had a good comprehension of the problem or could solve it) go to board and attempt to work out the problem and stumble through it before the class without any help from the classmates and or the instructor and most often never solve the problem. These pointless endeavors lead me to eventually cut some classes even though I thoroughly enjoyed solving the physics problems. I had the best grade average in the class. The instructor would have what he called make-up exams for those who wanted to improve their grade average and it was usually in the evening. I never took a make-up exam and thought there was no reason to do it. My final grade was discounted for skipping class and not taking the make-up exams. My first extinct was to report this guy and my experience to the school authorities, but on second thought I merely chalked it up to lessons learned (the hard way).

38. I somehow cut the beginning part off my last post. It should have included:

    "Generally, 'college' (i.e. algebra based) physics I & II has taken in college covers the *topics* covered in calc based physics I, II and III! So algebra based college physics can be very difficult too."

    Lucia, I most surprised to hear that they currently teach college physics that is algebra based. I assume this is for non science majors.

39. Kenneth,
    It's for non-scientiests and some scientists. Biology majors, pre-med, pharmacy, dental etc. also often take algebra based physics. They need to have a basic understanding, but they don't need to design devices or apply physics in situations with geometric complexity. So calculus is neither necessary nor helpful.

    I'm sure you can imagine it's useful for a dentist to understand something about radiation, some mechanics and so on. But there is really no need for him to be able to understand how cables in a bridge are going to flex and move under gravity. The latter problem requires a lot of math– but it's pointless for a dentist to spend time on that sort of thing. But it can be helpful to have a basic understanding of mechanics, stability, elasticity and so on.

    Engineers and physicists do need calculus. Other scientific fields … maybe not. Some fields that, like engineering, apply science (like doctors) really don't need calculus.

40. If there is a calculus based physics at a high school, then does this high school teach calculus before 12th grade?
    Mine was definitely algebra/trig based. I remember I use to cheat on the wind problems, by having my calculator convert from radian coordinates and just adding the vectors.

41. MikeN,
    Many high schools now teach calculus before 12th grade. Also: calculus is a co-requisite for physics in high school and at university. That does make the calculus aspect difficult for some kids because even though the application of calculus is simple, sometimes the students need to apply calculus in physics before the math teacher got to the relevant parts in math.

    The problem is the math teacher wants to cover all sorts of "foundational" stuff before actually teaching how to differentiate and integrate. Meanwhile, kids need to differentiate in kinematics, which is the first physics topic!

    Calculators are allowed on the AP Physics C test. So I'm not sure how knowing how to use your calculator to do problems is cheating. Pure vector addition problems almost never appear. The AP tests emphasize things like "Newton's law", "Conservation of momentum" and so on. Any vector addition is embedded in the application.

    Of course, when vectors are introduced, high school teachers will assign some pure vector problems.

42. >Pure vector addition problems almost never appear.

    This would have been more a B question, such as plane traveling north at 150 mph faces wind at angle x of 30 mph.

    I used the radians in class where the teacher was expecting us to use trig. On the C exam, I was able to use the stored units on my calculator to help with some questions.

43. Humorous article on perception gap of political opponents.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/
    .
    "Perhaps because institutions of higher learning tend to be dominated by liberals, Republicans who have gone to college are not more likely to caricature their ideological adversaries than those who dropped out of high school. But among Democrats, education seems to make the problem much worse. Democrats who have a high school degree suffer from a greater perception gap than those who don’t. Democrats who went to college harbor greater misunderstandings than those who didn’t. And those with a postgrad degree have a way more skewed view of Republicans than anybody else."

44. Tom
    "Americans who rarely or never follow the news are surprisingly good at estimating the views of people with whom they disagree. On average, they misjudge the preferences of political adversaries by less than ten percent. "
    I think the reason those who read the news are prone to misjudge others more is the news "likes" to cover extremes. So if all your friends are "X", you know the full range your friends views. But if the only way you learn the views of "Y" is the news, you will tend to hear only the most extreme views of those who are "Y".

    I do agree that faculty mostly being X means those who are X tend to only learn the views of "Y" from the news. The faculty get more talking time in class and, in some cases to some extent, the "Ys" put their heads down and shut up.

    So College grads who are "X" they will misjudge the range of "Y"s views.

45. Tom Scharf,

    I answered the survey…. the survey is messed up. It asked for your perceptions of the fraction of Democrats who *agree* with a statement, then they invert the question (fraction of Democrats who *disagree* with the statement) when comparing actual fractions with your responses. Even though my perceptions of Democrats was actually very close to correct, the survey announced I have a huge perception gap…. >35%. It is a nutty web page. I hope the actual study was done more carefully.
    .
    One thing is certainly correct though: the craziest leftists really have no clue what people who disagree with them actually think…. mostly because they completely refuse to engage in honest dialog. I am reminded of the phony “Heartland Institute” strategy document forged by Peter Gleick in 2012…. his text read like the script from a Batman movie, when the villain explains his evil plan to his henchmen. Which only shows that Gleick has absolutely no idea what conservatives think.

46. Lucia,
    “…the "Ys" put their heads down and shut up.”
    .
    Yup. It is a big problem. Or perhaps more accurately, the professors and administration are a big problem.

47. SteveF, if I answer the survey and say 40% of Democrats agree with M , when 30% do, what does the survey do with the numbers?

48. HI Lucia,

    This article paints a bleak picture for Illinois. What are your thoughts if you wish to opine? https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/06/19/why-is-illinois-hemorrhaging-residents

49. JD,
    It's odd because in the suburbs, the economy and area looks like it's thriving. The "nice" parts of Chicago (for dining shopping) look great too.

    But I'm not surprised at the numbers. I've always wondered why the lower income people especially lower income African Americans don't leave Chicago. (I did talk to a few who had and they gave me reasons. That said: the ones I met had left for the suburbs principally for jobs and better schools. She lived in a modest apartment in Wheaton, which meant from a schools POV her kids went to schools that were much better than those in CPS.)

    Evidently, according to the article on balance lots of African Americans are leaving. Thank heaven they are! That will get their kids out of the Chicago public school system and probably into better ones!

50. Steve
    >> It asked for your perceptions of the fraction of Democrats who *agree* with a statement, then they invert the question (fraction of Democrats who *disagree* with the statement) when comparing actual fractions with your responses.

    Big problem! Given nuances of language, "disagree" doesn't quite mean "fail to agree". People can "neither agree nor disagree". So, if 25% agree, that does not mean 75% disagree.

51. lucia (Comment #175167): "It's odd because in the suburbs, the economy and area looks like it's thriving. The "nice" parts of Chicago (for dining shopping) look great too."

    That seems to be happening in a lot of blue states. The well off areas are doing great; the rest, not so much. Poor people get generous government benefits, but the middle gets squeezed.

    According to Wikipedia, Illinois has lost 0.8% of its population since 2010 while its neighbors have grown by 2-3%. So that is not just the usual rust belt/flyover country problems. It is especially shocking for a state with the nation's 3rd largest urban area.

    I suspect that taxes, government debt, and regulation are to blame. Individuals may not relocate because of those, but businesses do. Then people follow the jobs. It is the decent but not high income jobs (especially manufacturing) that get hit he hardest, leading to a hollowing out of the middle class.

52. I read a bit of the left leaning news for "smart" people from places like The Atlantic, NYT, etc. and it is obvious that they don't understand their opponents arguments, or they intentionally misrepresent them. Many of these articles read less like something trying to inform you and more like something trying to sell you or inflame you. Normally this is the opinion sections but is increasingly evident in the news areas, especially news "analysis" and what they choose to cover.
    .
    I think it's mostly the sad state of journalism where hyperbolic articles get all the views "Look how evil the other side is, CLICK ME". Case in point is the "ripping immigrant babies from their mother's arms" mantra. Obviously the other side wants babies to suffer. It used to be they didn't really know what sold their newspapers because people bought the entire package. Now they know exactly what people choose to read and tune how to best attract those viewers. Appeal to base emotions.
    .
    It's more than that though, it's social media being completely intolerant of nuanced news, the divergence of rural and cities, the cognitively privileged isolating themselves and becoming incredibly smug, etc.
    .
    Ever notice how they seem to think they are about 20 std deviations smarter than other people? Being better educated is helpful, but it isn't everything, and it tells you very little about how people outside of your bubble live, think, and what their priorities are. Instead of sending in a cultural anthropologist from your tribe to find out, let the other side speak for themselves.
    .
    And guess what? We don't need to have a homogeneous culture. I think if the people of NY and CA spent a few years under the cultural hegemony of WV and KY then they might be OK with leaving people alone. At the base level, people just don't want outsiders telling them how to live their lives.

53. "Between 2017 and 2018, 114,000 more residents left Illinois than moved in from other states. Those who left mostly moved to Florida, Texas and Indiana, IRS data shows."
    .
    Apparently Florida has a bad Illinois immigrant problem. They are bringing their tax and spend culture with them! I think the Florida Border Patrol needs to step up their efforts to interdict and deport these people. Especially those Illinois babies, ha ha.

54. Tom,
    The Illinois culture has been tax and spend much, much much more!

55. Mike N,
    If 40% of Democrats actually agree with X, and you guess 30%, then the web site reports 60% *disagree* with X, and compares that 60% disagreement (not the question actually asked, which was % agreement) to your response. So 40% of dems agree with the statement, you guess 30%, and the web site then compares your 30% to the 60% of the dems that *disagree* with X….. so instead of a 10% error in your evaluation of dems, which is the true error, they say you are off by 30% (60%- 30%). It is really messed up…. nutty.

56. Lucia,
    Save yourself and move somewhere else before they raise taxes even more and start confiscating the personal property of ‘the wealthy’. 😏

57. SteveF,
    We have reasons to stay here for a while….. but yeah…

58. Looking forward to the debates this week, although I'll probably watch recordings of them after the fact. Does anyone have any favorites, or expectations of who may come out on top?
    I maintain that I don't think Biden is going win the primary. I have no idea who's going to take it right now.

59. SteveF, so if I guess that 90% of Democrats agree with a statement, when only 10% do, I will get a perfect score on that question?
    If so, the study is worthless.

60. MikeN,
    I hope it is only the web page survey which is messed up rather than the original study.
    .
    I think it is all rather silly though; the problem with dems is not their average of views, which is fairly moderate on most issues. The problem is the 25% – 35% of dems who hold rather extreme leftist views, and who, unfortunately, are dominating the party right now…. the excited base that wants to ‘fundamentally change’ the role and scope of government. That excited base will select many candidates via primary elections who hold similarly extreme views, like Ms Occasional Cortex. Normal people who lost a presidential election to as weak a candidate as Trump would step back and reconsider policies and strategies…. but not these folks; they double down on extreme candidates who support extreme left policies.

61. Just remember that it is those leftier leaning people who rule Twitter and the media that end up winning elections for …. Republicans.
    .
    I think I would rather go to the dentist and have all my teeth yanked out by rusty pliers without anesthetic than watch a Democrat debate, ha ha. I get it that it might be entertainment for some people.
    .
    90% of people vote the same party each election. The inertia of the system is massive. It is better to look backwards and see how the parties actually behaved than listen to them make wild promises about the future. Free college! Debt Forgiveness! Medicare for Everyone! Reparations! GND! Yeah, like those things are going to get funded.
    .
    The Republicans primary weakness is healthcare. They have nothing. I got estimates for health insurance for me and my wife who are healthy and it was $24K/year. They just ask if you are a smoker and your age. The average cost of healthcare for a person over 50 is $1000 / month? Wow.

62. Tom,
    >>I think I would rather go to the dentist and have all my teeth yanked out by rusty pliers without anesthetic than watch a Democrat debate, ha ha. I get it that it might be entertainment for some people.
    .
    I understand the feeling. I like to know what the heck's going on though, even when it makes my eyes bleed.

63. I notice that Gistemp has had another major adjustment, upgrading to version 4. The trend has gone up again, by about .03C for the last decade.

64. Tom Scharf,
    "The average cost of healthcare for a person over 50 is $1000 / month? Wow."
    .
    I suspect that price is in part due to Obamacare requirements on coverage, and in part due to you not being part of a group plan. Before I was covered by Medicare, I was paying $770 per month in a group plan. Now I pay about $300 per month to Medicare. Which is a big improvement for someone who doesn't use much health care. So long as costs are not limited by government fiat (AKA single payer healthcare) and people have no skin in the game, health care costs will continue to spiral upward without limit. What boggles my mind: proposed single payer health care with "universal coverage" combined with an open southern boarder… talk about motivation to go the the States.. Yikes!

65. MikeN,

    Get with the program: It is *always* worse than we thought.

66. "Knitting has always been political."
    said someone in defense of a knitting website's decision to ban all pro-Trump content.

67. MikeN,
    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricoteuse
    Maybe knitting is more political than it would appear. 😉

68. Yep. Madame Defarge…

69. For all you chemists and other knowledgeable people here, I have a question. Am trying to clean out my basement and have a fair amount of room in my attic. It gets very hot. Something like 120 to 140 degrees. Will paper or cardboard spontaneously combust in that situation if I leave it there for a long time — such as several years. Did an internet search and didn't find anything about that occurring, which surprised me.

70. “We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.”
    .
    Ha ha ha. Inclusive, except for the 60M+ people who supported Trump in the last election. I think the people who run that knitting site must all be liberals with graduate degrees.
    .
    "The administrators of the website went on to explain that users are still free to support the Trump regime privately."
    .
    They are still going to allow people to have banned thoughts in their head! What a magnanimous gesture.
    .
    "Ravelry also wanted to make it clear that it’s not taking sides in supporting Democrats or Republicans."
    .
    Yes, obviously this isn't taking sides. You are allowed to be a Republican as long as you don't support Republicans.
    Apparently nobody in the entire highly educated field of journalism could come up with the question "Why don't they just ban white supremacy posts?".

71. Fuels and Chemicals – Auto Ignition Temperatures
    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-ignition-temperatures-d_171.html
    .
    Paper = 218C to 246C.
    So I think global warming will have to get pretty bad first.

72. JD,
    The only way paper could catch on fire is if:

    1) there is a local heat source like an overheating wire or the (very hot) top of a recessed light fixture, or

    2) a reactive material (especially an oxidizing acid like nitric) comes in contact with the paper.

    Most house fires don’t start from things stored in the attic.

73. Thanks Tom and Steve. You have no idea how much better my basement will look after I store the stuff.

74. That's some mighty fine insulation if you can get 120-140 degrees in Ohio.

75. My attic gets to the approx. temperature of the sun in FL during summer. I briefly looked into installing a fan or bigger vents but apparently it doesn't make much of a difference. Some cable installers actually outright refuse to do any attic work in the summer (i'm looking at you DirecTV).
    .
    During the winter you can look around your neighborhood and see whose snow is melting on their roof first as a gauge for insulation.

76. The Dem primary debate has become a multilingual thing. I need to bone up on my espanol.

77. Four years ago, Rubio mocked Cruz as not knowing Spanish. Not only was this a bad idea likely to turn people against him, but Cruz then started talking in Spanish, asking Rubio to debate him in Spanish if he wanted.

78. Thanks Mike.
    I don't know who if anybody won or made poll progress in that debate. I didn't see anyone really shine or really bomb.

79. Political campaign debates are truly a waste of time in being uninformative and putting emphasis on traits and personal qualities unrelated to the ability to serve. I also think that the networks in attempting to showcase their questioners do a very poor job of attempting to extract information from the debaters in a general philosophical way. There is a lot of grandstanding by both the candidates and questioners. The debates in my view are an affront to the intelligence of the informed voter and more as entertainment for the masses or the partisan crowds either cheering or jeering on the debaters.

    My idea of informing the voting public and forcing the candidates to actually think about political matters in a less emotional and superficial manner would involve something like the following:

    1. Have the candidates present a list with a limited number of written questions for the other candidates to provide answers.
    2. The answers would come from two sources with one being the candidates themselves who would answer in writing without aid and under closely monitored conditions and the other from the candidate in writing with any outside help he or she might choose.
    3. The questions and answers would be submitted to the public in any forum that would choose to do so.
    4. For further public consumption any forum could also critique the questions and answers in any manner they might choose.

    An interesting part of this approach would be in contrasting the candidates answers to question as the sole answerer and with help in answering.

80. Kenneth,
    That's no way to target the lowest common demoninator! [ sarc ]
    Seriously, yes; it'd increase the quality substantially I think.

81. There is an obsession bordering on mania for the gotcha moment in politics with the media, this is truly just reality TV, a manufactured drama. They might as well have the candidates vote in real time to throw someone off the stage, a la Survivor. Many people love that kind of stuff though. I don't really feel just because a person stuck their foot in their mouth on live TV it means much to their ability to be an effective President.
    .
    It's no wonder Trump is President. Trump mastered this game by just doing a gotcha every twelve seconds. The only thing I remember about 2016 debates was Trump raising his hand to say he doesn't promise to support the eventual Republican nominee. Hilariously the majority on the stage ended up not supporting Trump.
    .
    I find the purity tests by both parties in the primaries to be counter productive to good governance as it produces a bunch of political clones. My highest priorities are aligned with Republicans, but not all of them by a long shot.

82. Ok… college loan debt…
    So I hear some Dems are competing by offering to forgive most to all existing college loan debt. I can't help wondering: If we do forgive all of it, do we then just eliminate the program?

    After all, if the "rule" becomes that debt is forgiven after graduation, *everyone's* rational economic strategy should be to take out as many loans as they possibly can, whether or not they "need" it, and either
    (a) invest the extra they don't "need" or
    (b) fritter away the extra they don't "need".

    After graduation, their loan is forgiven. They either have socked a way a nest egg or lived much more lavishly than "needed" while in school.

    Need is after all a rather elastic term. How nice of a place does a student "need" to live in? Does a student "need" to live on campus rather than at home with parents. Does a student "need" to go to a more expensive school rather than a state school. Does a student "need" to go to U of I for all four years or can then live at home, go to community college for 2 years and then transfer? All are choices

    Now, I understand someone might note that *current* debtors didn't make the decision *knowing* the loan would be forgiven. But if we do that, *future* potential debtors would all know. Everyone then would (or should) behave in their own interest and pretty much have the government subsidize "whatever" degree or whatnot they want.

    (Usually FAFSA will assume parents support and that could limit how much loan aid one could get when a kid is under 21. But an under 21 yo student could organize themselves to be "homeless" by getting "kicked out" of their parents home. You have to live with someone other than your parents– and perhaps move from time to time. I don't know how hard it is to get some authority to deem you that. So for example, I don't know if my nephew could get away with it by living with me. I think after a certain age, FAFSA doesn't expect parents to pay. They also don't expect them to pay for grad school. )

    Anyway: Has anyone heard what the plan for the *future* of the loan program if we forgive all the college loan debt?

83. AFAICT, Bernie is the one who wants to forgive it all. Warren wants to forgive 50K of it for people who make less than 100K/yr I think?
    .
    Sander's College for All says this:
    (https://berniesanders.com/issues/college-for-all/)
    –snip
    Provide Pell Grants to low-income students to cover the non-tuition and fee costs of school, including: housing, books, supplies, transportation, and other costs of living.

    Require participating states and tribes to cover the full cost of obtaining a degree for low-income students (normally those with a family income of less than $25,000) by covering any gap that may still exist after we eliminate tuition, fees, and grants.

    Place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward. The federal government shouldn’t make billions of dollars in profit off of student loans while students are drowning in debt. We should invest in young Americans – not leverage their futures. Today, the average interest rate on undergraduate student loans is more than 5 percent. Under this proposal, we will cap student loan interest rates at 1.88 percent.

    In addition to eliminating tuition and fees, we will match any additional spending from states and tribes which reduces the cost of attending school at a dollar for dollar rate. This funding goes beyond closing the cost gap – participating states and tribes could use this money to hire additional faculty, ensure professors get professional development opportunities, and increase students’ access to educational opportunities.
    –snip

84. He really only talks about low income students going forward, unless I missed something else relevant on his site.
    [Edit: But it does *not* sound to me like he envisions student loans going away; he talks about capping student loan interest rates for example.]
    Don't know.

85. The voxsplainers over at Vox say this about it
    (https://www.vox.com/2019/6/24/18677785/democrats-free-college-sanders-warren-biden)
    "
    These plans wouldn’t create universal free college
    The basic reality is that the federal government does not run colleges or universities and does not set tuition or spending levels at colleges or universities.

    Consequently, this whole space is stalked by the fear that if the federal government makes an open-ended commitment to cover students’ tuition, states will simply allow college spending to soar. To address that fear, Sanders’s free college plan does not actually guarantee that students would be able to attend college for free. What it does instead is offering a two-to-one federal matching grant to any state that wants to increase its subsidies to public colleges by enough to eliminate tuition. This tuition elimination must be achieved entirely by higher subsidies — stricter spending discipline is prohibited — and in fact, Sanders’s plan would require states taking the money to “reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.”
    It goes on to note that Warren's plan doesn't address 'soaring costs' at all, if I'm following it correctly. I don't always follow Vox correctly, I don't speak Vox fluently.

86. Mark Bofill, no one knew the significance at the time but that debate opened with a moment of silence for Scalia. Lots of anti-Trump people voted for him on that issue alone.

87. Mike,
    Yes.
    Does it ever seem to you as if when we appoint "conservative" justices they will side either way on issues as their consciences dictate but when we appoint "progressive" justices they always take the progressive side of issues? I have that possibly unjustified impression. I need to take some time and go back through their rulings though and see how much of that is my own biased perception. It might be most or all of it.

88. mark bofill
    *Place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward. *
    So the loans still exist. . .

    *Under this proposal, we will cap student loan interest rates at 1.88 percent.*
    At this low level, students who can *should* game the program, take out loans and put money in a money market or something provided they don't really, truly need it to spend.

    Obviously, having a loan forgiven is even better than getting low interest. So the ones whose loans are forgiven get a windfall. (Yeah.. some are struggling. Still… some are not.)

89. mark bofill
    *and in fact, Sanders’s plan would require states taking the money to “reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.”*

    Well… I wouldn't mind seeing colleges and universities reduce reliance on low-paid adjunct. They should add reduce reliance on low-paid graduate students. (Some colleges aren't guilty of this; others.. in spades.) But obviously, if they pay faculty more, either the price goes up or they have to cut something else.

    As for cost: students still need someplace to live and eat. So even if tuition is zero, there is still either dorms or apartments. Plus food of some sort. So *in principle* loans cover that for those who need it covered.

90. lucia,
    The cynical part of me thinks this makes good sense. Bernie's angle is 'vote for me, and I will specifically forgive *your* debt. Not your younger siblings or future generations who are *not* voting for me. but your debt and only your debt.'
    Maybe I have this wrong, but yeah that's my impression, that it's a one shot and then this government / state subsidized assistance system.

91. mark,
    I think it might be a "one shot". But of course, if it is, current 18 year olds are gonna be pissed…. Future news stories will compare the poor younger bro/sis living under staggering debt to their older bro/sis who got one bajillion $$ waived because it was…. well…. staggering.

    And people will sort of know any "one shot" that once happened might well be repeated. So if I were a parent with a wad of money and had a choice of paying tuition NOW or letting the kid take out a loan, and then paying the monthly payments later, I'd do the latter. It would *look* like the kids loan. But I would see it as "mine".

92. Lucia (Comment #175204)

    If a politician can buy the allegiance of the young voters by forgiving a trillion plus loan debt and without much thought as to how that expense would be covered, I would assume that Bernie Sanders' pledge for a "free" college for all would be the next step.

    I did not watch the debates, but a cogent question for all the candidates would be:

    In light of the fact that the federal government took over the loan program on the promise of making money on the program due to the governments capability of charging more interest than it would pay for the loaned money and the subsequent failure of that program to deliver what it promised in cost and in the betterment of the indebted students and further particularly in light of many of you calling for the program to effectively be paid off and shut down, why should the voters have any confidence in your programs.

93. I don't think the administration can just forgive debt. It's going to need Congress which controls all budget issues. I think it will die there with all the other mega-fund programs. Once again they are marketing their politics to the cognitive class. If you ask all the non-elites what are the their priorities I suspect "forgiving the elite's children college debt" isn't very high on the list.
    .
    Social security and medicare funding with the national debt (the forgotten topic) are already pressing issues fiscally. You also have a whole slew of shaky funding of states and city retirement plans that will undoubtedly come looking for a fed bailout.
    .
    And.as.usual.the.responsible.people.who.saved.for.college.get.nothing.(?).

94. Tom,
    Well, I agree that Dem's would have to win the Senate, which doesn't seem terribly likely. Four seats they have to flip (if you look at Doug Jones of Alabama as a likely loss) I think.
    But who knows. If they did flip the Senate and elected Sanders (God have mercy on us all) Congress might read that as a mandate from the masses and pass some of his agenda. They've done dumber things, IMO.
    [Edit: five seats? Something like that]

95. Tom,
    I agree "forgive the elite's children…" isn't high on the list. BUT, having said that, IF they have a blanket forgiveness program, at least *some* of the 'elite's' children will have loans forgiven. We can argue whether kids with parents making $200,000 are children of "elites", but I would be fairly *certain* some kids in that category took out at least some loans for college and grad school.

96. mark bofill (Comment #175216)

    Mark, I have a feeling that Trump could very easily lose in 2020 in a landside and in doing so the Democrats could very readily win large majorities in the Senate and House. That would mean that the left part of the Democrat party would be pretty much in control in Washington. From the past it would be expected that the weak kneed Republicans (as opposed to the so-called left center Democrats who have toed the party line) would help pass some leftist programs.

    I think that the Republicans and their supporters have their heads in the sand concerning a major and possibly long lasting leftist turn in 2020. Trump is obviously only interested in Trump and would care less about the leftist turn. He will make Bill and Hillary look like small time self shilling artists in making the time in office payoff big time.

97. In theory those rich kids are just as broke as poor kids with a big student loan if the parents aren't going to repay the loan themselves. It's probably unworkable to exclude "undeserving" kids on a legal basis I suspect.
    .
    This reminds me of the outcome of the 2008 housing crisis. Many people who took huge amounts of money out on a house, refinanced it for cash, stopped making payments, and then lived in the house they could never afford rent free for 2+ years waiting for a lengthy eviction to complete were designated the victims of predatory banks (who were previously known as racist banks for not giving out loans). In the end I don't think many freeloaders ended up getting a big payday though. People have completely thrown out the moral hazard of forgiveness policy.
    .
    Am I suppose to believe the students had no idea they had to repay a loan, or that it was going to be a heavy burden? By all means, make sure they are educated on this at least.

98. Kenneth,
    I think this could very well happen as the pendulum is always moving. Small majorities are tough with controversial legislation though.
    .
    There is almost no way to cost hide a major program budget, and the tax payers will not put up with major wealth transfers based on a politician's whims.
    .
    Even when the left had everything in 2008 they couldn't pass cap and trade. They did get Obamacare through but it ended up being financially neutered a short time later. I think any significant legislation passed on a hard party line vote will have a short shelf life. It may not get reversed for a while, but it can be easily crippled in a variety of ways.
    .
    The exception here is healthcare. This is going to get changed sooner or later. The system is unsustainable.

99. Kenneth,
    That's disturbing. I didn't think it likely, but now I'm wondering if I've misled myself. Maybe I ought to try to take a fresh look at the situation.
    Thanks.

100. Kenneth
     * think that the Republicans and their supporters have their heads in the sand concerning a major and possibly long lasting leftist turn in 2020. *
     I think MANY Republicans do NOT have their head in the sand and are entirely aware of this. It's Trump's base who don't see the danger. They love Trump and they really, really don't get that "the middle" does not and could *definitely* vote against him.

     There are a lot of votes in the middle. In 2016 the middle didn't like Hilary enough to take the "less bad" alternative of Trump. I would not count on "the middle" thinking Trump is "less bad" than whoever the DEMs pick, *especially* not after Trump has been in office 4 years.

101. Trump has always been personally odious, but the economy is doing well. He hasn't made an utter mess of the country, AFAICT. Maybe I count as Trump base and just have Orange hair colored glasses on.
     He didn't register correctly in polls in 2016. I wonder how that will play out this cycle.
     Who knows.

102. Biden might convince people who have Trump fatigue (who doesn't?) that he is a nice reasonable grandpa. Warren might convince people with her elite bashing economic proposals that should appeal to middle America. We won't know their actual platform until the primaries are over. It's all posturing at the moment. Unfortunately the left will reliably appoint left SC justices. This makes a difference, an activist woke SC is not something I want to ponder.
     .
     The theoretical Democrat with no baggage will beat Trump, but not necessarily the actual Democrat with baggage. Of course the theoretical Republican with no baggage should beat Trump to. I wish there was a legitimate primary challenge here.

103. I think Chris Wallace had the right idea for debates. Pick a subject and go back and forth for several rounds on that subject. Candidates can't just skate by. At the time, I thought Trump was going to be in trouble here, but it ended up helping him as the subjects were abortion and gun control for the first half hour.

104. By any reasonable measure Trump has exceeded expectations because the bar was set incredibly low. If you delete Twitter and his clownishness he is an ordinary Republican in the grand scheme. Economic catastrophe, the end of democracy, etc. has not come to pass, and I'd bet we are in for another full dose of that coverage because there is no accountability for the last time our betters told us of the scary future. I don't think the media is capable of restraining itself in Trump coverage (who doesn't have Trump coverage fatigue?). People will really tune them out this time.

105. Aren't these student loans mostly paid directly to the college?
     It would be an incentive for colleges to provide more and more services.

106. Kenneth,
     There is a lot of ground to cover between now and November 2020, so anything could happen.
     That said, Trump has a rock-solid 43%-44% support, which I think is probably in reality a few % higher than that.. some people are not willing to say they support Trump. The distribution of that support means lots of representatives will win elections even if Trump goes down. A true landslide seems to me very unlikely.

107. Here is a modest proposal: if a person defaults on payment of a Federally guaranteed student loan, then half the loss is immediately assessed against the college or university which failed to educate that student well enough to earn enough money to pay their bills.

108. Mark,
     Trump might not lose. Or he might. It's very unpredictable.

109. When I was just a wee lad of teen years, I realized that what interested me most was the boundaries, and what I couldn't do. I'd start a project and quickly get through the uninteresting stuff I could do to find and explore what I couldn't do and why.
     It even comes out in the way we talk. 'I'll see if I can't do this. If I can, then I'll see if I can't do that…' and so on. Well, the way I talk anyway.
     The unpredictability is why it's interesting to me.
     [Edit: WELL.. Part of why. I care about policy and who ends up in office. I like to speculate and talk about and try to predict because it's hard to predict.]

110. Anybody have any impressions from last night's debate to share? I missed it due to a prior commitment. :/

111. SteveF (Comment #175228): "Trump has a rock-solid 43%-44% support, which I think is probably in reality a few % higher than that.. some people are not willing to say they support Trump. The distribution of that support means lots of representatives will win elections even if Trump goes down. A true landslide seems to me very unlikely."

     I think that is right. Trump will be tough to beat unless the economy goes in the tank or war breaks out in the Persian Gulf. In all probability, the people who want Trump reelected will be outnumbered by the people who don't. But that will also be true for whoever the Dems nominate.

112. Nearly 40 years ago, a third tier Republican spoke before a group of New Hampshire gun owners and endorsed gun registration. He was roundly booed. John Anderson did not win the nomination, but that did make him a contender.

     I think there is a lane in the Democratic primaries for a candidate who is willing to be lustily booed by the woke while aggressively speaking for middle America. That could surely raise a third tier candidate (Hickenlooper? Klobuchar?) to prominence and might even win the nomination, given the complete lack of heavyweights in the Dem field. If such a candidate were to get nominated, I'd like his chances against Trump. But it seems unlikely to happen.

113. marc bofill,
     "Anybody have any impressions from last night's debate to share?"
     .
     I'd rather have my teeth drilled without Novocain than watch those idiots. I read that all ten agreed a foreign national entering the USA without a visa and taking up residence should not be a crime of any type… more like a parking ticket. So they support de facto open borders for every one of the 7 billion people on Earth; just get into the country any way you can and it is OK. Of course, that means you can't stop criminals, drug dealers, Mafiosi, or terrorists, but who cares when you are being so 'progressive'? You have to always follow your feelings, don't ya know. Oh yes, most of them also support taxpayer funded healthcare for everyone resident in the the USA.
     .
     Like I said, all of them are *idiots*.

114. Thanks Steve.
     It sounds like some were pretty funny:
     "My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said her goal was to make New Zealand the place where it’s the best place in the world for a child to grow up. And I will tell her, “Girlfriend, you are so on.” Because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up."
     Like an SNL skit. Didn't remotely address the question of the one issue she would be certain she got done. Or maybe it did? Who can say for sure.

115. I'm confused. Do the Democrats support forced busing again? From the quotes I read it was unclear what was being talked about.
     .
     All the usual suspects in the media dislike Biden and seem to be actively rooting against him even though they know he has the best chance to beat Trump. Maybe it's just hoping for something interesting to happen instead of a boring primary but nobody has a kind word to say about him as they effuse about the more radical hopefuls. Once again it is almost universal group think in the media.
     .
     Like I have said before I don't feel strongly about immigration but decriminalizing illegal border crossing and free healthcare? Seems like an electoral suicide pact

116. He's not left enough. Not only that, but he's an old white cis-het patriarch who hobnobbed with racists back in the day. And he boasts about it. That and his willingness to work with the putrid scum on the other side of the aisle.
     If only Kamala Harris [were] a trans lesbian. Pity.
     uhm. Forgot this: [sarc]

117. >>Trump has a rock-solid 43%-44% support,
     >
     >I think that is right. Trump will be tough to beat unless the >economy goes in the tank or war breaks out in the Persian Gulf.

     Not getting the border under control will hurt him considerably. The deal with Mexico has reduced stops by 2/3, but it is still too high.

118. MikeN,
     Although he has tried in multiple ways, Trump has been effectively blocked by Democrats in Congress (and judges appointed by Democrats!) in his efforts to reduce illegal immigration. Democrats instantly criticized his negotiations with Mexico to reduce the flow. Since nearly all Democrat candidates support effectively open borders, I think voters will cut Trump some slack on illegal immigration.

119. MikeN (Comment #175240): "Not getting the border under control will hurt him considerably."

     I doubt it will hurt him much. By being so openly obstructionist, the Dems are pretty much giving Trump a free pass on the issue, since he is the only one even trying to do something about it.

120. MikeM,
     I don't think Trump is going to get a "free pass" merely because the Democrats are also doing nothing or even being obstructionist. Not everyone is going to see the Democrats as obstructionist even if you do.

     The border issue could hurt him. Everything depends on how people *in the middle* perceive things. You are not one of those people.

121. The attacks on immigration aren't coming from people 'in the middle', but people like Ann Coulter. Most of the media is not covering the large number of people coming thru the border, and the continued catch and release.

122. Mike,
     It doesn't matter who attacks on immigration are coming from. When the election comes, what will matter is the views of people in the middle. The fact they aren't on megaphones or pundit shows doesn't negate their vote.

123. Lucia,
     It is true that immigration policy is very confused. But that said, there is a clear distinction between politicians who refuse to admit there is a problem and those opposed to unlawful immigration. I am reasonably certain there is no national consensus for unlimited no-document immigration, and in fact there is a consensus for controlled immigration, where those admitted represent a ‘better fit’ to US culture and economy. Like MikeM, I may not be representative of the political center, but I strongly suspect Democrats are setting themselves up for a big disappointment if they think open borders is going to be a popular choice.

124. Steve,
     I agree there is no national consensus for unlimited no-document immigration. But that doesn't mean that Trump will "get a pass". The situation on the border can be made to look bad. That's all that matters at the booth.

     Should Trump lose, and the borders blow wide open *after that* people will insist that's no good. But that doesn't mean voters will necessarily recognize who is doing what before the election.

125. SteveF (Comment #175228)

     Trump does not poll well against the Democrat candidates with name recognition, like Biden and Sanders. In the 2018 elections in my district the Republicans lost a seat that they had held for 50 years. They lost with a candidate who was never close to Trump and seldom mentioned him in his campaign and he lost because of Trump and him being of the same party. A large majority of women in my district, and I would guess in other normally Republican suburban districts, voted Democrat because of Trump. They hate Trump and they vote – and particularly the younger women.

     Immigration in the general population will be a big negative for Trump. The media will help get the Democrat message out that Trump and his administration have mistreated those people and particularly children seeking asylum. It will not matter were the truth lies as it seldom does in a political campaign. Keeping illegal immigrants out will go well with those already in the Trump camp and it is an issue that probably most voters see in a favorable light – unfortunately nothing has been accomplished on that matter by the Trump administration.

     I also think that Trump's style of campaigning was so different in 2016 that it was taken as down-to- earth and maybe in the end more honest by a number of voters. While some voters might continue to think that is the case I think there are many who are no longer convinced. Trump will not change his style.

     The Republicans best chance of avoiding a Democrat landside would be to dump Trump. Unfortunately given the primary process that will probably not happen. The fact that Trump polls well with Republicans and Republicans running for office will have to show support for him could well put the Trump brand on the entire party and the entire party well might face the consequences of that association.

126. Kenneth Fritsch,
     You want to bet? I say Trump has a 60% chance of winning in 2020. Do you have a favorite charity?

127. Kenneth,
     The Republican's can't dump Trump. There is no path to doing that.

     I have no idea which way immigration will swing voters by November 2020. Lots of people want to assume voters will side with their view. I don't think it's obvious what voters will decide.

     I have no idea what's going to happen in 2020.

128. Lucia, I don't think middle voters are going to vote on immigration or a potential immigration disaster at the border. I think it would be the 44% base described above that could abandon Trump because of continued catch and release.

129. >Republicans best chance of avoiding a Democrat landside would be to dump Trump.

     Trump owns the party. He is bringing in several million a month in joint fundraising from small donations.

130. MikeN,
     There's a lot of time between now and Nov 2020. What sways middle voters will be strongly affected by things that *actually happen* in the future.

     Predictions of "potential" things– especially things people have been warning about for a long time– won't sway voters much unless they happen. Some voters will focus on the fact the predicted thing could still happen. Others will point out that people have been predicting that thing could happen for a long time but it hasn't happened. They will then reason maybe potential is highly unlikely (and call those predicting doom "chicken littles".) It will tend to be a wash.

     We don't yet know which potential things will actually happen.

     Very dramatic things *could* happen at the border or arise from immigration. Or not.

131. MikeN (Comment #175253): "I think it would be the 44% base described above that could abandon Trump because of continued catch and release."

     That is what I thought MikeN was saying earlier when I wrote (Comment #175242): "I doubt it will hurt him much. By being so openly obstructionist, the Dems are pretty much giving Trump a free pass on the issue, since he is the only one even trying to do something about it."

     I do think that the Dems extreme position on immigration will likely hurt them with the middle, but I agree with lucia that it is not obvious and that I am not a person well positioned to make predictions about the middle. The people who have the border as a priority already voted for Trump in 2016. They are not going to vote for the Democrat in 2020 on account of the border, but I suppose that a few might stay home or vote for Trump's opponent because of some other issue.

132. SteveF (Comment #175251)

     Steve, the only betting I do is with my investments and never with long odds.

     I wanted to throw out my view of the 2020 race mainly because, as Lucia alluded to it, I think a number of posters here see things from a perspective that well could be based on where they are on the political spectrum. Being a libertarian my perspective can be very different than that of partisan Democrats and Republicans and could be based on where I land on the political spectrum and also my total dislike of Trump.

     I think Obama got lots of votes because he had a likeable personality, whereas Trump can lose lots of votes because of his personality.

     My concern is that a democracy has many weaknesses where government has a great deal of power without much republican restraint and politicians do not deal with truths and use emotional arguments. I think that too many people who are cheering on their favorite party candidates delude themselves in attempting to rationalize their actions based on some idealized Civics 101 concept of democratic politics that does not exist in reality.

     I also would point out to many conservatives, who think that a far left candidate (which is almost all of the current Democrat candidates) does not have a chance against Trump, that that candidate will get nearly all the Democrat party vote and a good percentage of the rest of the political spectrum who dislike Trump. Trump has given the MSM lots of ammunition to help their Democrat allies and that could turn some voters as well – it depends on how well the MSM can nuance their stand against Trump and make it believable as a neutral opinion to the voting public.

133. I always appreciate a bias check.
     *shrug*
     Thanks Kenneth.

134. I think the main weakness of the left's immigration stance is they continually signal they care more about poor people from other countries than poor Americans. They openly run as global citizens which works OK if your running for a global seat, not necessarily so well for a local seat.
     .
     If the left's nominee strays too far to the left then Trump will win. The media is the right's friend in this case because they always encourage and celebrate leftish views. They will demand answers on reparations and so forth.
     .
     Dirt on the left's nominee can also be damaging, where Teflon Trump can withstand almost anything.

135. Tom,
     They think they care about poor Americans. They believe it's the right who does not care about poor Americans.

     There are differences of opinions on how to help poor Americans and what helps or harms them.

136. lucia (Comment #175260) "They think they care about poor Americans."

     And they say they care and people believe them. The problem is that many of their policies actually hurt the poor. I don't know how much of that is cynicism and how much is a genuine belief that it is intentions that matter, not results.
     .
     lucia: "They believe it's the right who does not care about poor Americans.
     There are differences of opinions on how to help poor Americans and what helps or harms them."

     All true. But some of the Left's policies seem to objectively hurt the poor.

137. Lucia,
     "There are differences of opinions on how to help poor Americans and what helps or harms them."
     .
     For sure there are *huge* differences of opinion.
     .
     Seems to me there are cultural issues which promote poverty, and improving those would reduce the number of poor people. On the other hand, there appears to be a fairly strong correlation between low intelligence and poverty, and there are no obvious ways to address that. (see for example: https://humanvarieties.org/2016/01/31/iq-and-permanent-income-sizing-up-the-iq-paradox/)
     .
     Of course, you can just take money away from those who earn more, and give it to those who earn less… or nothing… to eliminate poverty (which is standard progressive dogma), but that doesn't address the underlying issues which produce poverty, nor likely add to GDP.

138. Globalization, the meritocracy, and the knowledge economy have combined to make the system much more efficient at placing the best people in the most lucrative jobs. It has the unfortunate side effect of being pretty efficient at eliminating people who aren't up to the task. Some of those people just lost the genetic lottery or had bad parents. Charles Murray discusses how employment used to be more effectively randomized prior to today in Coming Apart.

139. Trump fatigue may be a thing, but what I've really got is Trump Derangement Syndrome fatigue. I could pretty easily isolate myself from Trump's own remarks (since he is so often annoying, not a bad idea) but I can't escape people talking about Trump. They're everywhere on the radio and internet, even on forums completely unrelated to politics. And open pushback can be socially, professionally, and even physically dangerous. Maybe I'm projecting, but I have the feeling that the "silent majority" is really annoyed by all the hyperventilating about Trump.
     .
     But even if I'm right, that doesn't tell me how the annoyed will react. The natural reaction would be to vote contrary (i.e. for Trump) to stick it to the whiners — but voting against Trump could also make the immediate problem go away. Perhaps it depends on whether it's seen as a reaction to Trump in particular, or just an outgrowth of a shame-culture campaign designed to remake society in a more progressive image. It it's the latter (I think it clearly is) then getting rid of Trump will just reward and accelerate the larger disease.

140. "There are differences of opinions on how to help poor Americans and what helps or harms them."

     I think the left can more readily make its case with the voters by the caring routine and promising major government involvement in the lives of the poor. To have a dependent class is a good political strategy for garnering votes and works well when the opposition (Republicans and most Conservatives) cannot or more likely will not make the case for less government involvement making the poor Americans' lives better and that much of their current problems arise from government involvement. It is almost analogous to making the case for the addicted drug user who in the long run will make his life better by getting off the drug, but making him realize it is a difficult proposition.

     And, of course, politically having a dependent class means keeping them dependent – which over the years appears to working quite well and accomplished by either keeping the poor poor or by redefining poor.

141. Polls at this point are largely meaningless. When there is an opponent then they will be better predictors. Bear in mind that the Democrats are painting themselves into some pretty far left positions on things like free health care for illegals and medicare for all. I think the problem here for Democrats is that just a very few years ago, they mostly embraced mainstream positions on things like illegal immigration. It will raise embarrassing questions.

142. Twitter has announced they will start censoring Trump’s tweets. They will also control who can reply to Trump’s tweets. They are making a very big political mistake.

143. FWIW: Trumps's been tweeting longer tweets the past few days.

     Honestly, sometimes I wouldn't mind if Twitter just decreed no president, vice-president or anyone in the House or Reps or Senate could tweet. 🙂

     A blanket ban would at least be even handed. (Though I can see arguments against banning them.)

     I am happy I could learn cloudflare is having issues and that was the cause of my sites short term "badgateway" issue. (It may recur. It seems to be affecting lots of sites.)

144. Streisand Effect. Everything they censor will get amplified even further. I don't really care about Twitter but this seems like an unnecessary move that makes the tech giants look like overbearing cultural warlords. Everything they do lately is another move toward censorship.
     .
     Nike pulled a shoe with an old American flag on it because Kaepernick complained it was hurtful to some people, ha ha. Corporations need to grow a spine.

145. We'll see if the shoe makes a dramatic comeback. At this point it could just be a marketing ploy.

146. Tom,
     I think Nike's main problem is they had hired Kapernick as a spokesperson and their sales went up. If Kapernick is "the cause", then they are going to fear his disapproval will tank sales.

     Now I wish I could get some shoes as a collectible for a future "banned in America" museum.

147. lucia (Comment #175270): "A blanket ban would at least be even handed."

     No, it would just be less obviously biased.

     When it comes to using twitter as a political tool, Trump is in a class by himself. So a ban would hurt him more than anyone else. There is nothing even handed about banning the thing at which your opponent is better than you.

148. Mike M. (Comment #175274)

     You have got to be kidding. I think that Trump believes that given media biases that he has to resort to tweeting. His tweets are, however, seldom thought out but rather an immediate, emotional and impulsive response. I believe there are many people and voters who expect more from a president. Tweeting is no way to have thoughtful and intellectual discussion of any import or detail and probably why an increasing number of politicians use it for communication.

149. David Young (Comment #175268)

     I was looking at the reliability of early polling for predicting political election outcomes and interestingly the early polls do well in predicting landslide outcomes. With closer early polls the predictions are less reliable. There are early polls showing a Democrat landslide in 2020. I personally would not like to see a Democrat landslide and a sharp turn to the left, but I also like to keep my head out of the sand.

150. Kenneth, (re:(Comment #175276) )
     There's obviously a difference between successful demagoguery and a thoughtful and intellectual discussion, however, this does not demonstrate that the demagoguery is politically ineffective.
     Just saying.

151. Tom Scharf,
     “…but this seems like an unnecessary move that makes the tech giants look like overbearing cultural warlords.”
     .
     There is no “look like” involved, they *are* in fact overbearing cultural warlords. Which means that they could soon be juicy political targets. If their immunity from libel gets revoked and they face thousands of lawsuits for what their users write, they may think better of their obvious political bias in censoring users, but for now, they are unrepentant social justice warriors who are both arrogant and obnoxious. This will likely change.

152. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #175276): "You have got to be kidding."

     I am completely serious. My comment referred to the way things are, not the way oddballs like you and me think they should be.

153. Kenneth,
     Nothing you say is incorrect. Nevertheless, MikeM is not wrong.
     The problem is that while it IS true that twitter is no place to have a thoughtful discussion, and many voters "expect more", twitter nevertheless can be used to sway voter opinions. It can even sway the opinions of those who "expect more", and do so in ways the twitter hopes to sway their opinion.

     As Mark points out: demagoguery works.

154. Kenneth, (#175277)
     Agreed that "Tweeting is no way to have thoughtful and intellectual discussion of any import or detail." But it made me think — where would a politician actually go to have a thoughtful and intellectual discussion? Commitee meetings, at least public ones, don't resemble that in the slightest. Moderated Presidential debates are not at all constructed to provoke thoughtful discussion; it's design for posing, gotchas, and sound bites — exactly like twitter. Indeed, I think you are right that twitter's defects are "probably why an increasing number of politicians use it for communication"–it's what they've been doing my whole life, and long before.
     .
     The one particular advantage that twitter might hold for Trump in particular is the lack of gatekeeping. At least for the moment, he's able to communicate without filtering it through a hostile and partisan press. This has real value, though it would have more practical value for him if Trump were actually the demogogue his opponents portrary him as. Is that the case?
     .
     I just wasted my time reading the last two weeks of Trump tweets. Amongst the personal callouts there's no shortage of whining and puffery, but I expect more from successful demogoguery than just using labels like "Fake News" or "Crooked Hilary". I expect rhetoric like this:
     "It’s an all-out assault on human dignity and our standards as a nation."
     "…is only interested in using his policies to assault the dignity of the Hispanic community and scare voters to turn out on Election Day"
     "..one of this administration's most egregious attacks on our core values. Wielding the politics of fear and intolerance by slandering entire religious communities as complicit in terrorism…"
     "This image [drowned aliens] is gut-wrenching. The cruelty we're seeing at our border is unconscionable."
     "…added a citizenship question to the Census to deliberately cut out the voices of immigrants and communities of color."
     "We have a president who promotes hate and division. Encourages white supremacists. Embraces dictators. And damages our alliances internationally. Our politics traffics in division. And our president is the divider in chief."
     "We know NATO will fall apart if Donald Trump is elected for four more years."
     "Rooms of people packed body to body. Kids being held without access to showers or a change of clothes. It’s simply abhorrent."
     .
     No one's accused Joe Biden of being a twitter demagogue, but can Trump calling him "Sleepy Joe" and proclaiming the dem debate BORING! really compare to this sort of emotional appeal? And after wasting my time reading two weeks of official Joe Biden tweets, I wonder what's preventing the man from finding a competent science advisor. Three times in that short period he called climate change an "existential threat".

155. It would seem that Twitter aligns a lot of group think in the media, even the first articles about an event sometimes use such similar phrasing that it would be an incredible coincidence if they weren't getting it from social media.
     .
     The most recent framing bias is the implicit connection between the immigration crisis on the border as "Trump's problem". During the Obama administration it was simply an immigration problem. The personalization of negative news onto opponents is so common as to be automatic. Once the economy starts moving back from its blistering pace it will becomes Trump's economy.
     .
     If you want to make an engineer instantly defensive, refer to defects in "their" design, as opposed to "the" design.
     .
     I think a large set of people use politics / Twitter to feed a moral outrage addiction that is worse than crack cocaine, obviously Trump is near the top of the list. There has to be some brain chemistry going on here. I wonder how evolution provided us this wonderful feature? Mate attraction maybe. It has become increasingly common for news stories to simply be a thread of Twitter "clever" put downs. I read these stories as: You are a butt-face. Well you are a poopy-head. Repeat.

156. there are no defects in my design…

157. mark bofill (Comment #175286): "there are no defects in my design…"

     So that would make you clearly the product of an intelligent designer? 😉

158. Dale S (Comment #175284): "No one's accused Joe Biden of being a twitter demagogue, but can Trump calling him "Sleepy Joe" and proclaiming the dem debate BORING! really compare to this sort of emotional appeal? "

     An excellent point. It seems more and more like when the Dems attack Trump, they are describing themselves. Projection?

159. Mike M,
     Oh, no. *I'M* not designed perfectly. My designs though, the designs I produce…
     That's another matter. :>

160. The most trusted government institution by far is the military.
     https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/04/trust-in-the-military-exceeds-trust-in-other-institutions-in-western-europe-and-u-s/
     .
     The reaction to honoring them on the 4th of July in a parade is bordering on insanity. If they think it is expensive to move a couple tanks to DC, they might want to check the cost of moving 1000's of them back and forth to Germany and the Middle East. Yes, it's very Trump to grandiosely display the military, but it's not like this happens very often. Is there a way to put an aircraft carrier on a trailer and take part? I suppose if they put in some goose stepping NYT reporters it would be OK, ha ha. I have a feeling there wouldn't be many volunteers for that.
     .
     Of course they do need to be careful there isn't an Anwar Sadat moment.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKu-u-W5J84&feature=youtu.be

161. Tom,
     Well…. on the one hand… on the other hand…

     Tanks rolling down the streets is kinda soooooo "soviet union".

     The thing is, the military is trusted *because* we don't do the whole "tanks rolling down the street to show our might to our own people to give them 'the message' " thing. So, yeah, people trust the military.

     Don't forget the founding fathers weren't big fans of a standing *army*. Having a navy always operating, fine. But troops standing 24/7 inside the country for no reason? That's something that can result in military coups.

162. I think it's two tanks. Stationary, not rolling down the street. Plus 3 other armored vehicles, also stationary. Big deal.

163. Just because the Ruskies and the Norks love it, doesn't mean we can't love it too. Hopefully Trump won't wear a golden miltary uniform with lots of medals and huge hat. It might just be that people love looking at tanks and dreaming they were driving one during rush hour to handle the next road rage incident.
     .
     I think people trust the military because it has been effective in the past several decades and happens to be the best in the world. I suppose they get a silent ovation all the time, but I don't have a problem with a public ovation occasionally.

164. lucia,
     Yeah, it's weird. I think it's a little tacky. Still, it's driving the resistance and Hollywood bonkers, so there's a silver lining there. I find I can endure the tackiness if I focus on [watching] the fireworks and listening to the deafening booms of Trump hater heads exploding.

165. I'm not sure it's worth spending taxpayer money, or the bother to servicemen, but as a civilian I think it'd be cool to see tanks (or other armored vehicles) in a parade. Not a huge line, that'd be boring, but seeing a few and having a chance to look up close afterwards would be sweet.

166. mark,
     I rarely watch parades. That said, I'd rather watch a marching band playing Sousa than watch tanks. I mean… a big thing rolling down the lane? BORING! (I like floats better than fire trucks. Still… fire trucks are at least shiny. )

     Having said that, "boring" doesn't seem to be most people's concern with the tanks.

167. Concern mostly seems to be cost. Pfft.
     Some appear to be worried about damage to infrastructure or monuments. I'd be astonished if this was really an issue.
     My guess is it really boils down to this in the end, from Vanity Fair:
     the desire "not have one of their favorite holidays tainted by association with Trump. "
     https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/donald-trump-parade-sherman-tanks
     Meh and more meh.

168. mark Bofill,
     “not have one of their favorite holidays tainted by association with Trump. "
     .
     The thing is, Trump sets the progressive base off like a 4th of July fireworks rocket; the level of visceral loathing is very high. Anything he does will be loudly denounced, even prudent policy choices. It is basically an emotional reaction, not a rational one.
     .
     But I am old enough to remember progressive reactions to every recent Republican president and every Republican presidential candidate… progressives loathed them all. It is a certainty: anyone who is not devoutly leftist is declared a Nazi by progressives, including even a milk-toast centrist like Romney. Trump is only exceptional in that he is personally easy to dislike, quite independent of his policies. If forced to choose between dinner with Trump or with Hillary, I would likely become nauseated. But at least Trump’s policies are more sensible.

169. Thanks Steve,
     I think it's worth recognizing and remembering that it's totally possible to have an extremely negative emotional response to somebody on some basis *other* than gender, race, sexual orientation or religion. I remember hearing from time to time that dislike of President Obama was rooted in racism – doubtless we will hear similar claims this time around regarding gender if Warren or Harris win the primary. The truth is simpler; there are abundant reasons to dislike politicians. We can even become nauseated by the thought of having dinner with a politician who's policies we largely think are sensible.

170. SteveF, as someone who indeed has had a visceral reaction to Republican presidents over the course of my life, I agree with you.

     Of course I would argue that that reaction is justified. I disliked Nixon before Watergate–his appeal to racism sickened me. My dislike for Reagan stemmed from some of his actions as governor of California, where I lived during his tenure. When he made the big time, his evisceration of mental healthcare, which is the primary contributor to today's homelessness, sickened me further.

     And so on… I doubt if I need to list the triggers for my reactions to Ford, either Bush or the current incumbent. And in retrospect, the more rational part of my mind has softened with regards to Bush the Elder. I even credit Reagan for standing up to the Russians! (And for 'saving Social Security.')

     But I would argue my visceral reaction was in line with my (admittedly progressive) values and that, to a large extent, was merited by the (lack of) character of the people to whom that reaction was directed.

171. By the way–I like Romney. And by the way–Trump's policies are not sensible–unless you define sensible as placating his existing supporters.

     And by the way again–I would argue that conservative reaction to Democratic presidents is just as visceral.

172. Tom,
     >>And by the way again–I would argue that conservative reaction to Democratic presidents is just as visceral.
     .
     Certainly. If you felt like that was in doubt or [questionable], maybe others did as well, in which case I'm quite grateful to you for pointing this out. I figured that was a given.
     Thanks.

173. July 4th, 2019 at 10:05 am Thomas

     In what way do you feel that DT's policies are not sensible?

     His main two policies are against open borders and unfair trading practices by our trading "partners". These two items have devestated the American heartland and DT's opponents on both sides of the political spectrum have supported this assault on the heartland for years.

     Real Question: do you support open borders and bad trade deals as do the current crop of Dem's and Chamber of Commerce allies. If not, who will you support for the next president, with the understanding that not voting is a vote.

     For me, my rallying cry in the last election was " no Clinton and no Bush". DT may be a sonofbitch but he is my sonofabitch. Personal likability plays no part in this political decision of mine.

174. Ed,
     >>DT may be a sonofbitch but he is my sonofabitch.
     ~grins~
     I *hope* he is my sonofabitch. But at the very least, there is a meme I've seen that captures a similar sentiment. It reads, "Trump 2020. Because F*ck You Again."
     .
     The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend exactly, but that orange haired guy *really* pisses my enemy off.

175. I'm in the middle of watching an old debate on YouTube with Matt Ridley (The Rational Optimist) and a writer for the Guardian.

     Matt just said that the 2016 election was between two pessimists and the more pessimistic candidate won. He also said that if there was one way to guarantee that midwestern blue collar workers did not improve their lives, cutting off trade was it.

     I don't agree with what our president has done since he came into office. And I don't agree with how he has done what he has done. I'd be happy to be more specific, if anyone thinks it is necessary.

     Tariffs are a tax on American consumers of imported goods. Neither I nor any Democrat is in favor of open borders. (There may be one or two that have said something like that, but it is not the position of the Democratic party nor of 99% of Democrats. And that is the truth.) However, I and most Democrats feel strongly that asylum seekers that reach our borders should be treated humanely and in accordance with international law and treaties to which we are signatory.

     Our current president thinks kids in cages are a feature, not a bug, of his policy. For that alone I condemn him.

176. It turns out taxes are also a tax on American consumers, but progressives seem to support endless variants of those, no?
     .
     Republicans want kids in cages, Democrats want people treated humanely and lawfully. That's a nice balanced view of the situation.
     .
     If you can tell us what the Democratic immigration plan is, feel free, it doesn't seem to include deporting immigrants here illegally or turning anyone away at the border. Perhaps sanctuary city rings a bell, or free healthcare, or ending ICE, or decriminalizing border crossing. It if looks like open borders, smells like open borders… The progressive plan seems to be run around screaming indignantly with moral outrage. So, yes, we all know progressives are morally superior to everyone because everyone else obviously wants kids in cages.

177. Hi Tom

     I personally favor a return to the last time American immigration policy worked. That would be under President Obama.

     I support a path to citizenship for Dreamers. I support a long term timeline published for TPS holders. I support an immigration quota of approximately 1 million a year, with priority for family reunification. I support swift and strict law enforcement action against immigrants that commit felonies and deportation of those convicted following completion of their sentences.

     That is a return to the policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations of the recent past, It is sane. That alone makes it a dramatic improvement over what we have.

     By the way–it is, with minor modifications–also the policy supported by more than half of the field of Democratic candidates.

178. Here's a medium article (so it's properly sympathetic Thomas Fuller to your perspective) that disagrees with your assessment.
     https://medium.com/s/story/few-americans-want-open-borders-democrats-included-dba12884c133
     It's complaining about us dirty conservatives pouncing the way we sometimes do, in this case on a poll, this poll:
     http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf?source=post_elevate_sequence_page—————————
     which apparently shows that 32% of Democrats support 'basically open borders'. Whatever the heck that means exactly. It's quick to point out that these aren't *elected* Democrats, and 32% means a majority of Democrats *dont* support basically open borders, and what the heck does *basically* mean anyway.
     But 99% to 1% doesn't look like the most appropriate estimate. Maybe 2 out of 3 don't want open borders, that's how I'd put it.

179. I'm a little astonished at the suggestion that immigration 'worked' under President Obama. In what meaningful way was our immigration situation different under President Obama? Real question.

180. 1. Americans support letting DACA recipients stay.

     That latest poll from the Washington Post found that 87 percent of Americans support "a program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States if they arrived here as a child, completed high school or military service and have not been convicted of a serious crime."

     2. Americans aren't that wild about a "wall." (A different kind of fence, however …)

     January polls from Quinnipiac, Pew, ABC News/Washington Post, CNN and CBS all find that around 6 in 10 Americans oppose building or expanding a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

     3. Americans are divided on legal immigration levels, but are more in favor of decreasing than increasing them.

     For decades, Gallup has asked Americans if they think the level of legal immigration should be "kept at its present level, increased, or decreased." In recent years, Americans have been closely split between holding steady (38 percent as of June 2017) and decreasing (35 percent). The remainder, around 1 in 4, want to increase legal immigration.

