|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 07 2020 12:43 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. Not really, most students use OPT or L1 visa, H1B is for people who went to college in their respective countries almost 100% of the time.
As I understand it, OPT is more for sticking around as a student gaining work experience and L1's are not designed for students transitioning into the workforce but foreign workers coming to a US branch.
|
Quick question. When's the last time we saw Biden? I'm 90% sure I'm voting for him over Trump but like, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw him anywhere doing anything. I think I remember him doing some kind of online video that he posted to twitter like 2months ago?
Would make me feel alot better if I knew what he was doing without having to go all Finding Carmen San Diego on him.
|
On July 07 2020 14:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 12:43 nath wrote:On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. Not really, most students use OPT or L1 visa, H1B is for people who went to college in their respective countries almost 100% of the time. As I understand it, OPT is more for sticking around as a student gaining work experience and L1's are not designed for students transitioning into the workforce but foreign workers coming to a US branch.
Yeah, the F1 visa would be the student visa of interest. From there, in my experience, you either get a job with an H1-B or obtain a green card while completing a PhD. The H1-B route definitely seems more common and generally speaking more lucrative of an approach for getting into the US.
Speaking of which, looks like Trump is pushing to use the current situation to step on F1 visa access as well where classes are entirely virtual. I think this goes a long way in explaining why a lot of colleges seem so aggressively insistent on in-person classes in this coming semester despite the fact that the math suggests it's a bad health risk.
Trump admin slams door on F-1 visa students attending online-only classes
New York, July 7 (IANS) International students in the US are panicking after a shock announcement by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Monday afternoon that slams the door shut on students with F-1 and M-1 visas if their universities move to online-only instruction during the Fall 2020 semester which begins early September, immediately after Labor Day weekend.
F-1 students pursue academic coursework and M-1 nonimmigrant students attend vocational courses in the United States.
Students enrolled in US universities that are moving to an online-only education model will be barred from getting F-1 visas, stopped from entering the US on F-1 visas and not allowed to maintain F-1 status in the Fall semester, according to immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta''s explanation of the one-pager ICE statement.
"So Trump is forcing foreign students to study in unsafe conditions during Covid-19," Mehta tweeted.
The language of the statement terms the new rules as "modifications to temporary exemptions for nonimmigrant students taking online classes due to the pandemic for the fall 2020 semester".
"Nonimmigrant F-1 and M-1 students attending schools operating entirely online may not take a full online course load and remain in the United States", the first line of the July 6 statement says.
"The US Department of State will not issue visas to students enrolled in schools and/or programs that are fully online for the fall semester nor will US Customs and Border Protection permit these students to enter the United States. Active students currently in the United States enrolled in such programs must depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status. If not, they may face immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings."
The Trump administration says it had allowed only a "temporary exemption" for online courses limited to the spring and summer semesters.
The ICE announcement comes at a time when the US leads the world in coronavirus caseload. Covid-19 has sickened more than 2.9 million Americans and killed more than 130,000 till date.
Source
|
|
|
On July 07 2020 15:21 Zooper31 wrote:
Quick question. When's the last time we saw Biden? I'm 90% sure I'm voting for him over Trump but like, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw him anywhere doing anything. I think I remember him doing some kind of online video that he posted to twitter like 2months ago?
Would make me feel alot better if I knew what he was doing without having to go all Finding Carmen San Diego on him.
His Twitter seems active. But of course that means very little.
Biden's last visible public appearance involved starting a poorly conceived controversy over the recent protests. And that's generally likely to be the outcome of any future public appearance. So perhaps his team made the (generally accurate) calculation that the best way for him to win is to "let Trump be Trump" and let his opponent just destroy himself. If there's no Biden around to criticize, Trump has to stand on the merits of his own achievements, and in the wake of the ongoing plague, those look pretty damn disastrous.
|
On July 07 2020 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. I am in favor of Trump getting rid of H1-B visas for people we don't need. What I said before was: If a job needs a 5/10, and we have a local 6/10 candidate, I am against using an H1-B visa to hire a 8/10 foreign worker. It causes qualification inflation and has really stupid effects in industry. I have seen a PhD hired to do a job a shitty BS could do.
Ok. But if the US doesn't need all those 8/10s, why pay for their education? Doesn't even matter whether it's a foreigner or not, if there are 8/10s willing to do the work of a 5/10 at the corresponding pay, why not hire him? If sure as hell have an 8/10 candidate than a 6/10 candidate if he's cheap.
