State of the Discussion

Freddie has always had this squeamishness about YIMBY’s that I think stems from the fact that he, intellectually, knows that the YIMBY position is right but he personally and emotionally identifies with the NIMBY coalition, the regulators, the restrictionists and, especially, the minority filled communities that NIMBY’s in New York use as the Baptist part of their Baptist/Bootlegger coalition against development. He knows, on some level, they’re flat out wrong- ludicrously wrong, on the merits but he really really doesn’t want the developers/deregulators/abundance folks to be right.

His analysis on this one strains badly for both this reason and because he hasn’t actually read the book in question. He leaps on the education debate as a parallel both because it’s a subject is both very informed on (and largely right about) and because it’s virtually the opposite situation from the NIMBY/YIMBY debate. The deregulators, neolibs and privatizers in education have enacted lots of policies and failed to produce durable improvement both because the problem is extremely hard and also because the goal is logically impossible. No Child Left behind demands that no child be below average which is, of course, impossible unless every child produces perfectly equal results. The disaster of that whole line of thinking is hard to over state.

But the Abundance debate doesn’t fall into those traps or quandaries. Unlike education we’re talking, here, about the construction of material, measurable “real’ things. Manufactured educated children is incredibly complex and the goal- no subaverage child, is mathematically impossible. In contrast the development of infrastructure, housing etc is, fundamentally, a material thing. Education advocates scream “Education isn’t like manufacturing widgets” and they’re right but housing and infrastructure is near EXACTLY like measuring widgets. Our laws , economics and regulations make it easier or harder and the output is not difficult to measure. Moreover no one anywhere has really “cracked’ the education question (certainly not on NCLB terms) whereas many other societies both liberal (Japan, parts of continental Europe) and illiberal (red states, China) have enormous and obvious successes on the Abundance question.

In short, Freddie hasn’t read the book, he is tired and hazy from his new blessing (and good for him for it!) and he really really doesn’t like the nerds who push the abundance agenda and wants them to be wrong even though he knows they’re largely right.

I asked Google's AI the history of that word/medical-phrase.

...gained prominence in the mid-20th century as a replacement for earlier, more offensive terms like [snip] to describe intellectual disability.

Faict, the term was instantly used offensively. Then it was replaced with [snip] which itself instantly became offensive. But "mid-20th" lines up with his age which is 72.

Fred is weird here because he's pointing to the problems, admitting that the policies he doesn't like are solutions, then says it's important that we don't use them too much because [the rich].

Like,
" that means opposition from the wealthy and powerful, who the abundance crowd are usually so unwilling to target."

buddy, the "wealthy and powerful" are the people the abundance message is specifically targeting, saying to them "it's possible for you to make more money by building houses than by not building them", "new power plants and refurbished infrastructure will require large construction contracts and you can make money from that".

That bit about "a useful idiot for the right" is the reason so much stuff proposed by the left never goes anywhere, because they're worried about giving any impression of any kind that The Right was correct about literally anything, even in the tiniest imaginable way.

"You can’t pass laws that do not clearly explain what people cannot do, that people cannot read and understand what behavior is barred."

hey remember all those times I'd quote Nancy Pelosi saying "we have to pass the law to find out what's in it" and you would get really upset and post a whole bunch of words about That's Just How Laws Work And If You Thought Differently You're Either Stupid Or Dumb?

"[T]hat itself has strange first amendment implications, as now other countries can punish people in the US for their speech by using US law. "

people have been asking for this for years. now they're getting it.

Metroid Dread on Switch is awesome. Ori and the blind forest, Ori and the will o the wisp. Afterimage. Ender Magnolia. Cookie Cutter. Haak. There are so many great games in this genre.

Yes, that.

Trump-as-a-businessman has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care about court orders or business agreements, just how they're enforced. So if there is no way to enforce something then the agreement or order doesn't exist.

That's kind of missing my point. The Supreme Court told them to bring him back. I would think all reasonable people agree that's the right remedy. What they aren't going to do is try to lay some smack down that proscribes further political maneuvering and litigation. That's not something that happens normally and its not something anyone has any reason to expect.

BTW, am I misremembering, or did an immigrant do something that resembled Na.zi salute twice at the presidential inauguration? The president of Belarus said about that, and I quote, 'They cannot say anything to justify it. This is an open Na.zi salute, the Americans and Mr. Musk have simply taken this too far.'

That feels like it might actually qualify as 'adverse foreign policy consequences', having the American people in general being accused of openly be Na.zis by a foreign leader! Clearly that gesture has damaged how Belarus sees us! Even if this 'Mr. Musk' did it _completely accidentally_ (I dunno, someone should check if he does this sort of stuff all the time), it still had adverse foreign policy consequences.

Although I'm not sure if those consequences would qualify as 'serious'. But it's certainly more serious than some antisemitic said by random protestors at a protest.

Did anything ever happen with that Mr. Musk guy?

*check notes*

Oh, he's apparently a citizen now. I guess the US government can't do anything about him.