     While the clear majority want to decrease or hold legal immigration steady, these numbers represent a longer-term pro-immigration shift — as of the mid-1990s, two-thirds of Americans wanted to decrease legal immigration, and only 6 or 7 percent wanted to increase it.

     From the Medium article you linked to: "Trump repeatedly claims that Democrats “want open borders.” But nobody in leadership on the left promotes open borders. Nobody. Let’s clarify: not one or two people. Zero percent of the elected leadership of Democrats or independents have suggested the U.S. should have open borders. And there’s certainly no policy of open borders embraced by the Democratic Party."

     and… "arack Obama certainly didn’t believe in open borders. By 2015, President Obama had deported some 2.5 million people with time remaining in office. That was already half a million more than George W. Bush deported his entire time as president."

     And to flesh out the quote you use in your comment, "Recently, some conservatives pounced on a poll that said that 32 percent of Democrats believed in “basically open borders.” A few things to note: 1) These were not elected Democrats; they were voters, so that does not reflect the Democratic platform. 2) That figure still means the majority of Democrats polled were not in favor of open borders. 3) The question was vaguely, even poorly, worded and did not offer any particular definition of “open borders.”

181. Quick question, Mark. I lived in Europe for 11 years and never had to show a passport when I took a train from Italy to France, Germany, Sweden, etc.

     Is that open borders?

182. Immigrants arriving at the border without a HS education are a net negative, especially to the working class. Educated and skilled immigrants should be given priority. The loopholes of asylum need cleaned up (everyone arrives saying the same thing). Educating illegal immigrants, including college, is a net plus for the economy over the long term. Illegal immigrants are going to get healthcare one way or the other, emergency room if necessary. They need to pay taxes like everyone else. I don't have any problems with law abiding productive tax paying illegal immigrants. Mass border crossings are just unacceptable. Certain felonies are automatic deports, especially violent crime. A first DUI or not paying parking tickets etc. might be a conditional stay depending on the situation. Anyone who has been here over 10 years should probably just get amnesty. There should be some clear paths to citizenship for an illegal immigrant, such as military service, or accumulated tax payments.
     .
     Most people agree on lots of this stuff. Both parties think it is to their political advantage to not make deal. The politics are broken badly.

183. Slow down there Kemosabe.
     >>Neither I nor any Democrat is in favor of open borders. (There may be one or two that have said something like that, but it is not the position of the Democratic party nor of 99% of Democrats. And that is the truth.)
     .
     One in three Democrats is in favor of basically open borders.
     .
     Agree, disagree, more gish gall[o]p?

184. lucia (#175291)): "Don't forget the founding fathers weren't big fans of a standing *army*. Having a navy always operating, fine.Don't forget the founding fathers weren't big fans of a standing *army*. Having a navy always operating, fine."

     Having just visited the Naval Academy in Annapolis, I wish to nit-pick. There was no standing navy in the early days of the US. The Navy was re-established to combat piracy, in particular near the Barbary Coast.

     That said, I agree with you that the Founders would have been more concerned about the perils associated with a standing army.

185. Hi Mark

     I disagree. According to this YouGov poll conducted three days ago, only 24% think crossing the border should not be an offense. I think, given the vagueness of the Harris poll question, that that is a better measure. And a quarter is a lot less than a third.

     Does it surprise you that in the same poll 17% of conservatives opposed building a wall? That 22% of Republicans support the diversity lottery? That 64% of Republicans support granting citizenship to Dreamers?

     All in the same poll: http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf

186. Sorry–here's the link to the YouGov poll cited previously: https://today.yougov.com/opi/surveys/results#/survey/04bfe58a-99c6-11e9-bae1-937cc7b0d894

187. Tom Scharf, quit making sense, will ya?

188. Thanks Thomas Fuller. I think 1/4 sounds reasonable.
     .
     >>Does it surprise you that in the same poll 17% of conservatives opposed building a wall? That 22% of Republicans support the diversity lottery? That 64% of Republicans support granting citizenship to Dreamers?
     .
     Regarding your questions, not particularly. I come closest to surprise to hear that 22% of Republicans support the diversity lottery. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; we *ARE* known as the 'Party of Stupid', after all.

     Thanks Thomas.

189. Thomas (and Tom, and anybody else who wants to remark),
     .
     Do you guys think that if it were to somehow magically pass as legislation (doubtful I think) that a mandatory E-Verify for all U.S. employers, actually enforced, would solve much of our illegal immigration problem?
     .
     I'm not sure it'd cut down on asylum seekers, unless asylum seekers weren't eligible for work until after being granted asylum. It wouldn't solve criminal enterprise.
     .
     Would it create worse problems than it solved?

190. Hiya Mark,

     In another YouGov poll conducted June 16-18, only 11% of Democrats said they thought illegal immigrants living in the US should be required to leave the country: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/f0cbavpadc/econTabReport.pdf

     (Q. 27, p. 71)

     I would be part of the 89% who feel that just being an illegal immigrant is insufficient justification for removal.

191. It would make life difficult for a number of employers–for some employers it would be devastating.

     It would certainly clarify the situation quite quickly. E-Verify would dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

     Republican politicians and business people don't want it. Democrats don't want it. Who does?

192. Thomas,
     >>I would be part of the 89% who feel that just being an illegal immigrant is insufficient justification for removal.
     .
     Indeed. It's not insane to think that way. People live here long enough, become part of communities, raise families; why on earth deport them?
     Fair enough. I'd argue though that if we as a people want to let more immigrants in, we ought to pass laws to that effect and let more people in. If we don't pass laws to that effect, we shouldn't let illegals establish themselves in our society, because as noted above it *is* cruel to let people build lives here and then deport them. So how do we prevent illegals from establishing themselves in our society?
     How about mandatory E-Verify.
     [Edit: Beg pardon for the cross post, thanks for your response.]

193. Whoops, I turn into a pumpkin now for awhile, gotta run. Happy Independence Day all!

194. Same to you, Mark!

195. Thomas
     *I support a path to citizenship for Dreamers.*
     Me too. But this didn't exist under Obama.

     * I support a long term timeline published for TPS holders.*
     Did this exist under Obama? (Real Q. I don't think so, but I could be mistaken.)

     *with priority for family reunification. *
     I do NOT support priority for family 'reunification' a slogan. It seems to be hugely elastic.

     I support priority for people who are employable — preferably who have job offers in an area that is fairly hard to fill with people who are already here legally. Whether they have family here is irrelevant to me. I don't think reuniting family should rank a above this.

     I'm fine with immigrants with job offers bringing their nuclear family. (Legal spouse, kids below 18 years old or less than 24 *if accepted and enrolled in an educational program in the US*. Wiggle room for perpetually dependent kids -aka those with Downs syndrome and so on. I support letting this level of family in provided they come *when* the person qualifying for the green card based on employment gets their green card. Perhaps a 6 month window, but no "reunite after a jillion years" thing. )

     I'm against any immigrant quotas that are "by country". If we have a quota, and all slots are taken by people from India, so be it.

     *I support swift and strict law enforcement action against immigrants that commit felonies and deportation of those convicted following completion of their sentences.*
     I do support this.

196. HaroldW
     *There was no standing navy in the early days of the US. *
     Sure. But that's not *quite* the same as people being against it. Some things we didn't have owning to not having much in the way of funds.

     Many were really suspicious of a standing army. (Which is more dangerous in terms of potential coups.)

197. Hiya Lucia and Happy 4th! I don't know whether I should ask you to tutor me for physics or give me advice on how to teach English remotely.

     We're not that far apart, really. We could split the difference on family vs. workers and live happily ever after.

     As for Barack Obama, you might remember me warning him 10 years ago that spending all his political capital on Cap and Trade (and later healthcare) was a strategic mistake.

     After he lost command of the legislature he was fairly hamstrung as far as doing much on immigration.

     He was far tougher on illegal immigration than Bush II. And illegal immigration declined during his tenure.

     I would have preferred he were less tough. I am not displeased that illegal immigration declined.

198. Thomas Fuller,

     I actually voted for Obama in his first presidential election… big mistake; his policies were nothing like his rhetoric. Obama consistently supported policies which I strongly disagreed with; health care, destructive EPA rule making, lawless attempts to legalize millions of foreign nationals who entered the country illegally (no, I am not talking about ‘dreamers’), his efforts to force schools to adopt disciplinary rules way out of the social mainstream, and much more. But that doesn’t amount to ‘visceral loathing’, it amounts to divergent values, priorities, and goals.
     .
     I actually thought Clinton was a decent president, if only because he could (and did) strike meaningful compromises with Republicans…. something Obama would not do. I think Clinton was a decent president in spite of my personal tax liability increasing dramatically during his term. Clinton made some poor policy choices as well (pushing for Hillarycare among the worst), and was personally pretty disgusting in his treatment of women and his endless lying about it. Still, that doesn’t amount to ‘visceral loathing’.
     .
     The commentary I see these days from the left rejects any other viewpoint as absolutely illegitimate, evil, corrupt, or all three, and that makes policy compromise impossible. The inability to compromise is tightly bound to the absolute certainty one is right; this is political poison, and IMO is horribly destructive to the social fabric.
     .
     WRT your claims that 99% of progressives don’t hold rather extreme views on immigration: I believe you are factually mistaken, as even a cursory review of polling data will show. Fundamental problems with control of the illegal influx of foreign nationals, like current rules that allow people traveling with children who claim asylum to enter the country and then disappear (never showing up for their asylum hearing) is tantamount to ‘open boarders’, but I have yet to hear a progressive call for changes in the law to stop this madness.
     .
     Finally, some personal observations: I have traveled extensively in Latin America, and I know for a fact that significant fractions of the populations in those countries would migrate to the USA if they could. I have been pressed many times by individuals for “help” in getting into the USA, and I have known several people who saved enough money to travel to the USA “on holiday”, entering with a tourist visa, but never returned. With no meaningful controls on immigration, there is no real limit to the number of people who will enter illegally. If one thinks the nation-state is a legitimate self governing entity (as I do), then it’s preservation depends on control of immigration. Many progressives I have talked to simply reject the legal and moral legitimacy of the nation-state. That seems to me at the heart of the disagreement on immigration. I am all for reasonable levels of immigration, especially if based on sensible admission guidelines (like in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere). I reject Japanese style immigration policies (effectively zero immigration!) just as strongly as I reject the current damaging… and essentially crazy….. policies in the USA.

199. Tom,
     I agree Obama spent capital on less important stuff. I think he still *might* have been able to get congress to create a path to citizenship for dreamers, but he happens to be someone who *does not work well with 'others'*. So he got impatient and used "the pen". That was a tragic mistake. But the fact is, no path to citizenship for dreamers existed when he was president, and his choice to make the issue less urgent meant no one in Congress was going to fix the problem.
     That was a darn shame because people largely *want* law abiding "dreamers" to be able to stay here.

     *After he lost command of the legislature he was fairly hamstrung as far as doing much on immigration. *
     Oh? I think when he signed an executive order, he became hamstrung. He basically decided to go for looking good and beneficent and kicking the can. This was irresponsible and unfair to the dreamers. His decision was also polarizing because it said "F-you" to anyone who disagreed. (That it was the minority who wanted to keep dreamers out doesn't really matter. People still heard F-you.)

     One difference between Trump and Obama: When Trump says F-you, we know he's said it. Obama tried to pretend he was saying something else. Voters still heard the "F-you" loud and clear.

200. Well, Lucia, if that's the case why did so many people vote to re-elect Obama? They knew what they were getting by that time… and they had a very decent alternative in Romney.

201. SteveF (hi!), I do not consider Republicans as hopelessly corrupt, etc. I think there is a distinct possibility that our president is.

     I would submit that the lack of comity in our legislature is at least partly due to Republican intransigence, something that was very evident during the Obama administration–remember McConnell saying they would give Obama nothing?–and which continues to this day.

     For many years to come, when Republicans talk about Democrats not coming to the table the reply will be just two words–Merrick Garland.

     I'm not trying to paint the Democrats as saints. As a lifelong member of the party I am all too aware of our many defects. But going back to my original comment about previous Republican presidents in my lifetime, I have to say that the Democratic alternative has been consistently superior. Obviously your mileage differs–and that's okay. I love my country. I'm sure you do too.

202. Tom
     *…at least partly due to Republican intransigence,*
     As far as I can tell "intransigence" as used here, means "not agreeing to give a Democrat what a Democrat wants". Yes. It's true that Republicans didn't give Obama what he wanted. It is also true Obama didn't give Republicans what they wanted. Oh….
     *remember McConnell saying they would give Obama nothing?*
     Yeah. So? Did Obama give Republicans anything? Was he willing to? No. You want to put that fault on one side. O. …. Kay…..
     *Republicans talk about Democrats not coming to the table the reply will be just two words–Merrick Garland. *
     Oh. Sheesh.
     Appointments to the SCOTUS are political. What goes around comes around, *and it will*. And there will be nothing wrong with that.

     *I have to say that the Democratic alternative has been consistently superior.*
     Well… that's your opinion. Which is fine. But I would say both sides have pretty well acted similarly. Moreover, I think its *FINE* for sides to act in their own self interest. I get that each wants to paint the "other" as "bad" and their own side as "good". But… come … on. Sorry, but "Merick Garland" was not treated any worse than zillions of nominees who weren't appointed. In some ways, he was treated better because no one actually *slimed* him.

     Yes. He wasn't appointed. That happens. It's a political process. Deal.
     That process can flip. The others will need to deal and people on "your" side will day "deal". That's the way of politics.

203. Then it's revolving stalemate for a generation. Lots of people are in favor of small government. I wonder how they'll feel about no government.

     We've got another shutdown coming our way. I'm sure it'll please the talking heads on cable tv.

204. Tom,
     It may be a revolving stalement.
     *We've got another shutdown coming our way. *
     Maybe. We'll see.
     Obviously, if no one will compromise, that's more likely.

     Labeling side "A" as intransigent for not giving "B" everything they want when B doesn't give A anything either is not a method of getting a compromise.

205. Thomas Fuller,
     As I remember, McConnell’s positions ‘hardened’ when Obama would not compromise on health care, and basically told Republicans to pound sand. As Lucia noted, throughout his term in office Obama was not a president who “worked well with others”. Merrick Garland? Well, by that point McConnell was not going to cooperate with Obama at all.
     .
     The bi-partisan bill for border funding is the first positive sign of willingness to compromise I have seen in a long time; but I note that there was strong opposition to the bill among the progressives in the House, who wanted to add ‘poison pill’ amendments to restrict/prohibit enforcement of immigration laws. This after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill on a bi-partisan basis, and after both Trump and the Senate had stated that poison pill provisions would keep the bill from becoming law. So much for compromise by progressives.

206. McConell's position hardened in January pf 2009.

207. Thomas Fuller,
     https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/13/too_bad_obama_didnt_follow_his_own_advice_123650.html

208. A million immigrants a year would require a reduction in current immigration levels.

     There is about that many coming in to apply for asylum, which you did not cover in your solutions.

209. Hiya Mike, True dat. To be honest, I'd probably be okay with letting in most of those asylum seekers currently at the border. (Yeah, subject to background checks.) I think they've paid a price to get here and a bigger price to stay here.

     I'd definitely let the cage kids in.

210. Thomas Fuller,
     “I think they've paid a price to get here and a bigger price to stay here.”
     .
     What about the next million who have “paid a price to get here” (although I have no clue what you think that price is), and the untold millions who will inevitably follow them to our southern border? (Not a rhetorical question.) Either we control immigration, or we do not. Your last comment sounds to me very much like you don’t want control of immigration. We currently have somewhere north of 12 million undocumented residents. Are you OK with twice that or four times that? (Not a rhetorical question.)

211. Illegal aliens, like all other people, respond to incentives. If you send the message that bringing children with you across the border is effectively a get-into-America-free card, aliens will bring children. Even if it is a dangerous journey that sometimes kills kids. Even if the children don't actually belong to the alien crossing. Even if the alien isn't actually wanting to become a law-abiding citizen in the first place.
     .
     The border isn't being flooded because Trump in his cruelty is forcing would-be "immigrants" to stay out–it's being flooded because they think Trump in his weakness will let them *in*, and as things stand I don't think they're wrong. Facilities aren't overwhelmed because Trump is forcing aliens to stay there who would rather just go home–they're overwhelmed because aliens are *choosing* to stay there rather than just go home, again a rational bet on their part that they'll be released before the aslyum hearing and can stay here indefinitely.

212. SteveF (Comment #175343): "Either we control immigration, or we do not."

     Yep. Fuller, like the Democrat candidates, claims to oppose open borders while advocating policies that amount to de facto open borders.
     ——–
     Dale S (Comment #175344): "If you send the message that bringing children with you across the border is effectively a get-into-America-free card, aliens will bring children."

     Yep. It is *not* controlling the border that endangers and kills migrant children, whereas controlling the border protects people. I think that Fuller, unlike the Democrat candidates, at least partly recognizes the role of idiotic incentives in causing the problem.

213. SteveF (Comment #175338): https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/13/too_bad_obama_didnt_follow_his_own_advice_123650.html

     Thanks for the link. It was not news to me, but now I have a reference for what really happened.

     In the previous Congress, there was a bipartisan healthcare plane introduced. Sponsored by Wyden and Bennett with about 10 co-sponsors from each party. Obama ignored it and told Pelosi and company to draft a purely Democrat bill.

214. The Republicans obstruct, the Democrats resist, ha ha. The educated do love to frame things to suit their biases. The only fools here are the educated who think this changes things in a meaningful way. We'll just use some new fangled wurds on 'em and bring'em over to our side forth with. Can't we just skip the pleasantries and call the other side terrorists and call ourselves freedom fighters?

215. Where.are.the.tanks?
     .
     I was promised tanks, and I want my effing tanks. I did my short perusal of media this morning and couldn't find a single picture of a tank, sitting still, or in a parade. I did see a BFV, but only a doofus thinks that is a tank.
     .
     The media, sometimes you really think they might need to be tested for special-ed. They set themselves up to be embarrassed by Trump yet again when he comes out and does a non-political speech and everyone of them has to eat crow. That was probably the easiest speech to write in history. Even our local newspaper ran a big headline "Giving Politics The Holiday Off".

216. FYI: Flyovers during the event
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjV5OOJHicg
     .
     The media didn't work too hard trying to get cinematic shots of these, ha ha.

217. Tom Scharf (re: (Comment #175347) )
     .
     Yes. The part about that I find most ironic is this. The Left bashes the Right over perceived doctrines of superiority and hatred; for perceived racism, sexism, and assorted sexual orientation and religious dogma phobias. Yet many on the Left appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that they fall victim to *exactly* the same error in thinking that gives rise to these doctrines. They think about humans collectively instead of as individuals; Us vs Them, tribes at war.
     .
     I don't see why it ought to matter how the tribe is defined. We could define it racially, or on the basis of gender, or sexual orientation, or so on. But we could (and do) also define our tribes on the basis of political thinking, how about that!
     .
     In my view, the irony of Leftists pontificating on the historical 'superiority' of the politicians from their side of the aisle is exceeded (if not solely, then primarily) by the irony of the hatred and intolerance many of these enlightened folk demonstrate towards members not of their political tribe. If one is going to be a bigot, one ought to at least dispense with the hypocritical virtuous masks and do so openly.

218. I'd be happy to talk about any of the real and perceived sins of omission and commission by members of my party.

     After we get the kids out of cages.

219. Thomas,

     You are aware of course that kids were in cages under Obama, that in fact kids were in the *exact same cages* under the Obama administration, right?
     .
     https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/baracks-ice-chief-cages-were-obamas-idea
     .
     https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/

220. Interesting how Tom opens discussion using propaganda (children in cages) and silly misrepresentation (asylum seekers). Distinctly disrespectful to begin the conversation with fake emotional appeals bearing in mind the considered and informed opinions of denizens around here. This is not the kind of language used to open discussion, it is designed to shut it down.

221. So this illustrates my point. Trump is inferior to Obama and hated because 'children in cages'. Irrespective of the fact that there is no significant difference between the two administrations with respect to 'kids in cages', the Obama administration is the model that progressives wish to return to as representative of a time when our immigration system was not broken.
     .
     We all suffer from this to some extent (me in particular), it's part of the human condition. No reason to explicitly endorse it though, particularly if racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry offend you. Bigotry is rooted in tribalism in general, as far as I can see at the end of the day, and tribalism is rampant in politics.
     .
     Shrug. I'll assume the horse is dead and quit beating it now. Somebody shout if you see the carcass twitch…

222. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #175322)
     July 4th, 2019 at 2:06 pm Thomas
     " ..E-Verify would dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
     Republican politicians and business people don't want it. Democrats don't want it. Who does?.."

     "Who Does?" This says wonders about how much the Dem party and their supporters have changed over the years. Used to be that they at least tried to pretend that they were supporting the majority of the US citizen working class and not being a shill for the Chamber of Commerce class.

     I was a "yellow dog" dem since I first voted for McGovern. I even held my nose and supported HClinton in the primary when she ran the 1st time.

     I did NOT leave the Dem party, the Dem party left me.

223. Tom Fuller, you said you would let everyone in at the border, after background checks. These can take awhile.
     The 'kids in cages' is a combination of unaccompanied kids crossing the border, and adults with kids. They are crossing illegally and apprehended on the US side. What do you suggest be done with them?

224. Thomas Fuller,
     "I'd be happy to talk about any of the real and perceived sins of omission and commission by members of my party.

     After we get the kids out of cages."
     .
     It is not a series of issues, it is a single issue that needs to be solved in total. Spending $4 billion to provide better facilities for foreign nationals (who should not be here in the first place!) doesn't address the problem in anything but the very short term, because there are many millions of undocumented people who *will* follow after those already at the border. Having the misfortune of being born poor in a country with corrupt government and high crime is not political persecution, and is not a free pass for residency in the USA. The fundamental issues remain unaddressed by Congress: we are unwilling to turn people away from the border if they claim political asylum and have a child with them; we are unwilling to deport people who are already here unlawfully, *even when they are identified*; we are unwilling to force cities and States to not actively resist the enforcement of Federal laws; we are unwilling to require valid documentation to work in the USA… or even vote in some elections! It is all utter madness and terribly damaging to both the social fabric and the rule of law…. and the situation only becomes worse with time. I see zero evidence that Democrats want to solve the problem; I have never seen a serious proposal from Democrats which would stop, or even significantly slow, the flow of undocumented immigrants.

225. Sigh. You guys sound much better when you're talking about the flaws of the climate consensus.

     The Democrats have policy positions on immigration. None of those positions have anything to do with open borders.

     Democrats view immigration policy as an opportunity to renew the “American Community.” Although the Democrats recognize the need to secure the borders, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, and enforce existing immigration laws, they understand the “need [for] comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts.” Noticeably absent from the party’s platform is reference to the controversial border fence. Rather, “comprehensive” immigration reform remains a top priority for Democrats.

     Specifically, the Democrat’s plan calls for increasing family-based and employment based immigrant visas; improving the naturalization process; and addressing the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy. Moreover, the Democratic platform supports a path for undocumented immigrants to become legal permanent residents, or in their words to “get right with the law.” Indeed, Democrats “support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.”

     And I'm all for that. McConnell and his colleagues have resisted any attempt to legislate comprehensive reform. The current administration thinks that killing a dozen women and children will deter future asylum seekers, apparently unaware of the murder rates in the countries those people are fleeing.

     The current administration thinks a wall will fix immigration, apparently unaware that most illegal immigration happens at authorized ports of entry by people who end up overstaying their visas.

     Mark, Republicans are not the party of stupid. Each party has roughly the same percentage of idiots. And some of them get elected. The Bell Curve on intelligence is the same for Democrats and Republicans.

     What Republicans are is largely the party of profound ignorance, coupled with a fervent determination to remain so.

226. >>Republicans are not the party of stupid. Each party has roughly the same percentage of idiots. And some of them get elected.
     .
     Yes. I was referring to an old joke about bipartisanship.
     https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/803704-we-have-two-parties-here-and-only-two-one-is

227. Tom
     *Specifically, the Democrat’s plan calls for increasing family-based and employment based immigrant visas; improving the naturalization process; and addressing the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy.*

     I'm against increasing family based immigrant visas. I'm for increasing employment based ones.

     *And I'm all for that. McConnell and his colleagues have resisted any attempt to legislate comprehensive reform. *
     Oh? Explain what you mean.

228. By the way, I also don't know what either "improving naturalization process" re "address.. the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy". Both are too generic.

     I'm not suggesting things shouldn't be "improved" nor that the bureaucray isn't disfunctional. But unless you state precisely what you want to change in what direction, I have no idea what you think the Democrats policy position is. Obviously, I can't begin to say whether I'm for or against it.

229. Thomas,
     .
     >>What Republicans are is largely the party of profound ignorance, coupled with a fervent determination to remain so.
     .
     Listening to your repetitive political bigotry becomes tedious. We could all sit around and make ridiculous unsupported straw-man assertions about each others positions as you're doing right now, but that's equally pointless. I'll pray for you Thomas, in the hopes that you someday glimpse and understand the bigotry in your heart towards people of different political tribes, and how fundamentally similar it is to everything you profess to despise in society.
     .
     Ciao.

230. However —
     did you lift all that from Reeves Immigration Law Group, or did Reeves and you lift that from some other third source?
     .
     https://www.rreeves.com/republican-vs-democrat-platforms-on-immigration/
     .
     "In contrast, Democrats view immigration policy as an opportunity to renew the “American Community.” Although the Democrats recognize the need to secure the borders, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, and enforce existing immigration laws, they understand the “need [for] comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts.” Noticeably absent from the party’s platform is reference to the controversial border fence. Rather, “comprehensive” immigration reform remains a top priority for Democrats.

     Specifically, the Democrat’s plan calls for increasing family-based and employment based immigrant visas; improving the naturalization process; and addressing the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy. Moreover, the Democratic platform supports a path for undocumented immigrants to become legal permanent residents, or in their words to “get right with the law.” Indeed, Democrats “support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.”

     The Presidential campaign is in full swing. Over the past year, immigrant communities have seen an increase in immigration raids yet little in the way of immigration reform. Just because the headlines are currently focused on other topics, and politicians remain silent, this does not mean immigration is not an important issue. Rather, the political parties have adopted party platforms to express their views. Republicans and Democrats take different approaches to immigration, and the outcome of the election will affect you and your family."

231. Well, in narrative format, "The Republicans were pumped because they saw a path out of the political wilderness. They were convinced that even if Obama kept winning policy battles, they could win the broader messaging war simply by remaining unified and fighting him on everything. Their conference chairman, a then-obscure Indiana conservative named Mike Pence, underscored the point with a clip from Patton, showing the general rallying his troops for war against their Nazi enemy: “We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time! We’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!”

     "This strategy of kicking the hell out of Obama all the time, treating him not just as a president from the opposing party but an extreme threat to the American way of life, has been a remarkable political success. It helped Republicans take back the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. This no-cooperation, no-apologies approach is also on the verge of delivering a conservative majority on the Supreme Court; Republicans violated all kinds of Washington norms when they refused to even pretend to consider any Obama nominee, but they paid no electoral price for it—and probably helped persuade some reluctant Republican voters to back Donald Trump in November by keeping the Court in the balance."

     "Washington Republicans took plenty of abuse over their “Party of No” approach, especially when they flouted Washington traditions by threatening to force the government into default, or actually shutting the government down. Their approval ratings drooped to levels associated with crime lords, journalists and Nickelback. They endured plenty of setbacks, as Obama managed to enact much of his agenda over their dissent, won a comfortable reelection, and now enjoys the highest approval ratings of his tenure. But they can now claim victory, even though their maximalist no-compromise approach helped launch the anti-establishment GOP insurgency that cost Cantor his seat in a primary—he was accused of failing to fight Obama hard enough—and ultimately propelled Trump to the nomination over their preferred candidates." (Politico, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498).

     Concrete examples to follow.

232. House Republicans did reject Obama’s stimulus unanimously, trashing it as a Big Government boondoggle even though they overwhelmingly voted for a very similar $715 billion stimulus alternative.

     The Republicans had real philosophical differences with Obama about the size and scope of government, and many viewed their resistance as a principled return to the GOP’s limited-government roots after a spending spree under Bush. But they also filibustered and voted in lockstep against previously uncontroversial Obama priorities, like extended unemployment benefits, expanded infrastructure spending and small-business tax cuts. Senate Republicans even turned routine judicial nominations into legislative ordeals, filibustering 20 of his district court judges—17 more than had been filibustered under all of his predecessors.

     The late Ohio s George Voinovich said in 2012 that there wasn’t much tactical nuance in the Republican cloakroom on Obama-related matters: “If he was for it, we had to be against it.”

     Republicans shut down the government because Obama refused to repeal his signature health law. Here is a list of bills that Republicans killed while, and simply because, Obama was president:

     Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries.
     Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice.
     Subpoena Power for the Committee investigating the BP Oil Spill – Give subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP’s roll in the oil spill. Republicans attempted to block this.
     The Small Business Jobs Act -would give LOCAL, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this, then attempted to block it a second time and failed.
     The DREAM Act- Gives immigrant youth who were brought here as children a path to citizenship by earning a college degree or serving the military for 2 years. Republicans blocked this.
     Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”- Would have repealed the law that forces gay and lesbian services members to lie about their sexuality and gives the military the right to discharge soldiers based on their sexuality. Republicans blocked this many times and Democrats were finally able to pass it with the support of just 2 Republicans.
     Senator Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill – Makes it so that women raped overseas while working for foreign contractors have the right to have their case heard in an American court instead of having their case mediated by the company they work for. Only Republican men voted against this, but it passed.
     Benefits for Homeless Veterans- Would have expanded benefits to homeless veterans and homeless veterans with children. Republicans blocked this.
     Affordable Health Care For America Act- Prevents insurance companies from discriminating against you on the basis of “pre-existing conditions”. Requires that insurance companies spend 85 cents of every dollar that you pay on your actual health care. Limits health insurance companies profit margins. Republicans blocked this for months before it finally passed and have vowed to repeal it if they are elected.
     Health Care for the 9/11 First Responders who got sick from being at Ground Zero- Would provide billions of dollars in health care to help the 9/11 First Responders who were at Ground Zero on 9/11 and are now sick because of it. Republicans blocked this.
     The Jobs Bill- Offsets the payroll tax for 1 year for companies that hire new employees, or people receiving unemployment insurance. Also gives other tax incentives to companies hiring new employees. Republicans attempted to block this.
     Wall Street Reform- Puts stricter regulations on the banks, preventing them from becoming “too big to fail”. Curbs reckless spending practices that caused the banking crisis. Republicans attempted to block this.
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- Pumped billions of dollars into state and local Governments to prevent us from sinking into a second Great Depression. Republicans opposed this but now want to take credit for the parts of it that we know are successful.
     Oil Spill Liability- Raises the liability on what companies can be made to pay to clean up after an oil spill. Republicans blocked this.
     Immigration Reform- Republican suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Now they’re rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation. Republicans blocked this.
     Unemployment extension bill HR-4213- Would provide additional aid to the millions of Americans still on unemployment who are just trying to support themselves and their families. Republicans blocked this bill for 8 weeks before it finally passed. Republicans blocked this for 8 weeks before it finally passed.
     Fair Pay Act of 2009- Also called the Lily Ledbetter bill. Requires that women receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work. Republicans attempted to block this.
     No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
     Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.
     Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.
     Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.
     Department of Defense recognition of spouses of members of the Armed Forces.
     Department of Defense recognition of children of members of the Armed Forces.
     Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
     Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.
     Improving aural protection for members of the Armed Forces.
     Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.
     Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic emergency assistance.

233. Hi Mark, yeah, that's where I got it. Sorry I didn't link–it's a workday and I keep getting interrupted from more important stuff like this. 🙂

     I grabbed that list of examples of Republican obstructionism from a blog, too. https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/the-list-of-bills-that-republicans-have-blocked-under-president-obamas-tenure.1101903/

234. T Fuller: "None of those positions have anything to do with open borders.

     Democrats view immigration policy as an opportunity to renew the “American Community.” Although the Democrats recognize the need to secure the borders, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, and enforce existing immigration laws, they understand the “need [for] comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts.”

     …..
     I wish you were kidding, but you are not. The Dem policy is to fake an interest in border security, but to welcome anyone, who with minimal effort sneaks into the US. Since there are roughly 750 million people living in extreme poverty, there will be a lot of people coming to the US with no loyalty to it. Unless you are willing to deport people who are here illegally, irrespective of whether they have committed crimes, (many Dems don't even support deporting violent criminal illegal aliens) you have functional open borders. That is what the Dems support in their effort, not to renew the "American Community" (whatever that gooblygook means), but to import voters.

     JD

235. You said you supported a million immigrants a year, and you support the Democrats' position of more of different type of visas. Do you now want more than a million immigrants a year?
     And what do you suggest be done with people who cross illegally and when caught claim asylum?

236. Ed Forbes (Comment #175355): "I did NOT leave the Dem party, the Dem party left me."

     Me too. Trump is the only Republican presidential nominee for whom I have ever voted.

     ———
     As for Fuller, I will ignore him until I see an indication that he is willing to do something other than shout down those who disagree.

237. Shout down? Okay, backing away slowly. I guess next time Lucia asks me a direct question I'll try and find a way to use a smaller font.

238. Thomas Fuller,
     You too sound better discussing climate change than discussing immigration.
     .
     All the Democratic proposals sound familiar… where was that… oh yes, there was a law passed in 1986, a broad, bipartisan immigration reform bill. Its provisions (in part) were (according to Wikipedia): .
     "The act required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status and made it illegal to hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants knowingly. The act also legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants as well as undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

     The law established financial and other penalties for those employing undocumented immigrants under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce undocumented immigration. Regulations promulgated under the Act introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States."
     .
     There were also provisions in the bill for additional immigration enforcement (including deportation for those who arrived after 1982). As part of the reform process, by executive order President Reagan legalized all minors present unlawfully who had at least one parent eligible (and willing) to become a legal resident under the provisions of the new law. But as Wikipedia notes, in spite of the new law there was an *increase* in illegal residents in the USA from 5 million in 1986 (before the reform law was passed) to 11 million in 2013; that number has since increased. Those who arrived after 1982 were *not* arrested and deported, no matter what the law said. No one knows exactly how may illegal residents are in the USA now, but almost certainly above 13 million, and rapidly increasing.
     .
     The dramatic jump in illegal immigrants after the law was passed was shocking… truly shocking I say…. at least to those naive enough to believe the law would actually be enforced. Were employers of illegal immigrants pursued aggressively, put out of business, or sent off to prison? No. Were apprehension and deportation increased commensurate with the ever increasing flow of undocumented people? No. Sensible people *predicted* the law would lead to a rapid increase in illegal immigration, and they were correct. The proposals you list increase incentives for unlawful immigration *even more* than the 1986 reform bill, and would have exactly the same effect: ever more illegal immigration.
     .
     Specifically:
     1)"increasing family-based and employment based immigrant visas": You want to define family? Second cousin twice removed or immediate family (parents and their children)?
     More employment visas for skilled labor where there is a shortfall in the USA is fine. More workers for low skilled jobs is damaging to the nation's poorest.
     .
     2) " improving the naturalization process": Naturalize people who entered the country illegally? That is just about the greatest incentive you could possibly give for more unlawful immigration.
     .
     3) "Moreover, the Democratic platform supports a path for undocumented immigrants to become legal permanent residents, or in their words to “get right with the law.”: Reward those already here via unlawful immigration, and you will get even more unlawful immigration. People are not stupid: "Pedro, if you can work off the books for a while and not get caught by ICE, then they will have another legalization, and you will be in for good, then you can bring in your whole family. That's what my cousin did back in in 1980, now his whole family are citizens."

     4) "support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.": Once again, sounding a lot like a warmed over version of the 1986 law that didn't work. How about: "We are sending you back to your own country, where you can apply for residency at the US Consulate, like you were supposed to in the first place. If you enter again unlawfully, it is a minimum 6 months in prison." That would be a true disincentive for continued unlawful immigration.
     .
     The Democrat proposals are a formula for endless unlawful immigration.

239. Umm, Steve, what part of increased funding for border security, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, is a formula for endless unlawful immigration?

240. So I guess Reagan was a closet Democrat when he let undocumented immigrants become citizens? As were the Republicans who supported him?

241. As far as who has been tougher on illegal immigration, please compare the number of deportations under the Obama administration to those of either the Bush or Trump eras. 2017 was the lowest in a decade, while Obama deported twice as many as Bush.

242. Whoops! I made a mistake. Obama did not deport twice as many as Bush. In fact he deported fewer. Obama ordered one-third more removals. I apologize for the error.

     Of course, the reason Obama did not deport more than Bush was that illegal immigration slowed dramatically during the Great Recession.

243. Thomas Fuller,
     "I would be part of the 89% who feel that just being an illegal immigrant is insufficient justification for removal."
     .
     That pretty well sums up the disagreement. Most all Democrats favor laws that encourage continued unlawful immigration, while most all Republicans favor laws which discourage unlawful immigration. Near certainty of apprehension and deportation is the only reasonably humane way to remove the incentive for illegal entry.

244. Thomas Fuller,
     "what part of increased funding for border security, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, is a formula for endless unlawful immigration?"
     .
     None of it, and if that was all that was being proposed, I would be all for it.
     .
     But those things will not solve the problem, because at the same time the other proposals give much greater reward for entry… as you said yourself, Democrats don't want to remove people at all once they manage to enter without being caught. Illegal entry is a risk-reward question, and even though what you propose for border security would increase the risk of apprehension while entering, it would only *increase* the reward for illegal entry…. once you're in, your Democrat friends won't let you be deported. Once you're in, you have an path to permanent lawful residency and then citizenship. Can you not see this?
     .
     And no amount of border funding will solve the problem of visa overstays, which I think approached 40% of the total of unlawful residents, at least before the recent 'asylum' scam with children made it impossible to stop people accompanied by minors. Since you think unlawful presence is not reason for removal, anyone, anywhere who gets a tourist visa is then able to stay in the USA for ever. Do you really think this is a good idea?

245. T Fuller "Whoops! I made a mistake. Obama did not deport twice as many as Bush. In fact he deported fewer. Obama ordered one-third more removals. I apologize for the error.

     Of course, the reason Obama did not deport more than Bush was that illegal immigration slowed dramatically during the Great Recession."

     Whoops Obama lied about the statistics. In the past apprehensions (returns) by border patrol agents were not viewed as deportations. Obama, to skew the statistics and records, added apprehensions to deportations. Voila through his statistical lies he was able to falsely claim that he had solid immigration enforcement. From the Latimes: "But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data." https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html Obama even admitted that the statistics were "a little deceptive." https://thehill.com/policy/technology/184393-obama-calls-for-pathway-to-citizenship-in-online-talk

     Also, deportation, although commonly referenced is not an accurate legal term now, giving people more opportunities to cook the statistics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.a597d832d09a

     JD

246. >what part of increased funding for border security, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, is a formula for endless unlawful immigration?

     The part where you said you would let in all the people waiting at the border applying for asylum. While it wouldn't be 'endless unlawful immigration' by itself, it would be limitless immigration, and it appears you would not deport people whose cases were found to be invalid, or never bothered to show up for court, at which point it would be unlawful.

247. Steve, I'm not sure. I believe the total immigrant population right now is 47 million, 19% of the total. I guess 11 million of them are undocumented including Dreamers. Call it 10 million total.

     What percentage and what total numbers are right for the U.S.? A couple of hundred years ago it was 100% of a much lower number. In the 1970s the figures were 9.7 million, or 9.6% of the total.

     Is there only one right answer to this question? Do we have to take into consideration some of Lucia's (and others') points about talents, age, other indications of assimilability? (Not sure that's a word…)

     Do we want to work backwards from an ideal total population figure and, if so, should that look at current population or some point in the future?

     Look, Germany took in a couple of million immigrants from Syria a few years back. And it was a big deal for Germans and a lot of them haven't gotten over it yet. But it looks like it will work out–over time. And given the conditions those people fled, I applaud Merkel and the Germans for making the effort. And given that Germany was scheduled to start losing people starting right about now due to demographics, it may well end up being a win-win situation.

     We're not in the same situation as Germany. And the would-be immigrants and asylum seekers we are seeing are not in as bad a shape as the Syrians. But the parallels are there. And we've done it before ourselves, with the Hmong and the Vietnamese. And I'll bet we wish we had done so with Hong Kong back in '97.

     So using that as a prelude:

     I don't think America is full. I think we can accept whatever number of immigrants we choose.

     I think conditions in the Northern Triangle are both bad and deteriorating and that if you lived there with a family you would do whatever you had to do to get somewhere, and the first somewhere on your list would be the U.S. I certainly would.

     So I probably would accept a much larger immigrant population. I probably would not make a fuss about law-abiding immigrants who overstay their visas. I would be willing to continue to pay taxes to help their kids get educated, to help them learn English, to get them on their feet until they support themselves (which an overwhelming majority do as quickly as they can).

     I wouldn't want this period to last forever. I believe that a more open administration that was willing to work with source countries on making them more livable could bring a fairly quick end to this period–but if it lasted 10 or 20 years I wouldn't be too bothered.

     I somehow doubt that this will be welcomed by many posters here, any more than my proposal for accepting a sensitivity level of 2.5C was acclaimed by all and sundry during the climate conversations.

     But it's what I really think.

248. >11 million of them are undocumented including Dreamers. Call it 10 million total.

     They've been using the same number for over a decade. The chances of this number being anywhere close is pretty low.

249. Mike, how does or how should this change anything in my post? If 22 million of the 47 million immigrants in this country are in fact undocumented, I don't think I would change anything but those numbers.

250. Thomas
     *And it was a big deal for Germans and a lot of them haven't gotten over it yet. But it looks like it will work out–over time.*
     Well, yes. Some Germans are upset about some gang rapes in public gatherings.

     *We're not in the same situation as Germany.*
     No. We aren't. FWIW: I don't want to end up in the same situation as Germany.

     *Northern Triangle are both bad and deteriorating and that if you lived there with a family you would do whatever you had to do to get somewhere*
     One of my bridesmaids is living in San Salvador. She speaks English, graduated from college has a job in computer science and is, at least for now, staying right where she is. It's true the murder rate in San Salvador is 2-3 times that in the US, but still she's staying there. So are quite a few family members.

     I know other people who are staying in both El Salvador and Guatemala.

     But yes: Lots of people would like to leave, particularly since they hope to have better lives here. I sympathize. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should just open the border or even have rules that effectively mean we have open borders.

     *was willing to work with source countries on making them more livable*
     I'd love El Salvador to be more livable. But I honestly have no idea how our government can work with El Salvador, Guatamala or Honduras to make it more livable. It's not as if we should just send in the marines, take over, enforce military rule, and then round up all the gang members and shoot them.

251. Hi Lucia

     Not quite sure where I suggested military intervention south of the border–I had hoped we learned the folly of that. There are ways we have worked with countries to make them more livable in the past that didn't involve military measures.

     I don't advocate open borders. I advocate more money, technology, manpower to improve border security. But for people who are here and perhaps people who arrive notwithstanding a beefed up border presence, I advocate, for those who are demonstrably law-abiding in all other aspects of their lives, that we don't kick them out. And perhaps after a decade or so, giving them a concrete path to either citizenship or permanent residence.

     I'm against gang rape in public squares everywhere, not just Germany. I'm also against children dying in custody of the CBP. I'm against kids in cages–and yes, I know that Obama built some of those cages, although they were used quite differently.

     But then, I'm also against a lot of heinous things. Most of them don't affect this discussion. I could rail for days about mass shootings in this country, for example (even if one or two were actually perpetrated by… immigrants!). But I think that, like the tragic gang rape in Germany, would be a distraction.

252. T Fuller: "I don't think America is full. I think we can accept whatever number of immigrants we choose."

     The majority view of the Dem party is not that the US chooses or has any right to choose — those who wish to come to the US and sneak in have the right to come in, and with the minimal effort of sneaking in and/or overstaying their visa, they have every right to be in the US and stay in the US. If it was a commonly accepted position that illegals could and should be deported, I could accept more immigrants. Now all we have is chaos and anarchy. Also, my view is that the US has the right to choose who are the most deserving immigrants. Those who don't support freedom of speech and a separation of church and state (tend to be Muslims) can be passed over for those who do. (For instance, Asians)

     T Fuller: "But for people who are here and perhaps people who arrive notwithstanding a beefed up border presence, I advocate, for those who are demonstrably law-abiding in all other aspects of their lives, that we don't kick them out."

     That is exactly my point. Functional open borders. At least you admit it openly. Considering how poor many people are and the benefits of sneaking into the US, the wall of people that will come if there are no deportations as you allude to will be huge.

     JD

253. Tom,
     I didn't say you suggested it. I just have no idea what actions you think amount to this:
     *[being] willing to work with source countries on making them more livable*
     Either you have an idea, or you don't. But I don't think merely saying "be willing" is of any use.

     * But for people who are here and perhaps people who arrive notwithstanding a beefed up border presence, I advocate, for those who are demonstrably law-abiding in all other aspects of their lives, that we don't kick them out. *
     To me, this sounds precisely like advocating open borders (with the exception of criminals. If what your describing is NOT open borders, I really don't know what "open borders" might mean.

     *And perhaps after a decade or so, giving them a concrete path to either citizenship or permanent residence*

     Uhmmm… if you allow them to arrive and then "don't kick them out", that's giving them permanent residence *right away*. So I'm not understanding what the "after a decade" part is supposed to communicate!

     I don't like kids in cages either. But I'm a bit mystified how you can describe what you are for and simultaneously claim you are not for open borders.

     *But I think that, like the tragic gang rape in Germany, would be a distraction.*
     You write
     *Look, Germany took in a couple of million immigrants from Syria a few years back. And it was a big deal for Germans and a lot of them haven't gotten over it yet. *

     But you left out WHY a lot of the Germans haven't gotten over the immigration of millions. You can call the information explaining WHY some German's haven't gotten "over" the immigration a "distraction". But I'm not entirely sure what it's distracting us from, and I'm also not seeing why we shouldn't be distracted by this information.

     I think if you are going to bring up the immigration in Germany (which you did) and you are going to mention some Germans aren't "over it" in a way that suggest there is something wrong with those who aren't "over it", it's entirely fair to point out *why* they have not gotten "over it". In fact: I think it's entirely wrong to not mention the events that have contributed to those who aren't "over it" being not "over it".

254. I too feel sympathy for the otherwise-law-abiding people trying to illegally become US residents. It's the best country in the world IMO, and taking risks to become part of it is rational and almost praiseworthy. My ancestors came here legally, but travel to this country was still dangerous and sometimes deadly, and I'm glad they took risks.
     .
     But sympathy is not the only factor that should guide public policy, and I'm also sympathetic to people who jump through the hoops to come here *legally*. The easier it becomes to get and stay here illegally, the less sensible it becomes to take that route. Also, Illegal entrants are not confined to good people seeking the American dream, and bad things are happening to good people coming here that would not have happened if only legal immigration were practical. I am generally pro-immigration and I am comfortable with absorbing millions of *legal* immigrants, but we do neither ourselves nor immigrants any favors by not controlling the process and making sure the immigrants we get are the immigrants we want, and no others, and at exactly the level we collectively feel is most beneficial to the people already here. We're a vast country with a declining birth rate — we *need* constant immigration long-term. But the admission criteria should not be willingness to break our laws governing entry.

255. Tom is for encouraging people to make a dangerous journey. Risking death, rape, and falling prey to organized crime for a chance to stay in a country as an underclass, ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous people, after which he says "You've survived! Here's citizenship! Congratulations!" and they act as the lure for more people to undergo similar misery and risk. He pats himself on the back for such a show of compassion and points fingers at those nasty people who are responsible for the deaths of "asylum seekers".

256. Never ceases to amaze me how much the quality of conversation here improves after I shut up. It's almost as if that should tell me something.

257. Dale, you make good points and at least you don't repeat Lucia's and JD Ohio's error in equating a recognition of reality on the ground with an open border policy.

     Lucia, what I meant by distraction was using specific crimes in Germany (there were more than one rapes, and other crimes besides) to inform our policy. Germany, despite those crimes, seems on the road to acceptance of these (certainly not all) immigrants. And I am well aware that this has boosted support for the far right party in Germany.

     As for other forms of assistance to the Northern Triangle, Lucia you might want to read this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2017/05/08/once-more-into-the-breach-does-foreign-aid-work/. Just to give credit to George Bush, his initiatives to combat the AIDS epidemic are both laudable and an example. More recently, the Feed The Future program did well and did good.

     JD Ohio, it seems to me that in several comments here you have consistently mischaracterized Democratic policy on immigration. What has informed your point of view?

     It reminds me of several climate conversations I had with consensus holders.

     I would say A.

     They would say A implies B. (Even if it did not imply B.) You support B!

     I would say wot?

258. You're using semantics to pretend that A does not imply B when it is the only logical outcome, Tom. The power of incentive and positive reinforcement to encourage a type of behavior is actual settled science. It's the entire basis of civilization!

259. Thomas
     *Lucia, what I meant by distraction was using specific crimes in Germany (there were more than one rapes, and other crimes besides) to inform our policy.*
     I haven't suggested using specific crimes to inform policy. However, you brought up the experience Germany had and seem to what that to inform our policy. If we are going to disucss that experience, I think it's fair to discuss all aspects even ones you seem to prefer to omit.

     I am also pointing out that events that occurred in Germany help prevent some Germans from "getting over" the problems associated with immigration. You can call that "rise of the far right", but then so be it. Some specific crimes have then resulted in that rise. If I'm not mistaken, you think that rise is a bad thing. Perhaps she should try to avoid things that result in such a rise– and that happens to include certain crimes.

     I think we shouldn't ignore the fact that crimes can and do occur. Not mentioning facts can result in people ignoring facts which is not a good thing.

     The article you link includes this

     *It is important not to overstate the impact of aid. Foreign aid has not been the major driver of development progress over the last 20 years, nor will it be in the future. Long-term development progress depends primarily on the economic and political institutions that are built over time in low-income countries, and the actions taken by those countries themselves. Aid programs (alongside diplomacy and other tools of international engagement) are not the driving force behind development, but they can help support development progress along the way.*

     Yes. Aid can help. But political institutions IN the countries need to be right. So I'm STILL not sure what you want our country to do vis-a-vis El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

     The article discusses how successful financial aid has been *primarily* at improving health. These countries problem problem is NOT an AIDS epidemic or similar. So I"m still left with "What *precisely* does Tom want the US to do?"

     Out of curiosity: Both JD and I pointed out your *description* of what YOU want for border policy amounts to "open borders". Can you describe what about your policy is NOT "open borders".

260. >I don't advocate open borders.

     Someone at border claims asylum, you would let them in.
     Someone gets thru your beefed up security(no fence or wall), they stay. Technology is irrelevant, since once they cross the border, they can ask for asylum. No reason for them to try to get in since they can just be at the border and claim asylum and get in.
     Someone has asylum case rejected, you wouldn't deport them.
     Someone overstays a visa, you wouldn't deport them.

     Your plan would be great for the airline industry, for flights to US and to Mexico for whoever couldn't get a visa to US.

261. T Fuller: "it seems to me that in several comments here you have consistently mischaracterized Democratic policy on immigration. What has informed your point of view?"

     Nancy Pelosi's stupid statement that a wall is "immoral." — not ineffective. Sanctuary cities. Dem total disrespect for the law. Keith Ellison "I don't believe in borders tee shirt." Dem total opposition to deporting illegals who break US law in coming here — as I said before, if we don't deport illegals who sneak into the US we have functional open borders.

     May, I ask you what has informed your view that the Dems don't believe in open borders. Every policy that has been proposed to keep illegals out of the US and to deport them when they are here is always nitpicked to death by Dems. (Your reference to "caged children" is in that vein. The children, using your viewpoint, could be uncaged simply by going home) In particular, what policy are the Dems proposing that will keep any poor, reasonably determined person out of the US. The Dem supposed policies to maintain the borders are simply a fig leaf to give them the opportunity to argue in public that they don't favor open borders, when, in reality, they are winking to all of the illegals and saying, just make a little effort and all of you are welcome. Just because Dems propose ineffective policies and claim the motivation is to secure the border doesn't mean in fact that that is really their motivation or policy.

     JD

262. MikeN Comment #175393)

     You said it better than I did.

     JD

263. Hi Lucia and all.

     1. I do not want open borders.
     2. Democratic policy does not advocate or enable open borders.
     3. From the 1950s through 2016, US policy on immigration was roughly similar to what I have talked about here. A laissez faire attitude with token enforcement with regards to undocumented aliens residing lawfully within our borders. I advocate a return to that policy.
     4. Talking about immigrant crime is fraught. The big mistake made by Democrats is to ignore the fact that immigrant crime is additive. We preach that immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than the native born, and this is true. But we ignore the fact that those crimes committed by immigrants, even at a lower rate, are added to those committed by the native born. There is no substitution.
     5. The equivalent error committed by those on your side of the fence is to highlight highly visible crimes and paint those as typical of the immigrant population. (Note: You have not done that here–don't get me wrong.)
     6. I do not see any evidence that the immigration policy of laissez faire treatment of undocumented aliens has done any harm to the U.S., to lower or middle class workers, to the health and safety of our communities. And I have looked at it.
     7. I consider the policy of the current administration to be unwarranted and cruel. There is a crisis on our southern border. It was created and is purposefully maintained by the current administration.

264. >how does or how should this change anything in my post? If 22 million

     I wasn't arguing against your post, just the number of 11 million.

     >kids in cages

     This has largely disappeared. the cages are an old picture. A federal judge made a ruling decades ago that you can't detain kids with their parents. Current administration abandoned policy of detaining kids separate from their parents after the pictures of kids in cages showed up. This is why someone who shows up with a kid gets let into the country pretty quickly,
     The only thing remaining are for unaccompanied kids, held for 3 day at the most legally, though it appears the real number is more like a week.

265. T Fuller: "From the 1950s through 2016, US policy on immigration was roughly similar to what I have talked about here. A laissez faire attitude with token enforcement with regards to undocumented aliens residing lawfully within our borders. I advocate a return to that policy."

     You have apparently forgotten Eisenhowers mass deportations of Mexicans. I would definitely agree there was token enforcement between 2009 & 2016. Don't agree that the pre-Obama period was token enforcement. It certainly wasn't always strict. However, there was always the right to go into the Eisenhower mode, and it was accepted that those illegally here were here at their own risk. The Dems are fundamentally saying (as are you) that anyone has a right to come to the US.

     In any event, your "token enforcement" statement is again confirmation of a functional open borders policy and wouldn't deter any poor person with a moderate amount of motivation from coming to the US. I would add that mainstream Dems don't even support token enforcement.

     JD

266. T Fuller: "We preach that immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than the native born, and this is true. "

     I looked at Mexican illegal crime rates and, to my surprise, they were somewhat higher than US native citizen crime rates. No doubt Asian crime rate is very low. I would suspect that, as in Europe, Muslim crime rate is high. In any event, your statement is far too simplistic and is misleading. I would challenge you to come up with a source showing that Mexican illegals' crime rates are much lower than native born.

     JD

267. Oh, JD …

     President Barack Obama was often referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." The difference between him and Bush before and Trump after is that 81% of the people deported by Obama were criminals. They didn't just get pulled over for a traffic violation and get kicked out.

     In 2012, the Obama administration kicked 419,384 people out of the United States, a single-year record that still stands, despite two years (and counting) of Trump framing himself as America's border-guard-in-chief. Earlier this week, Trump tweeted that he would remove "millions" of illegal immigrants if given a second term in the White House—but last year Trump managed to deport merely 256,000 people.

     https://reason.com/2019/06/27/actually-joe-biden-and-the-obama-administration-deported-more-people-than-trump/

     Regarding children in cages–this is from today's news: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/keeping-children-in-cages-costing-american-taxpayers-more-than-45-million-daily-193126827.html

268. Thomas Fuller,
     You have helped clarified for me why there is gridlock on immigration.
     .
     I predict the position on immigration you apparently share with most Democrats (essentially no immigration enforcement once someone is physically in the USA) will cause them to lose control of the House in the next election. And I’m fine with that.

269. Oh, JD part 2: "Citizens in the United States have been concerned, since Colonial days, with crime, and worry that they will be victimized by immigrants (Mears, 2001). The concern is based on the belief that foreign-born individuals are members of a criminal class who threaten community cohesion by committing a disproportionately large number of violent and property crimes. Violent crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, and assault. Property crimes include theft and fraud."

     "According to Fox News (2015): “Statistics show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants.” But that turns out not to be the case.

     "While it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of illegal immigrants, various agencies (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, PEW Research Center, and the Center for Migration Studies) estimate the number of immigrants who either came into the United States illegally or overstayed their visas to be between 11 and 11.5 million people (Sherman, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Between 2010 and 2014, foreign-born persons were about 13% of the total U.S. population."

     "The states with the highest violent and property crime rates neither are the most populous nor house the largest number of immigrants…. n sampled U.S. cities, Stowell, Messner, McGeever, and Raffalovich (2009) found that as the foreign-born, immigrant population in the cities went up, the violent crime rate went down. …The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009) reported that, between 2000 and 2008, the population of foreign-born/non-U.S. citizens housed in all U.S. jails was between 6 and 9% of all detainees. (Tom's note–14% of the population, between 6 and 9% of those incarcerated.)

     …" Ferraro found mixed results in his test of social disorganization theory. While the rise in social disadvantage was positively associated with an increase in crime, changes in the immigrant population in a community were not associated with an increase in crime. Instead, places with more recent immigrants had larger decreases in property crime. Ferraro indicated that other theoretical perspectives that show that recent immigrants may be drawn to communities where they have social ties and employment prospects may mediate against social disorganization factors that presuppose criminal behavior in a community undergoing social change."

     …"The researchers found that the infusion of social control agents (social support) was a protective factor against immigrants’ engaging in or committing crime. They posited that, rather than destabilizing communities, immigrants can create a stabilizing force in large cities when contextualized by neighborhood."

     Using Austin city tract-level analysis and the city police department’s crime records from 2004 to 2006, Stansfield et al. found no relationship between new immigration and serious property crime rates. They posited that the new arrivals might have revitalized neighborhoods by causing a bottom-up growth among Mexican immigrant commercial enterprises in the city. Thus, an increase in immigrants in the city’s tracts where high concentrations of new arrivals lived did not increase the crimes of burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft."

     …"Ferraro (2014) analyzed the relationship between crime and immigration between 2000 and 2010 using Uniform Crime Report data. Ferraro found that although U.S. cities experienced an increase in their populations during the 10-year period, there was a decrease in the overall crime rate and a reduction in both in violent and property crime. He found, similar to Vélez & Lyons and Stansfield et al., that crime was not associated with cities that had large immigration populations, regardless of whether there were long-established immigrant communities in the city, or if there were large foreign-born immigrant settlements formed within the previous 5 years"

     …"Some people are concerned that immigrants are violent and engaged in particular types of violent crime. To address this concern, Martinez, Lee, and Nielsen (2004) studied drug and homicide crime in Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California, to determine if there is a relationship between violent crime and immigration. "

     "Martinez et al. found that foreign-born persons were not responsible for the communities’ drug and violent crime. The increase in crime was associated with second-generation youth, who were more likely to be involved in homicides related to drug offending in both communities. According to the researchers, “segmented assimilation” among second-generation youth can explain criminal patterns, since Mexican American youth in poor neighborhoods, despite cultural assimilation, committed violent crimes. If, however, immigrant families had economic stability (e.g., jobs), their offspring were not likely to engage in drug-related homicides."

     …"Martinez, Stowell, and Lee (2010) analyzed the relationship between homicide and immigration in San Diego during periods of major increases in the foreign-born population (1980–2000). …While the researchers found that socially disorganized neighborhoods experienced increases in homicides, they also found that, when communities had an influx of immigrants, there were fewer homicides."

     …"Vélez (2009) studied homicide offenses in Chicago. She compared city neighborhoods that had dense populations of white, Hispanic, and African American residents and the homicide rates within these neighborhoods and found that homicide rates are significantly higher in African American neighborhoods and are closely associated with neighborhoods with a “concentrated disadvantaged” population. …She found that, in areas where there were large populations of recent immigrants, the number of homicides decreased."

     I could go on… https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-93

270. Thomas Fuller, you haven't accounted for the major change in the lat 5 years or so, of people realizing they can use asylum laws to get into the country. Obama Administration only managed to reduce the numbers by putting a massive wall of agents at the border at a peak time to keep people from coming in, combined with media campaigns in Central America. It stopped for about two months when Trump came in, because his brand made people stop trying.
     Now there are about 50,000 per month coming in to claim asylum.

271. Hi SteveF, I seem to recall the Republicans ran on immigration in the 2018 midterms. I'd be happy to see similar results myself.

272. T Fuller: "President Barack Obama was often referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." The difference between him and Bush before and Trump after is that 81% of the people deported by Obama were criminals. They didn't just get pulled over for a traffic violation and get kicked out."

     Since when did statements by advocates with a vested interest in open borders become the basis for facts. This article summarizes the many deceptions of the Obama administration in falsely trying to claim that it was increasing enforcement. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/february-12-2013/how-obama-administration-inflates-deportation-statistics.html Here is a salient quote from the article: "In fact, if we count removals and returns together historically, then the Obama administration numbers are not close to “record-setting.” In the 1990s, the totals of returns and removals were well over one million. For example, according to the yearbook of immigration statistics, in 1996, removals and returns numbered more than 1.6 million, up from more than 1.3 million in 1995."