If the problem is that you don't need 8/10 candidates for 5/10 jobs, then the problem is overselling education. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy problem: you sell education to students, telling them they need it to get a job, and you convince hirers that candidates need more education than the job actually requires: presto, minimum requirements just went up from high school diploma to college degree.
And that isn't because companies can get cheap foreigner who steal our jerbs.
PS. I don't agree with either line of reasoning and think increasing college educated people is generally good, and that many jobs that on the surface look like they need a high school diploma and a specialized course of a few months, actually do require more education if there employee wants to grow. But I also vehemently believe college good be free, and as long as it costs a fortune, companies shouldn't feed into it with their hiring policies. And part of the problem with h1b applicants is that they're cheaper precisely because they don't also have to pay off horrendous student debts. In the case of Asians and Africans because they are the rich elite if they studied abroad, it in the case of Europeans and (most) South Americans, because the government pays for college (in South America mostly through merit-based scholarships that are quite corrupt, so functionally these are also the rich elite, just like in Asia and Africa). And anywhere other than Europe: they need an international education for American countries to even recognize it. So yes, the attraction of international students does feed directly into the H1B program, and it is strange to be in favor of the former and against the latter.
|
Mkay, makes sense why I haven't heard anything. I don't pay attention to twitter at all and only go there when I hear about something someone said and I literally google for that tweet. Platform seems stupid to me idk.
If all he's doing is tweeting random shit. I count that as doing nothing at all lol. I do remember that public appearance going rather badly, he looked horrible.
|
Biden’s main draw is that historically conservative voters don’t seem to believe that he will rule as a “radical leftist”, despite attack ads and GOP twitter trying to paint him as someone who is going to let someone like AOC run the show. He’s the definition of the “generic Democrat” that polls incredibly well, his support with 65+ voters is hilariously high for a Democrat.
Going into hibernation until November is probably the correct strategy.
|
On July 07 2020 06:15 JimmiC wrote:
I would be interested in why LM-Socialism is better for the planet, I have yet to see an explanation for that. And it seems to be at the root of your answer for GH.
Edit: If someone states that the world needs capitalism to save the world from climate change I would ask them the same question. If you "trump" card is going to be saving the planet you have to have some logic and reasoning behind the why question.
I think a Marxist would respond something along these lines: capitalists always need to sell more and more stuff to generate more and more capital (or they won't be capitalists anymore, as Marx would say, and they would eventually fall down into the proletariat because other capitalists would overtake their control over the means of production). So instead of satisfying the "natural" and sustainable needs of the population, new needs must constantly be invented by the capitalist. That's why we have advertising (as Raymond Williams points out: advertising is not a sign that people are too materialistic; it proves that we aren't materialistic enough...)
In Marx, this is often presented as a criticism of life in big cities that exploit the countryside and import luxury items from faraway countries - globalized capital requires globalized patterns of consumption, as in the Communist manifesto:
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character
to production and consumption in every country. [Old industries are replaced] by
industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the
remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter
of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new
wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes.
So on the production side, the argument would be that capitalism needs endless and always increasing production of new things to consume, or it breaks down, which is different from a system where what is needed is produced.
On the consumption side of the argument, Marxists (such as Guy Debord) would say that what is actually consumed in capitalist societies is not what people need or authentically want, what people consume is rather what is most valued in this particular form of culture: money. So instead of consuming the use vale of stuff (we consume things we authentically need), people tend to consume the exchange value (the commodity as representation of wealth). This consumption is a form of alienation: we are alienated from our proper needs and unable to understand what is in our own best interest, such as saving the planet.
|
On July 07 2020 16:06 Acrofales wrote:
...
And that isn't because companies can get cheap foreigner who steal our jerbs.
...
When it comes to permanent residency or citzizenship it is it has to be checked and double checked and quadruple triple checked that there is no other qualified person for the job already being american, which costs a lot of money and time.
So I don't understand Trump's attack on US economy.
Fact: Employees are people that earn their employer more money than they cost them. If you have more qualified persons, employers can pay less and EARN MORE MONEY.