When does this end up in front of an Immigration Judge?

Luckily, it appears this one _will_ in up in front of a judge. Who will likely slap it down.

Judges have actually questioned the constitutionality of this part of immigration law, on two separate grounds. The first is the obvious 'The government is not supposed to make laws restricting freedom of speech', but there's actually a more important objection!

Specifically, that law is literally unknowable, you cannot know what behavior is disallowed under it, and thus it cannot be valid law. This is, hilariously, a level _above_ the first amendment, above constitutionality. You can't pass laws that do not clearly explain what people cannot do, that people cannot read and understand what behavior is barred.

US foreign policy is not only gigantic, it's _not entirely public_. And it's not specifically 'US foreign policy' anyway, it's 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United State'. You can be deported under it because some other country objected to something you did in a way that caused foreign policy implications for the US.

In other words, this law appears to requires an immigrant to somehow _determine the entire foreign policy of the entire planet_. How on earth is anyone supposed to know how every random country in the world is going to react to everything they say? Hell, even if they did try to research that, again, foreign policy is not a list of regulations people can follow.

Moreover, that itself has strange first amendment implications, as now other countries can punish people in the US for their speech by using US law. All Russia, for example, has to do is say 'We do not like what that immigrant in the US said about Putin, thus we are less likely to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine', and that allows the US government to somehow punish that immigrant by deporting them? What?

The US government can't punish people for their speech because the US government doesn't like it, so the idea that US government can punish people for their speech because _other countries_ do not like that speech is just flatly absurd.

The only reason this law is still on the books is that literally no one has ever been deported under _just_ it. It's been included on reasons before, but never by itself, and I'm not sure the _speech_ part (The part that requires the Sec of State to personally sign off on it.) ever has been used.

It is a defeat for Trump. I think everyone needs to temper their expectations about what the courts are able to do. Even a less conservative SCOTUS isn't going to order Trump to send in the marines to bring this guy back. My count is that 7 of 9 care enough about the institution on some level as to understand that a holding the executive branch can't comply with might turn out to be as bad as one they expressly refuse to follow.

I fret that this part of the order...

"The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."

...will lead to more litigation up and down the appellate ladder before the Government will actually do anything to comply with an order. "Oh noes! The District Court exceeded its authority and has failed to show due deference to the Executive Branch! Please give us an administrative stay!" "Stay granted. Expedited briefing schedule herein, decision in three weeks." "Oh noes! The new order after the second remand is vague and unclear! We don't know how to follow the court's order! Please give us an administrative stay!" "Stay granted, Expedited briefing schedule herein, decision in three weeks." "Oh noes! The new order fails to properly defer to us again! Here's a declaration from Secretary Rubio saying we are intruding on his conduct of foreign affairs but not saying why! We need an administrative stay again!" Etc. etc. etc. while this poor guy, presumed innocent of any crime and whose criminal record is free of any blemish, is getting beat up every day in the Salvadoran gulag.

The whole order can be read here:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25894464/24a949-order.pdf

LeeEsq pointed out a while ago that this was going to be there path to removal and it has been around forever but rarely, if ever used, the standard for proving this is essentially because the Secretary of State says so according to LeeEsq.

There is going to need to be some major law overhauling when this is all done

We now have a very brief description from Secretary of State Rubio of what purportedly makes Mahmoud Khalil deportable:

I am writing to inform you that upon notification from the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Investigations (DHS/ICE/HSI) on March 7, 2025, I have determined that [REDACTED] and Mahmoud Khalil (DOB:01-JAN-1995;
POB: Algeria), both U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR), are deportable aliens under INA section 237(a)(4)(C). I understand that ICE now intends to initiate removal charges against them, based on assurances from DHS/ICE/HSI.
(SBU) Under INA section 237(a)(4)(C)(i), an alien is deportable from the United States if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. Under INA section 237(a)(4)(C)(ii), for cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien's presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.
(SBU) Pursuant to these authorities, I have determined that the activities and presence of these aliens in United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest. These determinations are based on information provided by the DHS/ICE/HSI regarding the participation and roles of [REDACTED] And Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States. My determination for [REDACTED] is also based on [REDACTED] citations for unlawful activity during these protests. The public actions and continued presence of [REDACTED] and Khalil in the United States undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States. Consistent with E.O. 14150, America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State, the foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective.

https://apnews.com/article/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-trump-c60738368171289ae43177660def8d34

You read that right: Khalil's "past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," "have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest," because they "undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States."

Which I interpret to mean Khalil has been critical of the Netanyahu government in Israel and is expected to be critical of it again in the future. Future-thought-crime. Activity which is concededly lawful is now deportable.

I call upon our free speech absolutists to join me in objecting to this.

I have cheated a couple of times. I was stuck at having 3-of-4 mask pieces and looked up the ones I missed and, apparently, I missed a boatload.

So I'm going back and getting them and hoping that maybe I'll find something that will let me upgrade my nail because, seriously.