     According to the Huffington Post your facts about the deportation of criminals are wrong.

     ********
     "The mainstream media keeps repeating the falsehood that Obama focused on deporting serious criminals. As the ‘New York Times’ put it in a recent article, “Gone are the Obama-era rules that required them to focus only on serious criminals.” The editorial reinforced this characterization, stating “ICE and the Border Patrol under Mr. Obama were ordered to focus on arresting serious criminals and national-security risks.”

     The data from the Department of Homeland Security tells a very different story. From 2009-2015, 56% of all immigrants removed from the country had no criminal convictions. The preliminary data from 2016, when Obama was still in office, suggests that this trend of deporting non-criminals continued. What’s more, a good portion of the so-called criminal deportees were arrested on low-level misdemeanor charges such as marijuana possession." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hard-truths-about-obamas-deportation-priorities_b_58b3c9e7e4b0658fc20f979e

     Even then, the totals deported under Obama were much less than those deported in the 90s. My concern is that all illegals be subject to deportation and that the US remain a nation with real borders. The fact that Obama deported/removed criminals in some cases is OK, but refusing to enforce the rest of the law is unacceptable to me.

     It seems to me that you support functional open borders, but for some reason, (maybe political convenience) you are reluctant to acknowledge your real position.

     JD

273. Way, way up there, Lucia wrote,

     "*Northern Triangle are both bad and deteriorating and that if you lived there with a family you would do whatever you had to do to get somewhere*
     One of my bridesmaids is living in San Salvador. She speaks English, graduated from college has a job in computer science and is, at least for now, staying right where she is. It's true the murder rate in San Salvador is 2-3 times that in the US, but still she's staying there. So are quite a few family members.

     I know other people who are staying in both El Salvador and Guatemala."

     Is this not an argument against the fears of the Brown Horde inundating our shores?

     More seriously, we know a lot of people want to emigrate to the U.S. But people on this thread are talking of millions lining up to follow the asylum seekers currently at our borders. Do you really think that's realistic?

274. It's been fun, folks. Happy 5th of July and see you all next time around.

275. T Fuller: ""Citizens in the United States have been concerned, since Colonial days, with crime, and worry that they will be victimized by immigrants"

     ……
     There are a lot of people who believe this. In particular, with respect to Mexicans, I don't believe it. My high school was half-Mexican American, and I found them to be wonderful people. My argument against illegal Mexican immigration is not that they are bad people (which Trump stupidly claims), but that we can't take everyone who would like to come. Please respond to my arguments and not what others believe.

     JD

276. Someone is pretty sensitive about the "open borders" label, ha ha. No doubt we will be hearing that term a zillion times over the next year or so.
     .
     Mr. Fuller is hiding behind a strict and literal definition of open borders he keeps secretly in his head while describing policies the right understands to be open borders. Motte and bailey.
     .
     The other more constructive way to look at it is to describe exactly who you would turn away the border. If that list is the null set…
     .
     I have no problem with effectively or physically closing the border when the laws are being abused or the quotas are full. Right now people are incentivized to just show up at the border and immigrant advocates like it that way.
     .
     You could mirror pictures of kids in cages with crime scene photos of violent crime by illegal immigrants. This propaganda is a signal you are not in a serious conversation, or at least a conversation worth having. Some of the right's views as expressed by Mr. Fuller seem to come directly from Rachel Maddow World. Yes and "Obama just wants teenagers murdered with machetes!".

277. Tom
     *1. I do not want open borders.*
     You wrote that you want people who get here to be able to stay. I want to know how this differs from "open borders". As far as I can tell, all your point 3 is saying is that in the past we had open borders. You want to go back to that.

     If what you describe is NOT open borders, what do you think "Open borders is". (Since it's something you oppose, you should be able to describe how the thing you oppose and even YOU call open borders is different from what all the rest of us consider "open borders".

     *4. Talking about immigrant crime is fraught. *
     Not talking about it is also fraught. And also unproductive.

     * paint those as typical of the immigrant population.*
     I don't know who you think is on "my side of the fence". I haven't painted any particular crimes as "typical". I've merely said that we need to discuss things. It is NOT productive to try to decree that discussing something like crime is off the table. That's my main point vis-a-vis crime. The other one is not recognizing that major crimes DO affect how people feel about things like immigration is a mistake.

     Discussing the crimes is not painting the crimes as "typical" of the immigrant population. Trying to decree it not a topic of conversation will only make people think there are more crimes being hidden from them. So as much as you might like it to not be discussed, that's a mistake.

     But back to this: I get that you think letting everyone stay is not a bad thing to do. But what I want to know is: In what way is it *different from* "open borders". I mean, you keep saying you are against "open borders", but you are describing your preferred policy, and it sounds PRECISELY like what everyone else considers "open borders" to mean. So, what do YOU think "open borders" means? Real question.

278. I never thought I would call Fuller a stereotypical liberal, but he put on a real performance here. Dredging up Obama immigration statistics that have been debunked for 5 years. Claiming that 50s immigration enforcement was laissez faire, when Eisenhower deported 300,000 people in a military style operation. Claiming that he is not for open borders, when he will let anyone who can sneak in stay here. (I would assume he would deport criminals.)

     I guess the reason that liberals lie with statistics is that it works with the Democratic Left.

     JD

279. Thomas,
     *Is this not an argument against the fears of the Brown Horde inundating our shores?*
     It is merely pointing out that the following statement you made was incorrect.
     *"*Northern Triangle are both bad and deteriorating and that if you lived there with a family you would do whatever you had to do to get somewhere**
     There are plenty of people in the Northern Triangle who are staying.

     I've never suggested a Brown Horde will 'inundate' our shores nor have I described people arriving as a "Horde", brown or otherwise.

     *More seriously, we know a lot of people want to emigrate to the U.S. But people on this thread are talking of millions lining up to follow the asylum seekers currently at our borders. Do you really think that's realistic?*
     Why would millions of people trying to immigrate not be realistic? You previously wrote
     *By 2015, President Obama had deported some 2.5 million people with time remaining in office*
     Are you now suggesting a millions of illegal immigrants is an outlandishly large number of potential illegal immigrants to imagine arriving at the border? If you have some argument to suggest the numbers will suddenly plunge if we allow everyone who arrives in, present it. But your own numbers suggest millions is the order of magnitude of illegal immigration,

280. JD Ohio
     *Claiming that he is not for open borders, when he will let anyone who can sneak in stay here. (I would assume he would deport criminals.)*
     .
     I have no idea what he thinks "open borders" means. Because (a) he insists he is against open borders but (b) when he describes what he's for, it sounds like open borders.
     .
     Obviously, he must think there is *some* difference between what he describes and what HE thinks "open borders" means. But he hasn't described that features. I'm reading open borders at wikipedia…
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

     Sounds like what Tom describes as what he wants is what wikipedia calls an open border. . .

281. Lucia: "Obviously, he (Fuller) must think there is *some* difference between what he describes and what HE thinks "open borders" means. But he hasn't described that features. I'm reading open borders at wikipedia…
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border "

     The wiki article will be modified soon when the Left gets wind of it being cited in efforts to control illegal immigration. Wiki is still calling the fake Steele Dossier, the Trump-Russia dossier, even though Trump didn't collude with Russia and did not have an unusually large amount of contact with Russia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

     JD

282. Thomas Fuller, the father and daughter who drowned in the Rio Grande were of reasonable means, but decided to try to enter illegally anyways. The mother hasn't said what story they were planning to tell to try and get in.

283. Crime rates of illegals.

     One problem with some studies is this: "According to a recent Associated Press article, “multiple studies have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born U.S. citizens.” But the issue isn’t non-citizens who are in this country legally, and who must abide by the law to avoid having their visas revoked or their application for citizenship refused. The real issue is the crimes committed by illegal aliens. And in that context, the claim is quite misleading, because the “multiple studies” on crimes committed by “immigrants” — including a 2014 study by a professor from the University of Massachusetts, which is the only one cited in the article — combine the crime rates of both citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal."

     That isn’t the only problem with the study. Instead of using official crime data, it uses “self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information.” For obvious reasons, there is little incentive for anyone, let alone criminal aliens, to self-report “delinquent and criminal involvement.” When it comes to self-reporting criminal activity, some respondents will, no doubt, exaggerate. Others will flat out lie.
     https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-illegal-immigration-and-criminal-activity

     When actual incarcerated people are studied (who can't falsify their status) here is what has been found:

     "The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.

     The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien."

     Personally, I think the criminality issue is not important and is not an argument I would make. On the other hand, it is not an unchallengable fact that illegal aliens commit less crimes than citizens.

     JD

284. JD Ohio,
     I also did not make a criminality issue with regard to immigration (legal or illegal.) I merely brought up an event regarding crime. And I brought it up only because Tom brought up the fact that *some Germans* "can't get over" the number of immigrants who were admitted into Germany and then followed that with predicting that things are working out.
     .
     For some reason, Tom decided to go off on a tear about how immigrants have low crime rates (which may or may not be true.) The problem is: even if they do have lower crime rates, *my point still stands* because my point is about understanding *why some German's have an issue*. And all that needs to be true for my point to be valid are that (1) those major, extremely visible violent crimes occurred and are widely known and (2) it's fears associated with that sort of behavior is what makes "some Germans" not be able to "get over" the very high immigration that was allowed.

     Both are true.

     Moreover, there are lots of things people fear about immigration that knowledge of those crimes brings to peoples minds. One of them is not the violent crime itself. It is fear that our whole society would change to become one where women aren't free to walk safely and openly in streets and attend things like street fairs. Women don't actually need to be gang raped to not feel safe at fair. Lots of women being pinched, lectured, jeered, cat called and so on for merely being in the street would be a pretty big change that I would not like.

     Saying one is against violent crime (which Tom did) or that immigrants do not commit lots of crimes (which Tom did) fails to address what it is some people are unable to "get over". His going off on a "talking point" to rebut something that (as far as I am aware) NO ONE HERE claimed, only served to make it impossible to discuss what peoples *actual fears* might be, and whether those are justified.

285. Tom Scharf (Comment #175409): "The other more constructive way to look at it is to describe exactly who you would turn away the border. If that list is the null set…"

     Exactly right. The left does claim they will do some sort of checks to keep criminals and terrorists out. I suppose that it their basis for claiming they are not for open borders.

286. JD Ohio (Comment #175408): "My argument against illegal Mexican immigration is not that they are bad people (which Trump stupidly claims), but that we can't take everyone who would like to come."

     Actually, Trump only claims a a significant subset are bad people, which is true. For instance, the recent surge in MS-13 was driven largely by the gang sending their members across the border. Trump also agrees that we can not take everyone who would like to come. The two issues are joined at the hip. We can not keep the bad ones out, or control the total numbers, unless we control our border.
     ———-
     JD Ohio (Comment #175417): "Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens."

     Yes, and it seems to be specifically illegals who are responsible for the high crime rate among immigrants.

     The overall incarceration rate in the U.S. (local, state, federal) is about 600 per 100K (2010 data). By race:
     Non-Hispanic white: 450
     Hispanic: 831
     Black: 2306
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Ethnicity

     The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000. https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
     These are almost all illegal aliens. 2/3 of those in federal prison are there on immigration charges and SCAAP means confirmed illegal or probable illegal, so it is probably an under count. The feds reimburse states for imprisoned illegals.

     Leaving out the ones held on immigration charges, there are still at least 300K illegals in prison. With 22M illegals in the country, that gives an incarceration rate of about 1400 per 100K. More than double the rate for the native born.

287. Mike M.
     *The left does claim they will do some sort of checks to keep criminals and terrorists out.*
     .
     Out of curiosity, how much time would these checks take? It takes quite a bit more than 5 minutes to check whether someone has a criminal history and certainly more than 10 minutes to check whether someone is a terrorist.
     .
     I'm not for putting every potential immigrant in a holding cells for days while immigration runs a *real* check– and days is what it takes. I'm not for having the person held be able to continue sit in the cell while they advance a legal claim against the finding.
     .
     I'd rather have a process where people apply for visas in advance and can live their live while checks are being done. Allow them to advance legal claims while outside the cell. Then after they get their visa, they can travel to the border and enter.
     .
     Application is a annoying, process. It will be complicated. But it is much less disruptive of people's lives than having each person self-select, trot to the border and then *be held* for the amount of time it takes for a visa to be issued. It also doesn't require people to *be held* and it would reduce the number of children held and separated.
     .

288. lucia (Comment #175422),

     I agree completely.

289. Lucia,
     It would, of course, be better for people to apply at US consulates in their own country, and that process is available to them today. But what do you propose we do with the 100+K per month who just show up at the border? (Real question)

290. SteveF
     *But what do you propose we do with the 100+K per month who just show up at the border? (Real question)*
     .
     I don't have a proposal. But I disagree with Tom's proposal which appears to be let them all in just because they arrived at the border. Obviously, that solution solves the problem of detention facilities being over crowded, but that's not the only problem. So it's not a valid solution.
     .
     I think a lot of people should be turned back. I am not against having them stay in Mexico while they wait; it would seem better than cages. But of course, the Mexicans might not like that. The French don't like large numbers of migrants hunkering on the border trying to get into England.

291. Ahem.

     Lucia: "But I disagree with Tom's proposal which appears to be let them all in just because they arrived at the border."

     Tom: "The Democrats have policy positions on immigration. None of those positions have anything to do with open borders.

     Democrats view immigration policy as an opportunity to renew the “American Community.” Although the Democrats recognize the need to secure the borders, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, and enforce existing immigration laws, they understand the “need [for] comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts.”

292. Saturday is chore day–please don't take any long silence as a sign of anything else. I enjoy blog discussions and I enjoy interacting with you.

293. Support for "catch and release", together with unwillingness to deport, is support for open borders and an unlimited alien invasion. No other explanation is justifiable.
     .
     .

     Harsh measures are sometimes required, and are normal, in the criminal justice system. Without both the threat and substance of harsh measures for law breakers, the rule of law breaks down.
     .
     .
     History is repleate with examples of unlimited and unchecked alien mass migration, and none of them bode well for the local populace.
     .
     .
     We have a binary choice: support the local population or support an alien invasion. Choose wisely.

294. Thomas Fuller,
     People opposed to illegal immigration disagree with “comprehensive” reform as proposed by Democrats because it means legalizing 12+ million illegal immigrants, rewarding behavior that has to be discouraged, not encouraged, if there is ever going to be a substantial reduction in illegal immigration. Really Tom, your position is “open borders” in all but name, and I doubt you much care about reducing illegal immigration in the future.

295. Tom
     *Democrats view immigration policy as an opportunity to renew the “American Community.” Although the Democrats recognize the need to secure the borders, including additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the borders and ports of entries, and enforce existing immigration laws, they understand the “need [for] comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts.”*

     I"m not asking you want *Democrats* view supposedly is. I"m asking you YOUR. And YOU wrote

     * But for people who are here and perhaps people who arrive notwithstanding a beefed up border presence, I advocate, for those who are demonstrably law-abiding in all other aspects of their lives, that we don't kick them out. *

     Let me repeat:To me, this sounds precisely like advocating open borders (with the exception of criminals. If what your describing is NOT open borders, I really don't know what "open borders" might mean.

     Instead of just telling me you are against open borders or telling me that Democrats are against them, describe to me the precise difference between what you wrote above– and which I quoted– and what you think "open borders" mean. Because what you *actually describe* as your position is the definition of "open borders", and is so even if you insist that (a) you are for what you describe but (b) you are against open borders.

     No one can possibly understand your position if you continue to describe a position that IS "open borders" while insisting that you are against "open borders".

296. lucia (Comment #175425): "I think a lot of people should be turned back. I am not against having them stay in Mexico while they wait; it would seem better than cages. But of course, the Mexicans might not like that."

     That is the right idea. If they just show up at a port of entry, they should be allowed to apply for entry and then wait in Mexico until a decision is made. I don't care what the Mexicans think about that. The people showing up at the border are either Mexican residents or have illegally crossed their border and traveled over 2000 miles through their territory. They are Mexico's problem.

     If people are caught illegally crossing our border, they should be arrested, charged, fingerprinted, banned from entering the U.S. for maybe 5-10 years, and warned that a second violation will mean a felony conviction and permanent ban from entering the U.S. followed by being sent back whence they came. Unless, of course, they are found to be comiting a felony, in which case they should be tried and imprisoned before being sent back.

297. Mexico has already agreed to hold a large number of asylum cases in Mexico to waite for their US court date. Something about the US to be charging a tax on all Mexican goods crossing the border if the situation was not improved in the US favor brought them around.

     Up the ante and offer to PAY the Mexican government to build and staff detention centers in Mexico. That will reduce the incentive to illegally cross the border and be MUCH cheaper than US based detention centers.

     Same for border enforcement. The US paying for several Mexican National Border Control army regiments to rigidly enforce the border would work. And an offer of US citizenship after 20 years of service ought to be a prime inducement. System worked well for Rome for several centuries.

298. People who show up at the border to apply for asylum are not being detained. It is people who cross the border and then are caught or turn themselves in are detained. People with kids are released very quickly. Facilities are limited, so pretty much everyone would have to be released.
     Doing more rejections at credible fear interview stage was blocked by a judge(Mike Flynn's judge).

299. About a million green cards issued every year. Half of these are in the unlimited category of immediate family, US citizen's spouse, parent, or child under 21. There is about 225,000 family based, that have separate quotas, either immediate family of green card holders, or extended family of citizens.
     Another 125,000 for employment based green cards.

300. I think it would be reasonable to assume that anyone who claims asylum only after getting caught does not have a valid asylum case. I also think it would be reasonable to assume that anyone from central america who crossed all of Mexico is not merely trying to attain asylum — they could have had that in Mexico.

301. DaleS,
     It's plausible someone could need asylum, but knowing conditions waiting for their case to be heard aren't good, they decide to sneak in anyway. Still… I think it's not unfair to suggest that not asking for asylum until caught tends to suggest the person doesn't think their asylum case is strong.

     The issue of people traveling extra distance to claim asylum also comes up in Europe.

302. It is because I love my country that I want her to be both just and merciful.

     One side of my family traveled to this country on a ship accompanying the Mayflower. Were they legal or illegal? There were no laws either way. That lack of legal status continued until 1882, when criminals, the insane, or "any person unable to take care of him or herself" were prohibited from emigrating to our shores.

     The population density of the US is 92.6 people per square mile, ranking us 174th in the world. Living hells such as Denmark and the UK have triple or more our population density. Our country can easily accommodate tens of millions of more souls.

     19% of our current population is foreign born, the highest since the Immigration Act of 1882. And yet the current administration quite rightly cites the health of our economy, low levels of unemployment and modest growth in wages as reasons they should be returned to power.

     Of the 47 million foreign born, 11 million are said to be undocumented. Of those 11 million, 6% – 9% are said to be criminal. What should be obvious is the fact that most undocumented immigrants are scrupulous observers of our laws and norms, as they don't want to be officially noticed, with the consequences that would bring.

     Nonetheless, undocumented immigrants do compete for lower wage jobs, most usually with previous waves of immigrants and with minority workers. For this reason I support a strong law enforcement presence at our southern border, with increases of manpower, technology and a beefed up judicial system to deter illegal immigration. I support a visa tracking system that will aid in detecting overstays and alerting law enforcement when it happens.

     I believe that previous periods were more effectively able to manage immigration than our current one.

     For those who slip through the cracks of a beefed up border enforcement system, I think it a waste of our resources to play Javert to all these Valjeans. Unless they fall afoul of the law, after a decade, if they want to pay a fine and can demonstrate sufficient command of English and our constitution, I believe they should be allowed to get in the back of the line to get a green card or to apply for citizenship if they have relatives who are citizens here.

     I support an immigration quota of 1 million a year, with priority given to family reunification, with a secondary priority to those with talents and skills. Outside this quota, I favor an expanded H1B visa system for those with specific skillsets needed by employers, on the condition that they are paid the prevailing wage for that position. I also support a path to permanent residence for foreign university students who can find employment following graduation. I strongly advocate the granting of citizenship to Dreamers and foreign members of our armed forces upon honorable discharge from service.

     Lucia, I hope I have been clear enough here. I hope it is obvious that I do not want open borders.

     I will close by saying that this administration's focus on immigration has been a mistaken priority. Immigration has not harmed this country–it has built it. I recognize that the crimes committed by immigrants are added to the totals of those committed by our native sons, but do not think this is a sufficient reason to alter the policies I advocate.

     That was more satisfying than doing the laundry–but it does need to be folded and put away.

303. Tom
     Yes. You have been clear. You previous wrote this:

     * But for people who are here and perhaps people who arrive notwithstanding a beefed up border presence, I advocate, for those who are demonstrably law-abiding in all other aspects of their lives, that we don't kick them out. *

     You now write this.

     *For those who slip through the cracks of a beefed up border enforcement system, I think it a waste of our resources to play Javert to all these Valjeans. Unless they fall afoul of the law, after a decade, if they want to pay a fine and can demonstrate sufficient command of English and our constitution, I believe they should be allowed to get in the back of the line to get a green card or to apply for citizenship if they have relatives who are citizens here.*

     You are advocating a policy that fits the definition of open borders (including the discussion at wikipedia.) I can't begin to imagine why you think you are NOT for open borders.

     All the stuff about the "quota" is irrelevant to diagnosing whether you are for or against open borders because under your policy people can just arrive and stay just because they decide to do so.

     The stuff about immigration being for the country is all well and good– and I even agree with some of it. That can be an argument in favor of open borders– but even if open borders are good, that doesn't make your open border policy a "not open border policy".

     You are for open borders. Absolutely.

304. What part of beefed up border security, personnel and technology, what part of a visa tracking system with alerts for overstays, what part of securing the border to prevent undercutting wages for previous immigrants and minorities, what part of that is difficult to understand?

     I don't want open borders. I do recognize that no border security system will be foolproof. People got out of East Berlin, they'll get into America no matter what we do. I recognize that and try to acknowledge that it's a waste of time and money to chase down law abiding immigrants that manage to sneak through. That's not advocating open borders.

305. Thomas Fuller,
     “I recognize that and try to acknowledge that it's a waste of time and money to chase down law abiding immigrants that manage to sneak through. That's not advocating open borders.”
     .
     Yes it is. Unlawful presence in the USA (both crossing the Southern border illegally and overstaying visas) is common specifically because we rarely deport those people. This is THE incentive for a continued influx of illegal aliens.

306. Tom,
     I understand you said "beefed up security". It just happens to be irrelevant to diagnosing whether the border is "open". You have it that the second they arrive here, they get to stay. *That's OPEN*.

     *I don't want open borders.*
     What you describe as what you want IS open borders. You just don't want to *call* it that. I don't know why you don't want to call it that. But what you describe is open border.

     * People got out of East Berlin, they'll get into America no matter what we do.*
     Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that you are advocating open borders.

     * I recognize that and try to acknowledge that it's a waste of time and money to chase down law abiding immigrants that manage to sneak through. *
     I get it. You think not having open borders is a waste of time and money. That's WHY you advocate open borders. But telling me *why* doesn't make what you advocate "NOT" open borders.

     *That's not advocating open borders.*
     You are advocating open borders. For some reason you think explaining why they are a good idea makes it "not open borders". It doesn't.

307. I give up. We are fated to disagree on a definition of open borders. Have a nice Sunday, all.

308. Thomas,
     *We are fated to disagree on a definition of open borders.*
     Your definition is idiosyncratic and you won't budge to the common definition. So…. yeah… If you won't use words the same way neutral sources like wikipedia use them, or news groups use them, or other people speaking English used them, then yes: We are fated to disagree.

     If you allow everyone who arrives to remain, then the borders are open. On the WEST German side of the Berlin wall, the borders were open to East Germans (and many others.) That was true even though East Germany has hellacious border security. Strong border security cannot make a border "closed" if people who arrive are allowed in.

     You are allowing people who get in to stay. Like it or not: that's "open" on our side.

309. JD, Thomas Fuller did walk back his statement above about Obama deported more. Though he didn't go into detail, I suspect it is because of same definition change(started under W) you highlighted.

     Lucia, he has called for more enforcement, so he doesn't see it as open borders.

     Thomas Fuller,before you said you wouldn't bother with visa overstayers, now you say you want more resources to go after visa overstayers. Are you saying there is a certain period of time in which the government should chase people down to throw them out of the country, and after that they should be left alone?

     What about the people who have been here for years, but had their asylum case rejected?

310. This long exchange with Thomas Fuller demonstrates that people sincerely and profoundly disagree about the importance of illegal immigration, and even more, what to do about it. This disagreement and many others are only resolved via elections. Be sure to vote in 2020 for candidates who support your views on immigration….. and many other contentious policy issues.
     .
     IMO, unless the details are fully disclosed, slogans like ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ are meaningless, or worse, willfully deceptive. Any proposal which does not provide clear, strong, and permanent incentives to *not* immigrate illegally will only increase illegal immigration. Buyer beware.

311. SteveF
     *slogans like ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ are meaningless, or worse, willfully deceptive.*
     Well… of course. "Reform" can mean anything. So can "intransigence". I think I tried to make that point above. Unless we discuss *specifics* about what policies we want and which we don't want, slogans are just mush.

312. >what part of securing the border to prevent undercutting wages for previous immigrants and minorities, what part of that is difficult to understand?

     The part where you said you would let in millions legally, and ignore those who got in illegally past your beefed up security.

313. Continuing http://rankexploits.com/musings/2019/non-compete-clauses/#comment-175434

     There are 50,000 green cards issued through a lottery, and a quota of 55,000 refugees. Of these categories, only the EB-1 does not have a wait list.
     About half of green cards are to people already in the country, either legally or illegally. The biggest discrepancy is with refugee green cards around 160,000 despite a quota of 55,000.

314. Tom,
     .
     I know you left. But I still want to comment on some specifics — others can also read and comment. I'm cutting out the "reasons why" and "philosophy" bits and just discussing the actual implementation.
     .
     *For this reason I support a strong law enforcement presence at our southern border, with increases of manpower, technology and a beefed up judicial system to deter illegal immigration.*
     You fail to say what happens if a person is caught while attempting to enter illegally. As a consequence of this "mapower, technology and beefed up judicial system", are those who enter illegally *kicked out*? If yes, is this done with *certainty* and *quickly*? (BTW: I don't really care if this is the southern border, northern border or seaboard.)
     .
     * I support a visa tracking system that will aid in detecting overstays and alerting law enforcement when it happens.*
     When law enforcement is alerted, do they have funds to find these people? And when they are found, will they be escorted to the border and kicked out?
     .
     "Alerts" is the say as actually ejecting someone.
     .
     Beyond that visa tracking doesn't catch people without visas. Are you for EVerify for employment? Are you for fining employers who hire undocumented workers to give them an incentive to check? Are you for detecting illegal aliens in any way other than noticing a someone who had a visa did not leave the country?
     .
     *For those who slip through the cracks of a beefed up border enforcement system, *
     At least to the extent you've ACTUALLY described it, the system sounds crack-ridden. While you've used the adjective "beefed up", you haven't shown us where the beef is in the system you advocate. Is there an invisible force field at the border? Do security guards shoot anyone penetrating the force field? Do they catch and release? Do they catch and escort them into a detention center to await a judicial proceeding where they explain why they should get to stay in? These details matter.
     .
     You've said NOTHING about whether those caught get kicked out, you've said NOTHING about methods to catch non-Visa holders. So, for all the use of terms like "beefed up", what you describe is consistent with people who sneak across getting to stay in.
     .
     Unless you *specifically* state you would kick those caught out, I will go with what you say next (and all the "philosophy" stuff to indicate you would let them stay.

     *I think it a waste of our resources to play Javert to all these Valjeans. Unless they fall afoul of the law, after a decade, if they want to pay a fine and can demonstrate sufficient command of English and our constitution, I believe they should be allowed to get in the back of the line to get a green card or to apply for citizenship if they have relatives who are citizens here.*
     .
     Ok. I left in some of your "philosophy" stuff (i.e. the Javert vs Valjeans stuff.)
     The reason I do is that this makes it sound like the system you envision would NOT be desigend to catch the "Valjeans" (as the French system was not) but they would only be caught by rogue dedicated agent who were on some sort of special personal mission (i.e. Javert-like). But now, you suggest that IF somehow the people 'manage' to stay (which would seam not to difficult with no Everify, no other tracking once past the border, and ambiguous whether judges kick them out) then they get to pay a fine, qualify for a green card and apply for citizenship. (And all they might need is to have had a baby– since that's a sure fire way to have a relative who is a citizen!)
     .
     So back to this:
     *Lucia, I hope I have been clear enough here. I hope it is obvious that I do not want open borders.*
     No. You are pretty much NEVER saying anyone gets kicked out and then saying those who manage to stay get to stay.

     If you want to claim your system is not "open borders" you actually have to list circumstances under which *people are not allowed to stay*. And you need to actually and specifically say *they don't get to stay*.

     It is the act of not letting people in, and not letting people who get to stay that is key to something not being "open borders". You seem to refuse to want to say you would kick ANYONE out. So, if you want "credit" for being against "open borders", you need to explain:
     1) What *precise* methods ( other than "beef") are going to be used to prevent people from crossing borders illegally.
     2) What precise methods we use to catch those– including non-visa holders- from getting through the border.
     3) What methods we use to discourage employers from employing non-documented workers.
     4) What methods we use to eject people who have been found to have come here or overstayed here illegaly.

     With respect to keeping people OUT all you've done is use terms like "beef" and "alert"– providing ZERO concrete steps for keeping anyone out or ejecting them. Then you explain specific situations for allowing people to STAY.

     Look: There may very well be good reasons to have open borders and to avoid kicking people out. If you are for that, say so. But don't call it "not open borders" when you find it impossible to actually describe or undertake any *concrete* method that results in actually kicking someone out or preventing them from entering!

315. Hi Lucia

     This discussion seems symptomatic of the growing lack of trust between people of different political views. Yeah, I'm a commie pinko and all that. But really–it's blog commentary, not a treaty between nations.

     Of course those caught at the border would be repatriated to country of origin, quickly and with certainty. The same is true for those whose application for asylum fail.

     More CBP agents. More drones. More sonic probes where tunneling is an issue. Maybe even (in some specific zones) a (mumbles) vertical structure starting at ground level and reaching 30 or 40 feet in the air.

     Yes, I'm for E-Verify. I don't want to dismantle ICE. I actually do want them to go after MS-13 and company. When people are ejected from this country for whatever reason, I would send them back to the capital city of country of origin with (in criminal deportations) handover to justice system there.

     But in a normal conversation I really think you could have inferred all of that from my earlier posts–this seems like a ton of back and forth to get to the starting line…

316. Thomas Fuller,
     "Yeah, I'm a commie pinko and all that."
     .
     I searched for the words 'commie pinko' and din't find them on this thread, except for your own use of them. Did I miss something?
     .
     "But in a normal conversation I really think you could have inferred all of that from my earlier posts-"
     .
     I certainly did not infer any of that.
     .
     Unless border security were rather extreme, it is inevitable that some fraction of illegal border crossers would make it past the border and into the country, not to mention the inevitability of many visa overstays. Do you exclude the possibility of deporting any of those people unless they commit 'serious crimes'? Would you support making multiple attempts at unlawful entry a felony that leads to significant prison time? Would you support substantial penalties, both financial and criminal, for employers that knowingly hire undocumented workers? Would you agree to make failure to use E-Verify a criminal violation with criminal penalties?
     .
     It seems to me very few people are at all serious about unlawful immigration. There would be much less need for extensive (and costly) border security if it were impossible for people to earn a living after entering illegally. Nearly all illegal aliens are here for financial reasons, along with the benefits of extensive infrastructure and low crime. Remove the possibility of unlawful residents earning a living, and the problem mostly goes away.

317. SteveF, I would have to see more detail about your added policy mechanisms.

     Perhaps the reason few people are serious about unlawful immigration is because it is not a pressing issue. Crime has gone down while immigration has gone up. It has gone down faster where immigration has risen faster.

     Unemployment is at 3.7%. Our economy has entered its 121st month of expansion, 30 of which have been led by the current administration. Immigration is not that big a deal for the country. I will grant you it is a big deal (I hope I can spell raison d'etre correctly–my wife is French, after all) for the current administration.

     For me, immigration probably makes the top 10 of pressing issues. But not the top 5. I'm happy to chat about it, but would be equally happy to talk about other issues as well.

318. Thomas William Fuller (Comment #175452): "Of course those caught at the border would be repatriated to country of origin, quickly and with certainty. The same is true for those whose application for asylum fail."

     Why do you say "of course"? I think that *should* be obvious, but all the Democrat candidates seem to oppose that and our laws do not currently permit that.

     Would you permit people caught at the border to claim asylum? If so, what would be done with them while they await a decision?

     If people fail to show up for asylum hearings, would you send ICE to search them out even if they otherwise obey the law? Would you send ICE to search out visa overstays even if they otherwise obey the law? Would you send ICE to investigate people flagged by E-verify?

319. MikeM, I believe what I wrote is fully consistent with the Democratic party platform. It obviously is not how their opponents describe it.

     As for your other questions, I would allow ICE considerable discretion to chart their course–but I would also keep them on a short leash. Same for people caught at the border. For most, I would not allow a retroactive plea for asylum. But I would allow exceptions. I think that detaining them for four years (!) while they await the results of their hearing is cruel and also expensive. I would release them until their hearing occurred.

320. Tom,
     I haven't called you a commie pinko. If you are one, that's ok. But honestly, I thnk it's rather unfair when you seem to insinuate those disagreeing are resorting to adhoms when, in fact, they've done no such thing.
     .
     We are merely discussing what your policy issues are.
     .
     *Of course those caught at the border would be repatriated to country of origin, quickly and with certainty. The same is true for those whose application for asylum fail.*

     Well, thanks for clarifying that there are circumstances in which you'd eject someone or bar someone.
     .
     You may think requiring you to say it is a sign of distrust. I don't. I think it's a sign of not wanting to put words in your mouth and not wanting to guess.
     .
     *But in a normal conversation I really think you could have inferred all of that from my earlier posts–this seems like a ton of back and forth to get to the starting line…*
     .
     To the contrary. In normal conversation, much of what you said prior would appear to suggest the precise opposite of what you are now clarifying. For example, your bringing up vivid characterization of "Javerts" vs "Valjeans" suggest you don't want people to be pursued. Sandwiching discussion of what you want done between discussions about the benefits of free migration, past free migration, and so on all suggests you don't want people to be ejected or barred from entry.
     .
     Now that you've explicitly said you would kick people out, then no, you aren't open borders.

     But previously, you would not say you'd kick anyone out nor keep them out and spent time explaining that you'd let people stay and explaining why letting them stay is a good thing: Like it or not, that sounds like open borders because you won't explicitly say some people don't get to come and stay.
     .
     I still don't know whether:
     1) You'd kick someone out who was caught here illegally using EVerify (assuming they have been here less than the decade you decreed somehow making them merit staying.)
     2) You'd fine or in anyway punish an employer for knowingly hired multiple people who fail EVerify.
     3) Request proof of citizenship or legal status at drivers license facilities and refuse drivers licenses if you can't prove it. (Some states are going to become compliant with REAL ID soon. So this might be happening for reasons having nothing to do with immigration policy.)
     4) Kick someone out if you discovered there were here illegally as a result of being in the hospital, having no insurance, no paper work and so on. (Perhaps shield medical staff from HIPAA requirements that might prevent them from reporting someone was here illegally if the staff discover that.)
     .
     I'm guessing some you might do; others no. ( For example. I'm pretty sure I don't medical staff reporting undocumented status even though that could be an effective way of identifying people who aren't here legally. I definitely don't want to force staff to report– I doubt that could be done anyway. )
     .
     SteveF is asking you the same things. Really, you can't expect us to know if you don't say.

321. Hi Lucia

     I describe myself as commie pinko, especially on sites that I know have a large conservative readership, in a light-hearted attempt at pre-empting discussion of my beliefs. I'm actually more of a Bertrand Russell type of socialist, close to the Fabians.

     You're right–I haven't thought much about the circumstances you listed, and I probably would say yes to some, no to some.

322. The issue breaking the back of border enforcement is that the current policy is incitement for chIld abuse.
     .
     Current policy incentivizes child abuse by rewarding adults ( who MIGHT be their parents) who drag small childern across thousands of miles of very dangerous territory in order to get a free pass into the US.

     If you have not fixed this, you have fixed NOTHING of importance.

323. Tom
     *MikeM, I believe what I wrote is fully consistent with the Democratic party platform. It obviously is not how their opponents describe it.*

     The 2018 Dem party platform is here:
     https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/#broken-immigration
     .
     Nothing in the language suggests they would deport people who are here illegally but otherwise committed no crime. Nothing suggests they would increase monitoring at borders. Nothing they say suggests they would expeditiously deport anyone who crossed the border illegally. Nothing suggests they would be for requiring EVerify. Nothing suggests they would fine or charge employers who hired illegal aliens. Nothing suggests they would increase monitoring to find people who overstayed visas. Nothing suggests they would expeditiously deport anyone.
     .
     As far as I can tell, every statement in that platform is entirely consistent with Open Borders. Some might also be consistent with *other* ideas, but that's only because they are utterly ambiguous. For example:
     *And there are real questions about our detention and deportation policies that must be addressed.*

     Not: what the "real questions" are is left entirely for the reader to guess. They also aren't suggesting any answers. So, yes, almost anything could be "consistent" with that statement.

     If some people reading that platform get the impression those who wrote it advocate open borders, that's because the Democrats wrote a platform that is entirely consistent with open borders.

324. But inside the secretive site that is now on the front lines of the southwest border crisis, the men and women who work there were grappling with the stuff of nightmares.

     Outbreaks of scabies, shingles and chickenpox were spreading among the hundreds of children who were being held in cramped cells, agents said. The stench of the children’s dirty clothing was so strong it spread to the agents’ own clothing — people in town would scrunch their noses when they left work. The children cried constantly. One girl seemed likely enough to try to kill herself that the agents made her sleep on a cot in front of them, so they could watch her as they were processing new arrivals.

     “It gets to a point where you start to become a robot,” said a veteran Border Patrol agent who has worked at the Clint station since it was built. He described following orders to take beds away from children to make more space in holding cells, part of a daily routine that he said had become “heartbreaking.”

     The little-known Border Patrol facility at Clint has suddenly become the public face of the chaos on America’s southern border, after immigration lawyers began reporting on the children they saw — some of them as young as 5 months old — and the filthy, overcrowded conditions in which they were being held.

     “I can’t tell you the number of times I would talk to agents and they would get teary-eyed,” said one agent, a veteran of 13 years with Border Patrol who worked at Clint.

     “They said, ‘We were ringing the alarms, we were ringing the alarms, and nobody was listening to us’ — agents told me that,” Ms. González said. “I genuinely believe that the higher-ups made the Clint situation happen.”

     Beyond the pantry, a door leads to the site’s processing center, equipped with about 10 cells. One day this month, about 20 girls were crowded into one cell, so packed that some were sprawled on the floor. Toddlers could be seen in some cells, cared for by older children.

     One of the cells functioned as a quarantine unit or “flu cell” for children with contagious diseases; employees have at times worn medical masks and gloves to protect themselves.

     Three agents who work at Clint said they had seen unaccompanied children as young as 3 enter the facility, and lawyers who recently inspected the site as part of a lawsuit on migrant children’s rights said they saw children as young as 5 months old. An agent who has worked for Border Patrol for 13 years — and who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation — confirmed reports by immigration lawyers that agents have asked migrants who are teenagers to help care for the younger children.

     At least two Border Patrol agents at Clint said they had expressed concern about the conditions in the station to their superiors months ago.

     Last month, the acting head of C.B.P., John Sanders, ordered an internal investigation into the Clint facility. The investigation — which is being conducted by the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility and the department’s inspector general — has examined allegations of misconduct.

     As part of the review, investigators have conducted interviews and watched hours of video footage to see how agents treated detainees. So far, investigators have found little evidence to substantiate allegations of misconduct. But they have found that the facility is several times over capacity and has horrendous conditions.

     Lawyers who visited the Clint station described children in filthy clothes, often lacking diapers and with no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap, prompting people around the country to donate supplies that the Border Patrol turned away.

     One of a team of lawyers who inspected the station in June, Warren Binford, director of the clinical law program at Willamette University in Oregon, said that in all her years of visiting detention and shelter facilities, she had never encountered conditions so bad — 351 children crammed into what she described as a prisonlike environment.

     She looked at the roster, and was shocked to see more than 100 very young children listed. “My God, these are babies, I realized. They are keeping babies here,” she recalled.

     One teenage mother from El Salvador said Border Patrol agents at the border had taken her medicine for her infant son, who had a fever.

     “Did they throw away anything else?” Ms. Binford said she had asked her.

     “Everything,” she replied. “They threw away my baby’s diapers, formula, bottle, baby food and clothes. They threw away everything.”

     Get the kids out of the cages.

325. Lucia, you thought everything I wrote way up above was consistent with open borders. But I don't advocate that.

     You now think everything on the Democratic party platform is consistent with open borders. But they don't advocate that.

326. Tom
     * For most, I would not allow a retroactive plea for asylum. But I would allow exceptions. I think that detaining them for four years (!) while they await the results of their hearing is cruel and also expensive. I would release them until their hearing occurred.*

     I'm not thrilled with the idea of detaining people for 4 years. It's such a waste of life. But…

     Release them where? The country they were located in before they arrived here (usually Mexico). That's been proposed.

     Regardless of where they are released, what conditions would they need to comply with while released? Nothing? Do they need to provide a caseworker their address once a month? With a penalty of no asylum and immediate deportation if they are delinquent? Are they allowed to work? If not and they get caught, do they get deported?

     To borrow a phrase from the Democratic platform, there are "real questions" associated with any proposal to "just release" asylum seekers. The problem is these (perhaps endless) real questions need to be asked and answered.

327. Tom,
     *you thought everything I wrote way up above was consistent with open borders.*
     Yes. And that was YOUR fault for refusing to mention a SINGLE actual policy that would allow the person reading what you said to begin to guess that you would deport anyone. And you did this even while being pressed to explain WHAT about your policy was "not open borders".
     .
     *You now think everything on the Democratic party platform is consistent with open borders. But they don't advocate that.*
     .
     How can you tell they don't advocate that? Real question. If it's "I, Tom, can read minds", then fine. But I, Lucia, can't tell and the text very certainly makes it sound like the "problems" are that people can't just freely immigrate.
     .
     And beyond that, unlike you at least claiming you weren't for "open borders", the DEM platform as written doesn't even claim to not advocate open borders. And sorry, my rule for them is the same as my rule for you: If it *sounds* like open borders and they won't specifically advocate a single policy that contradicts 'open borders' and everything sounds like justification for open borders, I will suspect they intend "open borders".
     .
     I'd also note: their platform was carefully written. It's not just a blog comment. I say: if people read that and think it's advocating "open borders" that's Democrats fault for writing something that sounds like that's what they are advocating.
     .
     If Dems want to clarify and let people know what they are advocating is not "open borders", they should explicitly mention situations in which they would (a) deport people (b) deny people entry. Because if you won't deport anyone or deny anyone entry, then it IS open borders.
     .
     If Democrats refuse to do that, then it's Democrats fault if people think Democrats are advocating open borders.

328. Well, Barack Obama was accused of having open borders and he didn't. Most of the Dem party platform is a continuation of his policy.

     Unless AOC gets magically lifted to the speakership, the uber pragmatic progressive, Nancy Pelosi, will steer the House in Obama's direction.

     It will be a Democratic border policy much like Democratic border policies of the past.

329. And to be honest, for those most passionately in favor of our current president, it really doesn't matter what Democratic policy is on immigration and the border. It will be portrayed as an open border policy regardless.

330. Tom
     *Get the kids out of the cages.*
     I'm all for that.

     Now: send them where? Real question. Consider the teen mother from El Salvador. Do you suggest any of these answers:

     Start the paperwork for her asylum (or whatever) claim and
     * Send her and the baby back to El Salvador?
     * Send her and the baby back to the other side of the US Mexico border?
     * Send her and the baby to Iowa? Have her check in with some sort of handler each month to report her whereabouts with the penalty for not checking in being losing her asylum claim?
     * Send her to your house? (Also have her check in with handler yada yada…)
     * Dump her on the street just outside he detention center with no food, money or work visa? And tell her to report back … whenever?

     If she's somewhere in the US, does she get to work? Or must she beg in the streets (or just eat food in your pantry?)

     No one likes people and kids in cages. But if you are going to "release them" you need to say what that means. Otherwise, it's not a policy.

331. Thomas,
     You now claim
     *Barack Obama was accused of having open borders and he didn't.*

     But before you claimed.
     *President Barack Obama was often referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." *
     Either he was referred to as one or the other….
     FWIW: I don't remember Obama being accused of having an open border policy.

     *Most of the Dem party platform is a continuation of his policy. *
     How can you tell? They don't mention him or his policy in their platform.

332. Tom,
     I'm not in favor of our current President. I didn't vote for him. I don't plan to. I'm not for a wall.
     .
     Reading the Dem platform *I* can't tell it's not advocating open borders. It reads like one. If people think the Dems are advocating open borders, and the Dems want people to think they are AGAINST open borders the Dems have no one to blame but themselves.

     It's not just Trump fans who are going to read the DEM platform and strongly suspect it's a long dogwhisle that says "open borders".

333. Thomas Fuller,
     “Get the kids out of the cages.”
     .
     Please, you are insulting or intelligence. Nobody in the USA is responsible for people arriving undocumented at the border with kids, except those who refuse to eliminate the incentives that bring them to the border with kids (you might consider looking in the mirror). Yes, it is terrible that these people had the misfortune to be citizens of…. how might we say it….. ‘$hithole countries’. Yes we should encourage those countries to institute better, less corrupt government, better economic policies, and prioritize reducing crime. This would improve the lives of *all* of their citizens, not just those we allow to stay in the USA after entering unlawfully. That does not make people in the USA responsible for the terrible circumstances at the border.
     .
     Your argument is fundamentally an emotional one (‘get the kids out of the cages’); a more rational one is: eliminate the incentives that bring those children into the USA unlawfully. Eliminate the incentives for illegal immigration and you are already a long way toward eliminating the problem. Keep the incentives, and many children will suffer, and suffer long before they arrive at the US border.

334. I may have missed it, but I haven't heard the Democrat candidates detail any deportation plan. I didn't listen very closely. People on the left apparently assume this needs not be said, but people on the right are listening rather carefully for that detail.
     .
     OTOH people on the right don't seem to think they need to say that holding cells and detainment centers should be humane and reasonably clean.
     .
     Everyone wants detainment facilities to be clean and violent immigrants to be deported. The right wants the threshold for release to be much higher and the return to country of origin at the border to be much faster. Vague asylum claims without evidence and simply showing up with a child does not meet my threshold for catch and release, although I'm sure producing asylum evidence may not even be possible in many cases.
     .
     There is a prevailing view on the right that the left gives US citizens no priority over illegal immigrants for access to many benefits paid by taxpayers. It would be very helpful for the left to speak those words out loud and clearly.

335. Thomas Fuller,
     “It will be portrayed as an open border policy regardless”
     .
     Once again, please. Mr Obama tried (unsuccessfully) to legalize millions of people in direct violation of the law. He was stopped only by the Judiciary. The legal case is now moot, but the intention was perfectly clear: legalize millions who entered the country illegally, no strings attached. So long as Democrats point to Obama’s policies as what they want to do, they will meet a great deal of resistance. The law is clear, and needs to be enforced. When you suggest the correct policy is to not enforce the law, as did Mr Obama, you are simply saying that illegality is OK.
     .
     If you think the law should be changed, then try to change it. But if changes in the law don’t eliminate incentives for illegal immigration, then high levels of illegal immigration will continue.

336. Tom Fuller, why do you support a beefed up immigration system? I ask because it seems like you support letting in anyone who shows up at a border checkpoint and claims asylum. What need would any potential illegal immigrant have to try and get thru your border security?

     The current system, and one you appear to support in full is,
     someone can cross the border illegally, then when caught they can ask for asylum, they then get to stay for years, with work permits, and when their case is rejected(approx 90% chance), the chance of being deported is about 1% per year.
     The only thing you have suggested you'd change is that you would make it harder for people to cross the border illegally, while making it easier to get in by just asking for asylum at the border.

337. Illegal Immigration policy = Who gets deported under what conditions. The never ending appeals to emotion and self virtue in this conversation mean nothing to me, sorry. I guess I'm just the Mr. Spock of immigration. The signaling in this debate, especially in the media, has prevented a rational conversation from happening.

338. And now for something completely different: The US Women's Soccer Team rules.

339. Tom,
     And evidently they are paid less than the men's soccer team. Supposedly because fewer people watch women's soccer. Except more people have been watching women's soccer for a while. . .

340. Tom
     *Unless AOC gets magically lifted to the speakership, the uber pragmatic progressive, Nancy Pelosi, will steer the House in Obama's direction.*

     Well…. Pelosi hasn't been able to get the House wrangled together.
     https://www.salon.com/2019/07/02/democrats-folded-on-border-bill-now-they-must-demand-to-see-detention-centers/
     https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/07/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-nancy-pelosi-border-funding-bill/index.html

     Money to fund humanitarian aid is being delayed because Dems infighting is delaying it. AOC and Pelosi seem to be having at it. Or at least that's the way "fake news" is reporting it.

341. I wish everything didn't immediately become an identity issue, ha ha. People like watching winners, and no doubt the women are better against their opponents than the US men are. I'm ambivalent about soccer team pay, but it is reasonable to tie it to how much revenue they generate. I read the US / French game and US / England women's games were watched by a lot of people in France and England.
     .
     "When France and the United States played an epic World Cup quarterfinal in front of more than 45,000 in Paris, 51 percent of the televisions in use in the host country were tuned to the game.

     In England, where the sport's domestic governing body outlawed the women's game until 1971, that team's semifinal against the U.S. was the country's most-watched sporting event since the men played in a World Cup semifinal a year ago."
     .
     I find watching women's soccer to be equally entertaining as men's soccer, but it is noted the Men's World Cup final is the most watched sporting event on the planet.

342. Tom,

     The thing is….. last March, the women's team has filed gender discrimination lawsuit against the US Soccer federation over salaries. In the past the defense against complaint is that women's teams don't bring in money. But that hasn't been true for a while. 🙂

     https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/ct-spt-women-soccer-lawsuit-equal-pay-20190308-story.html

343. Tom–
     I think US Soccer federation has probably been justififying the pay difference baesd on the viewership and revenue of the American Men's team vs. American Women's team. Not viewership or revenue of other teams that the US Soccer Federation doesn't pay and whose revenue it doesn't collect. 😉

344. According to the Chicago Tribune article cited above, the players' association negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in 2017: "The players received raises in base pay and bonuses as well as better provisions for travel and accommodations, including increased per diems. It also gave the players some control of certain licensing and marketing rights. Specific details about the deal were not disclosed."

     I imagine that the men's team CBA was available to both parties during negotiations. It's not as if the women's salaries were set unilaterally by the Soccer Federation. I'd expect the women to ask for (and receive!) a big increase due to their successes in the next CBA. Perhaps receive more than the men's team — that shouldn't limit the women's compensation. I don't understand why a judge would set aside a negotiated CBA. (Assuming there was no deception involved.)

345. HaroldW,
     We'll see what happens. I have no idea what either the law on this, nor what all the facts are.
     *I don't understand why a judge would set aside a negotiated CBA. (Assuming there was no deception involved.)*
     As I said, I have no idea what the law is. There appear to be arguments in the offing.

346. From the linked article, the players association is not a party to the lawsuit, just some players. Men's team has a different pay structure with less guarantees, while the women negotiated fixed salaries and more benefits.
     There is a clause in the previous CBA that says if the ratio of compensation to revenues is ever less than the men in a calendar year, then a lump sum payment must be given to compensate. No idea if this is in the current CBA.

     The women player's association lawyer when the current CBA was approved was Jeffrey Kessler, the same guy who nearly cleared Tom Brady of deflation, but fumbled right at the end and dropped his questioning.

347. Yes, we'll see what happens. It's just that the way I saw the issue framed, as "equal pay", makes it sound as though it was the soccer federation's sole decision, made unilaterally (and unfairly). The existence of a CBA changes my view entirely. [It's still possible of course that the federation was unfair, but the players did agree to those terms.]

348. The article says they made a complaint to the EEOC first, and then the EEOC gave them permission to sue. This suggests that the EEOC has some authority to override a CBA.
     It is not reasonable to negotiate a CBA, then have individual members sue for better terms.

     Th revenue disparity between the two World Cups is 50-1. Even for US Soccer, there is a huge incentive to pay men more.
     In 2014 US Soccer got 10.5 million in prize money from the World Cup and nearly made 15.5 million.

     The total prize money for the Women's World Cup is $30 million, and US Soccer got $4 million for the win.

     A 90% chance of 4 million, vs about a 70% chance of 9.5 million, and maybe a 15% chance of another 4 or 8 million.

349. HaroldW
     *I saw the issue framed, as "equal pay", makes it sound as though it was the soccer federation's sole decision, *
     Not necessarily.
     *The existence of a CBA changes my view entirely.*
     It doesn't change my view *entirely* since there can still be…. issues….

350. It seems to me that female soccer players makes less than male soccer players for the same reason that pro soccer players make less than pro basketball players.

351. Mike M.
     I don't watch any of those sports. My husband watched all the woman's games this time around. I was tutoring during the final against the Netherlands.

     So I really have no idea how much money is in any of the sports. I only know the papers are discussing the suit. I can see grasp reasons why the pay difference might be fair or unfair. And then there is the question of what is legal and illegal. These fair and legal aren't always the same thing. (Not all collective barganing agreements are necessarily fair OR legal. If this one turns out not to be that wouldn't be the first one. )

     I'm content to let the lawyers duke it out.

352. Kessler pointed out that mens figure skating gets equal pay despite lower revenues because the people in charge felt it was a matter of fairness.

353. Interesting that the background facts around the issue of compensation for the womens soccer players as revealed here are difficult to find in our everyday media. As HaroldW says it can change your entire view of the situation. My curiosity in this matters is whether making and taking the complaint to the judicial system is in anyway usurping a contractual agreement. When the matter was in the public eye recently my first thought was why are not the women pursuing this complaint through collective bargaining – and maybe even threatening a strike prior to a big tournament.

     Another issue I have with the question of women versus men soccer in the US is how successfully US women's soccer has progressed against the world while the US men's soccer has languished with only intermittent signs of progress and with lots of regression. When soccer became more popular a few years back in US high schools and colleges there was the promising indication that US soccer would soon catch up with the world. If that were a major criteria for pay, the women would need a big pay raise and the men a major cut in pay.

     I think I better understand the nuances of soccer strategies and skills after many years of observing but I suspect I do not have the full appreciation of the time and effort required to develop basic soccer skills and that may be why I do not completely understand what is lacking in US men's soccer. I have noticed that soccer players in general have become physically bigger and faster worldwide and I do not think that would be major factor in US men's soccer success or a lack thereof.

354. Kenneth,
     I'd read about the collective agreement. That didn't change my view one way or the other. It's similar to other contracts including non-compete clauses discussed here. Some contracts contain provisions that are unfair and even illegal. So, it's possible to have a CBA and for the provisions to be unfair and illegal.
     .
     What most articles do leave out is information on revenue, pay and so on. I suspect that's because lots of info would need to be dug up and most sports articles just write about the existence of a suit and otherwise wait for the suit to play out. Info on actual revenue, actual bargaining ploys and so on will come out.
     .
     (I have read the women allege they proposed revenue share so they got more based on how much revenue came in and that was turned down. But I don't know if that's true. )
     .
     *why are not the women pursuing this complaint through collective bargaining – and maybe even threatening a strike prior to a big tournament. *
     .
     Well… obviously, if they strike, there is no revenue. So the claim they don't get paid because there is no revenue becomes true.
     .
     Anyway, people aren't limited to following only one strategy nor the strategy of your choice. It's a class action suit. As with all class action suits, the don't need the whole team or even the union to sign on. A fraction of the players are involved.
     .
     This could fizzle out– the defense that the collective bargaining agreement pre-empts it could work. OR not. I don't know the law.

355. There are 28 players in the suit, so a pretty sizable fraction.

356. I think it's a gender discrimination lawsuit? That would infer they think they are getting paid less just because they are women. Perhaps, perhaps not. Legal discovery will probably enlighten the situation.
     .
     The US men lost to Mexico last night in the "Gold Cup" whatever that is. I doubt many people noticed. The US has lost to Mexico 5/6 times in this final. The level of play for men far exceeds the level of play for the women. Similar to tennis and golf. That doesn't necessarily make it more fun to watch men or more deserving of revenue. Male skaters and gymnasts are stronger and more athletic but not as fun to watch.

357. Personally my "feel" is that the US women deserve to be paid more based on their success and visibility, perhaps that can be through endorsements and other means.

358. Kenneth Fritsch,
     I played soccer in HS back in 1980's in WV, it wasn't even a varsity sport then. The WV All Star Team (I use this term very loosely) went to DC for an international soccer tournament and we were absolutely humiliated in level of play. They were literally laughing at us. The situation in the US has improved a lot in the past decades but the level of play is still far inferior to Europe and South America at every level. The very best players all go play professionally in Europe because that is where the money is, similar to our NBA. The US men winning the World Cup is likely a pipe dream for at least another generation.
     .
     It is an interesting question as to why our women as so good globally. I figure it is that Europe and South America are more sexist in sports.

359. There is no mystery why the U.S. woman's soccer team is so good. It is a big country with lots of money to spend on coaching etc.

     I think there is also no mystery why the men aren't so successful. The three biggest reasons are, in no particular order: football, basketball, and baseball.

360. In US, top women athletes go to soccer, basketball, track & field.
     Top men go to football, basketball, baseball. Even at lower grades, I would see a kid come in for a season who normally plays another sport, and be an all-star in soccer.

361. US viewers tuned into women's World Cup final in record numbers
     https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/media/womens-world-cup-tv-ratings/index.html
     .
     "Last year's men's World Cup final between France and Croatia averaged an 8.3 household rating, which means the US women drew a 20 percent bigger audience in the states."

362. That is an agenda-driven detail by CNN, comparing US audience to a men's final that doesn't have the US.

     Why not point out that the US women drew a 25% smaller audience than the US men in 2014 in their round of 16 match against Belgium?

363. 538 on the EEOC complaint three years ago:
     https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-earn-the-glory-while-men-earn-the-money-in-u-s-soccer/
     US soccer is paying for the NWSL club salaries as well as giving salaries for being on the national team. For men, the clubs pay the salaries, and the clubs are compensated for taking their players on the national team, while players are given bonuses for matches played and won.

364. "Well… obviously, if they strike, there is no revenue. So the claim they don't get paid because there is no revenue becomes true."

     Lucia, I was thinking along these lines. The idea is that you strike or threaten a strike and hopefully the entity against whom you strike relents. In the case of US women's soccer I think the entity would have given in and even before they became world champs. With a bargaining contract a threat of a strike would have to work. I think I recall a strike otherwise would be considered a wildcat strike.

     I was thinking along the lines of the Mikes on the reason US men's soccer is not world class – too many distractions from other better paying and more popular sports. Excelling US soccer players do, however, have an option of making big money playing in European soccer leagues – as do I think US women soccer players have a similar option.

     I went to a very small rural high school many years ago and we did not have soccer. As I recall it was about 10 years after I graduated that our former coach had a dinner for some of the schools former athletes and their wives. As it turns out the unannounced purpose was to ask us for donations for soccer equipment and a soccer field. He put together a soccer program even before schools that had much larger enrollments were that much interested and involved. For many years my old school (actually a school with which my former school consolidated and was still tiny) was winning soccer games against some of the bigger schools in the state.

365. I may have erred in comparing audiences above. Wikipedia says 1 rating point is 1.2 million households in 2018, while the numbers for Portugal and Belgium were total viewers of 18 and 16 million. One article lists Belgium as a 9.8 rating, peaking at 14.1, while another site had the more watched Portugal game as a 9.6, peaking at 11.9. Both matches had additional millions of viewers on a Univision simulcast.

366. In 2014, team members got 60% of the prize money awarded to US Soccer, while the women's team got 85%. This was reported as discriminating against the women, since the dollar figure was much higher for the men, who were four wins short of the championship.

367. MikeN,
     The Wall Street Journal had an article indicating FIFA is planning to increase the prize money for women's games. What FIFA pays is not under US Soccer control. It's evidently hard to weigh "value" of things like tv rights because the sale of both women's and men's soccer are bundled. But viewership is accessible, and evidently if the prize money was based on an "as viewer" basis, and that was equalized the women's prize money would almost triple.

     Not sure what US Soccer can do about this. But evidently, FIFA does plan to raise prizes for the women's games. I suspect the US women making the pay disparity visible may be embarrassing FIFA even though FIFA is not the entity being sued.