Cutting the supply of workforce is basicly a communist idea.
|
On July 07 2020 16:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. I am in favor of Trump getting rid of H1-B visas for people we don't need. What I said before was: If a job needs a 5/10, and we have a local 6/10 candidate, I am against using an H1-B visa to hire a 8/10 foreign worker. It causes qualification inflation and has really stupid effects in industry. I have seen a PhD hired to do a job a shitty BS could do. Ok. But if the US doesn't need all those 8/10s, why pay for their education? Doesn't even matter whether it's a foreigner or not, if there are 8/10s willing to do the work of a 5/10 at the corresponding pay, why not hire him? If sure as hell have an 8/10 candidate than a 6/10 candidate if he's cheap. If the problem is that you don't need 8/10 candidates for 5/10 jobs, then the problem is overselling education. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy problem: you sell education to students, telling them they need it to get a job, and you convince hirers that candidates need more education than the job actually requires: presto, minimum requirements just went up from high school diploma to college degree.And that isn't because companies can get cheap foreigner who steal our jerbs. PS. I don't agree with either line of reasoning and think increasing college educated people is generally good, and that many jobs that on the surface look like they need a high school diploma and a specialized course of a few months, actually do require more education if there employee wants to grow. But I also vehemently believe college good be free, and as long as it costs a fortune, companies shouldn't feed into it with their hiring policies. And part of the problem with h1b applicants is that they're cheaper precisely because they don't also have to pay off horrendous student debts. In the case of Asians and Africans because they are the rich elite if they studied abroad, it in the case of Europeans and (most) South Americans, because the government pays for college (in South America mostly through merit-based scholarships that are quite corrupt, so functionally these are also the rich elite, just like in Asia and Africa). And anywhere other than Europe: they need an international education for American countries to even recognize it. So yes, the attraction of international students does feed directly into the H1B program, and it is strange to be in favor of the former and against the latter.
You really hit the nail on the head here. This is a humongous problem here in the US and I only see it getting worse all the time.
EDIT: To get a bit conspiracy theorist, I don't think hirers needed "convincing" that degrees were required (and I imagine it's actually because of them)--it's an instant way for them to be able to discard the maximum amount of applicants possible while requiring no effort from them.
|
|
|
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
[...]
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
[...]
Harper's published an open letter calling for responses. A lot of people on Twitter are responding derisively. Harper's Letter is described as "self-pitying," signed by a TERF, etc. Also signed by Noam Chomsky. Also signed by Salman Rushdie and Malcolm Gladwell.
|
On July 07 2020 16:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. I am in favor of Trump getting rid of H1-B visas for people we don't need. What I said before was: If a job needs a 5/10, and we have a local 6/10 candidate, I am against using an H1-B visa to hire a 8/10 foreign worker. It causes qualification inflation and has really stupid effects in industry. I have seen a PhD hired to do a job a shitty BS could do. Ok. But if the US doesn't need all those 8/10s, why pay for their education?
I think normally we don't. Generally foreign students actually pay WAY more tuition, so I support them being students here because it funds universities.
On July 07 2020 16:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. I am in favor of Trump getting rid of H1-B visas for people we don't need. What I said before was: If a job needs a 5/10, and we have a local 6/10 candidate, I am against using an H1-B visa to hire a 8/10 foreign worker. It causes qualification inflation and has really stupid effects in industry. I have seen a PhD hired to do a job a shitty BS could do. Ok. But if the US doesn't need all those 8/10s, why pay for their education? Doesn't even matter whether it's a foreigner or not, if there are 8/10s willing to do the work of a 5/10 at the corresponding pay, why not hire him? If sure as hell have an 8/10 candidate than a 6/10 candidate if he's cheap.
Because when there are plentiful 8/10 candidates, you don't even consider the 6/10 candidates. As a result, you get insane requirement inflation and it screws up not just the US but the countries experiencing the brain drain. People leaving their communities to live somewhere better isn't good for their original home.
When a job that only needs a BS ends up needing a PhD to get an interview, it harms locals. When 8/10 candidates leave their home country for a crappy job because its still better than living in their home country, their home country suffers too.