368. I have not completely got my head around the difference between professional team play and playing on a national team, but I would think that professional players salaries for both women and men would be based on attracting paying audiences and TV contracts. I am supposing also that claims of gender discrimination with regards to pay would be more difficult to pose where a free market is essentially determining pay. I would also suspect that the pay for professional men players in Europe is much higher than it is in the US and for the same reasons. The elite players in any venue are probably going to earn much more than the average player in that venue through endorsements and particularly if they have a pleasing personality (to the public anyway) and are good looking.

     For the US national soccer teams it is key to separate two spheres: regular season, where base pay is determined by U.S. Soccer, and World Cup years, in which payouts come from FIFA.
     https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-critics-get-wrong-about-the-us-womens-soccer-pay-debate-153139503.html

     "But the women’s team has actually generated more revenue than the men’s since the 2015 USWNT’s World Cup win sparked a new level of American interest in the women’s game. According to financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, USWNT games generated more total revenue than the USMNT games from 2016 through 2018: $50.8 million in revenue vs. $49.9 million for the men."

     It would appear to me that the US women and men's teams compensation is not influenced by the free market but by these entities known as FIFA and the US Soccer Federation. Based on the revenue generated under the auspices of the US Soccer Federation one would think that there should be at least equal pay for men and women in the Federation. It might be interesting to determine how national team play and pay in the Olympics is handled for US women and men's basketball and hockey.

369. Kenneth,
     *where a free market is essentially determining pay.*
     The claim is it's NOT essentially determining the pay. Also, the market isn't quite free. For example: FIFA bundles tv rights. So there is no way to know how much a station would pay to air women's games and how much to air men's games. The station buys both together– they can't buy one and not the other.

     That's where the guesstimate of value of TV rights based on viewership comes in– if you go by viewership, FIFA prize money for women is very low compared to men. Maybe viewrship isn't a good measure, but it's the one that's available to people trying to gauge what the "free market" might pay. US Soccer obviously does one thing, FIFA another. Evidently FIFA is going to raise women's prize money.

370. Lucia, I think we agree that the market is not determining pay for US men and women's national teams and I say that is the problem where we run into gender discrimination. We no longer have the sharp divide of professional versus amateur sports such as once existed for participation in the Olympics. We have some less popular sports like soccer where you cannot recruit from the professional leagues to represent US teams in international tournaments without some major financial support from elsewhere. The players have to be paid on a regular basis in between international matches and thus we have these non profit entities running the show. I think without any market input that may be why the women players went the route of equal opportunity employment.

     I have heard from some observers that the women's case on gender discrimination will be settled out of court to the satisfaction of the women players. I have no problem with that development, but I would if it were a case where a judge was ignoring market considerations in favor of some uber equality consideration (I do not do umlauts).

371. Lucia, I would be shocked if FIFA tripled prize money. They already doubled the winner's take from 2 million to 4 million. They gave out 30 million to all teams on 131 million revenue. Not much room left.
     Mens was 400 million on 6 billion revenue, going up by 10 percent for Qatar World Cup.

     Kenneth, payouts do not come from FIFA in World Cup years. The prize money goes to US Soccer, which can distribute how it sees fit. They gave the men 60% of the 2014 prize money and the women 85% of the 2015 prize.

372. There is precedent for this. Women tennis players got the slams to equalize the payouts with a publicity campaign despite the higher popularity of men's tour. Wimbledon held out for awhile, but now they are equal. French Open gives a small bonus to the men.

373. MikeN,
     I don't know how much they are raising it. But doubling or tripling womens isn't like doubling or tripling men's. The article did not say they were contemplating raising prizes for men's. 🙂

374. Here's a July 8 article

     https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-popular-womens-world-cup-raises-pressure-for-more-prize-money-11562597081

     *Such success has immediately raised a difficult question for FIFA: With record-setting TV ratings around the world, and a four-time U.S. champion whose players have made an issue of pay equity, how much should the prize money paid to women’s teams be increased?

     Infantino has already proposed doubling the prize money for the 2023 tournament, to $60 million from the $30 million to be paid this year. Any increase would have to be approved by FIFA’s council. *

     Here's the bit discussing the estimated prize for women's IF the prize money was based on the factor known to outsiders: television viewership:

     *But FIFA bundles the sale of the rights to the men’s and Women’s World Cups, making it difficult to discern the value of each tournament. The men’s World Cup is 61 years older, more popular and has a much larger reach.

     The 2018 men’s World Cup drew a global audience of nearly 3.6 billion. The women’s tournament drew an estimated 1 billion, up 25% from 2015.

     One way to gauge prize money could be TV viewership. If one divides total prize money by global viewership, the 2018 men’s World Cup’s prize money came out to about 11 cents per viewer.

     If FIFA paid the same rate in this women’s tournament, this year’s prize money would have been nearly $112 million rather than the $30 million actually awarded.*

     Sure… maybe FIFA *won't* triple the prize. In fact, probably they won't. But you can see that IF it was based on tv viewership, nearly tripling the prize for women would be "equitable".

     (FIFA says viewership is misleading. Perhaps. But the other factors aren't easily accessible to outsiders. So this is the SWAG.)

     Anyway, it sounds like they are *proposing* doubling. But the WSJ has an argument for why nearly *tripling* would seem "fair" (on a particular basis.)

375. FIFA is one of the most corrupt organizations out there, right up there with the Olympic Committee.
     https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32897066
     .
     They won't weather this storm lightly if they don't concede, and it costs almost nothing to them to do so. Which men in soccer are going to stand up and complain about a reallocation in the MeToo era?
     .
     I think they will fold, and quickly.

376. Does anybody care, or even know anyone who does care about the census citizenship question? I cannot understand why this is even in the news constantly.

377. Tom,
     If the question were present, and answered honestly by everyone, we would know how many non-citizens are in the country — and since the number of legal aliens should be known, we should have a better idea how many illegal aliens are in the country. We don't know that know, and it is information of public interest. Some politicians don't want to know.
     .
     The bigger factor is that at some unknown rate, illegal aliens avoid being enumerated, and the fear on the left is that the presence of the citizenship question will cause more illegals to avoid being enumerated. If all avoided it, that would cause congressional seats and electoral votes to shift away from states with high illegal populations. That gives both parties a reason to care, and care deeply.
     .
     It would matter far less if representation were based on citizens; pity that wasn't done when slavery was ended.

378. MikeN (Comment #175509)

     "Kenneth, payouts do not come from FIFA in World Cup years. The prize money goes to US Soccer, which can distribute how it sees fit. They gave the men 60% of the 2014 prize money and the women 85% of the 2015 prize."

     MikeN, what am I missing here?

     https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-critics-get-wrong-about-the-us-womens-soccer-pay-debate-153139503.html

     "And then there’s FIFA. In the discussion over soccer pay, it is key to distinguish between two separate spheres: regular season, where base pay is determined by U.S. Soccer, and World Cup years, in which payouts come from FIFA."

379. Tom Scharf (Comment #175514): "Does anybody care, or even know anyone who does care about the census citizenship question?"

     I agree with the comments by Dale S (Comment #175515). It has never been controversial in the past and should not be controversial now.

380. Tom
     * I cannot understand why this is even in the news constantly.*
     Lots of people care. Among others: Trump cares. Those who are filing to keep it off care. It's been in the news because there are repeated court cases. It will continue to be in the news until either (a) the courts make an absolutely final proclamation, (b) one or the other side gives up or (c) the clock really truly runs out. (b) is not going to happen.

381. DaleS,
     One big issues is that — like it or not– accurate enumeration IS the stated reason for the census. We are supposed to count everyone. So even if we all agree that it's important to know how many aliens (illegal or otherwise) are in the country, if using the census for that purpose results in inaccurate enumeration, that's a *big* problem in terms of *violating the US constitution*.

     I do realize that what people may want seems to be more flavored by their views on immigration, which side it will favor on balloting etc. But there actually is a constitutional issue here. IF adding a question to the census leads to an inaccurate count, we've got a problem with violating the US constitution.

382. Kenneth,
     Thanks for the link.

     https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-critics-get-wrong-about-the-us-womens-soccer-pay-debate-153139503.html

     I think another important quote:

     *The women’s team now generates more revenue

     Since the debate first started, which was long before the lawsuit, critics have retorted that the women should not be paid the same as the men because the women generate less revenue. In a May court filing, U.S. Soccer used that argument, saying that the pay disparity is "based on differences in aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than sex."

     But the women’s team has actually generated more revenue than the men’s since the 2015 USWNT’s World Cup win sparked a new level of American interest in the women’s game. According to financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, USWNT games generated more total revenue than the USMNT games from 2016 through 2018: $50.8 million in revenue vs. $49.9 million for the men.*

     So: ON the US end– which is the bit relevant to what US Soccer pays, the women's teams generate MORE income, not less.
     Lots of people want to point out that for WORLD sports, women make less. But that's not the issue relevant to this suit.

     (There is a *related* issue which is are women underpaid by the WORLD organizations relative to revenue that comes in. But relative to US Soccer, women now bring in MORE money but are paid LESS.

383. lucia (Comment #175519): "One big issues is that — like it or not– accurate enumeration IS the stated reason for the census. We are supposed to count everyone."

     I don't think we are supposed to count everyone. For instance, we don't count people who are here on tourist visas. And we don't count all the people who live in any given state, only the ones who make that state their primary residence. Or am I mistaken?

384. Lucia (#175519),
     I fully agree that it's a constitutional issue. That's why I wish that civil-war era politicians writing the 14th amendment had the foresight to switch to a constitutional basis of citizens rather than persons, back when they were amending the constitution to give citizenship to former slaves. I think it is more sensible for the proportions to be based on citizenship, and would support such a constitutional amendment. The writers of the 14th *did* retain the exclusion of "Indians not taxed" from proportional representation, so they were certainly willing to exclude inhabitants they didn't think should count. I see no chance of it being proposed and passed, though.
     .
     At the time that the constitution was created, I don't think the Northern states would have had a problem basing representation on citizenship — that would have shifted political power North. For the same reasons, the slave-holding South favored counting non-citizens fully, with the 3/5th count for non-free persons as a compromise. AFAIK, the exclusion of "Indians not taxed" was not controversial. (It makes me wonder, though — what proportion of illegal aliens are in fact untaxed Indians? Depending on the definition of Indian, this could be a trivial percentage or a significant percentage of central Americans or Mexicans). Through 1924 (when we did away with non-citizen Indians), our country consciously failed to represent a class of people physically present in our borders.
     .
     The census takers didn't bother enumerating Indians not taxed through much of this period, though by 1900 they were enumerating reservations as well. Even if the constitution based proportional representation on citizens, I would still want the census to enumerate all non-citizens, legal or illegal. It's useful information to have.

385. MikeM
     *I don't think we are supposed to count everyone. *
     We pretty much count everyone who lives here as much as possible.

     Wikipedia: Decennial U.S. Census figures are based on actual counts of persons dwelling in U.S. residential structures.

     So: people who are "dwelling" here. That would not count people who are sitting in a chair in the airport. So for example, foreign exchange students living in the dorms get counted. People working here living in an apartment and so on.

     The count is on a specific day. Wikipedia (According to the Census Bureau, “Census Day” has been April 1 since 1930.)

     *And we don't count all the people who live in any given state, only the ones who make that state their primary residence. Or am I mistaken?*
     We count where they live on "Census Day". You do get to counted if you "usually" live in a house or apartment but had to be in a hotel that particular evening. (Which I assume means tourists in hotels don't get counted because they "usually" live somewhere else.) But I suppose the person reporting to the Census gets some latitude in reporting where they "usually" live on April 1.

     There are special provisions for counting homeless people but the intention is to count them.

     We don't count people twice. That doesn't mean we don't count them.

     This is the relevant bit in the constitution

     "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. "

     Since slavery has been abolished, we need to count the Whole Number of Free Persons (excluding Indians not taxed.)

     Whether here legally or not, illegal aliens are "persons" and they are "whole". They are not "indians". The constitution mandates they be counted.

386. DaleS
     *The census takers didn't bother enumerating Indians not taxed through much of this period, though by 1900 they were enumerating reservations as well.*
     Uhnmm….that's ok. Because the constitution excluded them from the count.
     *they were certainly willing to exclude inhabitants they didn't think should count*
     Sure. But like it or not, they did NOT exclude "illegal aliens".

     *hat proportion of illegal aliens are in fact untaxed Indians? Depending on the definition of Indian, this could be a trivial percentage or a significant percentage of central Americans or Mexicans*
     Uhmm…. no. They are subject to tax. If they evade it they can be charged.

     *I would still want the census to enumerate all non-citizens, legal or illegal. It's useful information to have.*
     Yes. But the point is, IF a question prevents an accurate count, that's a constitutional problem Failing to get *other* "useful" information is not a constitutional problem.

     Or if there is a *constitutional* problem, you need to advance an argument that it is a *constitutional* issue and say how. Because the census requires the government to count all whole persons.

387. lucia (Comment #175523): "Whether here legally or not, illegal aliens are "persons" … The constitution mandates they be counted."

     Tourists are persons. So why are they not counted? I would guess because their stay here is temporary. So if a tourist overstays his visa, at what point should be be counted? I don't think that is an easy question to answer.

388. lucia (Comment #175523): "We count where they live on "Census Day"."

     That would apply to someone who moves during the year, but is not generally true. They count people "where they live and sleep most of the time", with some exceptions such as military personnel and, new in 2020, merchant sailors (previously, they were not counted). So if you normally live in Illinois, but happen to be at your vacation home in Florida on April 1, you are to be counted in Illinois. But those are administrative rules not specified in the Constitution.
     https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/director/2016/06/asking-for-input-on-counting-people-in-the-right-place-in-2020.html

389. MikeM
     *Tourists are persons. So why are they not counted?*
     They don't "dwell" here.

     * So if you normally live in Illinois, but happen to be at your vacation home in Florida on April 1, you are to be counted in Illinois.*
     I'm pretty sure the papers ask you were you "lived" on April 1. The don't ask you where you slept the night of April 1.

     If you read the census papers that you receive and you interpret yourself as "living" in Illinois even though you were at your vacation home on April, 1, you get counted as in Illinois. If you think of yourself as "living" in Florida around that time, you say you were living in Florida at that time.

     The Census worker isn't going to gainsay you. But it's not quite the same as taxes (where a state WILL gainsay you if they think your "primary" residence doesn't match your real one and you are evading taxes. New York hunts people down.)

     I wasn't counted in 1980 when I was an exchange student in France. But we do our darndest to count everyone who lives in the US.

390. lucia (Comment #175528): "They don't "dwell" here."

     Yes, but that misses the point. The point is that the count is not as simple as "everyone". Some people who are in the country on census day are counted, others are not. "Dwell here" is not in the Constitution. Some people who don't dwell in the U.S. are counted, most are not. That is decided by administrative rules which change from census to census. There are all sorts of gray areas. If a person comes here on a tourist visa and gets an apartment intending to overstay his visa, should he be counted?

     So there is a need for rules and the rules are not entirely obvious. There is room for interpretation. And past interpretations need not govern future interpretations.

     ——-
     Addition: So it seems reasonable (to me, at least) that the census bureau or Congress might replace "habitual residence" with "domicile" for counting people in the census.

391. Lucia,
     “New York hunts people down.”
     .
     No surprise there…. it is after all, a ‘liberal’ state. They pursued me over a parking violation (not legitimate!) for 8 years. Lyndon Johnson, no right wing fanatic, noted: “A liberal is intolerant of other views. He wants to control your thoughts and actions. The difference between Liberals and cannibals is that cannibals eat only their enemies." It is a frighteningly accurate observation of the left by one of its own, and as accurate (and frightening!) when Johnson said it as it is today in the age of intolerant leftists like Ms Occasional Cortex.

392. Does anyone know why Indians were excluded from early censuses? I read that censuses didn't count them until 1860 and on but I haven't uncovered a discussion of why as yet. Why were they originally excluded and why did this change, what was the reasoning?

393. From what I read of the 1880 census directions the question had to do with apportionment of Representatives (https://nativeheritageproject.com/2013/05/14/indians-and-the-census-1790-2010/)
     Was this because Indians were not considered to be citizens in some sense? Real question. I haven't found out one way or the other yet.
     [Edit: in 1860, the directions said stuff like this: "The families of Indians who have renounced tribal rule, and who under State or Territorial laws exercise the rights of citizens, are to be enumerated. "]

394. MikeM
     *Yes, but that misses the point. The point is that the count is not as simple as "everyone". *
     Sure. I left out "dwell". It's as simple as everyone who dwells here.
     *There are all sorts of gray areas.*
     Yeah, but legal vs. illegal is not a "gray area". Not even Trump who wants the question claims they are not to be counted. If they were not to be counted, they wouldn't BE counted. It wouldn't be a debate about whether the question discourages them from being counted.

     * If a person comes here on a tourist visa and gets an apartment intending to overstay his visa, should he be counted? *
     If he's living here on Census day, yes.

     *Addition: So it seems reasonable (to me, at least) that the census bureau or Congress might replace "habitual residence" with "domicile" for counting people in the census.*
     Well… neither term was used 2010. The form is here:
     https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/operations_admin/Questions_Planned_for_the_2010_Census_and_American_Community_Survey.pdf

     The wording is written to avoid debate about what "habitual residence" or "domicile" means:

     Q1 was
     *1.How many people were living or staying in this house,apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010? *

     Q2
     *2.Were there any additional people staying here April 1,2010 that you did not include in Question 1?*

     10
     Please provide information for each person living here. Start with aperson living here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobilehome. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1.

     10.Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?

     So: they want to to known everyone "staying" in a residence and also get information to avoid counting someone twice. So, someone merely "staying" some place would appear to be counted.

395. To answer the question I raised, it appeared to have a lot to do with citizenship. Lots of Indians weren't citizens back then. There's a detailed discussion here:
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

396. SteveF,
     New York evidently has a fair number of wealthy people who want to own a place in Manhattan and then another place elsewhere. Then, they want to CLAIM their "habitual residence" is elsewhere. Needless to say, the claimed habitual residence often has lower state income taxes. 🙂

     Evidently New York monitors things like: where their family doctor or dentist is. How often they are eating out in restaurants in NY. Where they are buying groceries. I don't know whether NY can get a hold of their credit card records, but it would actually probably be pretty easy to show a pattern of someone actually living where they really live if the tax man can get those. (I charge my groceries, and have things delivered to this house. So all those bills would show me living in Illinois, which is where I claim I live!)

397. mark bofill
     *Was this because Indians were not considered to be citizens in some sense?*
     They weren't considered citizens in 1789 when the constitution was ratified. They were pretty much considered "other nations" and almost certainly considered themselves such. Indians fought on various sides during the French and Indian wars. They continued to live outside our government framework for quite a long time. We had a number of Indian Wars. I'd bet Sitting Bull did not consider himself a US citizen.

     Little by little the amount of Indian territory that was not US (or Canada, Mexico and so on) got very small and penned in surrounded. So, things changed.

398. Thanks lucia. Good example; I'd forgotten about Sitting Bull and Custer.

399. Mike M,
     No… it's really as simple as who *dwells in the US*. YOu can read more here: https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/resid_rules/resid_rules.html

     You brought up people in the military. Notice those OUTSIDE THE US are counted as "overseas" and so NOT IN THE US. The get counted at their ships *home port*.– which is where the ship is habitually docked. If that port is in the US, they are part of the count. If not, they are counted as OUTSIDE THE US. That doesn't count toward getting representation.

     So yes: it's as simple as "dwells here". The questions are structured to identify who dwells here and where they dwell.

     ————–

     U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL

     U.S. military personnel living in military barracks in the U.S. – Counted at the military barracks.

     U.S. military personnel living in the U.S. (living either on base or off base) but not in barracks – Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

     U.S. military personnel on U.S. military vessels with a U.S. homeport – Counted at the onshore U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they have no onshore U.S. residence, they are counted at their vessel’s homeport.

     People in military disciplinary barracks and jails in the U.S. – Counted at the facility.

     People in military treatment facilities with assigned active duty patients in the U.S. – Counted at the facility if they are assigned there.

     U.S. military personnel living on or off a military installation outside the U.S., including dependents living with them – Counted as part of the U.S. overseas population. They should not be included on any U.S. census questionnaire.

     U.S. military personnel on U.S. military vessels with a homeport outside the U.S. – Counted as part of the U.S. overseas population. They should not be included on any U.S. census questionnaire.

400. lucia (Comment #175538): "it's really as simple as who *dwells in the US*."

     Even if the administrative rules are as simple as that; it tells us nothing about what rules would be constitutional.

     lucia: "Notice those OUTSIDE THE US are counted as "overseas" and so NOT IN THE US."

     No, they were not counted as in the U.S. 2010. They *will* be counted as in the U.S in 2020. I posted the link above. The question of what rules would be constitutional is not simple.

401. Kenneth, when they say a prize to a team, the prize is really going to the country's soccer federation.
     In 2014, mens' team prize of 9 million went to US soccer, and they split 5.4 million of this the players. In 2015 womens' team prize of 2 million wen to US soccer, and they gave 1.7 million to the players.

402. Lucia, perhaps it is bad accounting with the split rights fees, but my point is it is very hard to triple prizes to 90 million when total revenues is just 131 million. Perhaps revenues have jumped by a large amount to cover the tripling, but I haven't seen that number.

403. MikeM,
     The ones sailing between foreign and foreign are still outside the US. They haven't changed that for obvious reasons. Those people obviously dwell outside the US.

     The only one that changed is the ones going between the US and elsewhere not US. But this has nothing to do with the fundamental principle which IS as simple as figuring out *where they dwell*. In a few cases, (this one) it is difficult to figure out (or decide) where they dwell.

     But who is counted is based on a simple principle: *where they dwell.
     That in a few instances it is hard to figure out where they dwell does not change the PRINCIPLE, which is, itself, simple.

     MikeM
     * The question of what rules would be constitutional is not simple.*
     The principle underlyng the rules IS simple. It's where a person dwells.

     Occasionally– when we are looking at people who move– it is difficult to figure out whether, in a particular instance, a person dwells. So, a few border rules can be a bit difficult to gauge in the instance of people who move around a lot.

     This is not the case for most illegal aliens who are living in apartments, houses and so on. Applying the principle to them is easy peasy. The fact that a person who dwells on a movable ship that goes from American port to foreign ones is a difficult question to answer based on the SIMPLE AS HECK principle, does not make the one about the illegal alien difficult. Given the principle, there is NO rule that would allow not counting the illegal alien.

404. MikeN
     *but my point is it is very hard to triple prizes to 90 million when total revenues is just 131 million*
     It might not be hard. 90 million is less than 131 million. FIFA is not-for profit. So it depends what FIFA's expenses are. They don't build facilities; they don't staff the stadiums and so on.

     Also, how do you know total revenues for women's bit are 131 million?

405. WRT to this:
     *Also, how do you know total revenues for women's bit are 131 million?*
     I found detailed revenues through 2018 and expected revenue through 2020 here, with no breakout for mens vs. womens. (Oddly, no revenue for 2019!)

     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf

406. Lucia, the $131 revenue estimate apparently was a budget estimate in 2017.

     See page 40 of

     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2017.pdf?cloudid=pinrmrodexmnqoettgqw

407. Ok… but if I understand that table correctly, 131 is NOT the revenue.

     The table heading says "TOTAL REVENUE AND INVESTMENT BUDGET FOR 2019 (USD MILLION)". The $131 is under INVESTMENTS, not revenue. Right? If so, the $131 million has nothing to do with "revenue".

     Revenue is above that table, has 4 entries that total to 772 million. Revenue from men's and women's are not listed separately. So we can't tell how much revenue comes from women's. (That would be consistent with other stories that say the tv and marketing rights are bundled. That means there is no way to separate the two. That's what motivated the WSJ writer to estimate parity by *viewership* instead of by how much revenue was generated by the women's vs. men's sports.)

408. Lucia, on page 35, the budget for 2019-2022, the $131 mil for the Women’s World Cup is listed as revenue estimate. Not sure why it became an investment in the 2019 budget on page 40

409. Lucia (#175525),
     Yes, I'm well aware the framers of the 14th amendment did not exclude illegal aliens. At the time of the 14th amendment, there was no such thing in the country. I can speculate that *if* illegal aliens were a thing back then, and in sufficient numbers to affect apportionment it would have been considered–but that wasn't the case. The framers of the 14th were concerned enough about defranchisement to make sure that *it* affected apportionment, if indulged in — and not only that, disfranchised citizens (except for rebellion or other crimes) reduced apportionment as a proportion of potential voters (male citizens at least 21) rather than just by not counting.
     .
     It wasn't an issue then — it is an issue now. When congressional seats are allocated now, some citizens have more sway than others simply because of the number of non-citizens in their state or district. This link claims based on the 2000 census (which asked the citizenship question on the long form) showed a movement of nine seats, six of which went to California:
     https://cis.org/Testimony/Impact-NonCitizens-Congressional-Apportionment
     Within the states the aliens are concentrated in certain areas; while the nine states that lost seats needed ~100,000 votes to win a congressional district, in California the average was 68,000 and two high-concentration districts mentioned were under 35,000.
     .
     Changing to base representation on citizens would require amending the constitution, and I would support that (though practically speaking, I don't think it's possible in the current environment). The constitution says what it says, and that's what it means, at least to one wing of the supreme court. However, I don't think there's any evidence that the framers of the 14th *considered* the possibility of having a class of people who, like untaxed Indians of the 19th century, owed no allegience to the country and in fact were violating the country's own laws to be present. The closest anologues to the illegal aliens in the 19th century environment were excluded from apportionment.
     .
     This doesn't necessarily mean that if they had foreseen the issue the 19th century framers would've done something about it. While they didn't have illegal aliens, they had plenty of not-yet naturalized immigrants, and basing apportionment on citizenship might well have changed political power back then, too. If those changes went against Republicans (no idea if this is true) they would have a very good political reason to not do it. I haven't seen any evidence that the idea was ever brought up, though.
     .
     The constitution does require an "actual enumeration". And people are required by law to fill out the census. However, I don't think *anyone* believes that any past census has actually managed to count absolutely everyone, and *every* question asked on the census has the potential to dissaude a potential respondent from responding. Adding a question *for the purpose* of reducing respondents may well be unconstitutional, but if just reduction by itself were unconstitutional then the long form itself was unconstitutional. I'm unaware of any rulings on that basis. I did find some interesting information here about effect, though:
     https://www.nap.edu/read/4805/chapter/8#122
     .
     In 1990, the census sent 1/6th of the households long forms, which included many more questions (including one about citizenship). Mail-in response was 74.1%, for the short-form alone was 74.9% (which gives a long-form mail-in rate of 70.1%, if I'm doing my math correctly). In 1980 the rates were 81.6% for the short form and 80.1% for the long form. If they aren't returned they are manually followed up, but coverage is poorer. A post-survey coverage estimate of in-household mismatches (1990) was 11.8% for enumerators compared to 1.9% for mail-in. (For long-form specifically it was 11.4% and 1.8%, for an overall mismatch rate of 4.4% long form compared to 4.2% short form. Note this isn't an undercount rate as it also includes errors of duplication, and does not cover cases where the address itself was never queried by the census). Even if we take the highly-unlikely view that the lower response rate on the long form was *entirely* driven by the citizenship question, rather than the bother, the difference is insignificant.
     .
     Indeed, it occurs to me that the pushback against the citizenship question may be counterproductive for Democrats. Illegals are *already* claimed to be seriously under-responding to the census, even in 2010 with no long form and no citizenship question anywhere. Census answers are protected by law from being used for enforcement purposes and don't pose any *actual* threat to illegals, but evidently they don't believe that. The high-octane rhetoric against the citizenship question is going to make illegals think Trump has every intention of using the census against them, and may severely affect illegal cooperation whether there is a citizenship question or not. (Though it would be amusing to see Democrats begging illegals to cooperate with the census despite having the monstrously evil citizenship question.)

410. Notice: Revenue – "investments" = "results before taxes"
     > 1226-722
     [1] 504
     So, the 4 items in the top line are "revenues". All the ones in the lower table (including the 131) are "investments" (which are actually expenses).
     How they operate with revenues less than expenses… dunno. But that's what the table lists.

411. The issue is(?): If an illegal alien gets a census questionnaire with a citizenship question on it they will be less likely to return it.
     .
     Perhaps, but I would guess that anyone who feels that way wouldn't be returning the questionnaire anyway. The question is how many people who would have normally returned the questionnaire would now not return it with this question on it?
     .
     This question can't be answered unfortunately, but it seems to me that this number is very unlikely to make any material difference to anything the census is used for, that is why I think this issue is overblown in the extreme.
     .
     Maybe I am not understanding this. Is this a paranoia thing like gun owners have that the guvment will come for their guns if they have to register them?

412. Mark Bofill,
     If you recall the discussion we had some months about Elk vs Wilkins, I was able to find Elk in the contemporary census. As an Indian who had renounced his tribal affiliation he was unquestionably no longer an "Indian not taxed" and would count towards apportionment. However, it wasn't sufficient for him to get birthright citizenship from the Supremes, who reasoned that just because he had renounced his original citizenship didn't mean that Nebraska/USA had to take him.
     .
     Elk himself seems to have been born on reservation in Minnesota, and would have been an Indian not taxed there. His wife was a Winnebago from Wisconsin, those were non-reservation Indians who had evaded forced relocation, but off-reservation Indians who were still considered to owe tribal allegience were also considered Indians not taxed and would not count towards apportionment.

413. It is noted that the evil military pandering self serving jingoistic too expensive July 4th parade gave Fox its highest ratings ever for July 4th. A few days later Trump hit his highest approval rating of his presidency in an ABC/WP poll. Trump's intuition once again bests elite group think. He announced another parade next year, ha ha.
     .
     I cannot for the life of me figure out why the inclusive left disavows patriotism.

414. Thanks Dale.

415. Dale S
     *Lucia, on page 35, the budget for 2019-2022, the $131 mil for the Women’s World Cup is listed as revenue estimate. Not sure why it became an investment in the 2019 budget on page 40*
     Nope. Seems to match investment on that table too.

     The name of the table is
     TOTAL REVENUE AND INVESTMENT BUDGET FOR THE 2019-2022 CYCLE (USD MILLION)

     The way the numbers add, the top line only looks like "revenue". Everything else is investment.

     Note: If we look at each of those sub numbers as "investment" they sum to "total investment".
     > 2756+2321+127+969+287
     [1] 6460

     Then the bottom line is the difference between investiment and revenue.
     > 6560-6460
     [1] 100

     So: it looks like the 131 is an "investment" (i.e. expenditure) in both tables. It is never shown as "revenue".
     If we knew revenue would could compare the prize money to the revenue. But it would seem the prize money is one of the components of the "investment". If the prize money was trippled from 30 million to 60 million the "investment" would increase to 191 million. But that tells us nothing about how it compares to revenue.

416. Tom
     *The issue is(?): If an illegal alien gets a census questionnaire with a citizenship question on it they will be less likely to return it.*
     Yes. That's a claim. Courts aren't required to accept claims merely because they are made.

     *Maybe I am not understanding this. Is this a paranoia thing like gun owners have that the guvment will come for their guns if they have to register them?*
     Might be.

     .
     Dale S
     *but off-reservation Indians who were still considered to owe tribal allegience *
     Look, what the right answer might be for some American Indian who might have some affiliation to some existing American Indian tribe does not matter relative to illegal aliens from Latin America.

     Descendents of Mayas, Azteks, Incas and other miscellaneous tribes that once existed in central and south america don't own tribal allegiance to the Maya, Inca, Aztek or any Indian tribes. All those are disbanded and have been for a long time. Some of this is related to the fact that the Spanish in Central America and the Caribbean treated the local Indians *even worse* than the North Americans did. (Much of that was due to opportunity to be able to mistreat more than any sort of benevolence. But still.. happened.)

     These clearly don't own tribal allegiance to some Indian tribe, and don't think they own any allegiance to any Indian tribe. No one who wanted to allege they own allegiance to an indian tribe could figure out what tribe they own allegiance to in order to support the claim. The tribes they *might* have owed allegiance to no longer exist. French people don't owe allegiance to ancient Gaul, Italians don't owe allegiance to ancient Rome. Tunisians don't owe allegiance to Carthage. And descendants of American Indians in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and so on don't owe allegiance to any Indian tribe.

     Like it or not, these people are NOT "Indian's not taxed".

417. The link below gives a decent history of the evolving census questions. I personally have never made an special effort to provide accurate information other than head count for the census.

     https://mises.org/wire/problem-census

     "This is unfortunate. After all, if the left is concerned about both the integrity of the total resident count — and the possibility of using citizenship information for anti-immigrant purposes — the solution is simple: abolish most of the census questions in favor of getting as accurate count as possible of the total number of residents. Given that the constitutional mandate makes no mention of counting only citizens, this would make perfect sense.
     The left, of course, finds this solution unacceptable because the census exists for so much more than getting an accurate count of residents. Nowadays, it's there to help plan and justify the welfare state. It's there to argue for more free-lunch dollars in City X or County Y. It's there so ideologues can claim ethnic group A is "underrepresented" in Congressional district B. (But, if Trump-style ideologues get their way, they can use census data to argue welfare dollars ought to go to cities where the poor are citizens rather than fresh immigrants.)
     Is the Data Any Good?
     All of this, however, assumes the data is reliable. That's not necessarily a great assumption.
     Once a census taker gets beyond the simple questions of how many people live in a household, things get iffy. As we go down the road of asking people about their ethnicity, income, and living standards, we have good reason to believe people fudge their responses. Or they get confused. Many people, to this day, are unaware that "Hispanic" — as far as the census is concerned — is not a racial designation.
     Even the relatively simple census forms of old were prone to errors. For example, on the 1920 census form, my grandmother is listed as a "son" named "Paul." No male family member named Paul ever existed in that family. Who knows what other errors were recorded in other households?"

418. Soccer numbers seemed to be whacked.

     For example: the New York Times claims men's FIFA was "set" to make $6.1 Billion from the world cup in 2018. This number seems to be treated as "gospel" for what the revenue for the worlds cup in 2018. But FIFA reports only $5.656 Billion for the entire four years spanning 2015-2015. (This is in their total revenue and investment budget for 2019-2022)

     For NY prediction, see.
     https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/sports/fifa-revenue.html

     Obviously, since

     $5.656 Billion from everything including the 2018 world cup
     is less than $6.1 Billion for the world cup, something is wrong here. Considering FIFA's documents should be more authoritative than the New York Times predictions, one might conclude the 2018 world cup did NOT make 6.1 Billion. (This is not to say it might not have made a shitwad of money. But no matter how much one might love, love, love the New York Times, their prediction did not seem to pan out. OR their 6.1 Billion includes revenue that doesn't acrue to FIFA.)

     Meanwhile, a FORBES opinion columnists source for the Moscow world cup revenue is…. get this… the NEW York Times (clearly wrong) prediction above. Which is clearly wrong.

     See this:
     https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#434f023d6da4

     "The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams."

     The $6 billion links to the (clearly incorrect) New York Times article. And the $131 million? It links to a FIFA document.
     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2017.pdf?cloudid=pinrmrodexmnqoettgqw

     Does that document say FIFA expects the women's cup to EARN $131 million for the full 4 year cycle? NOPE. Once again, that $131 million is listed under "investment"! So there are two errors: 1) It's not their predicted earnings. 1 it's not for a four year cycle. (See page 40 as indicated in the pdf page count.) I know "forbes" is more prestigeous that "rankexploits.com", but seriously, this is just bad table reading. (And failure to add to see if the interpretation makes sense.)

     Honestly, I don't doubt the men make more than the women…. But can't these people trying to patiently explain things with numbers at least get the numbers right?!

     There is no break out for men/women's earnings, but the total revenue for

     Oh… on thing worth noting
     On page 40/ ???
     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2017.pdf?cloudid=pinrmrodexmnqoettgqw

     The total revenue for 2019 is 722 million.

     For the budet cycle 2019-2022 the total revenue is expected to be 6500 million.
     722/6520 = 0.1107362

     If we figures that the "cups" result in extra revenue, this does tend to suggest the women's world cups make less than the mens because the otherwise, we'd expect the cup years to do better than an average year. But it still doesn't tell use how much less.

     Still, it is annoying that the New York Times numbers and the Forbes article seem to be throwing out inaccurate numbers. It is not possible to estimate what would be "fair" based on wrong numbers. The specific numbers being thrown out by NYT and Forbes appear to attribute TOO MUCH earnings to mens teams and TOO LITTLE to womens.

419. KEnneth
     *For example, on the 1920 census form, my grandmother is listed as a "son" named "Paul." No male family member named Paul ever existed in that family. Who knows what other errors were recorded in other households?"*
     Out of curiosity, how good was your grandparents English? Was her name anything that sounded remotely like Paul?
     (It's a mistake either way. So your point would stand. I'm just trying to gauge how bad it was!)

420. Lucia, on the pdf page 19 of the report you cited earlier,

     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf

     the yearly FIFA revenue figures are reported. Revenue for 2018, the mens world cup, is $4641 mil and for 2015, the women's cup year, the revenue was $544 mil. The projected revenue for 2019 from

     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2017.pdf?cloudid=pinrmrodexmnqoettgqw

     is $722 mil. While not directly the actual revenue from the cups, the scale of the difference in revenue from the cups is apparent.

421. Completely off topic:

     Southern California quake damage from an interferometric synthetic aperture radar map.

     https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA23150

     Interesting to see what can be done with satellite imaging.

422. lucia (Comment #175558)

     That comment was from the author of the article I linked. My grandparents spoke English well, but my great grandparents (except for my paternal grandmother's side) not so much. Some names did get changed in those cases, but I never checked the census.

     Another case of government incompetence and here with regards to immigration enforcement is covered in the link below.

     https://mises.org/wire/us-immigration-enforcement-guilty-until-proven-innocent?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=e9fd7241c6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-e9fd7241c6-228027193

423. Karl,
     Thanks for finding those. The annual is definitely better than the aggregate. Those numbers sound closer to what we want to know. That falls in line with what I said at the end of lucia (Comment #175557) which is two comments before yours.

     The numbers matter. But I do want to point out that other numbers have been being flung around. In Comment #175509 Mike indicated men's revenue 6 billion for one of their cupand women's was131 billion. If that had been true, it would suggest men generate more than 45 times the revenue women earn. ( 6000/131 =45.80153) And I see Forbes and people on twitter using this number and claiming the women are already over paid… yada yada…. (These wrong numbers are used to support other claims.)

     But that ratio of 45 is clearly totally wrong. So let's look at the numbers you've found.

     If we take the entire years revenue for 2018 to be men and the entire for women to be 2015 to be women, we get > 4641/544 = 8.53125. If we do the same but use women's 2019 revenue we get 4641/722= 6.427978

     Yes Men bring in "much" more revenue, but not 45 times as much.

     Now for prize money: the money is 400 million for men and 30 million for women. That's > 400/30= 13.33333.

     Since 13 is larger than both 8.5 and 6.4, it suggest men are given bigger prizes relative to revenue they generate.

     So if we estimate revenue that way (which may be wrong) the economic argument would be that to be comparable with men's prize money women's prizes should be almost (but not quite) doubled to almost $60 million. (Or parity could be achieved by leaving women's at 30 million and cutting mens in half to 200 million. )

     I don't know that that's right — especially since I don't know if it's fair to say all the money in "women's cup" years is from the women's teams and in the men's to the men's.

     The Wall Street Journal evidently had TV viewer numbers and came up with a factor of 3 for the "fair" increase for women. So their number is bigger.

     Still, both revenue based arguments suggest women are paid less than men relative to how much revenue they generate. If the number suggest it, it may well be that women are "underpaid" relative to men.

424. Lucia (#175555),
     I concede that even 100% Amerindian illegal immigrants cannot be disqualified from counting towards representation as "Indians not taxed," since as you point out correctly above they are obliged to pay taxes. Indians in this country, even full tribal members living on a reservation, can't be excluded anymore because they are all taxed as well.
     .
     But I stand by my claim that the "Indians not taxed" are the closest 19th century anologue to today's illegal aliens. Indians were excluded despite being physical present within the boundaries of the United States, and I believe it was because it was assumed that their allegience was not to the United States, not because they happened to belong to tribes which were recognized by the US government as sovereign. (At the time the constitution was written there was just 14 Indian nations recognized via treaty. Nor were all the tribes the government eventually recognized confined to the boundaries of the United States, then or now). Illegal aliens merit the same assumption IMO, they are here without permission and owe no allegience to this country.
     .
     It's a fair point that besides us and Canada there's really no such thing as a "sovereign tribe". There's no longer any Mayan king or emperor in existence. But it's not exactly like Gauls or Carthiginians, where not only the nation state but the very ethnicity has been absorbed and become non-existent. There's still plenty of Mayan speakers who identify as Maya, and that includes people seeking *political* rights as indigenous peoples.

425. DaleS
     * "Indians not taxed" are the closest 19th century anologue to today's illegal aliens. *
     Wel.. I guess you claim that. They aren't close enough to that for figuring whether they are "closest" to matter. 1.1 lightyears vs. 1 ligthyear… not a big distinction.

     *not because they happened to belong to tribes which were recognized by the US government as sovereign.*
     Oh? Well, I think the American Indians like Hurons, Iroquois and so on DID consider themselves as belonging to tribes that were sovereign and so did Americans. They considered themselves to owe allegiance to their tribe. Sitting Bull considered himself to belong to a tribe that was sovereign and owed allegiance to his tribe.

     *Mayan king or emperor in existence. But it's not exactly like Gauls or Carthiginians, where not only the nation state but the very ethnicity has been absorbed and become non-existent*
     Which do you think was not a nationan state? The mayas? Or the Gauls? Both where. Both were also ethnicities.

     * There's still plenty of Mayan speakers who identify as Maya, and that includes people seeking *political* rights as indigenous peoples.*
     Yeah. Well there are Bretons in France and Basques in Spain…..

426. Dale S (Comment #175563): "But I stand by my claim that the "Indians not taxed" are the closest 19th century anologue to today's illegal aliens. … Illegal aliens merit the same assumption IMO, they are here without permission and owe no allegience to this country."

     I agree that there is a case to be made that all that is strictly required is to count people with legal domicile in the U.S. And a case can be made that illegal immigrants do not have a legal domicile here. Their presence here is temporary, subject to deportation. But it would be really hard to implement.

427. Lucia,
     “Yeah. Well there are Bretons in France and Basques in Spain…..”
     .
     And Californians in the USA… maybe not a separate race, but certainly a very separate culture. The Bretons and the Basques have little hope for separation in the foreseeable future. The Californians have *no* hope for separation; Abe Lincoln saw to that. Besides, Californians don’t have so many guns as they would need.

428. Not just Forbes, but NYT, CNBC and others are also running with the 6 billion figure. FIFA is using a 4 year cycle to report the revenues. Page 34 in Kenneth's link, they are listing the report for men's world cup as 5.357 billion. I don't see a separate listing for women, plus they would be operating on a four year cycle that cuts across two of these reports. The 2015 report has most of the revenue for that year coming from the 2018 men's cup.

     Expenses for 2015 women was 82 million while 2018 men was 1824 million.

429. I agree the 131 million is an error, and represents expenses, not revenues. If we use the same profit margin as 2018, we get about 400 million in revenues. However, nothing in the financial reports shows a consideration of the women's world cup as anything but an afterthought. Unfortunately the 2015 report spends a lot of time on FIFA governance. In that one, it looks like at most 70 million can be credited to the 2015 Women's World Cup out of that year's revenue, and probably much closer to 40 million based on the four year cycles.

430. MikeN,
     Forbes links NYT as "the source". If you read the NYT it's a prediction. But I think even beyond that, they author probably just misunderstood the full 4 year revenue as the men's cup revenue. So: it's wrong when used as men's cup revenue. That Forbes isn't checking… well that's Forbes author sloppiness.'

     The Forbes guy then misread the FIFA document.
     Today, LA Times article just quotes NYT and FORBES (obviously without checking.) I think that's pretty much what all the "professional reporters" are doing.

     I only asked because… well… blog. So I asked source!
     These reporters think "NYT!" and "Forbes". Done! Bam!

     You can now see tweet thread, 'cuz I tweeted in response to LA times article author boosting her article. Pielke agrees $6 billion for men is not correct.

     "FIFA operates on a four-year cycle (tied to the men’s World Cup👀), so the $6 billion in revenue 2015-2018 is associated with Russia 2018. Whether this is the best way to do it or not is up for debate, but associating $6b in revenue with 2018 WC is not incorrect."

431. MikeN
     *it looks like at most 70 million can be credited to the 2015 Women's World Cup out of that year's revenue*
     How do you get this?
     Roger posted a figure that indicates 2015 revenue was 544 million. I realize that's not all women's cup, but what other numbers are you using and where do they come from?

432. I believe FIFA runs more than just the World Cup, so that may be a confounder, although the numbers still don't make sense. The best number would likely be the TV licensing rights. I would expect the men to dominate the women here globally by at least a magnitude. Women's soccer just isn't too popular elsewhere I think, but is rapidly improving.
     .
     US Open Golf – Womens = 513,000 viewers
     US Open Golf – Mens = 6,500,000 viewers
     .
     Tennis is different, it looks like the men only outdraw the women by about 25%. I'm no tennis fan but men's tennis isn't as interesting because women get into more prolonged rallies and men's is serve, volley, point over, 80% of the time.

433. DeWitt Payne (Comment #175560)
     July 11th, 2019 at 3:53 pm

     Impressive. Much clearer than FIFA revenues or census questions or immigration laws.

434. Tom Scharf
     *The best number would likely be the TV licensing rights. I*
     That would be a good number, but evidently the licensing rights for soccer are are bundled. So we can't get those for soccer. And of course, estimating based on golf might not work since the US women's soccer team is suberb and them men's… not so much.

     The same can't be said of golf (which is not a team sport in any case.) So while I agree with the principle of looking at viewer numbers (if available), I think trying to extrapolate based on ration in golf makes no sense.

     Absent separate licensing numbers, viewers number or revenue numbers seem "best available". We have this for revenue.

     Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #175506)
     https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-critics-get-wrong-about-the-us-womens-soccer-pay-debate-153139503.html

     “"But the women’s team has actually generated more revenue than the men’s since the 2015 USWNT’s World Cup win sparked a new level of American interest in the women’s game. According to financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, USWNT games generated more total revenue than the USMNT games from 2016 through 2018: $50.8 million in revenue vs. $49.9 million for the men.””

     This is probably irrelevant to the FIFA purses, but may be relevant to the US suit filed against US Soccer in US court. (Of course, it can only be relevant if the suit is not precluded by collective barganining agreements yada, yada. But it is relevant to our thinking about what pay levels might make sense as "fair".)

435. Lucia, what I attributed to Ken was actually posted by Karl. Looking at that financial statement, at one point it says revenue for men's world cup 2018 is 5 billion over the four year cycle. I get 70 million from the 2015 report on page 18/16
     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/financial-and-governance-report-2015-2770871.pdf?cloudid=asmgcqptmszlmj5quozr

     Women's cup would have had revenues from 2012-2014 too.
     If could be that all broadcast revenue is being credited to the men.
     There is never an entry where they separate the two. It doesn't make much sense they would combine them, but nowhere in the reports does it seem like women are a major consideration, beyond bragging about how much they care about advancing women's soccer and they spending x millions on project y.

     EDIT: Looking at the report again, the 'majority of other revenue' that I credited to the World Cup was actually for a different tournament.

436. Fox has bought the two in a package deal, but it doesn't appear to be combined globally. For example, Cuba is not listed in the broadcasters for the women's world cup.
     https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-women-s-world-cup-france-2019-media-rights-licensees.pdf?cloudid=elibo623n48kcedu93qj
     Other countries do not have matching entries.

437. MikeN,
     I agree that they don't have entries separating things out. I looked at other years and was just left scratching my head because you'd not only have to figure out what each ambiguous entry is, but also figure out whether the potential revenue for a 2015 cup might have accrued in 2012,2013, 2014, 2015. (And I'm not even sure some might not have occrued in 2016.)
     .
     As far as I can tell,
     (1) It may be the women's cups have much less revenue that $131 millions even to the extent that the prize exceeds what the women's revenue.
     (2) It may be the have more than $131.
     (3) It's even possible that by soem coincidece, the revenue happens to be the same as the $131 million (though that entry is definitely not revenue).

     The men's most recent cup did NOT have 6.1 Billion in revenue. How much it had is difficult to untangle.

     So those widely cited numbers are wrong. (They are basically the NYT's "predicting" and forbes misunderstanding an entry and others just trusting them.) But what the numbers are…. dunno.

     I *think* based on my reading (of serveral years) the women's revenue does exceed the prize. But…. really hard to tell. The reports are just not organized to make it easy to separate out men's from women's. (Which is ok. That's not the purpose of the reports. But it's a bit frustrating.)

     The best I can say is : I don't know what the revenues are, but the "6.1 billion, 131 billion" pair is wrong. (And will continue to be wrong no matter how many more times it is requoted in more and more opinion columns!)

438. Lucia, 6 billion is wrong, but the 2018 report gives a number for men as 5.375 billion over the four year cycle.
     Women's number is unknown, but I would guess based on:
     131 million in expenses, 82 million in 2015.
     Ticket sales were 1.35 million in 2015, down to 1.16 million.
     Thirty million prize money in 2019 vs 15 million in 2015.
     They choose the prize money closer to the actual contest, so they will have a better revenue estimate at the time.
     Men's tournament runs at revenue=triple expenses.

     There is a note in one of the reports how the accounting procedures has them split broadcasting revenue between the years based on the number of hours of broadcast. 2015 vs 2016 shows a difference of 160 million out of 3 billion, so I would credit half of this to the women, and the other half to the club world cup. About 3% of total broadcasting revenue, and small portions of marketing and licensing rights, plus ~60 million in ticket sales, I would guess 160-200 million in revenue.

439. MikeN
     *but the 2018 report gives a number for men as 5.375 billion over the four year cycle.*
     Is this explicit on a particular page? Or did you tally? (I don't mean to suggest I doubt… but I like to see tallies if that's done. You know what Reagan said, trust but verify. Besides that, if we are going to say what we think the number are, it's best to understand how they tallied up.)

     *Thirty million prize money in 2019 vs 15 million in 2015.*
     I think this is contained in the 131 million and 15 million? Yes? No?

     * I would guess 160-200 million in revenue.* For who? The women?

440. Looks like DT may have a winning strategy in hand to combat the surge in asylum cases.

     Per a news item, "The Guatemala deal would create a legal wall on the U.S. border that would prevent migrants from asking for asylum or getting released into the United States"
     .
     "reformers are hopeful, partly because the vast majority of worldwide migrants must pass through Guatemala to reach Mexico and then the U.S. border."
     .

     https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/13/report-guatemala-may-build-legal-wall-against-migrants/
     .
     Give the Guatemla government aid (aka bribes) for the US to immediately deport most asylum applicants back to Guatemala through which they came. A $B or so a year would be a cheep solution to the border problem and would be very hard to stop through court action as the US aleady have similar agreements on the books and is being enforced.
     .
     It seems to be a political question that has two sides for this issue in Guatemala, but as this is a typical South American state, I would assume that money talks if enough is used to grease the skids of the right politicians. Time for the CIA to use some of its petty cash to effect US policy in its time honored fashion.

441. Ed Forbes,
     I guess over the course of the next few years we'll learn whether the courts like that strategy.
     .
     Even if they do, I imagine that strategy won't work if the person requesting asylum is Guatemalan.
     .
     If this flies legally, I also anticipate boat people; they'll jump on boats in Honduras or El Salvador and arrive in… wherever but probably Mexico. Once you are in a boat, there is probably little point to in landing in Belize.
     .
     Still, not sure what the solution is. It would still slow down asylum claims (for better or worse.)

442. 2018 5 billion was given as a separate item with no breakdown.
     131 million would contain the 30 million, and before it was 82 million that contained 15 million. It's actually a little more because they gave additional prizes to every team for expenses. Men get 1.5 million each team.
     160-200 million is my estimate for the women.

443. Lucia

     Stoping the flood is the main issue. A trickle can be handled. No magic bullet to stop the invation, it needs a number of different strategies to stop it.

     The US has a similar agreement with Canada and it is enforced.

444. Another view on the issue
     .
     https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-poised-to-sign-a-radical-agreement-to-send-future-asylum-seekers-to-guatemala

445. Ed,
     The articles say one of the differences between this potential agreement and the Canadian one is that, evidently, even people who never stepped foot in Guatemala could be sent to Guatemala. Whether that's legal or not seems to be under debate. (Having almost little familiarity with laws surrounding asylum, I have no idea if it's legal. I'll just sit here eating popcorn on this one.)

     But I agree, the goal is to stop the floor so as to prevent our immigration and asylum system from being overwhelmed. I don't know if it will work, or if it's legal. Of course whether it's "right or wrong" depends largely on the assumption of whether the asylum seekers really qualify for asylum, and so on. It's a different question from whether it will "work".

     One thing: The New Yorker article made it sound as if the harried asylum seekers need to make decisions so quickly they somehow don't have time to consider potential consequences of various options when deciding what to do. But that sounds like he thinks their access to information is so 1940s….

     I suspect the vast majority of asylum seekers do consider options about what they are going to do. I don't think they live in an information vacuum. They already had TVs and phones in El Salvador when I lived there in the early 60s. They do have cellphones and the internet.

     If the law gets changed to "send them to Guatemala", most will know that quickly.

     This isn't a comment on whether the policy is "right or wrong". But, while asylum seekers likely are "harried", I don't think their decisions are made under the time pressure of someone fleeing molten lava suddenly spewing from a volcano.

446. Asylum seekers who never set foot in Guatemala would eliminate everyone but Mexicans, Canadians and people who flew or sailed there(or Belize). That would reduce most of the current situation, and possibly reduce the flow down to the level for which the infrastructure was set up, a few thousand a year.

447. We have only seen a rough first draft so far. I am not going to try and parse it too deeply until the final draft is released.

     Just the fact that there is some sort of agreement on this is a huge step forward.

     I would expect the final agreement to look a lot like the one with Canada to expedite a positive legal review. If the agreement is not a novel approach, and is being currently used elsewhere, it is much harder for the opposition to throw sand in the gears through the legal system. We will see.

448. lucia (Comment #175586): "The articles say one of the differences between this potential agreement and the Canadian one is that, evidently, even people who never stepped foot in Guatemala could be sent to Guatemala."

     That does not sound plausible. People apprehended at the southern border are either from Mexico, in which case they will be returned to Mexico as they are now, or they passed through Guatemala. OK, maybe they are from Belize, but that has not been a problem and they can easily get back there from Guatemala.
     .
     lucia: "The New Yorker article made it sound as if the harried asylum seekers need to make decisions so quickly they somehow don't have time to consider potential consequences of various options when deciding what to do."

     Sounds like the article is less than honest. The average migrant is much better informed about U.S. immigration law than the average American.

449. Mike M,
     The article says
     *What’s so striking about the agreement with Guatemala, however, is that it goes even further than the terms the U.S. sought in its dealings with Mexico. “This is a whole new level,” the person with knowledge of the agreement told me. “In my read, it looks like even those who have never set foot in Guatemala can potentially be sent there.”*

     We don't know what it says. It doesn't seem to be final. It might claim to apply to people arriving at any entry point, including the international terminal at O'Hare. We don't know.

     *Sounds like the article is less than honest.*
     Well… I don't know about less than honest. Could just be unrealistic.

450. Looks like Guatemala Is getting cold feet.

     "The Central American country said the planned meeting between Morales and Trump this week had been postponed until the Guatemalan Constitutional Court had ruled on legal challenge"
     .
     ""The government of the republic reiterates that at no point it considers signing an agreement to convert Guatemala into a safe third country,” the government said in the statement."
     .
     https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/453011-guatemalan-president-postpones-white-house-meeting-with-trump

451. Well…. I can see very good reasons Guatemala wouldn't want to be the safe 3rd country. Also if it was the US, it's not the sort of agreement I would want the President to enter into on his hown. I'd want that decided at the Congressional level. (Although, of course, perhaps our President can enter into it. But in which case, it's quite likely the next one elected can reverse it. Sort of like Paris.)

452. Trump is obviously baiting the left to come to the knee jerk defense of the "squad", he smells blood in the water. This is historically how he operates. Since Pelosi seems like the adult in the room lately he wants to align as many opponents as possible with the loonies on the other side. He brashly flaunts breaking the rule of "the right cannot criticize the left's favored identity groups for any reason". I have little doubt the bait will be taken with enthusiasm. He is still a boorish clown but the "Trump says something we think could be interpreted as racist" headlines are falling on deaf ears.
     .
     He has gotten the media whipped into a frenzy on July 4th parades and massive ICE raids that never materialized lately. Shrieking psychopaths.

453. And it continues
     .
     “The Departments are amending their respective regulations to provide that, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum,” states the text of the rule.
     .
     https://thehill.com/latino/453050-trump-to-end-protections-for-central-american-migrants-at-us-mexico-border
     .
     Pass the popcorn as we enjoy the new court proceedings

454. Meanwhile, an armed Anifa guy throws firebombs at a detention center and gets shot dead but you’d be hard pressed to even find mention of the story. Giving left wing extremists a pass is not going to end well.

455. My local paper had a story (via AP) about the bombing in Tacoma, but no mention of Antifa. Only that his motive had not been determined.

456. Here are Tim Pool’s reports on the incident. Spronsen’s links to antifa are not in any doubt and yet no mention is made of this fact. You can imagine what would have happened if any link to the right was discovered.

     https://youtu.be/KNQR6kAHSdI
     https://youtu.be/S376N3YfnP0

457. Mike M. (Comment #175596)
     July 15th, 2019 at 3:03 pm
     My local paper had a story (via AP) about the bombing in Tacoma, but no mention of Antifa. Only that his motive had not been determine.
     _____

     Maybe his motive was to get himself killed. I'm not sure what all Antifa is about, but doubt it's suicide.

     I have read about Antifa countering Alt-right rallies and how these two movements are supposed to hate each other. Someone said Antifa is a gift to the Alt-right, I suppose meaning a movement
     needs a counter movement.

     I would never be a member of either. I hate haters.

458. Ed Forbes (Comment #175594),

     In fairness, they should make it any border. If it's a principle that you need to apply for asylum in the first country you get too, if you try to sneak in across the Canada-US border the policy should be the same.
     It's true we don't have lots of people trying to come by way of Canada, but that's no reason to have different policies for different borders.

459. lucia (Comment #175600): "In fairness, they should make it any border. If it's a principle that you need to apply for asylum in the first country you get too, if you try to sneak in across the Canada-US border the policy should be the same."

     That is what Trump is trying to do. We have had a Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada for nearly 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Safe_Third_Country_Agreement

     It looks like there are about 20K illegal entries from Canada each year.

460. This is targeting economic migrants, which I assume >95% of people at the border are who apply for asylum. One assumes this will be dragged through the courts again, with a sympathetic federal judge in HI or SF placing a national stay on the policy until a Democrat can be elected. The policy seems reasonable on its face, but it will be challenged because this was never about asylum. Asylum is a Trojan Horse.

461. Tom,
     Yes. It's targeting. But for many reasons, it's better to have broadly applicable policies.
     .
     Among other things, we know this is going to be challenged. In court, it would look better if the position of the administration that EVERYONE should apply for asylum as soon as they land in a safe harbor country– be it CA or MX, and EVERYONE should go through official channels– whether they come through the northern or southern border.
     .
     With respect to charges of racism: it looks better if the rule applies to EVERYONE including, hypothetically, an Irish person who claimed to be fleeing persecution in Ireland (for whatever reason), came to Canada and now wants to enter the US. (Why they wouldn't come straight to the US… dunno. But hypothetically.)
     .
     It's likely this 'hypothetical' would end up applying to at least a few people who happen to go to Canada first. But that's just the point. The fact a policy that applied to all borders would tend to make it it appear to actually be a government policy that EVERYONE must try to get asylum in the first country they land in, arrive at a legal entry point and apply for asylum right away.
     .
     Having different policies for CA and MX looks… well… like the policy is well… only that SOME people need to get asylum legally, but "others" can do it a different way. That's just stupid. And saying "but the problem isn't at the CA border" doesn't make it any less stoooooopid because all that means is that IF the rule was made less stooooopid, it wouldn't affect many people at the CA border. So that's just an argument in favor of making it "not stooooopid".

462. Tom–
     Honestly, if this goes through, a future elected Dem will probably keep it in place. Yeah… right now they won't pass it. But they will probably keep it in place once it's there. Because…. well…. at that point it can just be "crickets".

463. MIke M.
     Thanks. That they have the rule in place in CA seems to me to make this seem to me more promising in court. Obviously, not a lawyer… don't know if it's actually relevant. I don't know how CA agreeing vs MX not makes a difference. We'll see in court.
     .
     It also makes it sound "not stooopid". It makes sense that the same rule applies at both borders.

464. Naturally Fox is all over it.
     Washington ICE detention center attacker Willem Van Spronsen wrote 'I am Antifa' manifesto before assault
     https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto
     .
     Media selection bias. Remember he is a resistance protester against fascism, not a terrorist, a bad guy, or an example of privilege in the white male patriarchy. He is actually just another crazy guy on the edge who got pushed over by the political topic du jour. Most of these people on both sides just want meaning in their life and make bad life choices who they associate with.

465. Oh.. I should add, the "same rule" issue should be emphasized when spinning the policy. Yes… everyone knows the lack of people flooding trough Canada has to do with there being no pressure to leave Canada or parts north of Canada :). But still, it's worth knowing it's trying to have the same rule. Some sort of "uniform rule" mantra should be invoked as spin.
     .
     Later we'll learn if it's legal.

466. Lucia
     .
     My comment above looks to be correct
     .
     Ed Forbes (Comment #175588)
     "I would expect the final agreement to look a lot like the one with Canada to expedite a positive legal review. If the agreement is not a novel approach, and is being currently used elsewhere, it is much harder for the opposition to throw sand in the gears through the legal system. We will see."
     .
     The new proposed policy looks to make the same rule for both both the nothern border and the southern border, based somewhat on the current rules for the northern border. Not to say that an activist lower court won't suspend it, but it should be upheld on appeal.
     .
     The main point of contention will be over the mostly undefined term "safe". Per "Chevron", the courts have allowed agencies to define their own rules, alowing the agency to define "safe".
     .
     The Progressives love "Chevron", so will be very conflicted by being forced to try and overturn a "Chevron" defence and to overturn the agency's rule definition.
     .
     IMHO an agency "loss" on "Chevron" would be a much larger win for conservatives than a win upholding the agency's ruling on "safe" for ,

     Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

467. Ed,
     When agencies create their rules, they need an open comment period and so on, right? It can't just be "we change the rule", right? (Real questions.)

     My understanding is there is a decent chance Chevron will be "out" for reasons other than this bill. It's one of those cases odds makers are betting might be overturned or "refined".

468. Lucia
     It dependes. I do not think they believe they are publishing a "new" rule as such, only a "clarification" of the key word "safe" in the existing law. As they are only changing their judicial discretion stance under existing law, no comment peroid should be required.
     .
     I believe a comment peroid is only required for a new regulation, not clarifications on what an existing law allows or meanings of terms within the law.

469. Ed,
     Thanks!
     And ahhhh…. the distinction! "Clarification" vs "new rule". Heh. (Not that I don't see that distinctions exist.

470. There is a comment peroid, but the rule change is immediate.
     .
     https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/16/2019-15246/asylum-eligibility-and-procedural-modifications
     Effective date: This rule is effective July 16, 2019.

     "Submission of public comments: Written or electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2019. Written comments postmarked on or before that date will be considered timely. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight eastern standard time at the end of that day."
     .
     Main point:
     Congress, however, has provided that certain categories of aliens cannot receive asylum and has further delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”) the authority to promulgate regulations establishing additional bars on eligibility to the extent consistent with the asylum statute, as well as the authority to establish “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. See INA 208(b)(2)(C), (d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C), (d)(5)(B).

471. If "safe", an alien may be removed and and no court has jurisdiction to review.

     The law invoked
     https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
     See INA 208(b)(2)(C), (d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C), (d)(5)(B).

     (3) Limitation on judicial review
     No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

     Main point:
     (2) Exceptions
     (A) Safe third country
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

472. Ed Forbes,
     " pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement,"
     That part seems to suggest the country we ship them too needs to have entered into an agreement with us (bilaterla) or an agreement with us and several others. We don't have that with Guatemala (possibly 'yet'.)
     It sounds like we need it.

     The definition of "safe" also matters. But it looks like a second hurdle since people will claim Guatemala isn't "safe" at all, or may not be for some people.

473. Lucia, parse the commas. There are several stand alone items that allow removal, not one.

     Use of commas or use bullet points, both work the same way and supporrt several different ways to remove.

474. Since when does the law have any bearing on how we handle immigration? Ha ha.

475. Ed,
     I did parse the commas. I also notice an "and" not an "or".

476. Item 2 (below) does not also require item 1 to be in effect.
     .

     Item 2 allows removal to just about any country that will accept them. Very few nations would not be acceptable under the listed exceptions.
     .
     Gang and general violence is not listed as an acceptable cause for an asylum which are the main problems .
     .
     May be removed:
     1: pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement

     2:to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,

477. Ed

     (A) Safe third country

     Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien
     if
     .
     the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,
     .
     and
     .
     where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

     As far as I can see, this clause is " If X and Y". Both X and Y must be true to achieve the exception.

     In X: The Attorney can remove them to a country with which we have a bilateral (or multilateral) agreement provided blah.. blah… blah…

     As far as I can tell, parsing the commas, the country to which we send them must have entered into an agreement with us to accept them.

     I don't see how it can read to permit us to send them to "any" country. The pursuent part is not part of a "list". Lists need to be a set of similar things. A"country" is a location WHERE we can send someone. "Pursuant to z" is not a location. So this is not a list. You can't apply comma parsing rules for a list to something that is clearly not a list. Commas gets used for lots of things that are not lists. For example, I can write "my sister, mary beth, went to the store.". Those comma don't suggest sister, and mary beth are a list.

478. "Safe" is in relation to:
     "which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion"

     Just because the local gang has a price on your head because you can not pay protection does not mean you are not "safe", unless you were a member of a rival gang ( social group). So rival members of the gangs qualify, but not the general populace. Go figure.

479. Lucia, I have to go. I will "parse" your reply later🤔

480. Ed,
     "Safe" isn't the issue I have with your reading of the clause. What safe means will be debated in court– but it has nothing to do with my issue with your reading.

481. Lucia
     I read the text as a list. There is also a strong argument that it not a list and I am wrong. One needs to also get the legislation history for the background on what they "really" wanted to clause to mean. Could just be bad grammar
     .
     .
     Lists:
     "Include a comma between each independent clause you list in a sentence. (An independent clause contains a subject and a verb and could stand on its own as a sentence because it expresses a complete thought.) For example: "She liked asparagus, he preferred spinach, and her mother liked cauliflower.".."

     I will be the first to admit that you have a valid point, but …..lawyers get rich over issues such as this.
     .
     The "safe" comment has nothing to due with the comma issue. I just found it amusing that rival members of gangs might qualify for asylum where a shopkeeper threatened by one of these gangs would not be.
     .
     Anyway, this issue will quickly be going to court where it will likely become more of a political issue than a legal issue.

482. Ed,
     I might be wrong about the list thing. But even as a list, it still would require the all items of the list to be "true" because it says "and".

     Here's your example:
     "She liked asparagus,
     he preferred spinach, and
     her mother liked cauliflower.".."

     For that sentence to be true, all three items in the list must be true.

     So: taken as a list:

     the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed,

     (1) pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement,
     (2) to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,

     and
     (3) where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

     If there are three things in the list with an "and" then all three must be "true". So,
     (1) there must be a bi or multilateral agreement AND
     (2) it must be a country that meats one set of conditions AND
     (3) the alien must have access to blah, blah, blah in that country.

     Other examples of and clauses:
     "Honey, I want to make dinner. Go to the store and get canned tomatoes, italian sausage, spaghetti noodles and parmesan cheese".

     If "honey" comes back and says they think you meant he could get just the italian sausage, "honey" doesn't understand English. The sentence means get ALL of them. That's the role of "and" in the sentence.

483. It seems to me that lucia's reading is clearly correct. There is no problem with the grammar, other than it being run-on legalese. The text says:
     "the alien may be removed … to a country … in which …".

     The first ellipses is "pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement". So the conditions can be modified by such an agreement. The text does not say that there must be such an agreement, but the third country will either accept or refuse the migrants. In the former case, there is a tacit agreement; in the latter case, it is moot.

     The second ellipses is text specifying that the condition applies to a third country.

     The final ellipses is a list of conditions that must apply in the third country for it to be considered "safe".

484. Lucia, Mike
     I agree with you. I took the conditions incorrectly

485. And it begins
     .
     https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/453414-immigration-advocacy-groups-sue-trump-admin-over-asylum-restrictions
     .
     "The groups are requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the rule, which would affect most migrants from Central America."

     Also

     https://thehill.com/latino/453377-groups-sue-trump-admin-over-new-asylum-restrictions

486. Interesting essay on today's political discourse.
     A Herd Has No Mind
     https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/07/29/a-herd-has-no-mind/
     .
     I think he overused his thesaurus but the poetry of "dumbasstical sh**weasels" overcomes this.

487. Are Hispanics people of color? What does Hispanic mean exactly anyway; are light skinned people from Spain Hispanic?
     I'm asking because I read that AOC is identified as a 'woman of color', and this surprised me a bit.
     .
     [Edit: Or maybe I have the other end wrong. What is a 'person of color' precisely? I thought it essentially meant a person with dark skin color.]

488. mark bofill,
     Many Hispanics are people of color. Some are colorless. But yeah… Actual Spaniards are on average darker than the average Swede. But they aren't darker than the average Sicilian or Greek and people don't call Italians and Greeks "people of color".

     The thing is in the US "hispanic" has come to be associated with the darker skinned people in Latin America, many of whom have some Native DNA and in a few parts (Caribbean, Honduras) have some African DNA. At the same time, it's hard to claim the European background latin american's aren't "hispanic" since the term is… odd.

     "People of color" is also becoming odd. Obviously, AOC is not particularly dark but she is much darker than I am. No one would take her for Irish or Swedish. She does have dark hair.

489. People of color is ridiculous and it's used in exactly the same way as "colored people" was, to draw a lines between us. White is a color, the most "inclusive" color (for people who care about such things), and anyone who says it isn't is a science denier.

490. thanks lucia.

491. POC = People who do not self identify as white. Another definition is if criticizing someone is prima facie evidence you are a racist, that person is a POC ha ha.
     .
     I do enjoy the world record patronizing the media has been doing again as they "struggle" with whether to call Trump a racist in print. After the very serious people deliberated very seriously they have sadly concluded that they must call Trump's statements racist. This changes everything!, or maybe changes nothing as they have been continuously doing this for at least 2 years.
     https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/07/17/413380545/opinion-report-on-racism-but-ditch-the-labels
     .
     "Editor's note: NPR made the decision, this week, to call President Trump's tweets about a group of Democratic congresswomen, "racist.""
     .
     When you have lost NPR you have lost, well, a bunch of liberal leaning journalists with an academic bent who would never consider voting for Trump.
     .
     They could just choose to leave inflammatory labels out of journalism and leave it up to the reader but today's media environment basically forces sensationalism. Trump invites uncharitable interpretations of his not so well thought out Tweets but gotcha journalism is an addiction the media cannot break.

492. Tom,
     >> This changes everything!, or maybe changes nothing as they have been continuously doing this for at least 2 years.
     .
     Every time this happens (the fresh hue and cry of 'Trump is a racist!'), I'm left with the impression that I'm seeing an implicit acknowledgement that the last time around was hyperbole. It's as if the media is saying 'Ok, we understand why we didn't persuade you last time around; obviously we were B.S.ing you. But look! For REAL this time!'

493. Are there people who are temporarily people of color during the summer months when their skin can take on a deep tan? This summer after being out in the sun a lot my skin has darkened – and my hair has lighten. With the advent of identity politics I have only recently become aware of a possible dilemma here and that being the psychological ramifications of having two identities depending on the time of the year. The only immediate remedies that come to mind are staying out of the summer sun or going to a tanning salon.

494. Btw,

     Nancy Pelosi calling Trump a racist on the House floor was a violation of House rules. Her comment was eventually stricken from the official record, but the normal sanction of being banned from speaking for the rest of the day was overridden on a party line vote. That was after the first acting speaker bailed out of the podium so he wouldn't be the one who struck Pelosi's comment from the record. I only found out about this in a WSJ editorial. It certainly wasn't on NBC nightly news.

     That should have been the basis for much hilarity on late night TV and the basis for a skit on SNL. I'm not holding my breath.

     I'm betting that Asians aren't considered POC. So much for the Yellow Peril.

495. Sorry, her comment was NOT stricken from the record, again on a party line vote.

     Here's the editorial:

     If you're going to condemn someone else in politics, or any other walk of life, you should have your own house in order. Nancy Pelosi learned that the hard way on Tuesday as the Speaker violated House rules by accusing President Trump of sending “racist” tweets.

     “Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the President’s racist tweets,” Mrs. Pelosi said in teeing up a House resolution to denounce Mr. Trump that passed Tuesday evening largely along party lines. “To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”

     Speaking of values, House rules say that Members may not call a President racist. Rep. Doug Collins (R., Ga.) rose to ask the Speaker to “rephrase” her comments. She refused, saying the House parliamentarian had approved them in advance. A flurry of conversation followed, with a Democrat even abandoning the chair presiding over the House lest he have to strike the Speaker’s words from the record. No one can remember that ever happening.

     Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer eventually took the chair to say the Speaker’s words were “out of order.” But the Democratic majority then voted 232-190 not to strike Mrs. Pelosi’s words from the record, and it voted again by a similar margin to override House rules so she wouldn’t be banned from speaking on the House floor for the rest of the day as she should have been when a Member’s words are “taken down.”

     What a farce. In her zeal to play to the media chorus that Mr. Trump is a “racist,” Mrs. Pelosi violates her own House rules on appropriate speech. But rather than apologize, she and her party override the rules to spare her embarrassment. All of which proves again that Donald Trump, for all of his excesses, has no monopoly on violating political norms.

496. DeWitt Payne (Comment #175639): "I'm betting that Asians aren't considered POC."

     South Asians are considered POC. I think that East Asians are only POC if they are Woke.

     ——-
     DaveJR (Comment #175634): "People of color is ridiculous and it's used in exactly the same way as "colored people" was, to draw a lines between us."

     Well said.

497. Kenneth,

     *Are there people who are temporarily people of color during the summer months when their skin can take on a deep tan? *
     My impression is no.

     I really don't tan up much. But I think even if I did, no one would consider me a person "of color". No amount of spray tan will do it either. I'm still a white person with a tan.

498. I've always thought of myself as white. *shrug* I am enough darker than my wife that we used to joke about our interracial marriage. The fact that I'm not actually all that much darker is what made the joke funny I think. At least in my view… Maybe I ought to ask why she found it funny.
     Then again, I don't think of myself as Hispanic, even though both of my parents came from Cuba and my great grandparents from Spain. Except when I visit Miami and am struck by my resemblance to some of the locals, which is disconcerting; I tend to avoid visiting Miami as a result.

499. lucia,

     I would think that logically, like gender identity (as opposed to sex) nowadays, which is considered a social construct rather than biologically determined, then you're a POC if you call yourself a POC. It probably makes more sense than allowing boys full of testosterone to compete as girls in school sports just because they call themselves girls. Similarly, if Elizabeth Warren wants to call herself a native American, then as long as she doesn't claim to be a member of a particular tribe, she can.

     Speaking of gender identity and sports, Alliance for Freedom has filed a civil-rights complaint with the Education Department on behalf of a 16 year old girl in Connecticut seeking to overturn Connecticut's gender identity policy in women's sports based on Title IX. There are 18 other states with similar policies.

     "Since Connecticut’s athletic conference enacted its liberal gender-identity policy, two men have won 15 women’s state championships—titles that were held by 10 different Connecticut girls the previous year."

     https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-connecticut-girl-challenges-male-domination-of-female-sports-11562885421?mod=article_inline (paywalled and too long to copy)

500. To put it another way, if gender identity is a social construct, then so must be races.

501. Interesting theory going arond on DT's tweets over the last several days on the Squad. DT gets a toofer with them it seems.
     .
     1. Forces the Dems into a fatal embrace with a group that has a lower approval score than DT.
     .
     2. Sucks all the air out of the news cycle on his new and aggressive asylum regs.
     .
     As the new asylum regs are almost completely off the news radar with the current dustup, it is possible. Seems to be working regardless.

502. >no court has jurisdiction to review.

     Ed, this is also the case with TPS. Nevertheless, a federal judge issued an injunction against ending the temporary protection of people who have been here for decades.

503. mark
     *Then again, I don't think of myself as Hispanic, even though both of my parents came from Cuba and my great grandparents from Spain. *
     My Dad *did* consider himself Hispanic even though only 1 parent was from Cuba, and only 1 grandparent from Cuba! His Grandmothers parents were 1st and 2nd generation Cuban (but of Spanish stock. We have pictures– not native american or african. Also, our DNA tests show no native or african.)

     He:
     1) Spoke Spanish.
     2) Grew up partly in Cuba.
     3) His American grandfather had moved to Cuba, lived there, married and they couple had 8 daughters.
     4) Work in Latin American in his early career, had three kids while there.

     On the other hand, my Dad also considered himself Irish American. That's what he looked like: Light blond hair, grey eyes, burned to a crisp while in Cuba. Was he Hispanic? Yes? No?

     He definitely was not "of color". The Cubans in his family were not "of color", neither were the Bacardis who lived down the street from the Auzas!

504. "He definitely was not "of color". The Cubans in his family were not "of color", neither were the Bacardis who lived down the street from the Auzas!"

     Lucia, were the Bacardis from the Bacardi rum family. I coached a youth baseball team with a member named Bacardi from that family.

505. I guess I'm with DeWitt; Hispanic if he says so. Living / working in Spanish speaking countries, having at least one parent from a Spanish speaking country, this gives him Hispanic cred[ibility]. His option.
     I agree with you on the question of color though, that one seems like it ought to be less arbitrary and more concretely determined by skin color. … We live in a strange world where there are circumstances where it seems necessary to make such statements, 'color' is determined by color. Duh..
     Thanks Lucia.

506. People can identify with any non intellectual/philosophical group they may so chose, but that group identity says nothing about the all important individual and what he/she is all about. In the case of people like Elizabeth Warren who stretch the group identity or those promoting their group identity it might say something about those individuals but in my view of things nothing good about them.

507. The Spanish brought the concept of raza, from blood lines derived from their breeding of horses, with them to the new world. The upper class was proud of the purity of their blood lines through to the reconquest and after. The english word race is derived from raza.
     .
     A certificate of Limpieza de Sangre could be purchased to confirm ones true blood line.
     .
     The true blood Spaniard of the reconquest would be desended from an eariler Vandel invasion whose stock was Germanic. Lots of blonds and redheads.
     .
     This concept of being of a pure line desended from the conquest of the new world seems to still be part of the upper class structure of the old money familes in the Americas.
     .
     So blond and redhead Cubans, Mexicans, and other hispanics of long standing families are not unknown.
     .
     After WWII, large numbers of Germans emigrated to Mexico and South America "for reasons of health", infusing more blonds into the general ratical mix.

508. Kenneth
     *Lucia, were the Bacardis from the Bacardi rum family.*
     Yep. They lived in Santiago. In the county named "Auza". My relatives were the Auzas. Sugar can was grown in Auza county. Sugar is used to make rum. Francisco Auza imported and sold small motors to run distillation columns (and other things. Francisco sold motors to the Auzas (and to people who wanted to squeeze the juice out of can to make sugar.)

     I don't know why the county got named Auza. Francisco came from Europe and, I think, married a land owner. Maybe these motors really mattered.

     * I coached a youth baseball team with a member named Bacardi from that family.

     My Dad may have met his great grandfather or grandfather. The Bacardi's were neither of African descent nor Mestizo. 🙂

509. Ed
     *The true blood Spaniard of the reconquest would be desended from an eariler Vandel invasion whose stock was Germanic. Lots of blonds and redheads.*

     Uhmmm… not sure about that.
     Basques have lots of blonds and are NOT germanic.
     Galicians have lots of blonds and red heads. They are Celts, not germanic.

     My Dad's great grandfather, Francisco Auza was Basque– so definitely NOT germanic. His wife was descended from people from Madrid. No idea what that means.

     Sorry, but "Germanic" is not the pinnacle. There are plenty of Celts and Basq

510. Ed
     *The true blood Spaniard of the reconquest would be desended from an eariler Vandel invasion whose stock was Germanic. Lots of blonds and redheads.*

     Uhmmm… not sure about that.
     Basques have lots of blonds and are NOT germanic.
     Galicians have lots of blonds and red heads. They are Celts, not germanic.

     My Dad's great grandfather, Francisco Auza was Basque– so definitely NOT germanic. His wife was descended from people from Madrid. No idea what that means.

     Sorry, but "Germanic" is not the pinnacle. There are plenty of Celts and Basqeues, and Catalonians in spain. No idea what Catalonians are, but I bet dollars to donuts, they are not "germanic". Don't assume the Spaniards "purity" matched Hitler's "Master race"- germanic purity.

511. By the way Ed: Celts who are NOT germans, have lots of red and blond hair.
     *So blond and redhead Cubans, Mexicans, and other hispanics of long standing families are not unknown.*
     Yes. But likely as not they are Celts, not "germanic".

     There are lots of groups who are more blond than "germanic" groups. Yeah.. I get Hitler liked both "blond" and "germanic". But he was wrong about lots of things *including* which ethnic groups were blond and red headed.

512. Race is not just a question of skin color. Here are two famous black people, regarded as "colored" by society:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Walter_Francis_White.jpg

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roy_Campanella_cropped_NYWTS.jpg

     Less of an issue these days, but the history of racial identity is not irrelevant.

513. Mike M. (Comment #175658)
     "Race is not just a question of skin color."
     _______

     True, and for additional evidence, Google "albino african american."

     It's also about other physical characteristics.

     Compare East Indians with Africans. Both dark but otherwise the Indians look more Caucasian.

     Then there's culture.

     BTW, as a result of having 23andme test my DNA, I have been contacted by relatives who identify as African-Americans, which was somewhat surprising since I'm 100% Northern European. I'm not sure this means some of my ancestors owned slaves.

514. "BTW, as a result of having 23andme test my DNA, I have been contacted by relatives who identify as African-Americans, which was somewhat surprising since I'm 100% Northern European. I'm not sure this means some of my ancestors owned slaves."

     I can understand how these contacts would occur. My son and I had genetic testing by both 23 and Me and Ancestry DNA. The only connections that occur there are with other contributors who had genetic testing and share sufficient DNA with us to be related at least by something of the order of 6th cousins. If a parent that is not your relative was African -American and married or had children with your relative their child could easily be related to you and be considered African-American. If your ancestors were slave owners and did a Thomas Jefferson and that were the only African-American genes entering your contacts these contacts would be very distance cousins. I have 2nd and 3rd cousins who could well identify as African-Americans and are "people of color" and I am 100% Northern European.

515. Ken, I forgot about my cousin, our family historian, who believes one of our widowed ancestors lived with a slave woman who could now be described as a common-law wife in some States. Slave or not, a wife used to be considered the property of her husband.

516. OK_Max (Comment #175661): ""a wife used to be considered the property of her husband."

     That is simply not true, at least not in the U.S. (or UK, I think). I suppose that myth arose from the fact that a married woman could not usually own property in her own right.

517. MikeM, look at what the Bible says:

     "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s."

     Exodus 20:14

     The "that is thy neighbor's" implies the neighbor's wife should be considered his property. I don't know, however, that back then a man could actually buy a wife like buying a slave.

     The commandment was written a long time ago, but the idea the wife in some ways belonged to the husband or at least was subservient lasted for many centuries in Western Culture. Of course it's different now, but maybe a little of that thinking is still with us.

518. OK_Max,
     Still…. even in the Bible, a man couldn't just sell his wife to another man. They did have slavery, so perhaps the servants could be sold, or perhaps not. I'm not sure that list necessarily implies *ownership*.

     Even today people say "my" husband and "my" wife. The possessive noun doesn't imply ownership.

519. OK_Max (Comment #175664),

     Some of the items listed in the Tenth Commandment are property and some are not. That should be obvious to anyone who is not determined to misread it.

     There is an enormous difference between subservience and ownership. I may be subservient to my boss, but that does not mean he owns me. And the phrase "my boss" does not mean I own him.

     See: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/possessives

520. >>… the idea the wife in some ways belonged to the husband or at least was subservient lasted for many centuries in Western Culture.
     .
     I think women had it tough in general in most pre-industrial cultures around the world. I point this out because often I find that people pick on the U.S. for alleged injustices that are significantly worse in most of the rest of the world.
     .
     Max, would you agree that the Enlightenment was a Western culture phenomenon?

521. Thomas Jefferson likely did not father any children with his slave Sally Hemings. This was an article that came out in 1998 and was highly publicized with a false headline to try and save Bill Clinton from impeachment/removal.
     The research showed that only one of Sally's kids had Jefferson blood, any of 25 people. This kid was the younger child, born while Jefferson was President, five years after Jefferson was accused of fathering another child of Hemings.
     Despite these facts, the Jefferson family and the Genealogical Society fell sway to politics and declared that Jefferson was the father of all of Hemings's children.

522. mark bofill (Comment #175668)

     "Max, would you agree that the Enlightenment was a Western culture phenomenon?"
     ________

     Mark, I don't know. I haven't looked into the subject enough to have an opinion.

     You might be interested in reading The Way We Think About Enlightenment Is Eurocentric and Wrong.

     https://wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/winter-2013-is-democracy-worth-it/way-we-think-about-enlightenment-eurocentric-and-wrong/

523. Thank you kindly Max.

524. Mike M. (Comment #175667)
     July 20th, 2019 at 6:31 am
     OK_Max (Comment #175664),

     Some of the items listed in the Tenth Commandment are property and some are not.
     _____

     You may be referring to the servants. The servants could be slaves, although I'm not sure all servants were slaves. But if a servant wasn't a slave then the Tenth Commandment seems to make it a sin for a neighbor to even think about offering the servant a better paying job. So in a way the servant is owned even if he isn't a slave.

     Thank you for the link.

525. lucia (Comment #175666)
     July 20th, 2019 at 6:11 am
     OK_Max,
     "Still…. even in the Bible, a man couldn't just sell his wife to another man."
     _____

     Lucia, I think you a right about that.

     A man could in effect buy a wife, but I couldn’t find anything in the Bible about selling her. Don't know about giving away, but would guess not.

     Ruth 4:5-10 New International Version (NIV)
     5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the[a] dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”

     Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
     28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

526. Max,

     Completely independent of Judeo-Christian or Western culture, women in China had/have it tough:
     https://supchina.com/2019/03/11/kuora-all-the-ways-women-had-to-rise-above-oppression-in-china/
     women in India had/have it tough:
     https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/27/india-abuse-women-human-rights-rape-girls
     women under Islam have it tough:
     http://www.famafrique.org/oppression.htm
     women in Africa have it tough:
     https://www.peacewomen.org/node/89799
     [Edit: That link sucks. How about this one:
     https://www.mintpressnews.com/female-oppression-crippling-parts-africa/194603/
     There are so many. Take your pick, really.]
     And so on and so on.
     There is nothing unique about a historical oppression of women in Western culture. To the extent it actually occurred it was more or less a global phenomenon.

527. Mike N
     When you say research shows none of Hemings kids were Jeffersons. Yet, evidently this is the case:

     ***********
     The results clearly show that the male-line descendants of Field Jefferson and Eston Hemings have identical Y-chromosome haplotypes (the particular combination of variants at defined loci on the chromosome). Scientists note that there is less than a 1 percent probability that this is due to chance. Thus the haplotype match is over one hundred times more likely when Jefferson and Eston Hemings are genetically related through the male line. This study by itself does not establish that Hemings's father was Thomas Jefferson, only that Hemings's father was a Jefferson.
     ************
     Obviously, this doesn't disprove Thomas being the father of Heming
     s children.

     Some research shows on particular potential candidate was not desceded from Jefferson. This does NOT prove that the rest of Sally's kids weren't Thomas Jefferson's. Not by a long shot.

     It doesn't even prove that *candidates* purported Jefferson ancestor was not Thomas. Illegitimacy is not stupendously uncommon. One illegitmate male anywhere between the great-great…. grandpa and the candicate would result in "no match". So it can't disprove the great-great…. grandpa was Jefferson's sone.

     The fact that *at least one* of the puported male descendents did turn out to be a Jefferson — as his family lore claimed– largely supports the stories that circulated at the time, which is that Jefferson was the Dad.

     https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/research-report-on-jefferson-and-hemings/ii-assessment-of-dna-study/

528. Mike N,
     I should add: My take on that evidence is Jefferson likely DID father at least some of Hemings children, as was rumored at the time, and as the descendants of Hemigns children believed based on passed down family stories.

529. mark bofill (Comment #175674)
     "There is nothing unique about a historical oppression of women in Western culture. To the extent it actually occurred it was more or less a global phenomenon."

     mark, I certainly agree. Historically, women have been oppressed everywhere, and still are being severely oppressed in Islamic countries, India, and some parts of Africa and South America, as the Gender Inequality Index shows.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index#/media/File:Gender_Inequality_Index.svg

     According to this index, the inequality gap was smallest in EU countries. Canada, Australia and China (surprise) also did pretty good and the US and Russia weren't far behind.

     Your linked pieces may have been too hard on China or the Index may be biased. But historically, China has a bad record ( drowning unwanted female infants and binding feet).

530. Fair enough.

531. Lucia, I didn't say ' research shows none of Hemings kids were Jeffersons. ' I said it showed for the youngest(some Jefferson) and showed it was not for the older ones. Looking at the abstract of the 1998 paper it only speaks of disproving the eldest child, Thomas Woodson.

     The Monticello report you link was contradicted a year later where they state that Jefferson fathered at least six children with Sally Hemings, after concluding in your link that Thomas Woodson was definitively disproved by the Nature paper. Wikipedia lists Hemings as having exactly six children.

     If the Nature paper only analyzed DNA of two kids, then the chance of Jefferson fathering children with Hemings goes up considerably.

     I don't think the Bayes theorem analysis used in the 2001 report is valid when dealing with pregnancies. The report would be stronger without it.

532. MikeN
     *Lucia, I didn't say ' research shows none of Hemings kids were Jeffersons. '*
     .
     You claimed this, which seems incorrect.
     .
     On to this
     .
     *Thomas Jefferson likely did not father any children with his slave Sally Hemings. *
     .
     In fact: based on information at the link I posted and the oral history of the Hemings descendants it is LIKELY he fathered at least some Hemings kids.
     .
     *showed it was not for the older ones*
     .
     Research did NOT show this. You are committing a logical error or ignoring what we know about reproducction and human behavior.
     .
     *The Monticello report you link was contradicted a year later where they state that Jefferson fathered at least six children with Sally Hemings,*
     His fathering at least 6 children with Sally does NOT "contradict" the information at the link I showed.

     *I don't think the Bayes theorem analysis used in the 2001 report is valid when dealing with pregnancies. *
     Huh?

533. Lucia, what you linked and the 1998 Nature paper both ruled out Jefferson fathering Hemings's oldest son the same way they said a Jefferson male was likely the father of the youngest child. I'm not sure what the logical error you are talking about is.
     EDIT: OK, I think I understand what you are talking about, the presumption of the DNA tests that the tested people were descendants of Sally Hemings's oldest son. Your counterexample of an illegitimate child would require it to be true for all of the people tested.

     I agree that the study has no bearing on the other children of Hemings other than Thomas and Eston.

534. MikeN
     *I agree that the study has no bearing on the other children of Hemings other than Thomas and Eston.*
     Bingo. They showed Eston has a Jefferson ancestor, just as the Hemings family lore suggested.

     That other one… well… the family lore could be true, but illegitemacy could have happened somewhere along the line.

     I don't know what the Nature paper claimed to rule out. I don't know how they used Bayes' theorem. But there is no reason Bayes theorem can't work just because pregancy is involved.

535. It wasn't the Nature paper that used Bayes theorem, but some other study cited by the 2001 Monticello report.
     Nature paper ruled out Thomas Woodson as descended from Jefferson. I don't think they considered the illegitimacy angle, and don't know how many people they looked at for study.

536. MikeN,
     The method discussed at the Jefferson link was checking the Y gene. Jefferson evidently had a very rare mutation of the Y. You can only check that with a unbroken line of male descendents. The article discussed two and I bet the tested exactly two.

     *I don't think they considered the illegitimacy angle,*
     Well… All the page linked discussed was the ruled ot Woodson being descended from Jefferson and said nothing else. So: yeah, Jefferson is ruled out as his great, great… grandpa. You don't need to discuss illigitemacy to make that statement.

537. Sorry.. the montecello link says this

     ****
     The study compared nineteen genetic markers on the Y chromosomes of fourteen subjects-five male-line descendants of two sons of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's paternal uncle), three male-line descendants of three sons of John Carr (grandfather of Samuel and Peter Carr), five male-line descendants of two sons of Thomas Woodson, and one male-line descendant of Eston Hemings.
     *****

     With respect to Eston Hemings the tested one male-line descendent . That matched Jefferson.

     With respect to Woodson, the tested 5 male descendent, but those are from two of Woodson's sons. They got no match. The difficulty in terms of ruling out is that if Woodson's wife fooled around and both her sons were not really his, then neither would have Woodson's Y. So no matter how many son's, grandsons and so on they had, none would have Woodson's Y. Or, if a similar thing happened on the next generation and so on we could once again "break" the chain. There have been quite a few generations since Jefferson. This makes the probability of chain not all that low.

     The real question we want to answer is whether Woodson's Y matches Jefferson's. We can't run that test because Woodson is long dead.

     So this particular test can't really "rule out" anything about Woodson. It could only "rule in" something IF it had turned out positive.

538. Mike N, Lucia,
     The weight of the evidence, and any reasonable understanding of human behavior, argue that Jefferson had a long term intimate relationship with Sally Hemmings. Jefferson was a widower; Sally Hemmings was young, didn’t really have a choice, lived in the same house, and was described by people who knew her as ‘beautiful’; she was 75% of European ancestry, her children were described by people who knew them as “white as anyone”. Sure, it could be that someone other than Jefferson fathered her children, but it strikes me as very unlikely. Nothing can be proven, but I suspect Occam would argue that Jefferson is likely the father of Hemming’s children.

539. SteveF,
     I agree. And on top of all that, we have DNA evidence proved that one of the descendants of Eston Hemings *had* the same rare Y chromosome as Jefferson and neither of two had the chromosome of the 'Carr' person who Jefferson's children by Martha said must be the actual father.

     Yes, we don't have DNA evidence to prove *another* of Sally's son's was Jeffersons. But that proves very little because it's pretty much "absence of (this type of) evidence".

     FWIW: Sally was thought to be the half sister of Jefferson's wife Martha.

540. My statement was based on a wrong assumption that the Nature paper had ruled out all of Hemings's kids other than the youngest. Combined with the accusation at the time that Jefferson fathered children with Hemings, I don't think it likely that Jefferson would not be the father of the older children, then after being elected President decided he would have some kids with the slave just as he was falsely accused prior to becoming President.

     However, the study only ruled in the youngest child, and did not consider the older children. Thomas Woodson, the person the study did not find linked to Jefferson, is not even listed as one of Hemings's kids on Wikipedia, but is instead someone whose family long believed he was.

541. From my 45th Blog post on slavery, re Jefferson in France after the death of his wife. Thomas Jefferson was a complex, character, both as a public figure and private and individual, and nothing challenged historians and biographers more than Jefferson’ relationship with multi-racial slave Sally Heming, half sister to his wife, Martha Wayles Jefferson.

     In May 1785 Jefferson learns in a letter mislaid in transit, that his youngest daughter Lucy died of whooping cough the year before and he is now anxious to have his second daughter, Mary, with him in Paris. He arranges with kinsmen to have her sent in a suitable vessel, (tribute protected) bound for England in the Spring of 1787. Eight year old Mary,( Polly) crosses the Atlantic in the company of Sally Hemings, to spend some time in London with Abigail Adams before joining Jefferson in Paris. In a letter to Jefferson informing him of his daughter’s arrival, Abigail Adams refers to the fifteen or sixteen year old maid servant who accompanied her, saying that she seems fond of the child but ‘wants more care than the child.’ Abigail mistakes Sally for an older girl, she is in fact only fourteen years old. John Adams later refers to her as ‘the dashing Sally.’

     When Polly and Sally arrive in Paris, Sally’s nineteen year old brother, James, is already there being trained by a French chef. Therein lies another dramatic story. James and Sally are members of a shadow family, children of Betty Hemings, concubine to Jefferson’s father in law, John Wayles, who was the father of her six children. Sally, the youngest of these children is one year younger than Jefferson’s eldest daughter, Patsy.

     In Paris, Jefferson’s two daughters lived in a famous convent. It is not known if Sally lived there too, there is no record in the convent of her being there. It is known that Jefferson had her taught French and that he bought her clothes in order to accompany his elder daughter on social outings. It was said by observers that Sally was ‘very handsome, long straight hair down her back.’ Jefferson’s grandson later described her as ‘light colored and decidedly good-looking.’

     Most historians now believe that Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Heming that lasted nearly four decades until his death, and that Jefferson fathered her six children. Under French law the Hemings brother and sister could have petitioned to stay in France. It’s likely that family bonds drew them home. According to Sally’s son Madison’s later testimony, Sally Hemings became pregnant to Jefferson in Paris. She agreed to return with him to the United States based on his promise to free their children when they reached the age of twenty-one years. This first child did not survive. Six other children were born to Sally Hemings between 1795 and 1804, two dying in infancy.

     At Monticello, Sally performed the duties of Lady’s maid to Martha and took care of Jefferson’s chamber and ward-robe. The Wayles family all denied there was a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings but evidence suggests otherwise.

     Early historians generally accepted the claims of Jefferson’s legitimate family that he was not the father of Hemings’ children. The startling resemblance to Jefferson of servants waiting at table, that guests observed, was explained by Jefferson’s grandson as a family resemblance because Jefferson’s grandson, Peter Carr was the father of the children. Later DNA studies showed no match between the Carr line and Heming descendents but did show a match between the Jefferson male line and a descendent of Sally Heming’s youngest son, Eston Hemings.

     Professor of Law and History at Harvard and later at Oxford, Annette Gordon-Reed became interested in Jefferson and drew on her legal training to apply context concerning the anecdotal and contextual evidence that was available.

     Much of the legitimate family evidence marshalled against the Hemings-Jefferson connection was shown to be flawed, like the claim that the liaison was impossible due to Jefferson’s absence from Monticello. Farm book records of births show that Jefferson was always at Monticello at the time of conception of Sally Hemings’ six children, born between 1790 and 1785. Gordon-Reed notes that the Hemings children were given lighter duties than other slaves, and were the only slaves freed under the provisions of Jefferson’s will, as Sally Hemings’ son Madison had stated as an agreement between his mother and Jefferson.. The two eldest children, Harriet and Beverley, were allowed to leave Monticello in 1721 or 1722, and went north to Philadelphia or Washington. According to a Monticello overseer, Jefferson authorized him to pay the beautiful Harriet $50 and the stage coach fare to her destination. Madison and Eston Hemings , who appear reliable witnesses, both claimed that the children always knew that Jefferson as their father. Eston Hemings later changed his name to Jefferson.

542. Just received an email from Lucia and clicked the link -rank exploits. Don't know why it was rejected. beth@arc.net.au
     The extract I posted was from my 45th Edition of SerfUnder_ground Journal. I have also posted @ Lucia previously. Disappointing.
     https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/

543. Sorry Beth,
     The "get approved" plugin doesn't work as advertised. What is does do is send me an email, then I approve. I just got home, so your comment should appear now.

544. MikeN,
     *My statement was based on a wrong assumption that the Nature paper had ruled out all of Hemings's kids other than the youngest. *
     I agree if they had ruled out all but one of Hemings many kids, then we'd have a different conclusion about what is likely.

545. beth
     * The Wayles family all denied there was a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings*

     Well… yeah. Denying shadow families is "what was done" in many areas where shadow families existed.

     *but evidence suggests otherwise.*

     *Early historians generally accepted the claims of Jefferson’s legitimate family that he was not the father of Hemings’ children. The startling resemblance to Jefferson of servants waiting at table, that guests observed, was explained by Jefferson’s grandson as a family resemblance because Jefferson’s grandson, Peter Carr was the father of the children.*
     .
     Its interesting that guests remarked and had to be fobbed off with this excuse. Also, Peter only being a grandson of Jefferson, most probably thought "Yeah…. and yet they look more like Thomas than Peter. Cough… cough…. " (Subject change.) "It's been a nice summer, hasn't it".
     .
     Polite society has always wanted to avoid discussing illegitimacy. Since Jefferson didn't free Hemings and them marry her, this was what happened. (Given the ideas at the time, freeing her and marrying her likely would have been just as radical as having a concubine. So none of this was open.)

546. beththeserf (Comment #175697)

     Thanks for the history.

547. Thank you, lucia. )

548. Thank you, Kenneth F. Can't remember the source, but Thomas Jefferson made a promise to his dying wife that he would not remarry. As a stepdaughter herself, she felt anxious for her children's wellfare. In Paris in 1786 Jefferson met and fell in love with the artist , Maria Cosway. She was married and catholic so maybe not a sexual relationship but certainly it was a very warm affair btw the 43 year old Jefferson and the 27 yr old Maria Cosway. His letters reveal his ardour.
     http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih195811.htm

     When she returns for a brief visit to Paris, she writes that she sees little of him. By this time, Jefferson's younger daughter and maid, Sally Heming, Jefferson's wife's half sister from the father of his wife's liaison with a slave, have arrived in Paris. There's a letter to his son,later, in which John Adams refers to Sally as Jefferson's 'dusky muse.')

549. Testing due to lack of activity.

550. Must be everybody but me is on summer vacation.

551. I've been sewing. I also bought a "spiralizer" to cut veggies. IT's cheap. It's fun. I've been eating spiral cut zucchini. 🙂

552. Mueller is being excoriated for saying he is not familiar with Fusion GPS. However, the question was about Fusion GPS produced the dossier, hiring Chris Steele, and Mueller said, "I'm not familiar with that.'
     Perhaps Mueller is aware that Steele didn't write the dossier.

553. MikeN,
     Mueller appears to me to be in the early stages of dementia…. I watched my dad go through that stage when he was in his late 70’s. That sorry reality, combined with a lack of an underlying crime upon which to base obstruction, has finally put an end to the impeachment nonsense. It’s all over save for the endless screaming of the lunatic left. Fusion GPS will, thankfully, soon return to dishonest obscurity…. unless the principals are prosecuted for lying to Congress.
     .
     My only real doubt is if Barr will choose to prosecute those who really *did* conspire against the incoming administration, routinely and illegally “unmasked” Trump officials who where recorded by the NSA, and constantly leaked classified information whenever that would be damaging to the Trump administration.
     .
     I have been lately wondering exactly how this entire FUBAR could have happen. I think it all comes from the disrespect for the country’s history, culture, and indeed, its constitution, by the many ‘progressives’ in the Obama administration. They viewed Trump’s election as a catastrophe for the country, just as many conservatives viewed Obama’s re-election in 2012 as a catastrophe. The difference is that conservatives want to conserve the county’s history and the constitution, while progressives see those things as primarily obstructions stopping political “progress”, and really don’t give a hoot about them. So it was easy for many Obama administration officials to break laws and attempt to subvert Trump *by any means possible*… after all, the country’s political traditions have little value for progressives, except when they can be used against conservatives.
     .
     This was evident right after Trump’s election. When Trump won, the first reactions of progressives were quite enough to see how the rest of transition would go: they tried to get state elections overturned in state courts, and when that failed, they tried to convince electoral college electors to break state laws and vote for Clinton when their states were won by Trump. There was immediate talk among progressives of impeachment…. long before Trump even took office, and schemes to subvert the electoral college and substitute direct popular election via an unconstitutional multi-state popular vote “pact”. For me, it is clear that progressives, like Mr. Obama in his second term, have no respect for law, the Constitution, or the nation’s traditions; the only thing that matters to them is “progress” (AKA socialism)… and that is the ultimate cause for the entire mess.

554. SteveF (Comment #175718)

     I think you are correct about Mueller's mental state and his sad performance at the hearings. It makes me wonder how he got the job and who really ran the investigation – not that Mueller's record back in the day was very good. One thing that he or his associates did well was protect and cover for the FBI.

555. Kenneth,
     "One thing that he or his associates did well was protect and cover for the FBI."
     .
     They clearly went to considerable lengths to protect the FBI and other 'intelligence' agencies from public disclosures. But given the extent of political corruption at the FBI and the DOJ, plenty of heads have already rolled, and I expect more will following the IG's report and Barr's evaluation of potentially criminal conduct in those agencies.
     .
     But I suspect the kind of complete housecleaning that is really needed within the FBI and DOJ to remove people with strong political inclinations probably won't happen, since I suspect that would leave very few people at those agencies.
     .
     To paraphrase agent Peter Strzok, Barr probably 'smells the progressives' every time he arrives at DOJ.

556. SteveF,

     The entire federal bureaucracy is dominated by progressives. The IRS harassment of conservative non-profits couldn't have happened otherwise. Without a reform of Civil Service to allow at least limited firing without recourse and, of course, derecognition of public employee unions, I don't see that changing.

557. SteveF
     **MikeN,
     Mueller appears to me to be in the early stages of dementia….**
     I totally agree. I said the same thing to SteveMc on twitter. I too saw my dad and mother in law go through this. Based on Dad, this can progress quite quickly. Jim's Mom was slower.

     Kenneth
     * It makes me wonder how he got the job and who really ran the investigation *
     He may have seemed fine at the time he got the job. Or he may have been giving off signs that people in constant contact could see. We can't know.

     Those falling into Alzheimer's do tend to do their best to mask it, and this can be done to some extent for a while. Dad could still drive to places he had a habit of going to (grocery store, mall). He could still talk to people to a decent extent. He would certainly pretend to recognize people who recognized him. (Well… people often do this even when they don't have Alzheimers. Depending on the business you are in, greeting people with a "how the hell are you?" as if you confidently know them can be a business practice!)

     At a certain point, people can tell you're off no matter what you do. Mueller looks like he's just at that point but may not have been a year ago. Who "really" wrote the report is a valid question.

558. lucia (Comment #175722)

     Lucia, I know from where you speak. My wife passed away this March after suffering from Alzheimer's for several years. She was able to compensate for it for a few years and then the disease progressed rapidly. I did feel good that I was able to take care of her at home with the help of aids and eventually hospice where she finally passed away. I was also fortunate that unlike some who suffering from Alzheimer's she never gave me or any of the aids a hard time. The aids were always telling me what a nice person she was.

     She did undergo some personality changes. Before Alzheimer's she was always the last to get ready to go somewhere and did long good byes. After the Alzheimer's she was very much the opposite. Before Alzheimer's she would let me know about every ache and pain she had and after she never complained about anything.

     The toughest part to take was that she was a very independent woman with very much a mind of own and with Alzheimer's she became more and more dependent on me for decision making. I miss her lot and that part is the part I probably miss the most.

559. DeWitt,
     Ronald Reagan had the right idea when he fired the entire air traffic controllers union. I don’t think there is any way that could happen today. Changing laws to prohibit unions among Federal employees and to expedite firings of Federal employees when justified is also not going to happen…. the combination of votes and contributions (~90% of both to dems, of course!) make sensible reform to control Federal employees impossible. Look at the bureaucratic nightmare of the EC if you want to see the future of the USA….. that which is not explicitly allowed will be implicitly prohibited.

560. Lucia,
     “Who "really" wrote the report is a valid question.”
     .
     Perfectly valid question that will never be seriously asked nor ever answered. The Democrat attack dogs Muller hired (like Weissman) wrote the report. It is now easier to understand how such a politically lop-sided staff could have been assembled… Muller was not really all there.

561. >>Muller was not really all there.
     I wonder if Dems could achieve ignition in this way then – somehow put it forward that Mueller has lost his faculties and get Weissman to testify. *Somebody* on that team would give them the show they want to rile up support for impeachment.
     I don't think it's going to happen. I think the moment has been lost.

562. Mark
     *I wonder if Dems could achieve ignition in this way then – somehow put it forward that Mueller has lost his faculties and get Weissman to testify*
     Well.. they could put it forward. But then move for impeachment based on what Weissman says? Probably not. Because Weissman is perceived as highly partisan in the first place. The whole "point" of Mueller was supposed to be that he was not. Saying Weissman was the pointman eviscerates that. It's even worse if Weissman and "everyone" knew Weissmann was really in charge.

     You'd also start having questions about whether people knew Mueller was senile. Not a good look.

563. lucia,

     >>Because Weissman is perceived as highly partisan in the first place. The whole "point" of Mueller was supposed to be that he was not.
     .
     Yep, I think you're exactly right there. Mueller had stature, or at least the facade.

564. If the Republicans had any guts (they do not – look at the irresponsible budget that the Senate passed) they would have a Senate Mueller hearing and invite the Mueller attack dogs and question them under oath about the FBI's and CIA's involvement in this matter. You could retort that they want to wait for the results of the investigations already underway but we have been waiting for those for a long time now and waiting much longer may well result in a Democrat Senate and President deciding these matters. I know how the Democrats would proceed if the shoe were on the other foot.

     Most Republicans are hesitant to speak ill of the FBI and the CIA and Mueller for that matter. Weak kneed comes to mind.

565. Kenneth,
     No one is going to want to call Mueller in front of anything at this point. The public has seen him as he currently is. Most people grasp that nothing useful can come of subjecting him to a hearing and it would, at this point, merely be cruel.

566. Mueller seemed to be quite knowledgeable when he didn't want to answer questions because they covered matters under investigation.
     He may have just been pretending, to avoid answering questions.

     https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/7-times-robert-mueller-played-dumb-congress-partisan-advantage/

567. MikeN,
     I don't that article makes much of a case. The length of questions Muller was asked certainly doesn't show us mental clarity of Mueller's part. Monosyllabic answers like 'Yes' don't proves mental clarity even if 'Yes' happens to be correct. Nor does the answer "Attorney General". Nor do evasive answers like "“I’m not going to engage in discussion about what happened after the production of our report,” indicate mental clarity.

568. lucia (Comment #175730)

     I was not suggesting that Mueller be called to testify by the Republican majority Senate but rather the people that actually did the investigating and worked for Mueller. I would think that it could be understood without stating it that Mueller was not very well informed about important issues and that his testimony is no longer required. Mueller is the only person who said he would stick to the report narrative and probably for reasons more personal than any unwritten protocol.

     While I detest the personality, character and tweets of Trump, I do think that revealing what goes on in the "deep state" of the FBI and CIA is more important to maintaining some semblance of freedom and government transparency than the threatened impeachment charade of the House Democrats. I hear lots of words from the Republicans in these matters but not much action.

569. Another college fraud scandal in the making? A Law firm in Chicago area found to be assisting wealthy parents in transferring legal guardianship of their college bound kids in order for them to file as independent on the Fasfa and therefore qualify for aid and needs based scholarships. The tactic was uncovered by the University of Illinois when a high school counselor from an affluent neighborhood asked why a student was being invited to an orientation program for low income students. Fasfa's one of those fun federal programs that leave it up to universities to verify the data.
     https://www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-financial-aid-fafsa-parents-guardianship-children-students

570. Excerpts from a WSJ article today on Women's soccer pay. It starts with this:

     "The U.S. Soccer Federation released a letter from its president Monday saying it has paid the U.S. Women’s National Team more than the men’s team in recent years, a move that comes ahead of mediation in the women’s team’s pay-equity lawsuit against its employer… Mr. Cordeiro said the federation’s analysis showed that U.S. Soccer paid female players $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses from 2010-2018, while paying the men $26.4 million during the same period. Women’s team members receive salaries plus bonuses, while the men receive only bonuses, though larger ones, according to the letter."

     But adds the following:

     "The federation pays U.S. women’s team members per-game payments for national-team play along with professional-team salaries for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League, as all 23 members of the women’s World Cup team do. The federation doesn’t pay professional salaries for the men.

     Ms. Levinson said the federation’s numbers “inappropriately include the NWSL salaries of the players to inflate the women’s players compensation. Any apples to apples comparison shows that the men earn far more than the women…

     ..It did release information on gross revenues generated by the women’s and men’s teams. From 2009-2019, the women’s national team brought in an average of $425,446 per game and the men’s team an average of $972,147 per game, according to the letter.
     The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the U.S. women’s team generated more total game revenue than the U.S. men’s team in the three years after it won the 2015 World Cup.

     The federation said U.S. women’s games had generated a net profit, defined as ticket revenues minus event expenses, in just two of 11 years analyzed: 2016 and 2017. Across those 11 years, women’s games generated a net loss of $27.5 million, Cordeiro’s letter said.

     The letter didn’t list the men’s game net result. A spokesman said men’s games from 2009-2019 produced a net loss of $3,130,980"

     Soccer apparently is not a profitable enterprise in the US for either men or women. It would appear that the only market oriented play for pay would be the men's professional teams. I heard on the radio the other day that the men's professional league game attendance varies greatly with the city location.

571. AndrewP,
     I read that! The thing is, the "guardianship-trick" is evidently legal. Still, I anticipate some laws or rules about qualifying for federal grants are going to be tweaked here.

     **The children obtaining guardianships for educational opportunities have attended some of the area’s most prestigious schools, including Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire and Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook. Others go to high schools in Vernon Hills, Grayslake, Libertyville and Lake Forest.**
     .
     Most of these towns would fall in the category of "bordering rich towns".
     LakeForest, is historically "rich". It was on Lake Michigan (aka "the" lake.) That's where the really rich towns were.

     Nearly all the rest were one town in from 'the lake' and so tended to be more in the "respectable" regions. They had some industry, some commuting into the city and so on, but the houses weren't large palatial things on 'the lake'.

     All other things being equal, pretty areas closer to the Chicago tended to be richer too. But Lake County is one county north of Cook County where Chicago is located.

     When I was a kid, Northbrook was "swanky" (It's next to Highland Park, which is on the lake). Libertyville and Lincolnshire were more "respectable'. Vernon Hills was… where? (Libertyville is west and a little north of Lake Forest. Vernon Hills is south of Libertyville.) (FWIW: I thought Stevenson High School was in Vernon Hills. Stevenson himself was "officially" "from LIbertyville", but the house was (I think) in an unincorporated area between where LIbertyville ended and where what is now Vernon Hills started.

     Grayslake was not just west of Libertyville but west of Mundeline which was West of Libertyville and was mostly poor. (Lincolnshire is actually further west that the other towns listed, but I think was 'nice-is' sooner than other things that far west.)

     All these towns always had some very nice neighborhoods because Lake County does have numerous small to medium lakes. Lots of people built "nice" places on the prettier lakes. But the towns on the Lake Michigan were the "rich" ones and still are.

572. Kenneth,
     *Soccer apparently is not a profitable enterprise in the US for either men or women. *
     Yep. There's the rub. These numbers are going to figure prominently in the lawsuit.
     .
     But it's pretty obvious that far as generating money that can ultimately be paid to the players, sports are like all "entertainment". Sports nuts often HATE people categorizing it as "entertainment". But the fact is, like music, theater, or anything else, if there is no $$ paying audience, there is no money to pay players.
     .
     Of course, athletes can still play their sports. But they might need to do it free free and earn a living some other way. Heck, "officially" I will be competing in dance competitions in November. They are real competitions, and there are prizes. But the prizes are so small that no matter what I win, my entry fees will exceed what I win.

     The pro-pro dancers have purses that can result in the pros making money by winning — but not much. But the pro-am dancers…. well no.
     .
     My pros dance to make a living. They are my teachers. I pay them for lessons. Later, we compete. When we compete, I cover a fair amount of the time they can't teach while competing with me. (The studio figures out how to have enough students there that I don't cover 8 hours for the pro!! otherwise, ow! They do this by picking a subset of competitions their students go to.)
     .
     My "sport" is basically my leisure time activity, and I pay for it. (If you compete, it gets expensive. If you just want to be a nice social dancer, it's not too expensive. Of course, the same can be said of competitive triatheletes who travel to Hawaii to do the iron man!)

573. Lucia,
     "The thing is, the "guardianship-trick" is evidently legal."
     .
     Maybe, but it is nothing but thinly veiled fraud. When the extent of the abuse becomes better known, the rules will be changed…. with (I hope) the threat of fraud charges and jail time included to get the attention of less-than-scrupulous parents and students.
     .
     FWIW, I believe this or a similar scheme was sometimes used back in the 1970's and 1980's to get undeserved financial aid.

574. SteveF,
     It's absolutely fraud! That is: ethically. But not everything that is ethically fraud is illegal, so someone might need to hunt pretty hard to find something to charge someone with.

     .
     I assume the rules will be changed. Someone needs to think through the rules, and figure out how to change them. According to the article, one of the judges being asked to grant a guardianship caught on. Also, a high school counselor caught on to the issue.
     .
     But still, someone is going to have to change some rules and then (the expensive part) some admin is going to have to monitor. So, for example: Does the kid live with their parents in the summer? Who pays for the cell phone. Are they on their parents insurance policy. (Many parents are NOT going to want their kid uninsured, and insurance is expensive.)
     .
     Perhaps what they did in the 70s lead to kids having to have been granted a guardianship. Because I'm pretty sure I knew a kid who got himself declared independent in college– but that happened after he was 18.
     .
     He did not live with his parents. He had a sports scholarship. He worked a job at a funeral home picking up bodies at night both for money and room and board. So he was independent. But my understanding is *now adays* that, and his parents refusal to support him, would not be enough to get him decreed independent NOW. NOW, you need to have been a "ward" or your parents have to give up custody before you turn 18.
     .
     It's actually a problem in both directions, because there are parents who will support kids up to the day they turn 18, and then bupkiss. Now a days, if those parents make money (or refuse to fill out FAFSA), those kids can't get need based aid. (They can do other things– like join the military and so on.)
     .
     But yeah… in this case, there are parents who, having paid for advise from a counselor, are getting their kid into guardianship at the last minute. Then the parents probably still do give the kid support, but get financial aid. That's certainly not the intention of the law!

575. I remember going to Lake Forest for an academic competition.
     The town was filled with expensive car dealerships, like Aston Martin.

576. lucia (Comment #175740): "It's absolutely fraud! That is: ethically. But not everything that is ethically fraud is illegal, so someone might need to hunt pretty hard to find something to charge someone with."

     Yes it is fraud, but I am not so sure there is nothing that can be charged. For parents to relinquish guardianship a judge must find that it is in the best interest of the child. If the evidence presented to the judge is deceitful, there would be questions of legal fraud and perjury.

     Many of the applications in Illinois made the claim: “The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide.” That claim would arguably be fraudulent.

     I think that legal fraud can be committed by simply concealing that which should be disclosed. So if the parents never told the court the real reason for transferring guardianship, that might well be legal fraud.

577. MikeM
     *there would be questions of legal fraud and perjury. *
     Only if they said something that could be viewed as a *fact* that was *false*. Opinions? Shmopinions.

578. Biggest issue I see is health insurance and taxes. You're getting really into the shady area if you can claim independence for fasfa and still claim they are a dependent for those. If I ran an insurance company I'd start rejecting claims since they are no longer a dependent.
     The guardian rationale language is something along the lines of "The guardian can provide Educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide". It appears that the guardians are not actually providing the educational and financial support. That seems to be perjury but might be a gray enough area to be supportable. The other issue is who is going to make the perjury claim. Universities are responsible for the compliance checking for fasfa. It wouldn't surprise me if some just turn a blind eye to this unless a federal agency gets involved. I don't have much hope that the current Department of Education administration has a problem with the people utilizing this tactic.
     The one example from the WSJ was a family with 250k in family income. They claim they don't have any equity in their 1.2 million dollar home and spent $600k sending their other kids through college. Transferring guardianship of the daughter let her claim just $4.2k of income which qualified her for $27k of merit aid at a private college that costs $65k. Someone is paying the difference. The student surely isn't on 4.2k of income.
     Fasfa doesn't care if the kid is definitely estranged from their parents and on their own for college funding. Their parents income still counts. While they might get off on a legal technicality because of the guardian loophole, I wouldn't be betting on it. I'm kind of surprised the Fasfa doesn't require a statement of financial independence from the parents before allowing the removal of their income from consideration.

579. A big factor would be what the parents told the judge. If they were upfront about why they were doing it and the judge went along, then they might be safe. But as andrewp points out, there is also the question of whether the parents are still supporting the kid, either buy helping the kid pay his bills or keeping him on the family health insurance. That could amount to fraud, depending on what the court and financial aid people were told.

580. MIkeM,
     Yes. If the parents (or someone else) committed perjury, that would be a crime on the part of the perjurer.

     *That could amount to fraud, *
     Perhaps. But something merely being "fraud" in some generich sense doesn't make it illegal. It might just be unethical.

     For it to be illegal, there needs to be a specific statute somewhere it would violate. Those generally explain the precise element of what you call "fraud" that is illegal.

     As we learn in the mikado…

     **********
     Mikado: That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, thefool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake—-
     Ko-Ko, Pitti-Sing, and Pooh-Bah: No!
     Mikado: Or not knowing—-
     Ko-Ko: No!
     Mikado: Or having no notion—-
     Pitti-Sing: No!
     Mikado: Or not being there—-
     Pooh-Bah: No!
     Mikado: There should be, of course—
     Ko-Ko, Pitti-Sing, and Pooh-Bah: Yes!
     Mikado: But there isn't.
     Ko-Ko, Pitti-Sing, and Pooh-Bah: Oh!
     Mikado: That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution–will after luncheon suit you? Can you wait till then?
     Ko-Ko, Pitti-Sing, and Pooh-Bah: Oh, yes–we can wait till then!
     Mikado: Then we'll make it after luncheon.
     Pooh-Bah: I don't want any lunch.
     Mikado: I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.
     ********

     Anyway, owing to the slovenly way acts are written, if these things were done carefully and with an eye to what the law allows, it may actually be there is nothing illegal in all this. But if so, I suspect the laws will be modified to make some aspect illegal.

581. MikeM,
     Here's the thing about "Fraud": there are two definitions. One means a criminal act, the other does not.

     —-
     fraud
     /frôd/
     Learn to pronounce
     noun
     noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds

     *wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

     * a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

     —-
     What these people did was certainly at least the second thing. It does not follow that it is also the first thing. So yes, it is a "fraud". But not all fraudulent acts are crimes.