On July 07 2020 16:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2020 09:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2020 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2020 06:58 farvacola wrote:
Sending people out of the country for arbitrary reasons is awful no matter how you slice it imo yeah I don't really have a good idea of what it is like to get approval to come over here as a student, but students are a big net positive for the US, as I understand it. Spend a bunch of money and maybe stick around as a skilled worker? That's a slam dunk, right? Didn't you just recently argue in favor of Trump's cutting of H1-B visas? That's how they stick around. I am in favor of Trump getting rid of H1-B visas for people we don't need. What I said before was: If a job needs a 5/10, and we have a local 6/10 candidate, I am against using an H1-B visa to hire a 8/10 foreign worker. It causes qualification inflation and has really stupid effects in industry. I have seen a PhD hired to do a job a shitty BS could do. PS. I don't agree with either line of reasoning and think increasing college educated people is generally good, and that many jobs that on the surface look like they need a high school diploma and a specialized course of a few months, actually do require more education if there employee wants to grow. But I also vehemently believe college good be free, and as long as it costs a fortune, companies shouldn't feed into it with their hiring policies. And part of the problem with h1b applicants is that they're cheaper precisely because they don't also have to pay off horrendous student debts. In the case of Asians and Africans because they are the rich elite if they studied abroad, it in the case of Europeans and (most) South Americans, because the government pays for college (in South America mostly through merit-based scholarships that are quite corrupt, so functionally these are also the rich elite, just like in Asia and Africa). And anywhere other than Europe: they need an international education for American countries to even recognize it. So yes, the attraction of international students does feed directly into the H1B program, and it is strange to be in favor of the former and against the latter.
This is also true, but I think the main thing is that companies get to basically choose from the absolute best candidates from like 50 countries. They can work for "cheap" because cheap is still a ton of money for them, both because they have less/zero debt AND because the places they are coming from are simply less well paid overall. Or at least that is my understanding.
|
On July 07 2020 15:21 Zooper31 wrote:
Quick question. When's the last time we saw Biden? I'm 90% sure I'm voting for him over Trump but like, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw him anywhere doing anything. I think I remember him doing some kind of online video that he posted to twitter like 2months ago?
Would make me feel alot better if I knew what he was doing without having to go all Finding Carmen San Diego on him.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/505328-biden-holds-press-conference-for-first-time-in-months
He held a big press conference very recently.
|
Norway28763 Posts
Edit: (regarding the Harper's letter quoted by iGNe up there)
I have say I agree with that. And yea I noticed JK Rowling's name there and I'm not surprised to see negative responses based on that alone. Which is really indicative of the problem described in the letter.
|
|
|
Trump is still pushing hcq, but won't wear a mask. Maybe someone should suggest him to invest in the mask industry, pretty sure he'd wear a mask then.
|
On July 08 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote:https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/Show nested quote +[...]
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
[...] Harper's published an open letter calling for responses. A lot of people on Twitter are responding derisively. Harper's Letter is described as "self-pitying," signed by a TERF, etc. Also signed by Noam Chomsky. Also signed by Salman Rushdie and Malcolm Gladwell.
I think that "letter" is mostly correct while also being a perfect illustration of the problems that "cancel culture" seeks to address. As a disclaimer, I'm going to lengthen and formalize the following and submit it to Harpers as a response.
I recognize that you likely included those signatories in the interest of showing that ostensibly diverse viewpoints agree on the letter's point, but all I see are a group of people who all share in power structures that enable ongoing injustice of the sort that motivates what appear to be acts of mob justice. Public intellectuals and other individuals who are given stature, space, and attention when they speak are naturally disinclined to admit that those discursive privileges are zero-sum in the sense that they necessarily exclude others from engaging in the discourse in the first place. That unwillingness to address the implications of being given the stage is a core component of cultures of silence and the tolerance of injustice that Black people and LGTBQ folks are only now feeling empowered to point out. Look at that list of supposed inequities and notice that literally every aggrieved party or object there occupies a position of power, even if of the subordinate kind. By referring exclusively to journalists, professors, heads of organizations, and the like, without any mention of the trace of those excluded from ever attaining such positions, the letter partakes in precisely the kind of status quo maintenance that "cancel culture" is reacting to.
So yeah, theres no doubt that ideas and people are unfairly canceled, perhaps enough to warrant a strong correction, but to stop there when ostensibly making a plea for some kind of productive medium is to be a part of the problem rather than the solution. For every professor chased off campus because they say racist/homophobic/transphobic/plain old hateful things, there are numerous people, groups, and entities that were never allowed on campus in the first place for reasons directly related to the subject matter criticism.
|
The Harper's letter seems like people using free speech absolutism as a cover to whine about getting criticized from their left on a public platform.
As we all know D-day stands for "Debate Day"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