582. andrewp
     *The one example from the WSJ was a family with 250k in family income. They claim they don't have any equity in their 1.2 million dollar home and spent $600k sending their other kids through college.*
     .
     This is rather amazing, isn't it?

     That article claimed this of that family:
     ==========
     Today, her daughter attends a private college on the West Coast which costs $65,000 in annual tuition, she said. The daughter received a $27,000 merit scholarship and an additional $20,000 in need-based aid, including a federal Pell grant, which she won’t have to pay back. The daughter is responsible for $18,000 a year, which her grandparents pay, the woman said.
     =========

     So, if there was no need based aid, the tuition (no room and board ?) would have been $38K

     I mean… I know people don't *want* to spend $40K a year on tuition if they don't have to. But college was forseeable. These people *should* practically be able to pay that much out of income *if they really want to do so*. Even assuming they pay half their income in taxes (which they likely don't), that leaves $125K a year for food, clothes, vacations and so on. If they spent $40K on tuition and room and board for that kid, they *still* have $85K for other needs (including a mortgage.)

     It would be interesting to read where there other kids went to school, what degrees they earned and how many there were. But really, that family *should* have been able to pay $38K out of income. Anyone would have wanted to avoid it– that's normal. But they could afford it. (I'm betting they spend money on a country club or vacations. 🙂 )

583. lucia (Comment #175748): "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

     It seems to me that what they did was indeed a "wrongful deception". And there can be no argument that it was "intended to result in financial or personal gain." So it would seem to be a criminal fraud, even if no other law was broken in the process. But it seems likely that other laws were broken.

584. MIkeM
     *So it would seem to be a criminal fraud,*
     "It would seem", you think. But what law do you think it broke? This is an actual question. The articles claim this is not illegal. But you think otherwise. To be illegal, it must violate a *specific* law. What law do you think it broke? Once again: Real question.

585. Lucia,
     "*The one example from the WSJ was a family with 250k in family income. They claim they don't have any equity in their 1.2 million dollar home and spent $600k sending their other kids through college.*
     .
     This is rather amazing, isn't it?"
     .
     Amazing is not the description I would have selected; 'obscene that they dare foist their kid's expensive education on the taxpayers' seems a better description. In any case, I will venture a wild guess that they are dedicated liberals….. which is often associated with amorality and dishonesty.
     .
     BTW, no college in the USA has tuition and fees of $65K… for sure includes other expenses. https://ceoworld.biz/2019/01/01/these-12-colleges-are-currently-the-most-expensive-in-the-united-states/

586. "They claim they don't have any equity in their 1.2 million dollar home…."

     Can you say 'house poor'?

     My guess would be that at least 40% of their income goes into the (probably) multiple mortgages on their house. A straight 30 year mortgage at 3.92% would be $68,000/year. But you're not going to get the standard low rate on second or third mortgages. Also, if you live in a $1.2 million dollar house, you likely spend a lot of money on lifestyle too, like expensive cars that you replace frequently, or worse, lease. Then there are the taxes. I can easily see them not having any extra income for college expenses.

     Then there's the question of whether $300,000+ (expenses will likely increase over the four years) for a bachelor's degree is a worthwhile investment.

587. lucia (Comment #175751): "To be illegal, it must violate a *specific* law. What law do you think it broke? Once again: Real question."

     Fraud. And maybe perjury.

588. DeWitt,

     The old guideline was your house should cost not more than three times your gross income…. they are in way too much house for their income. We shouldn’t have to subsidize that overspend by helping pay for their kid’s college.

589. DeWitt
     * Also, if you live in a $1.2 million dollar house, you likely spend a lot of money on lifestyle too, like expensive cars that you replace frequently, or worse, lease. Then there are the taxes. I can easily see them not having any extra income for college expenses.*
     Oh… I agree they probably have large "lifestyle expenses". Probably they spend more on groceries by buying things like truffles. Perhaps they own a boat or a motor home. And entertain.
     .
     They would need to cut back on these utterly discretionary choices to "find" the $40K. That doesn't mean they CAN'T do it. They don't want to.

590. SteveF,

     Indeed. Nor should we have to subsidize these people when they retire with little or no savings and still owe a lot of money on their house. But don't hold your breath on that one either.

     But at least this family has children that might be able to support them in their old age if their education actually pays off. The DINKs (Dual Income No Kids), who also, by and large, don't have any savings in spite of not having to pay for college, are going to be the biggest problem.

591. MikeM
     "Fraud" is not an answer to the question of what law they broke. Fraud statutes are *specific*. "Mail and Wire Fraud": Ponzi and Madoff were convicted of, specifically "mail fraud". Do you think that's what the parents did? Or do you think they committed "securities fraud" and so on. Eeach of these has a specific statute. People don't just get convicted of "fraud".

     So once again, precisely WHAT criminal act do you think they committed. Then we can look into that and see if it seem to apply. But "just fraud" isn't a specific crime.

     Some may have committed perjury. But we don't know that. Many of the articles seem to suggest they told the judge they were doing it because the change would make it possible for the kid to have funds to go to college. That was actually *precisely true*. It did so.

592. lucia,

     With no equity in their house, they're handicapped even if they wanted to downsize to reduce expenses. Maybe they could sell their Benz's or Bimmer's and buy beaters. Not likely.

593. DeWitt,
     “The DINKs (Dual Income No Kids), who also, by and large, don't have any savings in spite of not having to pay for college, are going to be the biggest problem.”
     .
     Based on anecdotal observation, the problem may not be as bad as that. The lesbian and gay couples I encounter seem much better off as they approach retirement than couples who raised kids. Besides, many couples (especially DINKs!) will get two respectable social security benefits, even if their other income is modest. They’ll get by.

594. DeWitt,
     *With no equity in their house, they're handicapped even if they wanted to downsize to reduce expenses.*
     Sure. But I'm pretty sure they have no equity because they spend lavishly. No equity in a very expensive home doesn't "just happen".
     .
     Besides that, they can sell, eliminate mortgage payments and get a small two bedroom apartment in a modest apartment complex. That's not going to cost them $65K a year.
     .
     They don't do that because they don't want to.

595. lucia (Comment #175758): "So once again, precisely WHAT criminal act do you think they committed."

     I think the technical name is "theft by deception" or "theft by false pretense", depending on the jurisdiction. But I am not a lawyer.

     They may have *not* broken any law. Were they honest with the court as to the reason for giving up custody? Did the minor move in with the new guardian? Did the parents provide financial support to the offspring or compensation to the guardian? If "yes", "yes", and "no", it *might* have been legal. But as andrewp pointed out, it seems unlikely that the parents did all that.

     If they were honest with the court and the judges approved the change in guardianship, then you have some judges you need to get rid of.

596. MikeM,
     I've googled, found and read numerous articles. All say this is legal. So, IF it's illegal, no one has figured out in what way it is illegal.
     .
     One suggests there 'might' be perjury– but doesn't point to any specific thing that was said in court that would be. If what parents giving up guardianship said was *literally true* they aren't guilty of perjury. I'm pretty sure omitted information not volunteered and not asked for isn't perjury. The parents evidently said things like "The guardianship is in the kids best interest because it will permit the child to afford college" or some such, worded in a careful way. It didn't say "This will allow them to apply for Pell Grants". Both are true– but the second would be extra detail that … uhmmm… they didn't provide.
     .
     It seems one particular judge suddenly said "hey. Wait a minit!!!!" But early on, the judges just bought it.
     .
     Evidently Illinois law (which is where this is happening) are vague about what precisely is required merit appointing a guardian. All you need to say is it's "in the kids best interest", and have both parents and guardians agree. So the judges were basically not thinking someone might be involved in a scam. After all: Why would you initially think this might a scam? You wouldn't.

597. lucia (Comment #175763): "I've googled, found and read numerous articles. All say this is legal."

     Well, if you read it on the internet …

     So somebody told a reporter that it is legal. Who? Did the reporter say? Did the reporter seek out a separate legal opinion? I only looked at a couple articles, but I did not see that.

     I don't doubt that it can be done in a way that is legal. But I suspect that to do that, you'd have to be smart, careful, and very self-disciplined. I am guessing that family that can't make ends meet on $250K/yr is 0-for-3 on those. One problem with exploiting loopholes is that a single false step can do you in.
     .
     lucia: "If what parents giving up guardianship said was *literally true* they aren't guilty of perjury. I'm pretty sure omitted information not volunteered and not asked for isn't perjury."

     There are circumstances in which that is true. But I am not sure it is an absolute rule; that is, I think that in some cases you have an obligation to disclose everything relevant. I suspect that the perjury would not occur by staying silent; it would occur when you say that you have disclosed everything relevant. But I don't really know.
     .
     lucia: "It didn't say "This will allow them to apply for Pell Grants" … It seems one particular judge suddenly said "hey. Wait a minit!!!!"

     It seems at least one did say it was for Pell Grants, which is what tipped off that judge.
     .
     lucia: "But early on, the judges just bought it."

     Yes. But it is not the job of a judge to ferret out that which might be hidden. If you are a witness in an adversarial proceeding, you are not obliged to expand on what you are asked; it is the interrogator's job to elicit the information. But I suspect that is not the case in a non-adversarial probate proceeding.

598. MikeM,
     *Well, if you read it on the internet …*
     Well as opposed to your source… Which appear to be "it seems to MikeM…" These are rags like the Wall Street Journal
     .
     Not that we should take the word of the intertubes, but it appears there were at least two firms doing college counseling, and staff at the firms had thought this through. It is possible for people who specialize in an area to be careful and self-disciplined. They figured out how to avoid having the potentially non-careful parents appear in court. Papers were prepared by people who had thought this out, then they were submitted. So, it appears care was taken to avoid slip ups.
     .
     *Yes. But it is not the job of a judge to ferret out that which might be hidden.*
     Of course not. Which is why this following statement of yours is probably incorrect:
     *If they were honest with the court and the judges approved the change in guardianship, then you have some judges you need to get rid of.*
     .
     The parents could have told the truth, and we might still have no judges we need to get rid off because it is not necessarily the job of a judge to ferret out everything.

599. The Director of Undergraduate admissions at U of I has evidently consulted attorney on this:

     "
     Borst said attorneys have told U. of I. officials the tactic is legal, but school leaders feel it is an unethical way to access financial aid. U. of I. has reported its findings to the U.S. Department of Education and the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, which oversees multiple state grant programs, including the Monetary Award Program for low-income students.
     "

     They also comment on the person who seems to have implemented the scheme through her business:

     "In an interview Tuesday Georgieva acknowledged she had researched federal student aid regulations and consulted with lawyers, and found that changing guardianship could be a way for students to file a FAFSA as an independent. "

     So… once again, this person did seem to be sufficiently careful to consult lawyers.

     They quote another attorney discussing guardianship laws

     "Mari Berlin, an attorney at Kabbe Law Group, which handled some of the guardianship cases described in the ProPublica report, said Illinois law is broad and rests upon the “best interests” of the minor. Guardianship can be transferred even in situations in which “parents are willing and able to parent,” so long as the parents consent, Berlin said."

     https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-legal-guardianship-college-financial-aid-20190730-3wojx5xr5jendferi76tcehzma-story.html

     I realize this is on the intertubes, but this isn't just "somebody". The director of admissions, who would LIKE this pursued if he can have it done has consulted attorneys. And yes the articles are discussing what attorney's say, and the writers are discussing directly with attorneys. Although, it is still just the intertubes (even if these papers are also available on paper. I get the Chicago Tribune on paper btw.)

600. The perjury risk is down to what exactly is in the legalize you are agreeing to when signing a fasfa. If this contract was from a decent business, I'd expect that the lawyers would have covered most avenues. Since this was a government program intended to help constituents, I doubt it's as iron clad as it could be. If law firms are pitching this service, I suspect that they feel the have an argument against it. Universities have limited interest in pursuing dubious charges against students and their families. I have to actually commend UofI for not ignoring the issue. In reality the money lost to this fraud isn't the University's so what would be their gain. That's not to say that those charges could be successfully prosecuted. The intent of the guardian release is clear and they are side stepping the issue.
     Quite frankly, I think this exposes an issue with federally supported financial aid in general. Give it to the IRS to administer. They have the experience it dealing with those going after looking to game the system. They also have direct access to the data to help identify questionable low eft applications. The press is acting as a advertisement for these services. While this loophole will be closed eventually, there will be others and know every "rich" idiot that doesn't preplan for their kids education will be asking for help in finding ones.
     PS the 68k likely includes on-campus room and board. That typically is on scale with Tuition now days if not exceeding it.

601. I thought there was a way that some fraud could be alleged. In reading the statute, it appears to be amazingly simple. See http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=075500050HArt.+XI&ActID=2104&ChapterID=60&SeqStart=12100000&SeqEnd=14300000

     Maybe there is no way to nail the perpetrators of this scheme. My first reaction was that between the huge welter of Federal and State laws, there had to be something somewhere where fraud could be alleged. It appears my first reaction was wrong.

     JD

602. From a WSJ article today:

     CHICAGO—Amid an intense national furor over the fairness of college admissions, the Education Department is looking into a tactic that has been used in some suburbs here, in which wealthy parents transfer legal guardianship of their college-bound children to relatives or friends so the teens can claim financial aid, say people familiar with the matter.
     The strategy caught the department’s attention amid a spate of guardianship transfers here. It means that only the children’s earnings were considered in their financial-aid applications, not the family income or savings. That has led to awards of scholarships and access to federal financial aid designed for the poor, these people said.
     Several universities in Illinois say they are looking into the practice, which is legal. “Our financial-aid resources are limited and the practice of wealthy parents transferring the guardianship of their children to qualify for need-based financial aid—or so-called opportunity hoarding—takes away resources from middle- and low-income students,” said Andrew Borst, director of undergraduate enrollment at the University of Illinois. “This is legal, but we question the ethics.”

     I think sometimes there is confusion about wealth and income and particularly where there is high income with little net worth. I can see that many couples with children of college age with high income would have little net worth. I believe that politicians have very definite biases against savings and where debt is somehow thought to be something for future generations to handle or to be handled by some unknown future magic. That tends to become a societal norm until something like the housing bubble occurs. Was not it Bernie Sanders who wanted "free college education" for all and regardless of family income or wealth?

     Actually the Federal Reserve by lowering interest rates artificially is encouraging spending over savings.

603. JD Ohio (Comment #175770): "See http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio…..d=14300000
     Maybe there is no way to nail the perpetrators of this scheme."

     There might be no way to nail *some* of the perpetrators. But others might not have been so careful. It looks to me like the statute requires the guardian to take custody of the minor. But from the original article:
     "The man eventually agreed to become the teenager’s guardian, though the guardianship lasted only about a month, until she turned 18. He said that he did not provide financial support for her, and that she did not live in his home."
     That would also seem to contradict the boilerplate claim:
     "The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide."
     https://www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-financial-aid-fafsa-parents-guardianship-children-students

604. One way to potentially nail some of the parents. The Illinois law states that the guardianship is to be in the "best interest" of the child. At least with respect to substantially wealthy parents who could afford college expenses but who were simply trying to save money, you could argue that guardianship was obtained not in the "best interest" of the child, but in the "best interest" of the parents. That would lay the groundwork for a claim of fraud.

     Mike M also makes a good point that many probably had sham guardianships and the minors may not have lived with the guardian.

     JD

605. JD Ohio (Comment #175773)

     You can be guardian of a minor without that minor living with the guardian – at least in IL.

606. "..though the guardianship lasted only about a month, until she turned 18.

     In IL a guardianship of a minor can only last until that minor turns 18. If a guardianship is to continue one must petition the court for guardianship of an adult.

607. AndrewP
     *The perjury risk is down to what exactly is in the legalize you are agreeing to when signing a fasfa.*
     The parents don't fill out or sign a fafsa. Not filling it out is the goal of setting up the guardianship.
     .
     * Universities have limited interest in pursuing dubious charges against students and their families.*
     .
     The Chi-trib article and other articles interviewing the director of undergraduate admissions suggests the opposite. Or at least, they ARE interested in pursuing charges. Presumably, they don't want to pursue dubious ones, but they have yanked the aid UofI gave the students. (The UofI can't yank aid given by the Feds.)
     .
     * In reality the money lost to this fraud isn't the University's so what would be their gain.*
     Some of the money lost is UofI money. But they yanked that (future) aid back. Admittedly, UofI money comes from the state and tuition, but it is the pot they have control over and they yanked it. (I'm pretty sure they can't yank back anything they might have granted last year.)
     .
     Other money is not UofI money and they have no control over Federal aid. The have alerted the US Department of Education, which, evidently (based on other articles) is looking into the issue and considering how to change rules about who needs to fill out fafsa.
     .
     FWIW: I am wondering if these parents kicked their kids off their insurance. I assume if the kids are in a guardianship, the insurance company doesn't want them treated as "dependents" for the purpose of insurance. That said: dunno. But if the parents defrauded an insurance company, that might turn out to be an issue.

608. MikeM
     *"The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide."*
     The wording is certainly misleading. It sounds as if they are saying the Guardian will actually support the kid. The problem is that's not necessarily what it means. Of course what they mean is the existence of Guardianship will permit the kid to gain access to educational and financial support her parents (feel) they could otherwise not provide.
     .
     So the issue will be: Is that statement an actual lie? In the legal sense? (Yes, we are playing 'depends on what the definition of is, is"? But that's relevant to whether or not the parents committed "perjury" which is a legal issue. )
     .
     Another question will be what does the law require in the filing? I don't know the answers to these– but the journalist writing these articles ARE talking to lawyers, and, at least so far, not finding lawyers who are saying that would be perjury. The Illinois statute is brief and doesn't seem to give answer to these questions.
     .
     Those are all real questions btw.

     Kenneth,
     *
     JD Ohio (Comment #175773)
     You can be guardian of a minor without that minor living with the guardian – at least in IL.
     *
     Yep. In Illinois, kids don't need to live with a guardian. In fact, since I was going to be guardian of my niece and nephew in the event my sister and her husband died before they were grown up, we discussed this. You can't ever know precisely all the circumstances that might surround any event in the future. For all we knew, their death could coincide with a time when I couldn't have them live with me in the foreseeable future. ( Such a time never happened, but you still have to think about this.)
     .
     Mary Beth and Kevin were fine with Hank staying in boarding school– which was precisely where he was during the school year anyway. (He went home on weekends.) It was the same boarding school Hank's step father, Kevin, went to. Mary Beth and Kevin were fine with the idea of Maggie going off to Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart in LakeForest. They have an all girls boarding school. (Mary Beth and I were day students there.)
     .
     Obviously, it's weird for parents to grant guardianship to someone and then *still* have the kids live with the parents. I suspect one rule change on aid and fafsa will require that the "independent" status of kids will be limited to those who
     (I) were granted guardianship and
     (a) were orphaned or (b) whose appointed guardians supported them for at least "X" amount of time (with what "support" means being defined in some reasonable way.)

     The people who support PELL grants and so on will want to be sure kids who needed guardianship do have access to funds while eliminating this loophole.

609. I was curious and went to read what FAFSA requires kids to enter to determine their parents wealth and income. I know some parents hire specialists to get advise on how to organize things to optimize for FAFSA. But we can get some ideas reading:

     https://blog.ed.gov/2018/09/7-things-you-need-2019-20-fafsa/

     Evidently, the value of the parents home is NOT entered on the FAFSA as an asset. If that's true then it would be a GOOD strategy for parents to own a big house *outright* rather than having the equivalent amount of money held in stocks, bonds or equities of any type held outside a retirement account.

     It is also useful to keep as much of your wealth in things like 401 Ks, insurance and other "retirement" vehicles. Of course, this takes some pre-planning.

     "Investments do not include the home in which you (and if married, your spouse) live; cash, savings and checking accounts; the value of life insurance and retirement plans (401[k] plans, pension funds, annuities, non-education IRAs, Keogh plans, etc.)."
     .
     https://fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1819/help/fotw33c.htm
     .
     Of course, making sure you "fill" your 401 K, pension rather than having the same money somewhere else requires years of pre-planning! (That's the whole point of 401K's and so on anyway.)
     .
     I know there are specialists who advise parents on how to organize finances and where possible, income to optimize a FAFSA application. For example: a small business owner might be able to make choices to temporarily minimize income or that make the look poorer to FAFSA. Or not… They might be screwed if they do things in a sub-optimal way.
     .
     Specialists also advise divorced parents on issues that affect which parent will be considered "custodial" by FAFSA. (It's the one the kid lived with the largest number of days during the year. So: the year before filing FAFSA, if possible, the kid should live with the one who will make them look neediest on FAFSA.)
     .
     I don't know how the aid calculation looks at wealth vs. income. But it's clear some wealth is invisible to FAFSA. It's hard to make income invisible unless you divorce and one parent is made the "low income" one. Oddly, to a large extent, debts seem to be invisible too.
     .

610. "The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide."

     lucia (Comment #175777): "The wording is certainly misleading. It sounds as if they are saying the Guardian will actually support the kid. The problem is that's not necessarily what it means."

     Advertisers get away with such misleading language all the time. I don't know what the standard is for legal proceedings. I would guess that a carefully crafted evasion that is not literally true would expose the person making the statement to significant risk.

     I have to sign my tax form under text that starts out "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that …". Surely the form submitted to the court has something similar. The language of that is probably critical in judging whether the misleading language is legally actionable.

     ————
     lucia: "In Illinois, kids don't need to live with a guardian."

     But my reading of the statute that JD linked to is that a guardian has to have *custody*. The guardian could still have custody with the kid in a boarding school. But not, I think, if the kid is living with his parents.

611. MikeM.,
     I suspect you are wrong about someone (e.g. a legal guardian) not being able to have custody if kids they live with their parent.
     .
     The law recognizes both "physical custody" and "legal custody".
     "Legal Custody: Parents who have legal custody are able to make legal decisions on matters impacting the child."
     .
     People can have legal custody without having physical custody. So… a guardian could have legal custody even if the kid doesn't live with them. A parent can have legal custody while kids live with grandparents and so on. One divorced parent can have legal custody while another has physical custody.
     .
     It's *inconvenient* for a person (parent or otherwise) who has physical custody to not have legal custody, but it's entirely possible for that to happen.

     https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/understanding-the-difference-between-physical-and-legal-custody.rl

612. lucia (Comment #175781): "People can have legal custody without having physical custody."

     But can people have permanent physical custody without having legal custody? I don't know and the article cited does not say.
     .
     lucia: "a guardian could have legal custody even if the kid doesn't live with them."

     I agree and have already said so. But can the parents have physical custody without having legal custody?

613. It occurs to me that the discussion that lucia and I have been having may be moot. The proper issue is probably not the conditions under which legal and physical custody can be separated. It is whether the court approved such a separation.

614. The judge is going to scrutinize the guardian in a guardianship of a minor case . If the parents appear in court or provide documents that they approve of the guardianship and the petitioning guardian shows the court that he/she is of good and reliable character I would suspect that most probate judges would make the decree in favor of guardianship.

     Getting guardianship of an adult is a different matter and probably not necessary once the minor was under guardianship. I think I read here that the minor under these circumstances is considered independent once coming of age and without an adult guardianship. That would appear to make the guardianship of the minor of a very short term duration.

     When I was in the Cook Co. IL court getting guardianship of my autistic grandson as a minor and again as an adult there were numerous guardianship cases passing through the judge's courtroom those days. I would estimate between 15 and 20 passed through between the court hours of 10 AM to 1PM. The documents were all handled electronically and essentially approved prior to the court date. The judge would ask 3 or 4 questions of the petitioner.

615. MikeM
     *But can people have permanent physical custody without having legal custody?*
     These guardianships never lasted long. But certainly a kid can live with someone who does not have custody for quite a long time provided those with legal custody grant permission. My sister's Godmother in Guatemala sent her kids to your house from Septmeber to February several summers. (Three different kids, three different years.) They enrolled in school and learned English.
     .
     No court approval was required for them to spend all this time with our family.
     .
     A girl in my highschool was a hot shot ice skater in high school. Her parents lived in Arizona. There was a wonderful ice arena in Illinois. She lived with a family in Barrington pretty much all the time. That family did not have "legal custody". No court approval was required of this.
     .
     I really think courts only get involved when the legal guardian does NOT want the kid to do something.

616. Kenneth,
     I think you are describing the normal process. *IF* the current legal guardians (usually the parents) approve of the guardianship, it's practically a rubber stamp. The judge does read the paper work, but will rarely override it.
     .
     MikeM
     *But can the parents have physical custody without having legal custody?*
     Why couldn't they? The law doesn't seem to suggest that kids *cannot* spend long "visits" in their parents house after legal custody has been transferred to someone else. It *normally* isn't what happens because normally, parents don't give up legal custody unless they are no longer capable of physical custody. But that doesn't mean the law prohibits it.

617. lucia (Comment #175786): "The law doesn't seem to suggest that kids *cannot* spend long "visits" in their parents house after legal custody has been transferred to someone else. It *normally* isn't what happens because normally, parents don't give up legal custody unless they are no longer capable of physical custody. But that doesn't mean the law prohibits it."

     That is a fair point, except that it misses the main point. The question is whether the guardianship was a sham. Things like the child continuing to live with the parents, the guardian not lifting a finger to "provide educational and financial support and opportunities", and the parents continuing to provide direct or indirect financial support would not be wrongdoing in themselves. They would be evidence that the transfer of guardianship was a sham.

     Surely, a legal decision based on deception can be reversed after the deception comes to light. If the deception was for the purpose of financial gain, then it is fraud. If that is not so, then any connection between the law and justice has been severed.

     It is certainly possible that the deception was so skillfully constructed that it can not be proven in a court of law. But it seems likely that in at least some of these cases there is enough probable cause for a prosecutor to launch an investigation. Once that happens, all sorts of hidden things can be revealed. Then the whole sham will likely start to unravel.

618. MikeM
     *That is a fair point, except that it misses the main point. The question is whether the guardianship was a sham.*
     .
     I thought the main point was figuring out whether the guardianships were *legally in place* and/or whether the parents or guardians could be charged with anything. It's all well and good to come up with the concept of a "sham", but unless you connect that idea to having something to do with Illinois law, that's an ethical, not legal issue.
     .
     We all agree there is something unethical going on and that there is something "shambolic" in all of this. So if your point is "it's a sham". Sure. Debate over, we agree and always have. But I thought the main point of this discussion is whether whether we can identify an element of the law that has been violated.
     .
     It may be that someone, somewhere will figure out something to charge someone with. But right now, the response of Illinois governor is to try to figure out how to change the law, the response of the US Department of Education is to figure out how to change rules. People are investigating the precisely what was done– but that doesn't really seem to be a mystery. Lots of people in Illinois appear to be trying to figure out how to punish someone based on what was done, but so far no one has.
     .
     Given how many people in government ARE looking to identify specific things that may have been illegal and how they *have not succeeded*, I don't see much basis for your confidence that somehow, someone will find something illegal in this. Words like "fraud" and "sham" always have ethical implications but frauds and shams are only illegal in *some* instances.
     .
     *If the deception was for the purpose of financial gain, then it is fraud. If that is not so, then any connection between the law and justice has been severed.*
     .
     Yes. Well… sometimes there IS a disconnect between law and justice. When that is found, sometimes law makers try to modify laws, which is precisely what lawmakers appear to be discussing at this point.

619. If the transfer of guardianship was legitimate, then there was probably no crime. Everyone seems to be assuming the transfer was legitimate, but I have my doubts.

     It seems that the transfer of guardianship was a sham in that it existed only on paper with no intent to take any actual action of the sort implied by the transfer. It seems that the parties made intentionally misleading statements to the court and intentionally withheld relevant information. I would think that could be used to invalidate the transfer of guardianship. Then any knowing use of that invalid transfer for personal gain would be theft by deception.

     I would think that it would be a crime to knowingly misuse the legal system in that manner. Perhaps perjury, depending on just what the parties attested to. Maybe fraud on the court? Maybe abuse of process? I don't know, I am not a lawyer.

     I do not claim to know that there is legal action that can be taken against the scammers. I am objecting to the assertion that there is *no* action that can be taken.

     It is also my opinion that any prosecutor worth his salt would exert himself to the utmost to find a cause for action.

     —–
     Addition: I would think that a prosecutor pursuing this would keep his mouth shut until arrests were made.

620. MikeM,
     As I've said: it may turn out that someone, somewhere will dig up something illegal in all this.
     .
     Some people (e.g director of admissions at University of Illinois, Governor Pritzker, US Department of Education) have evidently been trying to find something and, evidently, failed. Perhaps you are right and there is some prosecutor, somewhere who has found something to charge them with, and is just waiting for the right time. But honestly, no one has described any *specific action* that appears to have violated an actual law.
     .
     I'm not sure precisely what bothers you about my saying that so far no one has found anything illegal about this, that perhaps, someone might, but that so far, the hope someone will find something illegal in all this appears very slim.

621. Being lazy to Goggle on a VERY low bandwidth, I will make the point that legal marriages to obtain entry to the US have resulted in convictions for a "sham" marriage. Might this apply?

     Side issue: I have been on vacation where slow internet has been a blessing. Most of the time I had no signal at all. What is an internet junkie to DO!

622. Ed Forbes,
     The statutes discussing granting immigration status to alien spouses discusses the need for the marriage to be entered into in good faith and for the spouses to actually live as a married couple very specifically. Precisely because the statute discusses the "sham" vs. "not sham" aspects and what is required to make it a "not sham" (as far as immigration law goes), there are legal consequences.
     .
     If those provisions were not written into the law, then immigration status would be granted to those entering into marriages that many of use would consider "shams".
     .
     In contrast, the Illinois guardianship law has *no such language*.
     .
     So, you, Mike, I and the kitchen door can all consider these guardianships "a sham". But our (Illinois) law has no provision to define which guardianships are "shams" and which are "not shams" and has no consequences based on public opinion deeming this "a sham".
     .
     So, if anything what the immigration shows us is that the Illinois guardianship LACKs provisions necessary to throw out the guardianship based on how "shambolic" it might be seen to be. And that would appear to be precisely the problem with someone finding something illegal here. It appears that under Illinois law, if a guardianship is established, then it exists. There appears to be no *legal* concept of "sham" guardianship.

623. lucia (Comment #175794): "Precisely because the statute discusses the "sham" vs. "not sham" aspects and what is required to make it a "not sham" (as far as immigration law goes), there are legal consequences. … In contrast, the Illinois guardianship law has *no such language*."

     True. But the "sham" vs. "not sham" is in the immigration statutes, not the marriage statutes. And in that context, a sham marriage is just as legally binding as a non-sham marriage, even if INS gets a conviction and imposes criminal penalties.
     .
     If there is a way to proceed against the scammers, it must lie in the misuse of a legal proceeding. It is possible for a proceeding to be a civil wrong (at least) even if all forms are followed.

     For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
     "The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] … "Process" … means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.[3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice".

     Citations [1] and [3] appear to be Illinois court decisions. Condition (1) is obviously met, but I am less clear about (2); that would depend on just what "not proper" means. If the last sentence of the quote is interpreted as the meaning of "not proper", then condition (2) is obviously met. Abuse of process is an intentional tort, so it would be a basis to recover civil damages but not a basis for a criminal proceeding.

624. MikeM
     *True. But the "sham" vs. "not sham" is in the immigration statutes, not the marriage statutes. *
     .
     Yes. But the point is, what is required for the marriage to be recognized for purposes of immigration written in *somewhere*. Language establishing what a "sham" guardianship is not written *anywhere* for the guardianship. That's the problem: Because it is NOT written anywhere, there doesn't seem to be an "illegal hook" for these guardianships.
     .
     This is likely something that will be fixed at both the state and federal level.

     On this:
     *Condition (1) is obviously met,*
     Uh. I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing it not met. This is (1)
     *(1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process*
     "Ulterior" motives must be something other than the stated motive. The stated motives are to benefit the minor by giving them better access to financial resources. That appears to have been THE motive. I'm not seeing an "ulterior" motive.
     .
     We'd need a lawyer to explain what (2) or (3) means. They sound procedural and kinda sort of "terms of art" to me. I'm betting there were no violations of that.
     .
     I know you really, really want this to be illegal. But if it was as easy as "they did (1)", people like the dean of undergraduate admissions and our governor wouldn't be frustrated by this 'loophole'. They'd be getting people to file charges (civil or criminal).

625. lucia (Comment #175797): "I know you really, really want this to be illegal. But if it was as easy as "they did (1)", people like the dean of undergraduate admissions and our governor wouldn't be frustrated by this 'loophole'."

     True. I think that part of the problem is that people have accepted the fact that we are replacing a justice system with a legal system. In a justice system, a prosecutor uses the law in the pursuit of justice, in a manner that is constrained by the law. Juries concern themselves with justice while judges make sure everything is in accord with the law. In a legal system, the law is all that matters; justice is irrelevant to the courts. Judges interpret the law in a narrow legalistic manner and do their best to keep juries from mistakenly doing what is just. IMO, the change to a legal system is a massive error. I have not accepted that it is irreversible.

626. MIkeM,
     * I think that part of the problem is that people have accepted the fact that we are replacing a justice system with a legal system.*
     In this case, there is a problem. But I don't think I've merely "accepted" having a legal system rather than a "justice" system. I honestly prefer the legal system. For what it's worth, I think "the rule of law" is more just than a system people claim is designed to pursue "justice" in individual cases. What people think is "just" can vary from time to time and case to case. What the law IS varies less.

627. lucia (Comment #175799): "I honestly prefer the legal system."

     Many people, quite possibly most people, agree with you. I don't.

628. Mike M.,

     Sorry, but we've never had a justice system. It's always been a legal system. Or at least it has been for as long as I can remember. Do you seriously think that, for example, the McMartin preschool fiasco back in the 1980's, which triggered a raft of similar persecutions of innocent people, could have happened if we had a justice system? I don't.

629. DeWitt Payne (Comment #175801): "Sorry, but we've never had a justice system. It's always been a legal system. Or at least it has been for as long as I can remember."

     There have always been legalistic aspects to the system, in the sense of producing results that are unjust but legally correct. That will happen in any system that depends on the rule of law. My sense is that such results have been becoming more normalized, that people are increasingly satisfied with such results, and that the change has been happening gradually for a long time. Frankly, I can't provide any real evidence of that and have no idea where to look for it.

     Perhaps it is just that I have been becoming gradually more aware of that. OK, here is one piece of evidence: the determination of judges to stamp out jury nullification.

     ——–

     DeWitt: "Do you seriously think that, for example, the McMartin preschool fiasco back in the 1980's, which triggered a raft of similar persecutions of innocent people, could have happened if we had a justice system?"

     Yes, I do. Any system will sometimes produce injustice. One source of injustice is the senseless, literal application of the law, even if the result is plainly unjust. Another is people getting carried away with emotion. As I recall, the McMartin case was the latter. So it says nothing about justice system vs. legal system.

     Some people might argue that the injustices of a rigidly legalistic system are preferable to the injustices that result from an overly emotional response. But so far as I can tell, excessive legalism does little or nothing to stop a rush to judgement.
     ——–
     Addition: A justice system does not always achieve justice; it just regards justice as the objective.

630. DeWitt
     *Do you seriously think that, for example, the McMartin preschool fiasco back in the 1980's, which triggered a raft of similar persecutions of innocent people, could have happened if we had a justice system? I don't.*
     .
     Oh… it very well might have!!
     .
     If a prosecutor thought it happened, nothing about a "justice" system would have prevented the prosecutor from persuing it to achieve "justices".

     MikeM
     **There have always been legalistic aspects to the system, in the sense of producing results that are unjust but legally correct. That will happen in any system that depends on the rule of law. **
     .
     It will also happen in a system that does NOT depend on the rule of law and tries to replace it with "justice".

     **the determination of judges to stamp out jury nullification.**
     Judges have mostly wanted this to go away for a long time. They've always failed. They will continue to fail.
     .
     Beyond that jury nullification isn't always a force for justice. It can also do the reverse where juries will not convict someone from the "favored" race for killing someone from a "disfavored" race because the jury thinks that would be "unjust". Similar things can happen at the level of a prejudiced prosecutor who wants "just" outcomes.
     .
     **excessive legalism does little or nothing to stop a rush to judgement.**
     .
     This is likely because you haven't lived with a system that does NOT involve what you consider excessive legalism. Plus, it's not just "emotion" that causes problems in "justice" systems that do not follow a rule of law. It's also prejudice, favoritism, cronyism, and just blantant abuse of power. The question is always *who* gets to decide what justice is.
     .
     One of the big advantages of systems with rule of law is legislatures debate what laws should be in situations where an individual is not being pursued. During those debates, the law makers do consider justice. Of course, they sometimes overlook things and temporarily a case arises that was not what they intended. But that's still a heck of a lot better than having individual prosecutors, judges or posses round up people when public sentiment has suddenly decided something is "not just".

631. Mike M,
     "In a justice system, a prosecutor uses the law in the pursuit of justice, in a manner that is constrained by the law."
     .
     Justice is a loose term which means something different for each person. "Social justice", and "environmental justice" are just two examples of cases where the use of 'justice' is nothing but a fig leaf to excuse policy goals which are explicitly contrary to law. A legal system is what we (mostly) have and what we most definitely need; it is no coincidence that people who talk of 'justice' have a strong tendency to ignore the law…. progressive justices on the SC are the poster children for a lawless country where a progressive vision of 'justice' is all that matters. 'Justice' was Obama's excuse for flipping the bird at the law and ignoring it whenever he wanted.
     .
     May sensible people save us all from a system of justice.

632. lucia (Comment #175803): "This is likely because you haven't lived with a system that does NOT involve what you consider excessive legalism. … that's still a heck of a lot better than having individual prosecutors, judges or posses round up people when public sentiment has suddenly decided something is "not just"."

     But that is not what I have said. I am all for the rule of law.
     .
     lucia: "The question is always *who* gets to decide what justice is."

     Exactly. As it stands now, those decisions are almost entirely decided by prosecutors and judges, with little input from juries. Even in the tiny number of cases that go to a jury, the jury is usually tightly constrained.
     .
     lucia: "It can also do the reverse where juries will not convict someone from the "favored" race for killing someone from a "disfavored" race because the jury thinks that would be "unjust"."

     Yep. But were juries any worse than prosecutors and judges in those cases? I think not.

     And such things still happen. Would a State Department functionary have gotten away with the things Hillery got away with? Of course not. Prosecutors (and, to a lesser extent, judges) always have and probably always will protect their kind of people. The elites have expensive lawyers to keep them on the right side of the law. The little guy needs to rely on a jury of his peers for justice. The move towards legalism advantages the elites and disadvantages the little guy.

633. MikeM
     *Exactly. As it stands now, those decisions are almost entirely decided by prosecutors and judges, with little input from juries. Even in the tiny number of cases that go to a jury, the jury is usually tightly constrained.*
     .
     I do see problems with most cases now being resolved through plea agreements. But I don't see how a "justice" system would be any different from what you see as a "legal" system in this regard.
     .
     I don't see a problem with a jury not *making* laws. They are involved in deterimination of a fact. I don't see this as a problem. I also don't see how juries making law on the fly would be more "just" than them only trying facts. I really don't think 12 people should be making laws.
     .
     In the case of unjust laws: Jury nullification is entirely legal and happens. Prosecutors also often don't enforce laws in cases where it is perceived as unjust. So I should think, contrary to your concern, we have these elements of what you call a "justice" system as opposed to "legal" one.
     .
     **The little guy needs to rely on a jury of his peers for justice.**
     Perhaps. But good luck with the idea that the jury of peers would let a state department functionary get away with thigns!

634. The civil tort system is where emotions and calls for 'justice' really come into play. Emotion rather than logic is, AFAICT, the only justification for the jury decisions on talcum powder and ovarian cancer. If the miniscule amounts of asbestos that were found in talc were really significantly carcinogenic, the ovaries would be the last place where cancers would develop.

635. I am not advocating that juries make law. But as I read the guardian statute, there are three steps required to use it for a minor to become emancipated:
     (1) The guardian is appointed.
     (2) The guardian executes his duties as guardian.
     (3) The minor reaches the age of 18.

     If all three steps were followed, then there may well be nothing to be done. But I suspect that in many cases, step (2) was skipped. Between steps (1) and (3) *somebody* was making decisions and taking actions as the minor's guardian. If that was the parents, then guardianship was never actually transferred. In that case, either the change in guardianship was moot or the court decision was violated. Either way, people should be in legal jeopardy.

     IMO, it is silly to argue that there is no need to actually transfer guardianship since the law does not mention that. The law plainly implies that the guardian must act as guardian and the parents must not. Otherwise, the law makes no sense.

636. MikeM
     *But I suspect that in many cases, step (2) was skipped.*
     What required duties to you suspect were skipped? And where in the law are those duties stated? Real questions. Because I suspect no "duties" were skipped.

     ** *somebody* was making decisions and taking actions as the minor's guardian. ***
     Sure. And the decision could be: (1) let the minor continue to attend his high school. (2) Let the minor continue to wear the clothes he previously owned. (3) Let the minor apply to colleges. (4) Let the minor visit his biological parents (adoptive parents allow this all the time.) These are all decisions guardians can make. You don't need to put the kids life into a food processor and chop it up for something to be a "decision".
     .
     Lots of parents give 17 year old kids wide latitude. It's even often considered good parenting to let kids start to make a fair number of decisions on their own. Parents are allowed to do that so it seems likely guardians ought to be allowed. It would be odd if guardians are *forbidden* to behave in ways parents are allowed to behave. (I think it would also be unjust to dictate guardian choices in circumstance where you would allow parents make the exact same choices.)

637. lucia,

     The claimed purpose of the transfer was that the guardian was going to provide the minor with things the parent could not provide. If not a single thing changed in the minor's life and if the guardian never lifted a finger for the minor or was never consulted as to the minor's care, then that claimed purpose was a lie.
     .
     Addition: If during the period of guardianship the parents signed anything on behalf of the child, such as permission for medical care or permission for a school field trip, then the parents committed forgery.

638. MikeM
     *The claimed purpose of the transfer was that the guardian was going to provide the minor with things the parent could not provide*
     You keep overstating what the "claimed purpose" is OR (ironically) leaving out words to IMPLY more than was said it the filing.
     .
     The filing didn't claim the guardian would provide those things by spending money out of their own pocket. Only that guardianships would permit those things to be provided where otherwise they could not.
     Those things WERE provided– and they anticipated they would be provided. They just happened to gain access from the government as a consequence of the guardianship.
     .
     I'm sure you don't think YOU leaving out details about "how" and having people read it in as you lying or saying something false. But you are leaving them out when complaining these filings are false. And the ONLY way to read the claimed purpose as false is to read in information NOT contained in the filing.
     .
     It's not possible to judge as true YOUR statements that leave out important details thus tempting people to infer something false while judging theirs that do the same dang thing as false because they left out similar details.
     .
     *never lifted a finger for the minor or was never consulted as to the minor's care, then that claimed purpose was a lie.*
     In your mind, what does "lifting a finger" or "be consulted" constitute? Real question. I'm sure the parents and guardians will point to discussions between the guardian and the child. The judge knew the kids ages and certainly isn't going to think the kid needs to be breastfed and diapered. I suspect very little action is required to be deemed "finger lifting".

     *then the parents committed forgery.*
     .
     Not forgery if they signed their own names. It would be some other type of misrepresentation.
     .
     However, if they claimed them as dependents on something like insurance, they might be guilty of insurance fraud. Insurance is a problem I noted well above. But– and this is important– in that case, they are guilty of *insurance fraud* with whatever penalties that entails. It wouldn't appear to make the *guardianship* nor the *application and receipt of aid* illegal.
     .
     Also, if after the change in guardianship they filled out paperwork claiming to be the legal guardian at the school they may have a legal issue with misrepresentation of some sort. But in many cases, these kids probably already were enrolled and merely "forgetting" to change paperwork probably will be a non-issue. Paperwork was true when filled out but not updated. That's common.
     .
     Heck, given ages of kids, some might have already graduated high school. My sister was 17 yo when she graduated high school– her birthday is in June.
     .
     My guess– and it's a guess– divorced parents don't go to jail or pay fines if they fail to promptly change school paperwork after custodial changes. (Given how acrimonious custodial changes are, I don't doubt the one who just gained custody tends to march in promptly to change things. BUT that doesn't mean it's illegal if the forget and don't do it.)

639. lucia: "The filing didn't claim the guardian would provide those things by spending money out of their own pocket. Only that guardianships would permit those things to be provided where otherwise they could not."

     Not so. The boilerplate text is: “The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide.”
     So they said the guardian can provide those things. Not "make available". Not "appointing a guardian will provide". Reading the language legalistically, it says that the guardian will provide those things out of his own resources.
     .
     lucia: "I'm sure you don't think YOU leaving out details about "how" and having people read it in as you lying or saying something false."

     I most certainly DO think I am lying if I intentionally leave out details that I know would matter.
     .
     lucia: "And the ONLY way to read the claimed purpose as false is to read in information NOT contained in the filing."

     Wrong. You only need to read it *exactly* as written.
     .
     lucia: "But in many cases, these kids probably already were enrolled and merely "forgetting" to change paperwork probably will be a non-issue. Paperwork was true when filled out but not updated. That's common."

     If they updated some paperwork but not other paperwork, they could argue that it was an accidental oversight. But if I were a prosecutor, I would not care. I'd go after them anyway. So what if it is unjust? They broke the law, and the law applies to everyone. After all, we have a legal system not a justice system.
     .
     lucia: "In your mind, what does "lifting a finger" or "be consulted" constitute?"

     Pretty much anything.

     lucia: "I'm sure the parents and guardians will point to discussions between the guardian and the child."

     In the case where the guardian was a business partner, there might not even be that.

     lucia: "I suspect very little action is required to be deemed "finger lifting"."

     I agree.
     .
     lucia: "Not forgery if they signed their own names. It would be some other type of misrepresentation."

     Yes, forgery was the wrong term.
     .
     lucia: "My guess– and it's a guess– divorced parents don't go to jail or pay fines if they fail to promptly change school paperwork after custodial changes."

     I hope that is so. It would be evidence that we still have elements of a justice system.

     ——
     The parents in these cases are trying to use legal technicalities to gain an unfair advantage. It would be perfectly fair for the state to use legal technicalities to nail them. That would be both legal and just.

640. MIkeM
     *So they said the guardian can provide those things.*
     .
     He DID provide them– through the mechanism of the government. Look at the dictionary definition of provide. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=provide
     .
     Provide means is "make available for use; supply." Making it available by any means– including by means of getting it from the governement– is still making something available.
     .
     *I most certainly DO think I am lying if I intentionally leave out details that I know would matter. *
     .
     OK. You left out details *I* think matter to understanding. Others might too. Presumably, *YOU* don't think those details "matter".
     .
     My guess is those filling out the paper work don't think those details "matter". Since the law doesn't require them to provide those details, one could certainly argue they don't matter in a legal filing.
     .
     *Wrong. You only need to read it *exactly* as written.*
     .
     I've read it exactly as written, interpreting "provide" according to the DICTIOANRY definition. You are interpreting "provide" according to some other definition that is more expansive. That is: you are reading claims not made into the statement.
     .
     * But if I were a prosecutor, I would not care. I'd go after them anyway. So what if it is unjust? *
     .
     Ok. But the prosecutor doesn't decide who WINS the case. We have an adversarial system. And we have statutes making "malicious prosecution" a legal wrong. I don't know if it's a tort or a criminal action. An over zealous prosecutor twisting the wording to pursue someone is an injustice.
     .
     *They broke the law, and the law applies to everyone. After all, we have a legal system not a justice system.*
     .
     You haven't shown they broke the law.
     .
     *In the case where the guardian was a business partner, there might not even be that.*
     Perhaps not. But more likely, there was some contact between the business partner and the kid. Business partners are often good friends.

     *The parents in these cases are trying to use legal technicalities to gain an unfair advantage. It would be perfectly fair for the state to use legal technicalities to nail them. That would be both legal and just.*
     .
     Perhaps. But you haven't shown any actionable technicality exists. It may turn out there was one in some case. Or not. My guess is if there is one, the most likely one will be related to health insurance. The parents *better* have taken the kids off their insurance.

641. The NYT today had two related articles that caught my attention, one on some men accused of mass shootings being afraid of extinction of the white race, the other on Doctrine of Replacement,
     a concern about white women not having enough children. I couldn't read the articles because my ways of getting around the paywall don't work anymore.

     I imagine the first article could have been about race mixing as well as replacement, but race mixing in the U.S. could ultimately lead to the extinction of all races in the U.S. not just the white race. Mixing or not, whites as a percentage of the total population will decline as as results of the low birth rates among white women and the high birth rates among black and Latino women. I don't have the numbers, but doubt non-white immigration (legal and illegal) is anywhere near as much of a cause in the relative decline of whites as the difference in birth rates.

     If the white race in the U.S. is on the way to extinction, the absolute number of whites would be declining. I haven't seen the numbers, but don't believe that's been happening. But the relative decline has been happening, and whites likely will be outnumbered by members of other races by 2050 ( or sooner ?) if the trend continues.

     I am not saying government policy should be measures to maintain the white majority at it's current level, but supposing that actually was the policy, what measures would be morally acceptable? This question has me stumped.

642. Max,
     .
     I for one [] do not believe I'd support any government policy to maintain a white majority at the current level. This seems like it'd be a pretty arbitrary and fundamentally racist goal to be shooting for via policy.
     .
     This is *not* to say that I support open borders or anything of that sort, BTW.

643. Might I bring up the charges brought successfully by the Special Prosecutor: Conspiracy to defraud the United States government.

     I personally think the reasoning brought forward to apply it is insane, but the courts accepted it and people went to jail for it.

     If the intent was to defraud the feds, charges could well be brought forward even if the direct actions taken were technically legal.

     Welcome to the Brave New World where legal actions can still send you to jail.

644. mark bofill (Comment #175817)
     August 7th, 2019 at 4:13 pm
     Max,

     "I for one [] do not believe I'd support any government policy to maintain a white majority at the current level."
     ______

     mark, I can't say I wouldn't support any, I just can't think of any I would support.

     The conflict for me is this: if there's nothing wrong with the current mix, why would a policy to keep the current mix be wrong unless the means were wrong?

645. Max,
     >>The conflict for me is this: if there's nothing wrong with the current mix, why would a policy to keep the current mix be wrong unless the means were wrong?
     .
     I don't know why you think that because the current mix is OK that therefore keeping the current mix is [] a morally acceptable goal. I have children aged X and Y. There's nothing wrong with that. This says nothing about whether or not it'd be wrong to have a goal of trying to keep the children ages X and Y.
     .
     The generalization being, that something is OK has no inherent bearing on whether or not it's OK to try to *keep* that thing the way it currently is. [At least, there's no inherent relationship there that I can see.]

646. Max,

     But I actually have a more specific reason in this case. I think it's generally a bad idea to pay much attention to / focus on immutable group attributes like race when it comes to dealing with people. My political faith is that it's best to reckon with people as individuals instead of members of identity groups.

647. Ed Forbes (Comment #175818): "Might I bring up the charges brought successfully by the Special Prosecutor: Conspiracy to defraud the United States government."

     Huh?. Wasn't that the charge against the Russian trolls?
     ———-
     Ed Forbes: "I personally think the reasoning brought forward to apply it is insane, but the courts accepted it and people went to jail for it."

     I am not aware of the details, but it does sounds nuts. But didn't that prosecution fall apart?

648. mark bofill (Comment #175821): "it's best to reckon with people as individuals instead of members of identity groups."

     Exactly right.

649. mark bofill (Comment #175820)
     August 7th, 2019 at 6:43 pm
     Max,

     I don't know why you think that because the current mix is OK that therefore keeping the current mix is [] a morally acceptable goal.
     ____

     mark, if it would be OK if the mix didn't change because of policies, I don't understand why it wouldn't be OK for a policy to keep the mix from changing, unless the means of the policy were not OK. I can readily think of totally unacceptable means. I am trying to think of means that might be acceptable.

650. Mike:
     The Russian troll farm case is on its last legs, but still active
     .
     https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/in-major-blow-to-mueller-federal-judge-rebukes-mueller-and-doj-for-falsely-claiming-russian-bot-farm-linked-to-russian-government/
     .
     Manafort and Gates
     https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-guide-to-all-of-the-charges-against-manafort-and-gates
     .
     COUNT ONE: Conspiracy Against the United States
     .
     On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

651. Max,
     >>mark, if it would be OK if the mix didn't change because of policies, I don't understand why it wouldn't be OK for a policy to keep the mix from changing, unless the means of the policy were not OK.
     .
     Yeah Max, I understood you the first time. Is there something in particular you did not understand about my answer in Comment #175820 [Edit: or #175821 for that matter]? I'd be glad to elaborate if you'd be more specific about what you're not following. Probably tomorrow, but maybe tonight if you respond quickly.

652. OK_Max
     *The conflict for me is this: if there's nothing wrong with the current mix, why would a policy to keep the current mix be wrong unless the means were wrong?*
     There is nothing wrong with the current mix, but (unless you count racist notions) there is also nothing wrong with a different mix. So a policy to prevent a different mix could only be justified based on racism. I consider that wrong even if we found means of achieving the racist outcome that sounded ok if they had not been motivated by racism.

653. mark bofill (Comment #175826)
     August 7th, 2019 at 7:56 pm
     Max,
     >>mark, if it would be OK if the mix didn't change because of policies, I don't understand why it wouldn't be OK for a policy to keep the mix from changing, unless the means of the policy were not OK.
     .
     Yeah Max, I understood you the first time. Is there something in particular you did not understand about my answer in Comment #175820 [Edit: or #175821 for that matter]?
     ______

     mark, my comments weren't exactly the same.

     Comment #175819) "nothing wrong with the current mix"

     Comment #175824) "it would be OK if the mix didn't change because of policies"

     The first above didn't mention outcome of lack of policy or "hands off", the second does. Not that I'm sure the lack of specific policies to maintain the current racial mix, means no current policies of any
     kind affect the mix, intentionally or not.

     mark, in your Comment #175820 about "a goal of trying to keep the children ages X and Y, " I must be missing your point, since your
     children are going to age regardless.

     Also from your Comment #175820 , "The generalization being, that something is OK has no inherent bearing on whether or not it's OK to try to *keep* that thing the way it currently is.

     mark, I believe the status quo is what political conservatives want to preserve.

     Regarding your Comment #175821, My political faith is that it's best to reckon with people as individuals instead of members of identity groups." Mine too, but I'm not sure what our agreement on this has to do with the nation's racial make up.

654. Ok_Max
     *mark, I believe the status quo is what political conservatives want to preserve. *
     That depends what you mean by "status quo". I want to keep the bill or rights. I want to keep individual liberties. As much as possible, I'd like to keep race *neutral* laws (which is the status quo.)
     .
     I have no desire to freeze technology. So, I don't want to maintain the "status quo".
     .
     I don't want to CHANGE the "status quo" by putting in place policies that are intended to dictate the racial composition of the population of the united states. So I guess in that sense, I am a "conservative" who wants to *maintain* the status quo of NOT dictating the racial composition of the US.
     .
     If someone wants to dictate the racial composition of the US… well.. I guess they can call themselves left, right or whatever they want. But one thing they are NOT doing is *maintaining* the status quo, because, in fact, they are drastically changing our policies to focus on enforcing a racial composition.
     .
     I'm not under the impression that loads of political conservatives are for any such policy. These people may very well exist. If they do they are probably aware that most political conservatives are NOT for that, and so shut up.
     .
     My guess is the only possible motive for wanting to enforce any particular balance of "race" in the country is racism. I don't think racism is a good motive for policy. But even if someone could concoct some plausible not-racist reason for trying to freeze the balance, I can't imagine it would be a proper function for a government to maintain a racial balance.
     .
     Certainly government policies to "maintain a racial balance" are wildly inconsistent with supporting a government of limited powers– which many conservatives, particular those who lean libertarian, do support. At a minimum: I think for the most part enacting laws that are specifically designed to do that (as opposed to something else) would be outside the scope of powers granted the Federal government.

655. lucia (Comment #175827)

     "There is nothing wrong with the current mix, but (unless you count racist notions) there is also nothing wrong with a different mix. So a policy to prevent a different mix could only be justified based on racism."
     ________

     Hard to argue with you on that, but it implies policies to change racial mix could also be based only on racism (e.g., school integration), which I don't believe was your intention.

656. Correction to my Comment #175830

     Sorry, Lucia, I chose a bad example. School integration was not racist policy, but a policy to address existing racism.

657. No identifiable racial group in the USA has total fertility at or above replacement level (2.1 per woman). White women are at ~1.67, black women at ~1.8 and hispanic women a little over 2.0. Immigration is the dominant cause for the relative decline in whites as a fraction of the total. Remember that immigration is not just hispanic; there has been a huge influx of Asian and south Asian immigrants as well as from elsewhere. All these immigrant groups vote (when they become citizens, which most do) for democrats by a large margin….. making Dem support for high levels of immigration, if not open borders, easy to understand. At current rates of immigration, Republicans will control only a handful of low population states in a few decades.

658. Max,
     >> School integration was not racist policy, but a policy to address existing racism.
     .
     There's an argument to be had that integration was indeed a racist policy, in that it was color conscious or not colorblind:
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_consciousness
     .
     To summarize the opposing views in a phrase:
     As articulated by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
     and:
     Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in 1978, stated, "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
     .
     Arguments are made both ways. Personally, I'd like to know the exit criteria for treating people differently based on their race. When will the affirmative action mission be accomplished and completed? It seems to me that the answer to this question is 'never', which I find unsatisfactory.

659. SteveF (Comment #175832)

     I'm not a Republican, but I wouldn't want to see the Party disappear. The GOP should have an immigration policy that entices wealthy foreigners to move here. Exempt them from paying income tax for 10 years, enough time for them to get used to living in the U.S.

     SteveF, thank you for the info on fertility. I didn't know birth rates were below replacement for all racial groups. I thought it was just for white women.

     The linked article says non-white fertility rates, although still higher' have been declining faster than white-fertility rates. If not for immigration, U.S. population would be declining.

     https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

     I don't know for sure what's best, no change in population, a decline, or an increase. I guess for the latter two it would depend on how much.

     But if some increase in population is a good thing, and X amount is ideal, I wonder if immigration policy takes that amount into account.
     Without any idea of what X should be, the policy would be in the dark.

     The current policy favors highly educated and highly skilled immigrants, which seems indirectly racist to me, although racism isn't the basis for the policy.

660. mark bofill (Comment #175833): "I'd like to know the exit criteria for treating people differently based on their race. When will the affirmative action mission be accomplished and completed? It seems to me that the answer to this question is 'never', which I find unsatisfactory."

     Yes, there's the rub. I note that in the 60's there was still a lot of discrimination on the basis of religion and/or ethnicity. If you were Catholic, Jewish, or just had a long family name of Mediterranean or Eastern European origin, you could forget about ever being a partner in a white shoe law firm (and many other things). It was probably even worse if you were Asian. Now, it does not matter. No special treatment was required.

661. mark bofill (Comment #175833)

     mark, thank you. "Racism" is an elastic term. To me it means a person is racist if he believes his race is superior to another race, and not necessarily that he practices discrimination or hates the other race although that my be true too. Some people, however, believe hatred of and/or hostility alone toward another race is racism.

     I liked your quote of Blackman.

     Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in 1978, stated, "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

662. Max,
     >>"Racism" is an elastic term.
     Yes. Here is yet another definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
     although some complain it is a convenient redefinition.
     .
     >>I liked your quote of Blackman.
     In my experience, progressives generally do.
     ~shrug~

663. OK_Max
     *The current policy favors highly educated and highly skilled immigrants, which seems indirectly racist to me, although racism isn't the basis for the policy.*

     I don't see that as being racist. I do think it's reasonable to scrutinize cases where differential impact happens to identify whether a rule was legitimate rather than being a pretext. I don't consider "differential impact" of policies made legitimate color blind reasons to be racist or sexist. For example: I don't see requiring firemen to be able to run up a burning building wearing heavy clothing and carrying heavy hoses and so on to be directly or indirectly sexist even though it will certainly exclude more women than men. I would see imposing a similar requirement on accountants or computer programmers sexist.
     .
     Similar things happen with race and immigration. Yes, preferring skilled immigrants over unskilled immigrants has the effect of letting in people from the Indian Subcontinent and east Asia relative to central america. So it has a differential impact on the racial groups entering this country. But that doesn't make skills a pretext. Our employers and economy really DO benefit more from immigrants with skills. That is a legitimate reason to prefer one applicant from another.
     .
     We also give preference to people who have not been convicted of crimes over those who have. That may or may not have a racial impact, but it's legitimate.

664. OK_Max (Comment #175834): "The current policy favors highly educated and highly skilled immigrants, which seems indirectly racist to me, although racism isn't the basis for the policy."

     No, the current policy favors the relatives of people already here. It also provides Green Cards on the basis of a lottery. Education and skills are irrelevant.

665. MikeM,
     We also grant employee based immigration. employers apply for skilled workers. So to *some* extent, we favor people with skills. We just don't favor it as much as being related to someone already here.
     .
     I think we should favor skilled workers more.

666. mark bofill (Comment #175837)
     August 8th, 2019 at 9:52 am
     Max,
     >>"Racism" is an elastic term.
     Yes. Here is yet another definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
     _____

     To me that definition suggest racism is useless unless an advantage can be gained from it. Maybe that's true. But it exists even where there seems to be no advantage.

     mark, If I had to pin a label on myself, and the choices were Conservative, Libertarian, White Nationalist, Green, or Progressive, I would choose the latter two. This doesn't necessarily mean I would favor every specific Progressive or Green policy proposal. I like some libertarian ideas, but not those on economics, and even like some conservative ideas. At a personal level I am ultra-conservative (live below means, etc.). As for political party, I guess Middle-of-the-road Democrat would fit me. I'm for Biden.

667. Max,
     I'm not fond of that definition either. People playing word games, you ask me.
     I hope Biden wins the primary nomination. Out of all the Dem candidates he's the one I'd prefer if I had to choose one.
     [Edit: My prediction has been that he will not win the primary. But he seems to be doing pretty well so far, so hopefully I'm wrong!]

668. Mark,
     I think racial prejudice is sufficient for something to be racist. If two different people go around saying "kill all the white people" vs "kill all the black people" it's pretty clear to me that both are racist.
     .
     However, generally, racism only becomes worth addressing with laws when there it is widespread among a group that has power to inflict penalties against those of the "wrong" race. Obviously, if the law were literally to say one of the above people had a right to actually kill the color of their choice while the other didn't, that would be a racial disparity. (Ok… that wouldn't be the main problem. The main problem is neither should get to kill anyone. But that wouldn't be a *racial* disparity.)
     .
     But anyway, as an example where "racism" wouldn't much matter: Suppose there was one and only one powerless or nearly powerless individual who we will call Joe who hated all people of "race Z" insisting they were inferior. Other than that, race Z had no more difficulty that other races at getting jobs, getting housing, getting education and so on, we really wouldn't need to make it a law to make it illegal for Joe to refuse to rent, hire, befriend and so on people of race Z. I suspect those of race Z would be fine with the notion they get to consider Joe a jerk, and that social sanction is enough. (Not that Joe will care.)
     .
     The problem is that we DID have problems with school segregation where blacks were literally only allowed to go to the black schools, drink from black fountains, restaurants not only were allowed to not serve blacks but lots and lots and lots of them exercised that right, under President Wilson, the USPost office would not hire blacks and so on and so on and so on.
     .
     At least for a while (and possibly even now) there were sufficient numbers of people who were openly hostile towards blacks *and would not hire, promote, work with, rent to and so on and so on*. The numbers were sufficient to cause american blacks very real problems.
     .
     It's probably fair to say that *at least in the 60s and 70s* some aggressive moves were required to push back against the many, many, many people who either were openly going to disadvantage blacks or who would do it surrepticiously to the extent they could.
     .
     At the same time, it is clear that at some point, the laws need to go back to being utterly neutral, since one hopes that the hostiility will eventually and and it's pretty clear that absent any pervasive hostility the formerly disfavored group shouldn't somehow be legally advantaged, since that, inherently creates a group who are legally disadvantaged in some way. That situation will create friction owing to it's unfairness.
     .
     But in between the two extremes, we have a problem because to decide if some policy is required to overcome the effects of widespread hostility on the part of those who are "more powerful". We also have to figure out whether there are any ill effects anymore and figure out whether, at this point, the programs themselves might create more hostility that is then acted upon secretly. We also need to figure out if the programs that are supposed to 'help' those who are targets of racism actually help relative to not having the program.

669. Lucia,
     I've got no quarrel with anything you said. I think that irrespective of whether or not some specific instance of racism is worth addressing in law that we should not lose sight of the objective meaning of the word 'racism'. I think that redefining the term 'racism' is little (maybe nothing) more than an effort to provide cover for minority racists so liberal intellectuals won't feel ashamed of refusing to condemn them (the minority racists).
     https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/black-lives-matter-racial-exclusion-lisa-durden-tucker-carlson/
     Merely because minority racists do not have control over our institutions does not mean their behaviors are laudable or that they can do our society no harm. At least that's my view.
     .
     [Edit: Here's maybe a better link for how minority racism can hurt a society:
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers ]

670. For those interested in watching identity politics in action, Benjamin Boyce, an Evergreen alumni, has released the first part of his documentary on the going’s on at Evergreen State College.

     https://youtu.be/p5Wny9TstEM

671. mark,
     I agree that racial prejudice on anyone's part is racism. Trying to define it to not be racism is a mind and word game. I also agree any sort of racism by anyone can hurt society, particularly if acted on. (It can also hurt the racists themselves.)

     So yes: the issue of whether we need laws about something is a bit separate from what that something "is". I mostly brought it up because IF someone has a point about whether laws and policies are required, the facts associated with whether the racism is widespread, and the relative power of the racists vs. the targets does matter.

672. Lucia,
     It's a fair point. Everything you said was fair enough. I don't even disagree with you here:
     .
     >>It's probably fair to say that *at least in the 60s and 70s* some aggressive moves were required to push back against the many, many, many people who either were openly going to disadvantage blacks or who would do it surrepticiously to the extent they could.
     .
     Probably so.

673. OK_Max,
     “The GOP should have an immigration policy that entices wealthy foreigners to move here.”
     .
     They have. It has been blocked by Dems. A merit based system (education, usable skills, English fluency) has been adopted by Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It would be great for the economic prospects of the States. But it is stridently opposed by Dems in Congress. I perfectly understand their motivations, but I don’t think it is good for the country, either socially or economically. Politicians are a different tribe. Scoundrel is the tribe that comes to mind.

674. SteveF (Comment #175848)

     OK_Max,
     “The GOP should have an immigration policy that entices wealthy foreigners to move here.”
     ________________

     They have. It has been blocked by Dems.

     SteveF, I hadn't heard about that one. There is a Visa (EB5 ?) foreigners can get by investing a million dollars in job providing enterprises, which comes with a Green Card and I suppose an easy path to U.S. citizenship.

     The Canadian deal was different. A foreigner with a large net worth could become a citizen by making a big interest-free loan to the Canadian government, but I don't recall the amounts. It attracted lots of wealthy Chinese. I don't know what deals Australia and NZ offered.

     I had in mind offering wealthy foreigners more than just citizenship. To sweeten the attraction I had big tax breaks in mind. Was that your Republican proposal?

675. There was a proposal to give green cards to STEM graduates. Dems were OK with this as long as it was additional green card with no reduction in other categories. Republicans wanted to produce a matching reduction to keep the total number issued the same.

     More recently the RAISE Act would cut the number of green cards in half while emphasizing skills.

676. Marc Bofill,
     “When will the affirmative action mission be accomplished and completed? It seems to me that the answer to this question is 'never', which I find unsatisfactory.”
     .
     Indeed, never is the plan. Permanent official racial discrimination is not something I support. The problem is that the ‘remedy’ of official racial discrimination doesn’t begin to address the root causes of most of the differences in economic outcomes; same thing with ‘reparations’….. won’t scratch the surface of the actual problems.
     .
     Daniel Patrick Moynihan identified the real problems decades ago and what had to change to fix those problems. He was excoriated by progressives. Until we get past that refusal to address the real problems, official discrimination is here to stay.

677. MikeN (Comment #175850)
     August 8th, 2019 at 10:12 pm
     "There was a proposal to give green cards to STEM graduates. Dems were OK with this as long as it was additional green card with no reduction in other categories. Republicans wanted to produce a matching reduction to keep the total number issued the same.

     More recently the RAISE Act would cut the number of green cards in half while emphasizing skills."
     ______

     The STEM proposal seems OK to me. Many employers need more scientists, engineers, technicians, and mathematicians.

     But the RAISE Act, which would reduce immigration by one-half, is a stupid proposal. We should increase immigration, not reduce it.

     1. Immigration contributes to economic growth. More people means more demand for goods and services, which in turn creates more jobs to provide those things.

     2. Because birth rates in the U.S are declining, immigration is becoming an increasingly important part of population growth. Reduce immigration and the rising national debt burden per
     capita will become even worse in the years ahead.

     3. Christians might ask yourself what Jesus would do about immigrants. Seriously! I think he would reach out to those most in need and welcome them. BTW, I am no longer a practicing Christian but still admire Jesus.

678. Steve,
     Thanks for mention of Moynihan; I was unfamiliar with him. I still mostly am unfamiliar with him, but at a quick glance his 'Moynihan Report' and other works looks interesting enough to merit some investigation when I have time.

679. OK_Max (Comment #175852): "1. Immigration contributes to economic growth. More people means more demand for goods and services, which in turn creates more jobs to provide those things."

     As it exists in the U.S. at present, Immigration increases total GDP, but it reduces per capita GDP. The latter is far more important.
     .
     OK_Max: "2. Because birth rates in the U.S are declining, immigration is becoming an increasingly important part of population growth. Reduce immigration and the rising national debt burden per capita will become even worse in the years ahead."

     That is only true if immigration does not reduce per capita GDP. As it stands now, the financial strain of provided services to immigrants is making things worse.
     .
     OK_Max: "3. Christians might ask yourself what Jesus would do about immigrants."

     Arguably so. But that tells us nothing about public policy re immigration. Public policy should be based on the good of the nation, not on religious doctrine.
     .
     I am far more concerned with the type of immigrants we let in than with the total number.
     ——–
     Ah, found the reference: https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States

680. Mike M. (Comment #175854)
     "I am far more concerned with the type of immigrants we let in than with the total number.
     ——–
     Ah, found the reference: https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States"
     _______

     I understand your concern. Certainly, the U.S. benefits more from immigrants who are skilled or wealthy than from those who are unskilled and poor. The same can be said about American citizens who were born in the U.S. But people who will work in low-paying jobs are needed. Obviously the job market does not consist entirely of positions for college educated workers, technicians, and skilled manual workers such as plumbers.

     According to Wiki, "The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an anti-immigration think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers, and produces research to further those views. The CIS was founded by John Tanton, a eugenicist and white nationalist."

     CIS believes that while poor unskilled immigrants raise total GDP, they lower per capita GDP. This is true, because they work for low wages, but it's even more true for kids and retirees, who don't work at all.

     CIS believes a decline in per capita GDP is a bad thing if it results from immigration of poor people, so our policy should be to curb immigration of all but the most skilled. Looking at history, I'm not sure it is a bad thing. If the U.S had closed the door hundreds of years ago to keep those hordes of poor unskilled people from Ireland, Italy, and Poland from bringing down our per capita GDP, our country might be different than today but I doubt any better. Sure, there were more jobs for unskilled workers back then, but
     those immigrants must have lowered our GDP per capita nevertheless.

681. Mike M.,

     Per capita GDP doesn't mean very much. The correlation between national per capita GDP and corresponding median household income, which is important, is very weak.

682. OK_Max,
     **Obviously the job market does not consist entirely of positions for college educated workers, technicians, and skilled manual workers such as plumbers. **
     No. But I don't think anyone is suggesting we have an stupendous shortage of people who can flip burgers or wait tables.

     ** but it's even more true for kids and retirees, who don't work at all. **
     MikeM isn't proposing giving immigration preferences to kids or retirees. So, it seems to me if his view is to let in people who help the economy, he's being pretty consistent.

     **Sure, there were more jobs for unskilled workers back then, but
     those immigrants must have lowered our GDP per capita nevertheless.**
     .
     Not necessarily. You seem to be assuming that at the time, Americans had high skill and the immigrants had lower skills. At that time, the US wasn't dominated by high skilled jobs. Lots of people were farmers, which takes some skill, but I wouldn't be surprised if the immigrants didn't also know how to farm. Some people were former slaves; I doubt they had stupendously high skills as a group.
     .
     I don't know whether the US was more educated than Europe during the potato famine, before WWI or even before WWII. Do you have data? Real question. Because if you don't have data, we have no reason to suppose that the arriving immigrants necessarily had overall lower skillzzzzz than the existing American population.
     .
     My family data would suggest arriving immigrants weren't necessarily low skill. When one of my Dad's great grandpas arrived in New York from Ireland, he could read. That put him above lots of local Americans. (He got office work in consequence. His son ended up being a judge.)
     .
     People were starving in Ireland because the potato crop failed and the English didn't do anything to help bring in food. Education doesn't keep you alive when there is no food. Those who left included both the well educated and the poorly educated.
     .
     Another of his great grandpas left Spain for US (where he landed before going to Cuba) he had a degree in Engineering! That made him much more educated than most local Americans and Cubans. (He ended up having an import export business in Cuba– exporting small engines from a manufacturing plant in Philadelphia and importing to Cuba. These engines were bought by sugar plantation owners to run crushing equipment to make things like sugar, molasses and rum.)
     .
     Jim's paternal grandpa came from Sweden– he was an engineer. His maternal grandpa was born in the US and was a cooper. It's not at all obvious that the immigrants.
     .

683. DeWitt Payne (Comment #175856): "Per capita GDP doesn't mean very much. The correlation between national per capita GDP and corresponding median household income, which is important, is very weak."

     Per capita GDP means a lot. Other things being equal, increasing per capita GDP increases median household income, which is indeed the really important thing.

     But other things don't remain equal. Median household size has been dropping; with constant per capita GDP, that decreases median household income. The population has been aging, that lowers median household income since retired people tend to have lower incomes. And excessive low skill immigration has been redistributing income up the income scale; it lowers wages at the low end while lowering the prices paid by people at the high end.

     Thank god per capita GDP has been increasing. Things would be really bad in the middle and below if it were not.

684. OK_Max (Comment #175855): "But people who will work in low-paying jobs are needed."

     Why? Real question. With a shortage of such workers, employers will have to raise their wages and/or figure out how to make the labor they hire more productive. Either would be beneficial.

     ——
     Lucia did a great job of addressing your comments, but I have to add a bit.

     OK_Max: "If the U.S had closed the door hundreds of years ago to keep those hordes of poor unskilled people"

     As lucia points out, who says they were unskilled by comparison with American workers of the same era? Lots of them were farmers. The total number of farm workers in the U.S. peaked around the time of WW1, which is about when we started to restrict immigration.

     To give you an idea of what skilled labor was until recently, I will tell you a bit about my grandfather, who came over from Eastern Europe as an adult. 100 years ago he was a carpenter in a coal mine. That was a pretty high skilled job, putting him higher in the pecking order than a "miner" which was also a skilled job. The large majority of workers in the mines were laborers. To become a miner, you had to pass an exam in order to prove that you had the knowledge and skill required. It was an oral exam, since most of the men taking it could not read or write.

     After WW1, the U.S. government started to steadily restrict immigration. From the 30's to the mid-60's immigration was very low. I think it is not a coincidence that the last 20 years of that era was the best time ever to be a worker in the U.S.

685. Today, Elizabeth Warren tweeted that the police officer who shot Michael Brown was a "murderer." ("5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times.") https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1159902078103445507 Sorry to say amazingly sad, disgusting and dishonest.

     ……
     Brown attacked the police officer and Brown's dna was found on the officer's gun and thigh. Knowing the way that the Left selectively pulls out what turns out to be irrelevant facts to lie ("unarmed" [but attacking officer] "shot 6 times" [while aggressively charging the officer who told Brown to stop many times]), I did a blog post that summarized the Brown matter. Since Blackboard posts can be hard to locate, here is the url. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2017/the-dummy-dishonest-and-intolerant-left/

     ……
     I hope that this lie will kill Warren's campaign, but realize that there is a substantial chance it won't.

     JD

686. Lucia: "You seem to be assuming that at the time, Americans had high skill and the immigrants had lower skills."

     …..
     I know one group that was low-skilled — the Southern Italians who came in great numbers. My paternal grandfather and grandmother were Southern Italian, and my grandfather couldn't read or write. The Southern Italians were so disfavored that Irish Catholic Churches would sometimes make the Italians go to the basement during church services.

     …..
     Haven't found the break down between Northern and Southern Italians but 4 million Italians came to the US between 1880 and 1920, almost certainly a substantial majority were the poor of Southern Italy. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAE1900.htm

     JD

687. Re lucia (Comment #175857)

     ** But I don't think anyone is suggesting we have an stupendous shortage of people who can flip burgers or wait tables.

     Sure, no shortage of those who can, but also maybe no surplus of those who want to.

     ** MikeM isn't proposing giving immigration preferences to kids or retirees. So, it seems to me if his view is to let in people who help the economy, he's being pretty consistent.

     I agree. I was just taking issue with the notion that anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country. If that were true, we should stop having children and recruit working age immigrants
     who can immediately increase our GDP per capita.

     ** You seem to be assuming that at the time, Americans had high skill and the immigrants had lower skills. At that time, the US wasn't dominated by high skilled jobs. Lots of people were farmers, which takes some skill, but I wouldn't be surprised if the immigrants didn't also know how to farm.

     I agree about the immigrant farmers. Many German immigrants in the 1800's were farmers. I believe the Irish, Italians, and Polish, however, settled mostly in large cities. I think they likely were paid lower wages than the Americans already living in these cities, and being Catholic probably had more children, both things depressing U.S. GDP per capita.

     Lucia, your family's history in the U.S. is more interesting than mine, but mine goes back farther, starting well before the American Revolution. My ancestors who settled in Maryland and Virginia may or may not have been better farmers than the local Native Americans. On the other hand, they probably were less productive in fishing and hunting. So it's hard to say how they affected GDP per capita. Actually, I'm not sure they weren't criminals.

688. Italian immigration was severely restricted after 1924, along with Asians and several other countries that had high levels of immigration since 1890. This was not replaced until 1965.

689. Mike M. (Comment #175859)
     August 9th, 2019 at 5:45 pm
     OK_Max (Comment #175855): "But people who will work in low-paying jobs are needed."

     ** Why? Real question. With a shortage of such workers, employers will have to raise their wages and/or figure out how to make the labor they hire more productive. Either would be beneficial.

     Mike M., by "needed" I do not mean a shortage of workers, I mean people who are employed. They have jobs because employers need them. If I recall correctly, about 27 million Hispanics are employed in the U.S., disproportionately in low paying service jobs, and many are immigrants or children of immigrants. As for them, I don't know who would be holding their jobs or whether these jobs would even exist If they lived outside the U.S.

     I hope your Grandfather never suffered from Black Lung. I have friends whose grandfathers and great grandfathers emigrated from Europe to work in Pennsylvania coal mines. My wife's maternal grandparents were from Eastern Europe.

690. JD Ohio (Comment #175863)

     " The Southern Italians were so disfavored that Irish Catholic Churches would sometimes make the Italians go to the basement during church services."
     ________

     How could the church possibly justify that ? I can't imagine an excuse for treating people that way.

     Southern Italians, especially Sicilians, got a bad rap because a few were gangsters. But I doubt that was the reason for the basement.

691. The broader unemployment rate U6 is still at 7%. That is a large pool available for employment. The immigrants are not 'needed'. Plus if you remove a large population, then there would be fewer jobs to begin with.

692. OK_Max (Comment #175864): "I was just taking issue with the notion that anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country. If that were true, we should stop having children and recruit working age immigrants who can immediately increase our GDP per capita."

     That is a dishonest statement. Nobody ever said anything like "anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country". You claimed that immigration increases GDP, clearly implying that is a good thing. I pointed out that immigration decreases per capita GDP and that the latter is far more important. Rather than defend your claim or admit that you were wrong, you then created an obnoxious straw man that could be easily destroyed. Very poor form, IMO.

693. OK Max: "How could the church possibly justify that ? I can't imagine an excuse for treating people that way."

     …….
     As one of Southern Italian heritage, I chuckle over this today. Everyone has to look down on someone.

     Here is a quote regarding the situation:

     "The Italians “are so despised for their filth and beggary that in New York the Irish granted them free use of the basement of the Church of Transfiguration, so that they could gather for their religious practices, since the Irish did not want to have them in the upstairs church,” a Vatican agency noted in an 1887 report that singled out an Irish parish on Mott Street in what is now Manhattan’s Chinatown for maltreatment of Italian immigrants.

     The pastor of Transfiguration Church responded through an article his brother wrote in a Catholic journal that said the Italian immigrants didn’t know even elementary Catholic doctrines. Nor were they so concerned about having to hold services in the church basement, it added, because “the Italians as a body are not humiliated by humiliation." https://www.fromthesquare.org/st-patrick-st-joseph-and-irish-italian-harmony/#.XU7ClEd7kdI

     JD

694. During the last period of mass immigration, the primary "skills" needed in the workforce were things like a strong back and the willingness to stand on your feet for 8-10 hours at a stretch while doing a boring repetitive job. Immigrants had those skills in abundance. Nevertheless, a case can be made that the country would have been better off with rather less immigration. I say that because immigrants were routinely used as strike breakers and replacement workers so that rapacious employers could keep wages low and working conditions poor.

     ————-
     JD Ohio (Comment #175863): " The Southern Italians were so disfavored that Irish Catholic Churches would sometimes make the Italians go to the basement during church services."

     I have no trouble believing that if the Italians were being imported to take the Irishmen's jobs and keep wages low.

695. OK_Max (Comment #175866): "They have jobs because employers need them. … I don't know who would be holding their jobs or whether these jobs would even exist If they lived outside the U.S."

     I don't know how many employers *need* them. Many employers *want* employees they can exploit. I see no reason that society should give such employers what they want.

696. Mike M.,

     Your assertions depend on the correlation between per capita GDP and median household income. That correlation is much weaker than you suppose. In fact, most of the increase in household income over the last 50 years has gone to the upper two quintiles. The middle quintile, which includes the median, has barely moved.

     https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/10/16/u-s-household-incomes-a-51-year-perspective

697. JDOhio
     *How could the church possibly justify that ? I can't imagine an excuse for treating people that way.*
     .
     Justify? It wasn't justified. I assure you what JD Ohio reports absolutely, positively happened.
     .
     *The Southern Italians were so disfavored that Irish Catholic Churches would sometimes make the Italians go to the basement during church services. *
     Yep.
     .
     My mom also relates that there was tension between Northern Italians and Southern Italians in Staten Island Catholic schools. So much so the Nuns kept track and spaced "not Italian" kids between the North/South Italians.
     .
     (My Mom briefly dated an Italian guy. Her parents weren't thrilled. Mom claims it was because he was Italian. My uncle John claims it was because Mom has no gaydar and the rest of the family did. So…whatever. Mom did report he was "very polite" which may very well support Uncle John's claim more than Mom would like to believe.)
     .
     My mother-in-law experienced anti-Polish sentiment in the mostly Irish parishes too.
     .
     In the freakin' 80s, I my carrot top sister moved to Allentown Pennsylvania, she was still a practicing Roman Catholic. She told a neighbor she was going to go to "Saint Eastern European Name Church". The neighbor looked at her and told her that was the Polish (or something) church, and she should drive further to the Irish church. So this treatment by ethnicity persisted into the 80s.
     .
     My Dad (last name Tiernan– so Irish on his Dad's side) reported that there was also strong anti-Polish sentiment in the steel mills in Buffalo, NY. (Dad worked in the mills in summer during college.)
     .
     Of course, generally speaking, Irish-American mill workers weren't actually any more skilled than the Polish immigrants. If they were, they would have had different jobs. The lack of extra skills didn't make the anti-Polish jabs go away.

698. Mike M.,

     Here's the data for the real per capita GDP over the same period:

     https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA

     For the period covered by the household income chart, 1967-2017, GDP per capita was Q4 1967 $23,129 and Q4 2017 $56,166 for an increase of 143%. Not even the top 5% of households at 113% increase kept up with that.

699. JD
     **Nor were they so concerned about having to hold services in the church basement, it added, because “the Italians as a body are not humiliated by humiliation." **
     .
     In theory, that would mean Italians were much BETTER Catholics than the Irish. 🙂
     .
     The Irish were, of course, only 1 generation out from similar treatment by others. However, the were the first big wave of Catholics, and, for a time, more or less took over the parishes (and New York policing and much of New York City politics.) Once they took over the parishes, they gave as good as they got when they arrived– but now in the Churches.

700. Mike M.,

     Unless you can cite evidence to the contrary, I believe that any theoretical decrease in the rate of increase of per capita GDP caused by immigration is lost in the noise.

701. OK_Max
     *Lucia, your family's history in the U.S. is more interesting than mine, but mine goes back farther, starting well before the American Revolution. *
     Mine goes back that far too. On both sides. Heck, some of my CUBAN grandmother's sisters joined the DAR. (Their father was American and had moved to Cuba from Missouri. He headed up construction of the railroad from Havana to Santiago.)
     .
     On my mother's father's side she qualified for DAR. Her Mom was 'into' that but didn't qualify… so she evidently discovered there as a "children of the American revolution" and signed the kids up.
     .
     I had more than two grandparents and more than 4 great grandparents. Some lines trace back to recent immigrants; some were in the US for many, many generations.
     .
     One of my mother's grandfathers was a farmer. He grew potatoes. I don't know what her other grandfather did. I think he died young. His wife made and sold crackers which would at the time have been considered a "skill" and would now be considered "low skill". (Evidently did ok. Put her son through lawschool Harvard. That son, who mom called "Uncle Paul", then worked for my Dad's great grandpa!)
     .
     I suspect the "low skill" Italian immigrants knew how to cook. So I don't think the dragged down the "skill" level relative to that grandmother.

702. DeWitt Payne (Comment #175873): "Your assertions depend on the correlation between per capita GDP and median household income. That correlation is much weaker than you suppose."

     You ignored what I wrote (Comment #175858) and your math is wrong.

     Median household income is obviously directly proportional to per capita GDP. There are also many other factors such as household size, age distribution, income distribution, government redistribution of income, and changes in type of income, such as wages vs. benefits. If you don't control for those other factors, then you might well find no correlation between median household income and per capita GDP. But that does not mean that the dependence is not there. Statistical correlation and mathematical dependence are different things.

     ———–
     DeWitt Payne (Comment #175877): "Unless you can cite evidence to the contrary, I believe that any theoretical decrease in the rate of increase of per capita GDP caused by immigration is lost in the noise."

     https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States
     Immigrants contributed 11% to GDP and are 15% of the population. So about a 4% decrease in per capita GDP. I honestly don't know what the noise level is, but I'd be shocked if that was not well above the noise.

     Another way to look at that is that immigrants have a per capita GDP that is about 25% less than the native born. One can surely argue over the exact number, but I don't see how anyone can claim that is not qualitatively true unless they are blinded by ideology. OK_Max (Comment #175866) has already admitted the truth of that qualitative result, even if he has not realized it.

703. JD Ohio (Comment #175860): "Today, Elizabeth Warren tweeted that the police officer who shot Michael Brown was a "murderer."

     Warren has put together a platform of economic populism that could potentially make her a formidable opponent for Trump. But she is undermining herself by pandering to the identity politics crowd.
     .
     JD Ohio: "I hope that this lie will kill Warren's campaign, but realize that there is a substantial chance it won't."

     Just the opposite. The people who are now paying attention in the Democrat party are the ones for which such dangerous nonsense is red meat. The candidates who are not pandering to them are going nowhere. But that will leave whoever gets the nomination with a huge problem in the general election. If they were running against a conventional wimpy Republican, they might get away with disavowing those positions after the convention. But Trump won't let them get away with that. Come to think of it, the Squad won't either.

704. Mike M. (Comment #175869)
     August 10th, 2019 at 7:10 am
     OK_Max (Comment #175864): "I was just taking issue with the notion that anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country. If that were true, we should stop having children and recruit working age immigrants who can immediately increase our GDP per capita."

     That is a dishonest statement. Nobody ever said anything like "anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country".
     _______

     MikeM in your Comment #175854 you provided the following link that I thought implied a reduction in GDP per capita would be bad for the country. Below is the link. Read the first paragraph.

     https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States"

     Please explain what you think is dishonest about my interpretation of what that paragraph implies about changes in GDP per capita.

705. OK_Max (Comment #175881): "Please explain what you think is dishonest about my interpretation of what that paragraph implies about changes in GDP per capita."

     The first paragraph of my link reads: "When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives."

     I have no idea what you are talking about. It looks like maybe you tried to link to a paragraph elsewhere in the article, but I have no way to find it.

706. Mike M. (Comment #175882)

     OK_Max (Comment #175881): "Please explain what you think is dishonest about my interpretation of what that paragraph implies about changes in GDP per capita."

     The first paragraph of my link reads: "When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives."

     I have no idea what you are talking about.
     ______

     MikeM, I'm talking about the following sentence from your link's first paragraph:

     "Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives."

     To me the sentence implies an increase in GDP per capita is a good thing and a decrease in GDP per capita is a bad thing, and I don't believe that's necessarily true, at least not in the long run. It is not dishonest for me to disagree with that I think this sentence implies.

     Note the sentence allows that immigration may increase the per capita GDP of natives, but sees no evidence the increase is substantial.

     I think an increase in poor unskilled emigrants could initially have a depressing effect on GDP per capita. I think any increase in the population of individuals who are not working ( babies, the unemployed, retirees) or are working for low wages is going to have an immediate depressing effect on GDP per capita. Of course for all but the retirees that effect may be temporary. In the long run the babies will grow up and get jobs, some unemployed will find jobs, and the wages of immigrants and their descendants can go up.

     You may disagree with my thinking without calling it dishonest.

707. OK_Max (Comment #175883): "To me the sentence implies an increase in GDP per capita is a good thing and a decrease in GDP per capita is a bad thing"

     Yes, it implies that something that is obvious true is indeed true. It is true in the sense of all other things being equal, increased per capita GDP is better than decreased per capita GDP. In no way those it imply that increased GDP is the only good thing or that it trumps any other good things. But the latter is what you clearly claimed it to be when you wrote:

     "I was just taking issue with the notion that anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country. If that were true, we should stop having children and recruit working age immigrants who can immediately increase our GDP per capita."

     Your first sentence could be just careless wording. But the second makes it clear that you were claiming that someone was pushing the idea that GDP per capita is the *only* thing that matters. That was dishonest.

708. Mike,
     .
     I think that's pretty uncharitable of you. I think it's virtually impossible in principle to find certainty that one is not false accepting dishonest as stupid or stupid as dishonest.
     .
     Not calling you stupid here Max. Just saying.
     .
     I mean, maybe Max read the sentence in question and thought it meant something other than what it really means. Maybe he got confused. Maybe he got distracted. Who the heck knows. Maybe he was drunk. Maybe he didn't get enough sleep. Maybe he needs better reading glasses. So on.
     .
     Properly speaking none of my business. Shrug.

709. Mike M. (Comment #175884)
     August 10th, 2019 at 1:43 pm
     OK_Max (Comment #175883): "To me the sentence implies an increase in GDP per capita is a good thing and a decrease in GDP per capita is a bad thing"

     Yes, it implies that something that is obvious true is indeed true. It is true in the sense of all other things being equal, increased per capita GDP is better than decreased per capita GDP. In no way those it imply that increased GDP is the only good thing or that it trumps any other good things. But the latter is what you clearly claimed it to be when you wrote:

     OK_Max "I was just taking issue with the notion that anything tending to reduce per capita GDP is bad for the country. If that were true, we should stop having children and recruit working age immigrants who can immediately increase our GDP per capita."

     MikeM:" Your first sentence could be just careless wording. But the second makes it clear that you were claiming that someone was pushing the idea that GDP per capita is the *only* thing that matters. That was dishonest."

     OK_Max: I thought the linked testimony implied GDP per capita was of primary importance because the comment about it appeared in the first paragraph. I did not, as you believe, think the testimony implied GDP per capita was the "only" thing that matters. What I said about courting skilled immigrants as an alternative to having more children is consistent with GDP per capita being of primary importance.

710. mark bofill (Comment #175885)

     Thank you, mark. See my previous reply to MikeM. Reviewing my comment I can see how it could be interpreted in more than one way. MikeM. interpreted what I wrote in one of those ways, but what he thinks I meant is not what I meant.

711. >Median household income is obviously directly proportional to per capita GDP.

     Per capita is arithmetic mean, while median is not, so I would expect the two are not directly proportional.
     Also, household income would be a multiple of per capita income, and this multiple itself would change through time.

712. MikeN (Comment #175888): "Per capita is arithmetic mean, while median is not, so I would expect the two are not directly proportional."

     I said that: "There are also many other factors such as … income distribution".

     MikeN: "Also, household income would be a multiple of per capita income, and this multiple itself would change through time."

     I said that: "There are also many other factors such as household size …".

713. "Stated alternatively, GDP fails to accurately assess the value of goods and services provided or estimate a society’s standard of living. It is a ruler with irregular hash marks and a clock with erratic ticks."

     https://mises.org/library/how-gdp-metrics-distort-our-view-economy

     Improvements in standard of living are more important than GDP and whatever it is that that metric measures.

714. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #175890): "Stated alternatively, GDP fails to accurately assess the value of goods and services provided or estimate a society’s standard of living. It is a ruler with irregular hash marks and a clock with erratic ticks."

     True. I think that much the same can be said of median family income.

715. Mike M.,

     You assert that it's a given that immigration will necessarily result in a significantly lower GDP per capita than if there were no immigration. Note that this would be an decrease in the rate of increase, not an actual decrease. I have difficulty finding support for this assertion on line. In fact, there is support for an increase.

     See for example here: https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/gdp

     "In an analysis for ProPublica, Adam Ozimek and Mark Zandi at Moody’s Analytics, an independent economics firm, estimated that for every 1 percent increase in U.S. population made of immigrants, GDP rises 1.15 percent."

     That looks to me like an increase in per capita GDP. If you play with the interactive chart, reducing immigration to zero, GDP growth drops from 2%/year to 1.7%. That looks to me like a decrease in the rate of increase in per capita GDP.

716. DeWitt Payne (Comment #175892): "You assert that it's a given that immigration will necessarily result in a significantly lower GDP per capita than if there were no immigration."

     I never said any such thing. I said that immigration as it is currently taking place in the U.S., specifically excessive low skill immigration, is somewhat slowing per capita GDP growth.

717. Job Polarization A Cause of Declining Labor Force Paricipation Rates Among Prime-Age Men

     Douglas Himies’ review in the May 2018 Monthly Labor Review of a study by Didem Tüzemen 
     caught my eye. I will quote the linked review and also provide a link to Tüzemen’s study, which I think is well worth reading by anyone interested in why male labor force participation rates have been declining, athough there has been some leveling off in the total rate for males in the last few years.

     “In “Why are prime-age men vanishing from the labor force?” (Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, first quarter 2018), author Didem Tüzemen looks at the decline in the labor force participation rate of “prime-age men” (men who are ages 25 to 54, which is generally considered to be “prime working age,” a period when people’s employment and earnings potential may be at its maximum).

     The increase in men’s nonparticipation varies depending on their age, education attainment, and job skill level. Tüzemen’s article uses data from the Current Population Survey to analyze changes in the nonparticipation among men with these different characteristics.

     During the 1996–2016 period, the nonparticipation rate increased the most for younger men of prime working age, those age 25 to 34. In terms of education, the largest increase in nonparticipation was seen among men with the middle levels of educational attainment—those with either (1) a high school diploma but no college, (2) some college, or (3) an associate’s degree. Historically, men with less education have had higher nonparticipation rates than more educated men. Over the last two decades, the increase in nonparticipation was less pronounced among men at the extremes of the educational attainment spectrum, those with less than a high school education and those with a bachelor’s degree or more education. 

     The increase in men’s nonparticipation varies depending on their age, education attainment, and job skill level. Tüzemen’s article uses data from the Current Population Survey to analyze changes in the nonparticipation among men with these different characteristics.

     One possible explanation for the larger increase in the nonparticipation rate among men in the middle educational categories is that “job polarization” has decreased the demand for middle-skill workers while increasing the demand for both lower skilled and higher skilled workers. What both the low-skilled jobs (such as food preparation, cleaning, and security and protective services) and the high-skilled jobs (such as managerial, professional, and technical work) have in common is that they are not easily amenable to automation and computerization. In addition, demand for many of the middle-skilled jobs (for example, jobs in manufacturing) has been decreased by technological changes that make workers more productive and by increased offshoring and globalization. Tüzemen maintains that this reduction in the demand for middle-skill workers accounts for most of the decline in labor force participation among prime-age men. Sadly, the lack of employment may be the start of a vicious cycle of inactivity, depression, and other health problems that, in turn, become additional obstacles to gainful employment.

     https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/beyond-bls/mens-declining-labor-force-participation.htm

     https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev/econrevarchive/2018/1q18tuzemen.pdf
     ___________

     What a BUMMER it must be to lose a good-paying career at middle-age with no prospects for anything other than a low-paying humiliating MacJob. If affordable, I can understand why one would stay home, go fishing, go hunting, do charitable work or whatever it takes to and avoid being seen in a crap job. I can also understand the temptation of alcohol and opioids, but those eventually will make the situation worse, much worse.

718. I apologize for the repetitive paragraph in my previous post.

719. Max said
     “What a BUMMER it must be to lose a good-paying career at middle-age with no prospects for anything other than a low-paying humiliating MacJob. If affordable, I can understand why one would stay home, go fishing, go hunting, do charitable work or whatever it takes to and avoid being seen in a crap job. I can also understand the temptation of alcohol and opioids, but those eventually will make the situation worse, much worse.”

     Hey! That’s me. Get an engineering degree from Purdue, move to Colorado during a regional depression, buy ridiculously cheap house, get a really crappy underpaid job and after three years of servitude turn your knowledge into a $3 mil a year gross company.

     It cost us $1 mil per production line using the equipment we could legally buy, we could set the same line up in China for less than $250k due to them being able to buy the US equipment and copy it for dirt cheap.

     We had a business meeting set up for 9/11/01 in Vegas with the Chinese guys. My business partner flew into Denver on 9/10 to strategize. We didn’t make it to Vegas.

     My options were to move my young family to Cleveland or play out the business for a few years until my (as to then) stay at home wife got reintegrated into the work world.

     Yeah, it’s hard to take a job at Home Depot after you’ve crushed it in the business world. It’s way easier to say “I’m semi retired” as you take random jobs tiling someone’s bathroom or painting their trim on their house (my last two jobs). Oddly, I set up the company retirement accounts so I’m totally set for retirement if I make it another 10 years.

     Just figured you could use a real life example of you post.

720. Btw, I never took unemployment when I left my last job in ‘94 and I never did anything to tell the feds I stopped working other than to stop paying taxes on my business in 2009. I doubt I’m included in any metrics from that time frame.

721. Jerry
     **you take random jobs tiling someone’s bathroom or painting their trim on their house (my last two jobs). Oddly, I set up the company retirement accounts so I’m totally set for retirement if I make it another 10 years. **
     .
     You took the tiling and painting jobs and so aren't precisely vanished from the labor force.
     .

722. OK_Max (Comment #175894): " In addition, demand for many of the middle-skilled jobs (for example, jobs in manufacturing) has been decreased by technological changes that make workers more productive and by increased offshoring and globalization. Tüzemen maintains that this reduction in the demand for middle-skill workers accounts for most of the decline in labor force participation among prime-age men."

     I don't think that is true. There is actually a shortage of tradespeople. I would think they qualify as middle skill employees. Sounds like Tuzeman, like most academics and educators, confuses education with skills. Many of those people with "some college" would have been carpenters or plumbers or machinists in an earlier time. Now they are brainwashed into thinking that such work is beneath them.

723. lucia (Comment #175898): "You took the tiling and painting jobs and so aren't precisely vanished from the labor force."

     Perhaps not, if he is being hired by a contractor. But if hired directly by the homeowner, he might well have vanished from the workforce, as measured by the government.

724. Trying to prove something by correlating it with GDP is pretty weak tea. I had a guy tell me recently the US patent system was responsible for the rise in GDP over the past 60 years. I didn't even bother arguing about it. The intent to filter for high skilled immigrants I think is about the multi-generational effect on the economy of hard working / high skilled people over the long term. See economic comparisons of the US vs. sh**hole countries.
     .
     I had another glorious 3 weeks on vacation out of country away from the US news cycle. It helps when your phone is stolen on a Paris subway so you are forced to work hard to get the news. It is always a bit jarring to return and find the same circus in seeming endless repetition. Mass shootings come and go so fast that I basically missed it entirely but I'm sure I could predict the news coverage with scary accuracy.
     .
     In other news, I think we can finally stick a fork in the Trump-Russia conspiracy, it's dead.

725. MikeM,
     If you mean someone who takes money under the table and does not declare would appear to have vanished from the workforce: Agreed.
     .
     Technically, they are participating in the work force, but they are invisible to the government.
     .
     Tom Scarf
     * The intent to filter for high skilled immigrants I think is about the multi-generational effect on the economy of hard working / high skilled people over the long term.*
     .
     I think that's part of the intent. Part is just immediate. We have always had laws that required a green card applicant to provide evidence they are unlikely to become a burden on the state. Just today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Trump Administration is formulating a new rule that will specifically ding green card applicants for collecting Medicaid and some sort of other aid (food stamps? I'd have to go to the kitchen.) These rules are aimed to have fairly immediate effects not just multi-generational.
     .
     (Lawsuits are anticipated. I have no idea what the legal basis is. As you can see, I don't even know the specific rule in any detail.)
     .
     But it is true that people with skills generally come both from cultures and, specifically, families who believe in developing skills. They know that developing skills takes time and effort. Those who have developed skills have a larger tendency to push their off-spring to also develop skills and also tend to instill the idea that developing skills is important in their offspring. So the skill-level of immigrants likely does have a multi-generational effect on the skill level of the population.
     .
     What that means we should do is a separate question. FWIW: I think generally speaking that (at least historically) the willingless to uproot and move for economic reasons tends to suggest a level of "gumption" vs unwillingless to uproot. So, for example, many of the dance instructors at a studio where I take lessons came here from other countries (e.g. Ukraine). They all support themselves with a skill: teaching dance. This may not be the job generator that some other skills are, but it is a skill. It did take gumption to uproot themselves, leave family and so on. (Ukraine is politically tenuous right now, so you can see where someone might have an incentive.)
     .
     That these immigrants have, on the balance, more gumption that others who did not leave is speculative, of course. But I think it's pretty plausible they do.
     .
     I also think people with gumption are good to import. They tend to support themselves, establish businesses (the studio owner immigrated from Estonia and has expanded to 3 studios. BTW: she has a degree in economics.). If their business falls flat, they try something else.
     .
     But speculating further, I think the degree of gumption can also vary based on other factors. Rather obviously, if it was actually true that someone moving here automatically got to live on the government dole and people know that, then moving here would not require much (or possibly any) gumption but the opposite. Just to be clear, far as I am aware, immigrants are NOT automatically given support on the government dole– that was a hypothetical. (Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to make an argument that we should provide no government services to immigrants. The "gumption" issue is related to what someone *anticipates* will happen before they make a decision to uproot.)

726. Genetics, culture, and where you live play a big part in one's economic success. The demand for software engineers in Brazil's slums is pretty low I expect. Being a big thug might be productive, and being a smart big thug even better.
     .
     America's lower classes increasingly cannot compete with the cognitive class in the knowledge economy. They do not want more job competition at the service level. Importing smarter people will increase service level wages over time hopefully. Yes, we might have to pay more to get our lawns mowed. Basically it is IQ tests at the border or show your tax returns from your native country. I find this entirely reasonable in a buyer's market for immigrants. If all the bleeding hearts out there want to pay the bills for open borders then they can offer to do so. It's easy to preach morals when someone else is paying the bills and making the sacrifices. Elite condescension on immigration doesn't play well with the lower classes. Let them eat cake.
     .
     Your dance instructors are obviously KGB agents, ha ha.

727. lucia (Comment #175902): "If you mean someone who takes money under the table and does not declare would appear to have vanished from the workforce: Agreed."

     Paying taxes seems to not be considered in measuring employment. I was thinking of the survey of employers, which would not show Jerry's work. But that would not show any self-employed people. There is also a survey of households. So I guess that whether people like Jerry are counted in the workforce depends on how they are likely to answer the survey questions.

728. MikeM,
     Fair enough. Although if you work as an official employee, the employer needs to deduct SSN. Contractors not so much.
     .
     WRT to the survey methods: few are counted individually, right? It's more like a poll, then they calculate statistics….. right? (Real questions– but I think that's the way it works. It's not like the census where they try to count everyone.)
     .
     If I'm right about the poll nature Jerry himself probably wouldn't be counted, the question is whether "people like Jerry" are counted.

729. I recall that there are two measures, jobs growth and unemployment. The first is calculated by polling employers and the second comes from unemployment claims.

     It's accuracy as a measure of the national workforce is about like determining the weight of an elephant by measuring the girth of its droppings.

730. Earle (Comment #175906): "I recall that there are two measures, jobs growth and unemployment. The first is calculated by polling employers and the second comes from unemployment claims."

     Yes, but there is a second set of data where they call people up and ask questions. As lucia says, it is a random sample; but I think they do a large sample compared to what pollsters do. It is never clear to me whether a specific report is based on one method or the other. Or some combination.

731. Earl, the unemployment rate comes from a monthly sample of households and the job growth data comes from a monthly sample of employers. The first is a measure of people, the second a measure of jobs. A person can hold more than one job. I believe the sampling is pretty sound. If the samples produced wacky numbers it would be fairly obvious.

732. Jerry (Comment #175896)

     "Hey! That’s me."

     "Just figured you could use a real life example of you post."
     ___________

     Thank you, Jerry. Glad to hear you are staying active. I hear active people are happier and live longer. Makes sense to me.

733. Mike M. (Comment #175899)

     "There is actually a shortage of tradespeople. I would think they qualify as middle skill employees. Sounds like Tuzeman, like most academics and educators, confuses education with skills."
     _______

     May be. I found employment has grown in many trades over the past 15 years (2003 – 2018). Examples are electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, AC and heating mechanic, and aircraft mechanic. If you want to look for more, data on employment by detailed occupation for those years can be found at the following sources:

     https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2003/aat11.txt

     https://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm

734. lucia (Comment #175902)

     "That these immigrants have, on the balance, more gumption that others who did not leave is speculative, of course. But I think it's pretty plausible they do."
     ________

     Some who don't leave home may be doing well at home. Others, though not very successful, may just lack the gumption to leave. Then there's those who leave out of fear or a combination of gumption and fear. There may be other reasons.

     Entering a country illegally can also take gumption regardless of the entrant's level of skill. They can be facing hardship and danger.

735. OK_Max,
     Yes. My notion about the level of "gumption" is one of those "all other things being equal". In my theory of gumption, people with gumption leave their support network (family, childhood connections etc.) when they perceive (mostly economic) prospects are better elsewhere.
     .
     Obviously, someone who has very good economic prospects where they are will tend NOT to leave no matter what their degree of gumption. But having said that, we have countries where unemployment for young people is very high. Many healthy, able bodied young people are faced with staying at home near parents who might help them, friends who might help them and so on, or leaving pretty much everything to go to a country where they know almost no one and re-establishing themselves. It takes gumption to do the latter. Those with zero gumption will stay at home. (This is not to say all who stay at home have zero gumption because there can be other factors.)

736. According to an expert on the global economy I talked to recently, a London Uber driver, immigrant plumbers do a much better job than native plumbers on whole because they are willing to go above and beyond basic plumbing to get an entire job done.

737. The father and daughter who died crossing the Rio Grande were pretty well off in Guatemala.

738. If Trump has one skill, it is an intuitive sense of how to choose the right enemies, at least most of the time. He let loose on political correctness and the media in 2016, and this month it's the squad. The media doesn't quite know how to handle Israel's ban of the squad members. They are ridiculously careful in how they criticize the squad lest they receive the R scarlet letter, while it is both barrels for Trump. They are forced to embrace (or remain silent) on crazy leftist politicians. Trump tries to setup a zero sum choice between the squad and Trump and the media falls right into the trap. Are swing states going to embrace a party that glorifies the squad and treats them as oppressed victims?

739. My European trip showed London and Paris were as diverse as any large US city, but once you leave the city it is as homogeneous as West Virginia. I saw a couple Asians in Norway but let's just say it's was as uniform as Japan or China from what I saw. The US has a lot of "diversity" in its white population, they are from many different national origins, but Norway was the first place I have been where the white population was from a single origin. It was a different experience. I haven't done a lot of traveling in Europe obviously.
     .
     The ethnically diverse big cities politically aligning against homogeneous rural areas seems to be a global phenomenon. I have no idea where this is going to end up, but the journey won't always be pretty.

740. Tom Scharf,
     "They are forced to embrace (or remain silent) on crazy leftist politicians."
     .
     I don't think there is a lot of "forcing" involved… most in the MSM appear to be dedicated progressives or socialists, and far closer to the socialist "squad" than to the political center. The MSM has been pretty much a left wing echo chamber since the days of Dan Rather…. or before. Even publications like the Economist have changed dramatically over the past 20 years, from moderately conservative to blatantly 'progressive', and endorse most every progressive policy. There is not even an effort to pretend to be impartial since Trump ran for office…. which is not to say the MSM were not strongly aligned against conservatives since before Ronald Reagan, they were… but now they do not even attempt to hide their partisan take in every "straight news" story. I find it both amazing and appalling… every story is colored with leftist political spin.
     .
     "The ethnically diverse big cities politically aligning against homogeneous rural areas seems to be a global phenomenon."
     .
     Well, in the states there is more diversity outside the big cities, especially in the suburbs, than in Europe (based on personal observation). In many countries, there is no immigrant population to speak of (Japan, China, and many more), so there is no diversity at all in the cities, nor anywhere else.

741. The nationwide injunction that was issued against the new policy of requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first country they can, has now been modified to only applying in the 9th circuit. This would mean that everyone who crosses illegally into Texas then makes an asylum claim can be sent back immediately.

742. Mike N,

     My understanding is that the 9th has scheduled an October hearing on ‘the merits’, after which they could (almost certainly will?) re-instate the nation-wide ban. This is a perfect case for the SC to intervene and block the 9th from any further action… two different circuits with opposite rulings, and one issuing a nationwide injunction, is about as clear an instance of need for the SC to settle the case as can exist. Federal law shouldn’t be completely different in different court circuits. Will they? Donno.

743. SteveF,
     Yep. It's definitely getting to the point where SCOTUS is going to be forced decide whether a circuit can impose a national injunction. Otherwise, we are probably not only going to see one circuit instituting a national injuction against a law or rule and another ruling the law or rule is constitutional, but we may end up with Circuit N putting in place a national injuction and Circuit M saying that national injuction does not hold in their circuit! (Assuming Circuit M can set aside a national injunction at least in their circuit!)
     .
     This would be dueling circuits which would be insanity!

744. Lucia,
     I may be too cynical, but I suspect the three judge panel blocked the nation-wide injunction specifically to delay the SC intervening in the dispute, where the 9th circuit judge’s injunction would almost certainly be overturned. Trump can only change the asylum process outside the 9th circuit’s jurisdiction, meaning people wanting to enter the USA without a visa will arrive with a child in tow and claim asylum in the 9th circuit region. The deluge of undocumented immigrants will continue unabated until the case reaches the SC, which could be years….. which I think is the whole point.

745. Lucia,
     “This would be dueling circuits which would be insanity.”
     .
     I think allowing any circuit judge to issue a nationwide injunction is already insane…. they should issue injunctions enforceable only in the district where they hold court. Only the SC should issue nationwide injunctions.

746. Steve, it is harder to arrive in the 9th circuit and claim asylum then in Texas, because the fence in Texas is on the US side of the border. They cross the Rio Grande, and wait behind the fence where border patrol will let them in and process them.

747. MikeN (Comment #175924): "it is harder to arrive in the 9th circuit and claim asylum then in Texas, because the fence in Texas is on the US side of the border."

     For the most part, there is no fence in Texas. MikeN is right that a fence there does nothing to deter phony asylum seekers. But there are also lots of places in New Mexico, and probably further west as well, where it is easy to cross the border if you want to get caught. At lest until Trump gets the fence built.

748. I find it humorous that people in the media who believe the SC is too politicized (i.e. right leaning) will in the same article argue that the SC should decide gun cases on the author's moral grounds and never bring up the law or Constitution. This is the very definition of politicization.
     .
     I'm ambivalent about gun laws but find it entertaining that a recent NYC gun law that prevents people from transporting guns out of the city (even locked guns separate from the ammo) is heading to the SC. NYC got so nervous it would be overturned by the SC and set yet another pro-gun precedent that they repealed the most egregious parts of the law as a preemptive measure. The usual suspects now argue the SC shouldn't even hear the case now in any form.
     .
     I keep hearing about mandatory assault weapon buy-back. That my friends is confiscation by the government. I was duly informed many times of the past few decades that the left isn't coming for your guns, ha ha. The reason "common sense" gun laws aren't making it into law is that everyone knows there will be more invasive "common sense" laws proposed a day later. I completely understand why gun owners don't trust politicians.

749. Lucia, I watched a professional couples dance contest (ballroom is I guess how it would be classified) the other evening and was reminded how athletic and smooth these dancers moves are. As a younger person I once had some "moves" on the dance floor but nothing as disciplined as these people are and nothing as complicated as they do.

     The questions I have for you who is someone who dances and takes lessons are (1) what is behind the exaggerated moves these dancers make and an emphasis on the move with their head movements that almost makes it look jerky to this layperson's eyes and (2) is there a good reason for the guys and gals to all have very slicked back and streamlined hairdos?

750. Kenneth,
     (1) Sometimes I don't know. I need to see a video to tell you what is behind a particular move or posture. Some issues related to aesthetics are discussed at some dance forum. There are several different sort of "clubs" or "associations of dance. Some value somethings more than others. So, in a particular dance– for example Waltz, one association likes "athleticism- dynamic and so on" another likes "elegance". An amateur would see this reflected in the degree to which the woman seems to have arched her back. In both cases, she's arched but in the "athletic" she might look like "elasto-woman". The posture helps the couple whirl around fast, move dynamically and so on. Eventually people in *that* community might see this as elegant, but I would venture to say people outside of dance like the other posture better.
     .
     ****(2) is there a good reason for the guys and gals to all have very slicked back and streamlined hairdos?***

     Well….I sort of have the same question. But having the hair remain "neat and tidy" while still "done" for three days of competition is part of the reason. If you do your hair like "Charlies Angels" blow dry, it will no longer look like that after your first 2 minute dance.
     .
     Why you can't just wear it in corn rows, braids or "Olga Korbutt" pig tails is a real question. But I think the answer to that is they want it to look "dressy". A similar question could be applied to all the Swarovski crystals, fringe and so on on the dresses. If the ONLY issue was the dance, everyone could be issued a black, long sleeved dress made of a stretchy material. But honestly, part of the judges is "showmanship". So looking "dressy" and also "not messy" gets points.
     .

751. Tom Scharf,
     There are at least two legitimate arguments against “common sense” gun laws: First, the laws which are proposed would not have prevented most mass shootings. Second, “common sense” gun laws are like the camel’s nose in the tent; since the proposed laws are unlikely to stop crazy people from killing innocents, that failure will lead to calls for more draconian laws, with gun confiscation being the logical end point. Which is exactly what most ‘progressives’ want, of course. I think that ‘red flag’ laws, if carefully written, really could eliminate many mass murders by the insane. The key being ‘carefully written’: that is, not a license for police or prosecutors to confiscate guns from people who’s politics they don’t like.
     .
     Unfortunately, I doubt red flag laws are likely to pass Congress, and even if passed are unlikely to be carefully written. We can’t even take the insane off the streets in most places, never mind keeping them from having access to guns. The issue is really more about mental health care than gun ownership… and there seems to be zero consensus among progressives for insisting the insane get help.

752. lucia (Comment #175928)

     Your reply to my question 2 got me to thinking that even though the contestants are in great shape, the slick hairdos would never show any sweating issues. The contestants also have a shiny appearance to their faces that I am thinking based on your reply is also to cover any potential sweating issues. What bothers me about this is that the plastic and almost doll like appearance seems to contradict the flow of the dance as I see it or want to see it. As I implied in my question 1 the exaggerated head movements I see also appear to me as contradiction to the flow of the dance.

     All the contestants dress and make-up virtually the same and they all use the exaggerated movements which indicates that this all part of the tradition of this type of dancing. I think the term elegance that you used is probably a significant part of how the judges see the dancers.

753. Most of the mass shooters are sane in the strict sense of the term. It is the act of the mass shooting that defines them as mentally ill. Testosterone saturated young men who aren't living up to their own expectations who can barely muster making it through a day without exploding are a dime a dozen. Anyone who has worked in a moderately large office can identify a few people over time who were mass shooter risks. Preemptive action to take these guys down is almost impossible without punishing a disproportionate number of people who are just normal angry wackos (also called US citizens) trying to live their life.
     .
     If guns were removed there would obviously be less shootings. It's an open question whether the level of violence would then change, or would just be redirected to other weapons. The biggest change might be in suicides. I'm not a fan of incrementalism in gun laws because it is largely ineffective. I'd probably support a national handgun ban, "assault" weapons are a distraction. If we were already a gun free nation I find it hard to believe we would vote in open access to handguns. It would be "duh, that sounds like a bad idea". The status quo has a large amount of inertia here.

754. Tom Scharf,
     Gun related deaths are broken down as follows:
     .
     Suicide – 60%
     Homicide – 37%
     Other (including accidental shootings and police shootings) – 3%
     .
     The overall suicide rate is probably not changed by the availability of guns…. the overall USA suicide rate sits in the center of the reported rates for other economically developed countries, at about 12 per 100,000; in other countries where guns are not usually available, people use other means to do away with themselves.
     .
     The vast majority of homicides (including public mass shootings, defined as leading to the deaths of four or more people in a public location) are carried out using handguns, and more than 65% of *all* gun related murders were carried out using hand guns (it is probably much higher than 65%, but the exact type of gun used is sometimes not reported). 'Assault weapons' that are most often targeted for bans, represent a tiny fraction (at most a few % of reported gun homicides), while every other means of murder… knives, blunt objects, hands/fists, etc…. cause many more deaths than 'assault weapons'.
     .
     Mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of total gun-related homicides; almost always a single person (or a few people) known to the murderer are targeted. Which suggests murder tends to be very personal, I guess. Mass shootings of people the shooter does not know are either politically motivated (eg. terrorists) or due to the shooter just being crazy.
     .
     Black Americans are almost exclusively killed with guns by other black Americans, and it is the same for white and Latino Americans: whites are usually killed by other whites, and Latinos are usually killed by other Latinos.
     .
     If anyone is serious about reducing gun homicides, then the place to start is with handguns, not rifles and not 'assault weapons'. Aside from hunting, target practice, and possibly defense against intruders, rifles and 'assault weapons' serve only one other purpose I can think of… the capacity of the general populace to resist a despotic government, which is why the 2nd amendment is in the Constitution. Hand guns are the weapon of choice for most criminals; rifle related deaths are pretty close to an asterisk.

755. SteveF (Comment #175933): "The vast majority of homicides are carried out using handguns"

     Actually, guns account for about 70% of murders in the U.S.
     https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/murder-victims-weapons-used
     I find that remarkably low given that we are told that it is oh so easy to get a gun in the U.S. and that guns supposedly make it oh so easy to commit murder. The hard part in killing one's self or others is actually committing to do it; that goes against deep seated biological programming. If you can overcome the programming, you can find a method to carry out the deed.

756. Mike M.
     Guns do make murder quicker and easier than bludgeoning. You can do it in one shot; bludgeoning generally requires repeated hits.

757. Mike M,
     I should have said “The vast majority of *gun* homicides are carried out using handguns.” Knife murders, bludgeonings, etc add significantly to the total.
     .
     Lucia,
     Yes, guns do make killing someone easier. But what makes it even easier is a culture where criminal behavior and personal violence against others is common. You could drop a million hand guns in Japan or Denmark, and I doubt that would move the murder needle. Culture is destiny.

758. lucia (Comment #175935): "Guns do make murder quicker and easier than bludgeoning. You can do it in one shot; bludgeoning generally requires repeated hits."

     Absolutely true. Yet 30% of murderers choose a weapon other than a gun. What matters is the desire to murder, not the availability of guns.

     There are a certain number of murders that occur because of the confluence of momentary rage and a readily available gun. They are a tiny fraction of all murders. They may well be outnumbered by the number of murders prevented by a readily available gun and a person who knows how to use it.

     Most murders are committed by people determined to commit murder. They will not be much deterred by the need for multiple blows with a blunt object or multiple thrusts of a knife.

759. Guns make it much easier for a physically weak person to kill a strong person. If you are a well built 6-4 /250 lb man you are unlikely to be killed by a petite woman, and more to the point the petite woman would be very unlikely to try to murder the bigger man if it requires physical force as it may not end well for her. To the extent that guns are a force multiplier for a weak person in a physical confrontation they are an undeniable asset. If a woman has just separated from a crazy jealous man full of roid rage who has promised to kill her then a gun is a very valuable tool. It is on the full balance where gun use is a detriment to society.
     .
     Although I am sympathetic to handgun bans I find the media coverage to be ridiculously one sided. The guns are pure evil dogma is tiring. "Defensive Gun Use" is an area that I never even heard of until last year. This is the uncounted number of times guns are used in a useful way that is completely ignored by the media. For example brandishing a weapon to prevent an altercation or crime from happening.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

760. It should be noted that if you take the long view of history the homicide rates are way, way, down.
     https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

761. Interesting factoids:
     .
     Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (50 guns per 100 population) and one of the lowest murder rates in the world, ~0.6 per year per 100,000 population, vs USA: ~5.3/100,000.
     .
     I suspect a large fraction of the guns in Switzerland are rifles, with many owned by militia members (who are required to keep their army issued guns at home). Culture really is destiny.

762. I thought Switzerland issued fully automatics to the militia.

763. Trump administration is asking Congress to overturn the Flores settlement decree, and is also issuing regulations that would cancel the decree. Flores bans child detentions beyond 21 days.
     Overturning this decree would allow children to be detained with their parents, eliminating the problem of child separation.

     They've also filed a brief to overturn DACA at the Supreme Court.

764. Mike N,
     Yes, I think many rifles are fully automatic in the Swiss militia…. hundreds of thousands of fully automatic rifles makes invading the Swiss less attractive.
     .
     Should the SC review DACA? Yes. Will they? Maybe. Should Congress reverse Flores? Yes. Will they? Absolutely not….. too many reliable future Dem voters to ever do that. Congress might change Flores if it was replaced by an equivalent policy like open borders.

765. lucia (Comment #175935)
     August 20th, 2019 at 3:27 pm
     Mike M.
     Guns do make murder quicker and easier than bludgeoning. You can do it in one shot; bludgeoning generally requires repeated hits.
     _____

     Sounds like you are saying guns are the weapon of choice for the weak, the disabled, and/or the lazy. Makes sense. I would add also
     for the efficient, since trying to kill a lot of people at one time with a club seems very inefficient and more likely to fail.

     I am very opinionated about guns. I believe the more guns, the more murders. I want a gun or guns for myself, but I would prefer other people, aside from police and armed forces, not have them. OK, there will never be a law allowing only me to own guns, but I don't favor encouraging gun ownership, which I believe is what the NRA is doing. As I said, the more guns, the more gun victims.

     Some say the high homicide rate in the U.S. is because of our culture, not guns, and would be HIGH anyway because we are less civilized, more multi-cultural, or whatever makes us more violent than Japan, European countries in general, and lots of other places.
     OK, but I don't think it would be just as HIGH.

     Hunters need guns. Shooting ducks with a bow is just about impossible. But aside from owning guns for hunting, what benefit do we get from gun ownership?

     I forgot I like target shooting. That's a benefit.

766. Over the last 20 years the number of guns increased:
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/?noredirect=on

     While the murder rate decreased:
     https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?locations=US

     I doubt there's enough data to draw a meaningful correlation statistic, but it surely isn't positive.

767. OK Max,
     “But aside from owning guns for hunting, what benefit do we get from gun ownership?”
     .
     Well, we get a substantial impediment to tyranny…. weather that be the tyranny of a single tyrant, or the tyranny of a slim voting majority. The Constitution ensured access to guns to make overthrow of a future tyrannical government possible. I find it surprising that you seem unaware of this; those who wrote the Federalist papers were clear in their mistrust of government and had just fought a war against what they viewed as tyrannical government. Of course, we also get the added hurdle of an armed populace in case a foreign adversary were to attempt to govern…. but I think that is a secondary consideration; tyranny usually starts from within…. and often with the confiscation of guns.

768. Hi Earl,

     At first I thought you had me there, but there's more to consider.

     While it may be true the murder rate in the U.S. has been declining for years (aging population ?), while at the same time the number of guns has increased, it also may be true that the proportion of households with guns has been declining.

     https://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers

     I should have said when more people have guns, more people will be killed by guns.

     I'm not sure why gun owners are buying more guns. It might be fear.

769. What Steve said.
     [Edit: Also for self defense. Police don't actually protect us, they arrest criminals, which isn't really the same thing. For those who want to have confidence they can survive attackers, guns have extreme utility.]

770. Re guns I think a recent sad event in Sydney provides the basis for a thought experiment. Recently in Sydney there was a IMHO crazy person who stabbed and killed one woman in an inner city apartment and then went down to the street and stabbed another (failing to kill), threatened a lot of people and then was overpowered by more or less unarmed bystanders (https://10daily.com.au/news/australia/a190813dbtcm/multiple-people-injured-in-cbd-stabbing-police-operation-underway-20190813). So here is the thought experiment: with a knife there was one dead and one non-fatally stabbed, if the perpetrator had a hand gun how many would have been killed? If the perpetrator had an assault rifle how many would have been killed? If the bystanders had been armed how would this have changed things?

771. SteveF (Comment #175950)
     August 22nd, 2019 at 6:32 pm
     OK Max,
     “But aside from owning guns for hunting, what benefit do we get from gun ownership?”
     .
     Well, we get a substantial impediment to tyranny…. weather that be the tyranny of a single tyrant, or the tyranny of a slim voting majority. The Constitution ensured access to guns to make overthrow of a future tyrannical government possible. I find it surprising that you seem unaware of this….
     ________

     SteveF, I am aware of it, but would't see it as a benefit unless I agree with the over-throwers. There's no guarantee I would agree, and even if I did, there's no guarantee we would win. Sometimes the bad guys win.

     Rather than citizens killing each other to determine who governs, we vote. The results of the vote never please everyone and sometimes displease half the voters, but no one gets killed.

     The early Americans may have feared England would later try to reclaim the colonies. Obviously, that's not going to happen now. The former colonies (now young States) also may have feared each other and the possibility of "the tyranny of a slim voting majority," a fear with some reason because they did have their differences. Before the Nation's 100th birthday the North and South settled their differences by getting 500,000 or more Americans killed. Hopefully,
     we have learned that's not a good way to address tyranny of the majority.

     Owning guns for recreation or self-defense seems reasonable to me, but owning them to overthrow a government (in case there's one I strongly dislike) does not seem reasonable. I just don't worry about our government ever being that disagreeable to me. Also, I can't picture myself battling against modern military weapons with the kinds of guns I can legally own. Well, actually I can, and I see myself lying on the street wishing I had stayed home.

     I prefer that Indian guy's method of dealing with tyranny.

772. Andrew Kennett (Comment #175954)
     " So here is the thought experiment: with a knife there was one dead and one non-fatally stabbed, if the perpetrator had a hand gun how many would have been killed? If the perpetrator had an assault rifle how many would have been killed? If the bystanders had been armed how would this have changed things?"
     _____

     1. Maybe more
     2. Likely even more
     3. Not sure whether you mean (a) perpetrator with knife, bystanders armed, or (b) perpetrator with assault rifle(auto, semi ?), bystanders
     armed. Obviously, b has more deadly potential.

773. OK Max,
     If you don’t believe there could be tyranny of the (voting) majority, then you would never consider armed resistance justified, of course. The Constitution exists in the form it does in large measure to make tyranny of the majority difficult to institute (equal Senate representation for all States, electoral college, bill of rights, etc). That doesn’t mean majorities (even slim ones) don’t try to impose their will on minorities; they do, and rail against the Constitution all the time…. as the screeching about the electoral college after Trump’s election showed.
     .
     I’m not sure what to make of the Civil War reference. Are you saying that war was unwise or not necessary? Are you saying that waving a magic wand to eliminate slavery would have been preferable to war? Magical thinking doesn’t resolve intractable moral disagreements, any more than it stops tyranny.

774. OK_Max (Comment #175955): "I am aware of it, but would't see it as a benefit unless I agree with the over-throwers."

     The real benefit is not overthrowing the government. The benefit is establishing who is ultimately the boss. With a disarmed populace, the government is clearly the boss and the people are subjects. An armed populace supports the principle that the people are the boss and reduces the chance that they will have a government that they desire to overthrow.

     The ballot box has only as much authority as is granted to it by the people with the real power.

775. Andrew Kennett (Comment #175954): "Re guns I think a recent sad event in Sydney provides the basis for a thought experiment."

     But not a very helpful thought experiment. Yes, a crazy person with a gun can kill more people than a crazy person with a knife. And a crazy person with a knife can be stopped more easily by a bystander with a gun. So it goes both ways. But although such cases, like mass shootings, get a lot of press, they are just a few percent of murders. So they should not be the basis for policy.

     A guy with a truck and a knife killed 7 people in Tokyo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

     A guy with a knife killed 19 people in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yema_stabbings

     A guy with a knife killed at least 19 people in Japan: https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html

     That is from just a few minutes of looking. And it ignores mass murder by bombs, trucks, box cutters. etc.

     The determination to kill matters far more than the availability of guns.

776. OK_Max,
     What you are missing in thinking about whether you agree with the overthrowers is that *mere knowledge* of the potential for self defense gives some protection against tyranny. The goal is for things to never get so bad an actual revolution takes place.
     .
     If the revolution actually occurs, that will mean things end up very bad indeed.
     .
     Revolutions can happen with unarmed citizens. The Bastille was torn down by people carrying little more than rakes and so on. What followed was pretty horrible.
     .
     **If the bystanders had been armed how would this have changed things?**
     .
     My understanding is this isn't a "what if". In cases where armed bystanders have drawn guns on shooters, the shooters stopped either before or after getting shot. Of course, the shooters have already killed fired shots, but it still slowed things down.
     .
     I do think it's clear that a person inclined to mass murder or individual murder is more likely to succeed if they use guns, rifles and so on. But we have had mass murderers put together bombs to detonate. It will take more ingenuity to use put together bombs and deploy them, but someone intent on doing so can.
     .
     So removing guns and rifles won't stop mass murder or murder. My guess is the mass murder rate might decline– merely because quite a few seem to be carried out by young people who may not be as dedicated and savvy as the Tsranaev brothers. So they might give up when planning something like the Boston Marathon bombing.
     .
     Murder rate might decline because really access to a gun also reduced how much planning you have to do. You just draw it out from your purse and BAM! Of course, this is precisely the feature that makes them useful for self defense while poison or bludgeoning is not quite as quick and effective.

777. Our friends ISIS managed to find a way to kill plenty of people without guns, just rent a big truck or van and find a big gathering. Killed 86 and injured 458. This isn't a genius level crime. Gun bans aren't a magic elixir. Timothy McVeigh also managed to kill plenty. There will likely be less mass murder without guns, but demented people with a modicum of intelligence can find a way.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

778. An extreme thought experiment is to imagine that everyone carried around a nuclear bomb and a big red button in their pocket. We would no doubt have a number of nuclear detonations every year. You don't give 14 year olds live hand grenades for a good reason.
     .
     There is certainly a segment of society that cannot and should not be trusted with weapons. Because there is no good way to isolate this segment of society we have a hard choice to make. Either prevent weak people from being able to defend themselves against strong thugs (or an oppressive government), or allow some unstable people access to weapons with very predictable bad results.

779. Tim Ball is reporting that Mann's defamation case against him has been dismissed. It is hard to find details about this case, because John O'Sullivan and others have produced fake articles, claiming to be working on Ball's behalf.

780. MIkeN
     Anthony has written it. He says Tim Ball has written him. So if it's from Ball's mouth, good chance it's true.
     https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/

781. Steve Mc tweeted. Evidently Mann has a right to appeal. So it's not over yet.

782. SteveF (Comment #175957)
     August 23rd, 2019 at 7:57 am
     OK Max,
     "If you don’t believe there could be tyranny of the (voting) majority, then you would never consider armed resistance justified, of course."

     "I’m not sure what to make of the Civil War reference. Are you saying that war was unwise or not necessary?"
     _______

     Re "tyranny of the (voting) majority," I put up with many things I don't like, including some government actions.That's life, you gotta do it. So far I haven't found anything by the government to be intolerable. If I ever do, I will move to Canada or some other country.

     Yes, I believe the Civil War wasn't necessary. Better leadership on both sides could have prevented it. Even just letting the South go might have been better.

783. lucia (Comment #175960)
     August 23rd, 2019 at 8:35 am
     OK_Max,
     What you are missing in thinking about whether you agree with the overthrowers is that *mere knowledge* of the potential for self defense gives some protection against tyranny.
     _____

     In theory, I guess. But has it actually ever done that anywhere?

     I have looked at countries ranked by firearms per capita, and those at the top are more likely to be tyrannical or badly governed than those with the least guns per capita. Sure, the high rate of gun ownership may be a reaction to tyranny or ineffective government in theses countries, but I have to wonder what good are all the guns doing, other than protecting the citizens from each other.

784. lucia (Comment #175960)

     "You just draw it out from your purse and BAM!"
     _____

     lucia, I recommend you move to a different neighborhood, find a job elsewhere, or both.

785. MikeN (Comment #175963)
     August 23rd, 2019 at 1:41 pm
     Tim Ball is reporting that Mann's defamation case against him has been dismissed.
     ________

     Didn't see it in search of B.C. Supreme Court judgements. The search includes judgements to Aug. 22, but I don't know it includes all judgements to that date. Also, I'm not sure dismissals are included here.

     https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx?obd=2019&court=2#SearchTitle

786. OK_Max
     ** If I ever do, I will move to Canada or some other country.**
     That's assuming Canada will let you move there. I'm guessing you won't be wanting to move to Russia or China.
     .
     **lucia, I recommend you move to a different neighborhood, find a job elsewhere, or both.**
     .
     I'm mystified why you would make this recommendation. Moving or changing jobs won't change the fact that guns are effective murder weapons.

787. lucia (Comment #175960): "Murder rate might decline because really access to a gun also reduced how much planning you have to do. You just draw it out from your purse and BAM! Of course, this is precisely the feature that makes them useful for self defense while poison or bludgeoning is not quite as quick and effective."

     Murder rates would surely decline if you could get guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people while still allowing sane, law abiding citizens to defend themselves. But that is tricky. Although some crazy people can be reliably identified, many can not. And anti-gun laws have relatively little effect on criminals for the simple reason that criminals ignore the laws.

     ——-
     Canada has much stricter gun laws than the U.S and the murder rate here is nearly three times as high. But that does not establish cause and effect. Nearly half of all murders here are committed by blacks. Canada has maybe 1/4 as many blacks, relative to the population. The murder rate here is also inflated by the Latino population, especially the illegals. Canada has very few Latinos and almost no illegals. The murder rate here is slightly depressed by East and South Asians; Canada has three times as many. Those factors probably account for most of the difference between the countries.

     Of course, it is not race that matters, it is culture. Our black inner cities have an extremely violent culture. So do the countries the illegals come from, albeit to a lesser degree. That would make the demographic difference even bigger since almost all Canadian blacks are the result of voluntary, legal immigration in the last 50 years. And Canada is much pickier than we are as to who they let in.
     .
     My guess is that white Americans commit murder at a rate that is only slightly higher than Canadians. At the moment, I don't have the numbers to back that up.

788. MIchael Mann has posted:

     https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/2470358663020321

     ************
     There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

     The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

     The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.

     The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.

     This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.
     ************
     .
     So
     (a) There is some sort of dismissal, but Mann can appeal.
     (b) There seems to be some sort of provision for Mann paying for something. Evidently court costs not legal fees.
     .
     I would note that Mann's Claim that Ball "effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit." is bunk. There are plenty of good reasons Ball would want the suit dismissed other than not wanting a verdict on the "real issues". One of those reasons would be endlessly mounting legal costs with no end to the suit in sight…. because the plaintiff keeps delaying!

789. lucia (Comment #175970)
     ____

     lucia, because I have never given serious thought to leaving, I haven't researched different country's immigration policies. I'm not sure any would have me.

     I should have made it clear I was just joking about your "BAM" comment. I don't know whether you were referring to yourself.

     Just speaking for myself, if I believed I needed a firearm for protection because of where I lived or worked, I would try to find safer places to live or work. If I couldn't, my security measures would go beyond just firearms.

790. Mann sought adjournment of the trial in 2017. Now he says that in seeking dismissal, Ball was ducking a verdict.

791. Good grief, Mann behaves like a sniveling, misbehaving child. He brings multiple “process is the punishment” libel lawsuits, funded by wealthy political backers, then stalls the process without end to maximize punishment via legal fees. How long has Mark Steyn been asking the DC court to allow discovery so a trial can take place? Certainly more than 5 years. It is Mann who wants to avoid a trial on the merits, not the people he is tormenting with flimsy lawsuits. Mann’s lawsuits are exactly why many states have instituted anti-SLAPP laws. Too bad the judges on the DC court are too incompetent (or too politically motivated) to apply the DC anti-SLAPP law.

792. OK_Max,
     I might find a different place to live or work if I felt I needed to carry a gun. IF I thought that would make any difference and IF I could live or work elsewhere without too much difficulty and IF the move could be done in a timely matter. (The latter might not be possible if one crazy kook was stalking me.)
     .
     But I would consider learning to shoot if the alternative was living a life so circumscribed that I couldn't do things I like. I would not go live in a cloistered nunnery to avoid all strife (and also miss out on what I consider life.)
     .

     If you would make a such a drastic choice, that would be up to you.
     .
     I don't carry or own a gun. I don't enjoy shooting. I once shot a 22 aiming for beer cans. It was loud. I didn't like that. I went in and made hot chocolate and sat in a comfy chair instead.

793. OK Max,
     Despotic governments often do not allow their citizens to leave, even when some other country would take them (Berlin Wall, the rest of the old USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, etc.). Perhaps a despotic government would make an exception for you.
     .
     There were many, many efforts in 1860 and 1861 to avoid civil war, and both Congress (in a resolution with >90% support!) and Lincoln stated clearly, even as states were leaving, that they would never attempt to ban slavery where it already existed. But there was much more to the story than that.
     .
     The importation of slaves had already been blocked by Congress, along with any possibility of slavery in new territories. Congress had passed heavy import duties (~50%) to protect northern states industries from European competition, which caused foreign retaliation against the agricultural exports the southern states relied upon, while at the same time raising the cost of everything those states imported…. which was most all manufactured goods. They saw their future economic position would not be viable, and stated that clearly. The southern states viewed Congress as consistently acting to punish them and ruin their slavery based economies, and they were not going to accept that. That was at least in part true (lots of people in the north *did* want to punish the south for holding slaves!), but I think mostly the northern states just wanted to protect their industries from competition, while shifting more of the Federal tax burden to southern states (there was no income tax).
     .
     I very much doubt the Civil War could have been avoided.

794. SteveF (Comment #175977): "Congress (in a resolution with >90% support!) and Lincoln stated clearly, even as states were leaving, that they would never attempt to ban slavery where it already existed."

     Southerners believed that just as much as you and I believe the Left when they say they would never attempt to confiscate people's guns. By 1860 it was perfectly clear which way the wind was blowing in the North.
     .
     SteveF: "The importation of slaves had already been blocked by Congress, along with any possibility of slavery in new territories."

     No, the compromise of 1820 (Missouri-Maine compromise) banned the expansion of slave states north of a certain line of latitude (corresponding to the northern borders of North Carolina, Tennessee, and later Texas). The Kansas-Nebraska Act made an exemption for those territories, where eventual admission as states would be determined by "popular sovereignty". Result: Bleeding Kansas.
     .
     SteveF: "which caused foreign retaliation against the agricultural exports the southern states relied upon"

     I have never heard that claim before; do you have a source?

     Tariffs were definitely a sore point in the South, but would have never led to war.
     .
     SteveF: "I think mostly the northern states just wanted to protect their industries from competition, while shifting more of the Federal tax burden to southern states (there was no income tax"

     I always thought that was a given.
     .
     SteveF: "I very much doubt the Civil War could have been avoided."

     Yes, because slavery.

     Maybe the Founders could have set the nation on a path leading to the gradual diminishing of slavery. I am sure they would have done so, if they could have seen a viable path. But they couldn't and I have never heard a convincing argument that such a path existed.

795. lucia (Comment #175976)

     "I don't enjoy shooting. I once shot a 22 aiming for beer cans. It was loud. I didn't like that."
     ______

     Relatively speaking, a 22 is not loud. For self-defense, some would say you need something louder, a larger caliber gun. Comedian Bill Burr would disagree. If you want his advice on getting a gun, skip the intro on the linked video and start at 1:50.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48loYzC8gc&t=119s

796. Mike M,
     As of 1808, Congress had made it illegal to import any slave into the USA. From Wikipedia: “The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.”
     .
     WRT tariffs, see for example “Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation” by Thornton and Ekelund. Tariffs had been an issue of contention for a long tine.
     .
     WRT the Missouri Compromise: It was a compromise on paper only…. neither side really wanted a popular decision, and worked to send people to the new territories who supported their position on slavery.
     .
     Slavery was, of course, the biggest disagreement, but not the only one.

797. SteveF (Comment #175977)
     August 24th, 2019 at 7:05 am
     OK Max,
     Despotic governments often do not allow their citizens to leave, even when some other country would take them (Berlin Wall, the rest of the old USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, etc.). Perhaps a despotic government would make an exception for you.
     ______

     Do you mean let me in, but not let me out?

     Sounds like the Roach Motel.

798. OK_Max,
     If a 22 is too loud for my taste, I think you can imagine what I think about the sound intensity of other weapons. . .

     I'm pretty sure Steve_F is suggesting they'd make an exception and let YOU leave.

799. Lucia,
     “I'm pretty sure Steve_F is suggesting they'd make an exception and let YOU leave.”
     .
     Yup, that was my suggestion. I sure would let OK Max leave.

800. The media war on climate change to the extent there ever was a war, has been decisively won by the climate zealots. Coverage of climate change is so one-sided at this point that I literally only read a few climate articles a year now, and they contain entirely predictable information. It's like a Ministry of Disinformation press release. There is almost nothing interesting happening any more. The media churns out climate apocalypse articles that are as boring and uninteresting as their Trump is a bad person articles.
     .
     RPJ's iron law of climate policy still holds no matter what the propaganda is, people have a fairly narrow limit on what they are willing to pay. See the yellow vests in France.
     .
     This just in, Trump skips the "climate crisis" meetings at the G7, ha ha.

801. Tom Scharf,
     "Trump skips the "climate crisis" meetings at the G7."
     .
     Because Trump, and everyone who voted for him, are profoundly evil, of course.
     .
     The discouraging thing is that nobody appears to want to have a serious conversation about risks, costs, and benefits (AKA developing sensible public policy). Instead it is mostly nonsensical rubbish that gets repeated endlessly. And on both "sides"…. I hear technically incorrect nonsense from the "climate deniers" all the time, just as I hear from the "climate alarmists". I think there are plenty of people who want to see prudent and sensible policies adopted, but any attempt to have a serious discussion leads to endless attacks from extremists. Green New Deal? Come on! 0.00041% CO2 can't do anything? Come on!

802. Tom Scharf,
     "Trump skips the "climate crisis" meetings at the G7."
     .
     Because Trump, and everyone who voted for him, are profoundly evil, of course.
     .
     The discouraging thing is that nobody appears to want to have a serious conversation about risks, costs, and benefits (AKA developing sensible public policy). Instead it is mostly nonsensical rubbish that gets repeated endlessly. And on both "sides"…. I hear technically incorrect nonsense from the "climate den!ers" all the time, just as I hear from the "climate alarm!sts". I think there are plenty of people who want to see prudent and sensible policies adopted, but any attempt to have a serious discussion leads to endless attacks from extremists. Green New Deal? Come on! 0.00041% CO2 can't do anything? Come on!
     .
     (Original comment went to moderation… I used a couple of bad words…. their spelling has been modified a bit above.)

803. After the dismissal of Mann's lawsuit, Instapundit linked to a 'hockey stick is fraud' article that was wrong on almost every detail.

804. SteveF (Comment #175987): "The discouraging thing is that nobody appears to want to have a serious conversation about risks, costs, and benefits (AKA developing sensible public policy)."

     That is because it is not actually about climate. It is about control.

805. Mike M,
     “That is because it is not actually about climate. It is about control.”
     .
     That is certainly a part of it, and a huge excavator of the ideological canyon over which the opponents glare at each other. But it is partly about climate; there is significant warming, and that warming will very likely continue, and will cause continued sea level rise. But the rubbish claims of utter doom for the planet and the equally rubbish claims that rising GHGs aren’t going to cause warming (and potentially serious consequences in the long term) are blocking a serious discussion. Global warming is a legitimate public policy issue, just as is illegal immigration, local impacts of globalization, Islamic terrorism, the remaining billion+ who remain mired in extreme poverty (now mostly in Africa), and many more. The huge ideological divides between the extremes on many issues are blocking the development of consensus and the compromises consensus demands. I predict history will not be kind to those politicians who refuse to compromise.

806. SteveF (Comment #175990): "The huge ideological divides between the extremes on many issues are blocking the development of consensus and the compromises consensus demands. I predict history will not be kind to those politicians who refuse to compromise."

     I agree. And the Republicans are not blameless. But the Left does not put forward serious proposals on critical issues. Instead, they put forward proposals that use the issues as an excuse to expand the power of the government and to appropriate that power for themselves. So the real issue is power and control. As long as that is the real issue, the Right should not compromise.

     It would be nice if the Right would put forward sensible policies of their own. But unless those policies forward the true agenda of the left, they will be opposed by the Left. And the Right should not support policies that forward the Left's true agenda.

     It will continue until either the people firmly repudiate the Left or the Left ends our democracy.

807. Mike M,
     “So the real issue is power and control. As long as that is the real issue, the Right should not compromise.”
     .
     I agree that in today’s political climate, the most extreme on the left, and especially the ‘squad’ of four lunatic left freshmen, are calling all the shots for the Dems. Pilose and the rest of the ‘moderate’ Dems are terrified of the loony left, so they shut up and put up with the crazies. Crazy lefties never compromise; it is part and parcel of being a crazy lefty (endless anger is another part… see Bernie Sanders!).
     .
     But it may not always be that way. I think Republicans should state clearly where they have room to compromise on politically divisive issues…. if they are met half way. I don’t think there is much chance for compromise on divisive issues right now, but taking a principled and reasonable stand can only help draw a contrast to the nut-cake lefties who are currently driving Dem policies. Besides which, offering compromise is the only way substantive policies with broad support will ever be enacted (as opposed to divisive, one sided policies like Obamacare).

808. SteveF "But it is partly about climate; there is significant warming, and that warming will very likely continue, and will cause continued sea level rise"

     I read statements like this and just shake my head.
     .
     Do you believe the current warm peroid is human caused?
     .
     If so, how do you address the multiple warming and cooling periods that have occurred over the last few thousand years and were not human caused? If they were natural and not human caused, how can you argue that the current warm peroid is not also natural without HARD evidence to support? No such HARD evidence that the current warm period is human caused.
     .
     So far it is mainly an appeal to ignorance. "We can not find anything else, so it must be human caused". And people wonder why so many have a problem with the entire issue.
     .
     Human caused climate change policy as it is currently being framed is a fraud.
     .
     I lived through the seventies when the problem was global cooling and the policy solutions to combat cooling are many of the same policy solutions to combat warming today. In both cases it is, and was, a pure power grab.

     As such, I see no room to compromise with the libs on anything. I support a scorched earth drive on lib policy across the board.

809. Ed Forbes (Comment #175993): "No such HARD evidence that the current warm period is human caused."

     There most certainly is hard evidence that humans are causing warming. There is no question that CO2 is increasing, that burning fossil fuels is the dominant cause, and that such an increase will cause warming. We also know how much warming should occur from that, absent changes in clouds. That is a little bigger than the warming that has occurred. But we don't know what effect clouds might have, they could push things in either direction.

     There is a natural oscillation in global temperature that seems to be linked to the AMO. That oscillation enhanced the warming in the late 20th century and has reduced the warming over the last 20 years or so. The effect can be roughly removed by looking at warming over the last 60-70 years.

     We don't know if there would have been a natural trend absent human intervention. If there has been such a trend, then human caused warming could be less than or greater than what has been observed. It is prudent to treat the observed warming as human caused, while allowing for the possibility of significant errors either way.

810. Ed Forbes
     *Do you believe the current warm peroid is human caused?*
     I do.
     .
     *Do you believe the current warm peroid is human caused?*
     I also lived through the 70s. Yes, there were some magazine headlines. But there wasn't sustained reporting with lots of scientists agreeing. It was more like one story among a zillion– like all the scads of fad diets each of which has a number of articles proclaiming they know "the" miracle cure.
     .
     Honestly, you've the argument for global warming. I get you don't agree with it, but asking someone to post the entire argument in comments doesn't cast doubt on them.

811. Mike M,
     Yup, there is a clear and convincing argument that GHGs cause warming. How much, over how long, and with what consequences are the real technical questions…. all related to the actual sensitivity to forcing.
     .
     Ed Forbs,
     Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but I have worked 45+ years in science and engineering, and there is no real technical question that rising GHGs will cause warming, they will. How much is the real question. There are, of course, endless stupid and destructive policy proposals from unhinged greens and people who haven’t the slightest notion of what the ‘greenhouse effect’ is (nor any way to differentiate between wild-eyed predictions of utter doom and plausible consequences of warming). Those stupid policy proposals have to be resisted. But that doesn’t preclude consideration of more sensible policies.

812. Sorry guys, the human component of earths greenhouse gas column is too small to have any effect thats meaningful. Efforts to ban co2 emissions to "save the planet" is a stright up power grab.
     .
     Do humans effect micro climates through building cities, deforestation, crop irrigation, and other actions, sure. But any overall effect on the planet comes down to rounding errors.
     .
     This issue has left the realm of science and has entered the realm of politics. It has come down to a very simple binary choice: do you support the continued use of energy to support and expand our current lifestyle or do you support limits on the use of energy and reducing our lifestyle? Capitalism or Socialism? These are the only 2 current political choices. Talking about "compromise" on this issue is a false choice. There is no room for compromise on such a binary choice.
     .

813. Ed Forbes (Comment #175997): "the human component of earths greenhouse gas column is too small to have any effect thats meaningful."

     Ignorent nonsense.
     .
     Ed Forbes: "This issue has left the realm of science and has entered the realm of politics."

     That is true. Science-free alarmism has crowded out the actual facts. That does not mean that there is no actual issue, although it is not remotely close to being an existential crises.
     .
     Ed Forbes: "It has come down to a very simple binary choice"

     Yes, and I bemoan that fact (as I think SteveF does).

     The left wants it to be a simple binary choice. They figure if people see the choice as being between head-in-the-sand and government control, they will go along with government control.
     ———-
     But there is an alternative: win-win policies. Fossil fuels are not about to run out, but they are finite. So it makes sense to not waste them; i.e. to use fuels more efficiently, which reduces CO2 emissions. It also makes sense to make our infrastructure more robust and resistant to extreme weather events. Doing so would reduce the impacts of climate change, whether that change is natural or man-made. More diverse energy sources would make our energy supply more robust. That would include CO2-free sources like nuclear and sensible amounts of wind and solar. Grid level storage has benefits even in the absence of renewables. We should not ignore sensible policies just because some idiots are pedaling nonsense.

814. The temperature record trend is solid enough to establish correlation with a big dump of GHG's into the atmosphere. That combined with basic physics is enough for me to establish that "artificial" warming is very likely occurring.
     .
     It's not so much the "science" debate on whether GHG can and do cause warming to me, it is:
     Q1. What are the impacts going to be over the next 100 years.
     Q2. What are the effective solutions to the problem.
     Q3. Who is going to pay for it.
     .
     A1. Activists have so polluted the discourse with scaremongering here that normal people have no way to reliably answer this question. I've spot checked several areas such as extinctions, sea level rise, and hurricanes and found the available info in the media to be obscenely unbalanced. There are no trustworthy resources here IMO.
     I don't find 2C of warming to be very scary, which is not to say there will be zero impacts, only that problems will be overcome as they always have. Life adapts. If someone in NYC (55F) wants to know what the apocalypse of a 10C warmer world looks like, come visit Tampa (83F) for a year. There appears to be a lot of takers according to state migration statistics.
     A2. Punishing and shaming the carbon sinners of the opposing side is the answer in the west. Saving the planet by shutting down nuclear power plants is psychotic.
     A3. At least we have complete agreement on this question, other people will pay for it.

815. The best compromises would be not on global warming by itself but on trading more aggressive climate polices for concessions on things the right holds in higher priority. This is unlikely to happen in today's political environment.
     .
     There are some true believers for climate change such as Hansen (haven't heard much from him lately) but for the most part I cynically believe this issue is just a political tool used to bludgeon the other side with. If the left managed to gain control of the government I think there is zero chance they will pass anything that even remotely resembles the GND, it would be political suicide and be easily reversed within two years once the actual costs became visible. The GND is cost free political posturing.

816. Ed Forbes (Comment #175997)
     It has come down to a very simple binary choice: do you support the continued use of energy to support and expand our current lifestyle or do you support limits on the use of energy and reducing our lifestyle? Capitalism or Socialism?
     _____

     Ed, I'm a capitalist who supports limits on the use of coal, a carbon tax, and the development of alternatives energy sources (not sure about nuclear) for cleaner air and water and for curbing mankind's effect on climate.

817. Ed
     *Sorry guys, the human component of earths greenhouse gas column is too small to have any effect thats meaningful.*
     Prefacing with "sorry" doesn't make the claim that follows correct. Your claim is wrong.

     *This issue has left the realm of science and has entered the realm of politics. *
     Some aspects are certainly political. For example: How to respond is a purely political issue. That doesn't change the science about GHGs nor make the claims that GHG's cause warming wrong.

818. Tom
     *There are some true believers for climate change such as Hansen (haven't heard much from him lately)*
     He's aging and has retired from his job at NASA. We can't guess how vigorous he might be otherwise.

     Ed,
     The choice isn't the binary: "Capitalism or Socialism?" That's nonsense. We could curb GHG's and keep capitalism. We can even have high energy intensity. Among other things we could use Nukes.

819. Mike M : "Ignorent nonsense"

     The only way significant warming is postulated by an increase in CO2 is with an unproven multiplier effect. Toss this unproven assumption and an increase in CO2 has a minor effect. I also point out that this multiplier effect in the models has been dropping constantly over time as more data comes available. Without unproven effects, a doubling of the CO2 is likely only about 1d, hardly an emergency. A second doubling of CO2 would be close to impossible to achieve by human action alone.
     .
     As to correlation of increase in CO2 with increase in temps, may I remind you that correlation CANNOT imply causation. My favorite example of this is the high correlation between crime and ice cream sales. It works out that both are affected by temp, with no actual affect on each other.
     .
     None of the above is controversial outside of activist partisans.

820. Lucia, first prove to me that spending money in reducing GHG is needed. .
     .
     Now nukes are a different matter. I support nukes inorder to get rid of actual pollution and increase available energy supplies.
     .
     As to a binary choice: with the current makeup of the dem party, it is very much a binary choice. And this is from one who was a "Yellow Dog Dem" for over 30 years. I didn't leave the dem party, the dem party left me.

821. Correlation does imply causation, it doesn't prove it. Correlation also doesn't have anything to say about the direction of causation. Wet streets do not cause rain. It's not meaningless, but by itself only suggests something might be happening. Lots of science begins by an observation of correlation, lots of bad science puts too much weight on correlation. This subject has been beaten to death.
     .
     The certainty of climate change and its effects has always been over estimated because there is no price to pay for being wrong in the current environment, and a large professional price to pay for offending the climate apocalypse mob. Ask RPJ. I'd love to see where things like sea level rise and temperature predictions would end up if climate scientists were placing large bets with their own money. I'd say it is very likely things would be dialed back quite a bit. However if you read the IPCC reports that information is actually there in the fine print (the median estimates at moderate emission levels). These are the estimates that shall not be named.

822. Ed Forbes,
     “None of the above is controversial outside of activist partisans.”
     .
     If you imagine the people telling you you are factually wrong about a lack of warming from rising GHGs are activist partisans, then you are doubly wrong. I am anything but an activist partisan who supports global warming hysteria. I am a scientist and engineer who has long objected to the blatantly green/left bias in climate ‘science’. I think much of climate ‘science’ is actually warmed over garbage, and highly politicized to boot. But that doesn’t change the fact the rising GHGs have to cause warming. I think it is safe to say Lucia, Mike M, Tom Scharf, and others are also not activists partisans. They are however, much more technically aware than you appear. With regard to GHGs, you are simply wrong about factual reality; I suggest you spend more time at WUWT, where your technical incompetence will find lots of support.

823. Ed Forbes
     *Lucia, first prove to me that spending money in reducing GHG is needed. .*
     Well… it appears you want to debate by changing the subject away from discussing your previous claim which was GHG's don't cause warming. Sorry, but I'm not going to "defend" a scientific fact by going off on a tangent about a political question.

     *As to a binary choice: with the current makeup of the dem party, it is very much a binary choice. *
     Nonsense. Gotta go.

824. Ed Forbes (Comment #176004): "The only way significant warming is postulated by an increase in CO2 is with an unproven multiplier effect. Toss this unproven assumption and an increase in CO2 has a minor effect."

     That is of course true. And false. It all depends on what "significant" an "minor" mean. If by "significant" you mean measurable, than you are quite wrong. If you mean catastrophic, then you are right.

825. Lucia,
     “Nonsense”
     .
     That also pretty much sums up Ed Forbes’ general take on GHG’s.

826. SteveF, what did I post to give you that impression of my veiw on GHG?

     Again, my take is that not that GHG has no effect on temps, but that the human portion of GHG is minor compared to the entire column of GHG in the earths atmosphere.
     .
     My point is that entire hypothesis for human caused catastrophic global warming rests on the unproven multiplier effect of CO2.
     .
     If a doubling of Co2 only raises temps by 1-2d as shown by its known proprieties, then yes, in looking at the entire column of GHG, human effect on temp can be considered to be a rounding error as much of the added CO2 needed to double the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.

827. Lucia: "Well… it appears you want to debate by changing the subject away from discussing your previous claim which was GHG's don't cause warming."
     .
     I have gone back and read my posts. What ever did I say to make you say this? At no time did I ever make such a claim.
     .
     My claim is that human addition of CO2 to the earths GHG column has a minor effect, not that GHG in general dont cause warming. I thought I was being pretty clear on that point.

828. Ed Forbes (Comment #176011): "my take is that not that GHG has no effect on temps, but that the human portion of GHG is minor compared to the entire column of GHG in the earths atmosphere.

     "My point is that entire hypothesis for human caused catastrophic global warming rests on the unproven multiplier effect of CO2.

     "If a doubling of Co2 only raises temps by 1-2d as shown by its known proprieties, then yes, in looking at the entire column of GHG".
     ——

     Well, that is basically my position. And, I think, SteveF's and lucia's positions. So why have you been casting aspersions on what we have been saying? Surely, you realize that might make us think you were saying something different.
     .
     Back in Comment #175993, you claimed (or seemed to claim) that the recent warming has nothing to do with humans. Now you cite a climate sensitivity consistent with that warming being human caused. Then in Comment #175997 you claimed no significant effect. That is wrong. 2 K of warming will be significant. Not catastrophic, but significant.

     Claiming that there is no evidence for anthropogenic warming and that any such effects are insignificant certainly implies that anthropogenic GHG's don't cause warming. You could quibble about what lucia said about what you seem to be saying, but you would be quibbling.
     ———–

     Ed Forbes: "human effect on temp can be considered to be a rounding error as much of the added CO2 needed to double the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural."

     And you go back to spouting nonsense.

829. Ed,
     You wrote this
     *Sorry guys, the human component of earths greenhouse gas column is too small to have any effect thats meaningful. *

     That's pretty well denying that GHG's cause warming.

     *My claim is that human addition of CO2 to the earths GHG column has a minor effect, not that GHG in general dont cause warming. I thought I was being pretty clear on that point.*
     No, you weren't clear. In fact, your way of wording things sounds like you are denying they cause warming.

     Also: Whether you denied or not, you are changing the subject from the effect of GHGs (science) to politics.

830. Lucia:Also: Whether you denied or not, you are changing the subject from the effect of GHGs (science) to politics.

     No, my original post #175993 on this ended on a political note and the main topic prior was political. I will plead guilty if accused of diverting the topic from political to science though.

831. Maybe standing in the corner and thinking about what you said is a better penance.

832. Ed Forbes,
     I can see more clearly were you go wrong in your analysis of the human influence: you confuse the rate of natural exchange of CO2 between pools (ocean, plants, soil, animals, atmosphere) with the effect of an added quantity of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. The shift in total Atmospheric CO2 is very clearly due to human activity, not a change in the distribution of CO2 between natural pools. This has been known clearly for a very long time. But not by you. You are not alone in this misunderstanding (read the comments on any of the many threads about CO2 at WUWT); that doesn’t make you any less mistaken. The human addition is a perturbation of the system; you can’t just compare that to the size of the natural fluxes and conclude the human addition is insignificant.
     .
     The best empirical estimates of sensitivity to added CO2 (eg Lewis and Curry) put the sensitivity at near 2C per doubling of CO2. That is the most likely human contribution to warming.

833. SteveF (Comment #176017): "I can see more clearly were you go wrong in your analysis of the human influence: you confuse the rate of natural exchange of CO2 between pools (ocean, plants, soil, animals, atmosphere) with the effect of an added quantity of CO2 from burning fossil fuels."

     I think SteveF may have spotted the real problem. Ed Forbes is not saying that GHG changes have no effect on the climate, he is saying that humans have little effect on atmospheric CO2. If so, there is a ton of hard, scientific evidence that he is wrong.
     –
     Edit: Note that I am guessing as to what Ed Forbes has been saying. He has hardly been clear.

834. DOJ issues blistering report on Comey. He won't be prosecuted but I don't think anyone thought he would be.
     https://www.scribd.com/document/423671596/Doj-Ig-Comey
     .
     This might dampen his arrogance a bit. Comey may be a liberal hero for the moment but I very much doubt history will treat him kindly. The FBI's reputation suffered while he was in charge. All his unilateral actions paint him as entitled and self serving.

835. SteveF: "The best empirical estimates of sensitivity to added CO2 (eg Lewis and Curry) put the sensitivity at near 2C per doubling of CO2. That is the most likely human contribution to warming."

     And I gave it at 1-2d. I will give you your 2d on doubling CO2. Nothing in my analysis changes. It is the requirement to double again the CO2 to get to 4d in total that invalidates the idea that humans will cause significant change. We have yet to get to the first doubling over natural and getting to the second doubling of CO2 by any reasonable projection on fossil fuel use is very Improbable.

     So, back to politics: due to the massive amount of money needed to be spent, with major reductions in living standards to make a very small adjustment to earth overall temps, I see no reason to comprise in any fashion with those who want carbon taxes or other restrictions that hinder the world economy.

836. Tom, speculation I have seen over the last couple of months is that the DOJ would decline to prosecute on these charges as being seen as "petty".
     .
     There are other much more serious charges potentially in the works.

837. Tom Scharf (Comment #176019): "DOJ issues blistering report on Comey. He won't be prosecuted but I don't think anyone thought he would be."

     Why do you say he won't be prosecuted? I realize that, contrary to the demands of justice, Comey might not get prosecuted. But I question your seeming confidence. Yes, the cronyism of the deep state seems to know no bounds. But there is a new AG in town. I am optimistic that he will do the right thing, now that he is armed with the IG's report. But then, I am an optimist.

838. Ed Forbes,
     "And I gave it at 1-2d. I will give you your 2d on doubling CO2."
     .
     No, you said that the human contribution to rising CO2 is negligible compared to "natural" CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. That is just wrong. If you are now agreeing that human emissions caused most all the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 (from about 280 PPM to current ~410 PPM), then that is a big change from what you first said.
     .
     But I am guessing, in true WUWT CO2 thread fashion, that you will never agree human emissions have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2. You probably also think the other GHGs which contribute to warming… like carbon tetra-chloride, fluorocarbon refrigerants, NO2, and methane… also have nothing to do with human emissions. These other GHGs contribute about 55% as much to warming as the measured rise in CO2, by the way.
     .
     The basics of this are not technically difficult. But GHG driven warming is politically difficult, because there is broad political/ethical/moral disagreement about the relative costs, benefits, and risks associated with human emissions of GHGs, and because the "science", and its many projections, are so distorted by wild eyed green/left politics.
     .
     It is perfectly reasonable to argue about the magnitude of "amplification" of the basic warming caused by GHGs, because there is strong empirical evidence climate models overstate that amplification. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that most "doomsday" predictions (like: 1.5 or 2 meters sea level rise in 80 years, much of Earth becoming uninhabitable, farming yields dropping drastically, widespread famine, social collapse, polar bears disappearing, loss of male fertility, rapid loss of most living species, etc, etc, etc, without end) are absolutely bonkers, because they *are* absolutely bonkers.
     .
     It is *not* reasonable to suggest humans have had little impact on Earth's recent warming…. that just makes you appear ignorant, and provides ammunition to the wild eyed lefty greens who can point out that ignorance instead of defending how bonkers the endless doomsday predictions are. Please stop helping the wild eyed green leftists advance their agenda.

839. Ed Forbes,

     What SteveF said (Comment #176023).

840. Ed Forbes, why do you keep writing 'd' for temperature changes?

     MikeM, it has already been announced that there would be no prosecution for this. Perhaps there is a better chance of getting Comey's lawyer disbarred for breaking attorney-client privilege, since Comey said that the May 11 leak was not authorized by him.

841. Several points
     All warming prior to the 1940's is agreed to be natural.

     CO2 in 1850 was about 285ppm
     https://www.co2levels.org
     .
     CO2 and temp levels were raising naturaly as we come out of a natural cold spell
     .
     CO2 level in 1950 was 310ppm
     .
     CO2 level today, almost 70 yrs later, is 408ppm
     .
     At 2d per double, CO2 has to reach 620ppm to get to the 1st 2d change due to humans and 1240ppm to get to a 4d change due to humans. And that is assuming no natural component to raising CO2 levels, which is a bogus assumption.
     .
     Getting to 620ppm is pushing the bounds of reason and 1240ppm borders on the insane.

     My analysis is correct. Human effect on the climate is not significant.

842. Ed Forbes
     *CO2 and temp levels were raising naturaly as we come out of a natural cold spell*
     As opposed to… oh…. invention and adoption of the steam engine and so on. . .

     *My analysis is correct. *
     Thanks for the self assessment.

843. Ed Forbes,
     .
     Yes, CO2 was near 285 ppm in 1860 (the exact number is not known), but a rise to 310 ppm , especially in combination with increases in methane, NO2, etc certainly could contribute to the warming between 1860 and 1950. CO2 forcing is logarithmic, and in watts per M^2 in 1950 was about 5.35 * ln (310/285) = ~0.45 watt/M^2, compared to today's forcing of about 5.35 * ln(410/285) = ~1.95 watts/M^2. So a first approximation is that the warming before 1950 should have been ~ 23% of the total warming since ~1860. That is pretty close to reality: total warming since 1860 ~1.5C, warming from 1860 to 1950: ~0.35C, or 0.35/1.5 = 23% of the total (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1860/mean:13) assuming other (non-CO2) forcings remained roughly proportional to CO2 forcing.
     .
     CO2 is currently increasing at just under 3 ppm per year. On that trend, CO2 in the atmosphere in 2100 would reach 410 + 3 * 81 = 653 PPM. That is not pushing the bounds of reason at all, just following current trends. The rate of increase per year has also been rising, so reaching 650 PPM is actually quite likely, even before 2100, unless the use of fossil fuels is reduced. The forcing would reach ~5.35 * ln(650/285) = ~4.4 watts per M^2, plus the contribution of other GHGs. So warming by 2100 can reasonably be expected to be in the range of 3.0C (or more) above the year 1860, or 1.5C (or more) above today's temperatures. That is unlikely to be a global catastrophe, but it does have the potential to cause problems, and evaluating that potential (without all the hysterical screams of doom) is only prudent.
     .
     "My analysis is correct. Human effect on climate is not significant."
     .
     No, your analysis is rubbish, and demonstrably so. You only help the wild eyed green leftists advance their agenda by discrediting reasoned arguments against climate hysteria.

844. Steve, what % of the current 3% per year increase do you assume is natural and what is human?
     .
     As CO2 increased from 1860 to 1950 under mostly natural conditions, it seems unreasonable to assume all of the 3% increase per year after 1950 is human caused. If, for example, 2/3 of the increase from 1950 is human, and 1/3 is natural, only 1d of the total 1.5d increase in temps at 650ppm could be associated to human.

     I do not think one can safely assume an acceleration, or even a continuation of a constant rate, in the rate of increase in GHG as US GHG emissions have declined. As nations get richer, they also get more efficient. Increase efficiency and GHG emissions decline.
     https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

     I still say that such a small number over this long of a time period amounts to a rounding error on the assumptions being made.

845. Ed Forbes (Comment #176029): "As CO2 increased from 1860 to 1950 under mostly natural conditions,"

     No, that increase was anthropogenic.
     .
     Ed Forbes: "it seems unreasonable to assume all of the 3% increase per year after 1950 is human caused."

     It is unreasonable to assume otherwise. During the Holocene, natural fluctuations are just a few ppm.

846. Ed Forbes,
     I assume you mean 3 ppm, not 3 percent. I also assume when you write 2d you mean 2 degrees celsius.
     .
     That said, you are refusing to address the real issues. The rise in CO2 between 1860 and 1950 was *not* natural, it was directly the result of human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels. Total human CO2 emissions have risen almost constantly since the mid 1800s. The USA represents only a small fraction of total emissions; in spite of a modest reduction in USA emissions, global emissions are rising, and that rise is very unlikely to stop any time in the next couple of decades, if not longer.
     .
     Please explain the basis for assuming (and you do a lot of it) that all warming prior to 1950 was ‘natural’, or that 1/3 of observed warming since 1950 was ‘natural’. I showed you why the rise in temperatures between 1860 and 1950 is perfectly consistent with the rise in CO2 during that period when compared to warming since 1950 and the rise in CO2 since 1950, and you continue to ignore that… and every other reasoned argument. Arm waves, unjustified speculation, and simple ignorance seem to be all you can offer. What is your background? I’m guessing you lack technical understanding.

847. Steve,
     I try and limit my data sources to the EPA and IPCC reports. Both are written with a large activist bias, so make the worst case for my arguments.
     .
     As to why I use 1950, that is the date used by the IPCC.

     Taking the IPCC 5th report, some examples below. No confidance listed for human effect prior to 1950 is stated, and they would have if they could.

     Going off for the weekend, so any reply will be delayed. Thank you for the interaction, its a fun discussion 😀
     .
     IPCC 5th report
     https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_summary.php
     .
     Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
     .
     The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3). Anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica4.
     .
     Figure SPM.3 | Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period
     .
     It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed global scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes since the mid-20th century.
     .

     Based on multiple independent analyses of measurements, it is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century. There is medium confidence in the rate of change and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere extratropical troposphere. {WGI SPM B.1, 2.4.4}

848. Steve, my technical background:

     I majored in Enginering in the 80's, with Physics 1-2, Chemistry, Organic Chem, statics, Engineering Econ, Calculus 1-3, ect. Passed all my classes, but I will NOT pass myself off as an expert on them today.

     Changed majors about 2/3 of my way through and went into computer science as it was more fun at the time. Later opened 2 computer stores and specialized in office networks and office software support.

     Changed direction again in 2000 as the fun went out of the computer bussiness for me and went back to engineering (civil) for the county and also went back to school for a Masters in Public Admin.

     Have not used the hard core math and science in years. Use it or loose it. But my poli sci and public admin prepared me to read and proccess reports, and to understand when someone was trying to BS me with statistics.

849. Steve : "Please explain the basis for assuming (and you do a lot of it) that all warming prior to 1950 was ‘natural’, or that 1/3 of observed warming since 1950 was ‘natural’."
     .
     See 5th IPCC report. IPCC says about 1/2 natural, I give it the benefit and say only a 1/3.
     .
     "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. "

850. Ed Forbes,
     I think you misunderstand the IPCC statements. They set more than 50% as the *minimum* human contribution. They do not set an upper limit, which is implicitly 100%. Yes, there is always a chance some unidentified cause for part of the observed warming will be found, but William of Occam would probable chuckle at that suggestion, since the overall trend in warming is consistent with ~100% human causes since the mid 1800s, and is by far the simplest explanation. None of which justifies the hysterical claims of doom which green loonies use to justify crazy public policies.
     .
     But the fact that there are endless crazy policy proposals on offer doesn’t mean sensible policies shouldn’t be considered. For example, rather than waste money on subsidizing wind and solar power, expediting nuclear plant construction, and publicly funding development of ‘fail safe’ reactor designs appears a far better approach to reduce CO2 emissions. The political problem is that the crazy greens don’t want to just reduce CO2, they want to reduce energy use (and material wealth!) independent of global warming, so they fight sensible policies like nuclear power.

851. Ed,
     You say your background allows you to read reports. But it would seem you have some difficulties there. You quote:
     .
     "more than half of the observed increase". And then intrepret this as "about half".
     .
     Note the word "MORE". "MORE" does not mean "ABOUT".

     * I give it the benefit and say only a 1/3.*

     Ehrm… no. You are now interpreting "MORE" to mean "LESS". Even if you've forgotten all the chemistry and physics you ever took, that's not the way English works.

852. lucia, please read it again.

     IPCC says human affect more than half, which directly implies that natural is somewhere lessthan or about 1/2. I give the human effect the benefit of 2/3, not 1/2 as stated, leaving 1/3 for natural.

853. lucia (Comment #176036): "You say your background allows you to read reports. But it would seem you have some difficulties there."

     Yep. And he misinterpreted a statement about warming prior to 1950 as being about CO2 prior to 1950.

854. Ed Forbes (Comment #176037): "IPCC says human affect more than half, which directly implies that natural is somewhere less than or about 1/2. I give the human effect the benefit of 2/3, not 1/2 as stated, leaving 1/3 for natural."

     But that is not what is in the report. IPCC attributes ALL of the post 1950 warming to people since there is NO evidence for natural warming or cooling since 1950. But there *might* have been some natural warming or cooling over that period; we don't know since we have no control experiment. So the anthropogenic warming might be less than the observed warming or it might be more than the observed warming.

855. Steve, now you are the one waving hands.
     .
     1/2 was as good as the committee could justify. If they could have justified higher they would have directly stated so. Reading more than what the committee directly stated is problematical. Pushing "more than 1/2" to mean "all" is nonsense.

     The committee could not justify any confidence for human effect prior to 1950. Your stating that warming from the 1800's is human caused is not supported by the peer reviewed science as reviewed by the committee of experts.

856. lucia (Comment #176036): "You say your background allows you to read reports. But it would seem you have some difficulties there."

     I agreed with lucia earlier. But I now think that Ed is quite skilled at reading reports and twisting what they say into what he wants to believe. In which case there is not much point in arguing with him.

857. Ed Forbes,
     So here is what we have learned:
     .
     * You agree that rising atmospheric CO2 causes some warming.
     * It appears you discount warming from other human generated GHGs and their contribution to warming (which is in total about 55% that of CO2).
     * It appears you do not accept that the measured rise in atmospheric CO2 (from about 285 PPM to about 411 PPM) is due to human activities.
     * You interpret the IPCC's minimum human contribution to warming since 1950 of 50% as proof that it can't be 100%, even though the IPCC did not say that… which means you believe there must be some other substantial, but as yet unidentified, cause for warming.
     * You continue to believe the human contribution to warming since the mid 1800's is minimal.
     .
     Have I got those right? If so, then it is pointless to argue with you. WUWT is a better forum for you to post nonsense.

858. Mike M,
     I am referring to Comey not being prosecuted for his actions discussed in this report. That was the official conclusion. Whether he will be prosecuted for other things I don't know. My impression is Comey was careful enough to avoid criminal prosecution.
     .
     McCabe is another story. He may very well find himself in court, although a conviction might be tough in today's political environment. Bad behavior by government employees professing self martyrdom who ultimately not only never get punished but enrich themselves in the process is a bit frustrating to watch.
     .
     At a minimum at least all these bad actors were fired.

859. It all comes down to how much you trust the climate models, the people who write them, and the people who assess their efficacy. I think it would be very politically difficult for the people who update the models to do anything other than "it's worse than we thought". They basically refused to update the models during the pause, so I don't think they just go where the data leads them. They follow the data when it is politically viable.
     .
     There is enough uncertainty in these predictions for everyone to follow their prior biases and that is exactly what has happened. I know of exactly zero people who changed their prior views based on modeling results. If the models are able to successfully predict temperatures over the next 3 decades I think they will have gone a long way toward trustworthiness.

860. Tom Scharf,
     “I know of exactly zero people who changed their prior views based on modeling results.”
     .
     I guess it depends on what you count as a model. I consider a heat balance like Lewis & Curry a ‘model’ (albeit simple), and that did change my ‘prior’ upward by about 15-20%. I find the empirical data very convincing. The weather model based global circulation ‘models’? No, too many easily adjusted parameters and fudges, too many models with obviously wrong projections, and too many modelers ‘motivated’ to declare climate armageddon, for the model projections to be credible. When the many thousands of derivative climate doom papers begin by citing ‘state of the art’ climate model projections, you can be certain all that follows is rubbish. The entire field has been kidnapped by green crazies.

861. Tom, reading the IG report, it looks like the rest of the team has distanced themselves from Comey.

862. Mike Flynn's new lawyer just presented in court a large overview of the collusion by law enforcement agencies against Trump.

     https://www.scribd.com/document/423830982/US-v-Flynn-Brief-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Compel-Brady-Material-and-Order-to-Show-Cause#from_embed

863. SteveF
     Just back from vacation so will be a bit before I can respond in detail.
     .
     But I will say now that you seem to support Mike Mann's "hockey stick" where the Medieval Warm Peroid and the Little Ice Age did not exist. If natural events increased warming in the MWP to temps about those of today, and natural events reduced temps well below those of today in the LIA, saying that the raise in temps out of the LIA in the 1800's could not be natural defies all tenets of science.
     .
     If this is so, then yes, we do not have any reason to continue this discussion.
     .

864. Ed Forbes (Comment #176048): "I will say now that you seem to support Mike Mann's "hockey stick" where the Medieval Warm Peroid and the Little Ice Age did not exist."

     I can't speak for others, but I am convinced that the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period etc. were real and that Mann's hockey stick is a gross misrepresentation.
     .
     Ed Forbes: "If natural events increased warming in the MWP to temps about those of today, and natural events reduced temps well below those of today in the LIA, saying that the raise in temps out of the LIA in the 1800's could not be natural defies all tenets of science."

     That is a straw man. Nobody here has said that the recent warming could not be natural. I, for one, have specifically said the opposite. But the rate and timing of the recent warming is such that anthropogenic CO2 is the most likely cause.

865. MikeM
     The issue at hand in my last commemt is WHEN warming by natural events may have been superceedd by human increase in co2 and other human factors.
     .
     The IPCC very clearly states that it is not untill after 1950 that human effects are seen in the data. SteveF says it is the 1800's. This issue cuts to the very core of the argument.
     .
     If SteveF disagrees on this point made by the IPCC in its review of the peer reviewed science, then yes, we have come to a hard stop.

866. Ed Forbes
     ** "….. defies all tenets of science."**

     Oh heavens. ALL tenets of science?!! What hyperbole. You are getting carried away.

867. Ed Forbes
     **SteveF disagrees on this point made by the IPCC in its review of the peer reviewed science**
     Huh? Seriously? He has not done any such thing.

868. Lucia, well, a bit 🤢
     I blame it on the internet 😁

869. Lucia
     SteveF "* You continue to believe the human contribution to warming since the mid 1800's is minimal."

     Not sure how else to consider his view. For human effect, IPCC says 1950, Steve says 1800's.

870. Ed,
     Above, you misrepresent what the IPCC wrote.

871. Ed Forbes (Comment #176050): "The IPCC very clearly states that it is not untill after 1950 that human effects are seen in the data. SteveF says it is the 1800's. This issue cuts to the very core of the argument."

     I am pretty sure that IPCC does not say there was no anthropogenic warming prior to 1950. So there would be no disagreement with what SteveF or I said. If they do say that, please tell me where I can find it.

872. Lucia
     No, the IPCC was pretty clear on 1950.
     .
     "It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed global scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes since the mid-20th century."
     .
     Please note "…since the mid-20th century"

873. Ed Forbes,
     You did not quote them.
     .
     You tried to "interpret" what they wrote about 1950 and your interpretation is incorrect. Do as Mike M suggest and tell him *precisely* where to find the text you are referring to, or better yet, copy paste it.
     .
     Once you have, we can discuss this further.

874. Did not quote them ? Not sure how to reply to that as I did quote them. reference in the report summary to effect is from the 1950's.
     Some example below
     .
     .
     IPCC 5th report
     https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_summary.php
     .
     SPM.1.2. Causes of climate change
     .

     Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}
     .
     Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. {1.4}
     .
     It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed global scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes since the mid-20th century. It is likely that human influence has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations. There is medium confidence that the observed warming has increased heat-related human mortality and decreased cold-related human mortality in some regions. {1.4}
     .

     1.1.1. Atmosphere
     .

     Confidence in precipitation change averaged over global land areas since 1901 is low prior to 1951 and medium afterwards. Averaged over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere, precipitation has likely increased since 1901 (medium confidence before and high confidence after 1951). For other latitudes area-averaged long-term positive or negative trends have low confidence (Figure 1.1). {WGI SPM B.1, Figure SPM.2, 2.5.1}

     1.1.2. Oceans
     .
     It is very likely that regions of high surface salinity, where evaporation dominates, have become more saline, while regions of low salinity, where precipitation dominates, have become fresher since the 1950s. These regional trends in ocean salinity provide indirect evidence for changes in evaporation and precipitation over the oceans and thus for changes in the global water cycle (medium confidence). There is no observational evidence of a long-term trend in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). {WGI SPM B.2, 2.5, 3.3, 3.4.3, 3.5, 3.6.3}

875. this is the main quote in the above post.
     the IPCC states detection from 1950's, not the 1800's.

     "Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}"
     .

876. 881 comments is too long. I'm closing this thread and possibly moving some comments. Go to'

     http://rankexploits.com/musings/2019/new-thread-not-interesting/

Comments are closed.