8 months of pay
-
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
You've not reviewed the legal arguments oro and con for birthright citizenship?
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
You've not reviewed the legal arguments oro and con for birthright citizenship?
Yes, Trump is trying to find nuance in the 14th amendment that isn't there. This is actually quite the opposite of the Scalia-esque originalist approach to the constitution, as Scalia has said in the past that some things "are constitutional, but stupid". If Congress wants to amend the 14th amendment to clarify it, they can do so anytime they want.
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
The Brad
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
Agreed. And my point is let congress amend the amendment. To find such 18th century nuance in it, and not the 2nd amendment, is hypocritical.
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
You want to argue that a "subject of" Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever when in the US is not "subject to" US jurisdiction? That makes no sense. If an "illegal immigrant" is not "subject to" US jurisdiction, then s/he would not be "illegal" in the first place because s/he's not "subject to" whatever law s/he's accused of violating.
Think about it: a foreign national, just by coming into the US without proper registration at a port of entry, becomes exempt from US laws (not "subject to" US jurisdiction). You think that makes sense?
You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
Similarly you should not ignore those laws because of the way it feels to you.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
Agreed. And my point is let congress amend the amendment. To find such 18th century nuance in it, and not the 2nd amendment, is hypocritical.
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
Agreed. And my point is let congress amend the amendment. To find such 18th century nuance in it, and not the 2nd amendment, is hypocritical.
Agree. That is why I believe that the US Constitution is always be interpreted differently over time and over different time eras.
-
In 1780 they would have said ‘what’s an illegal immigrant?’
@jon-nyc said in 8 months of pay:
In 1780 they would have said ‘what’s an illegal immigrant?’
In 1875 they answered that question.
-
https://fortune.com/2025/02/03/air-traffic-controller-federal-buyout-exempt-donald-trump-opm/
President Donald Trump’s administration is exempting air traffic controllers from government buyouts that were offered to millions of federal employees as a financial incentive to quit.
and
While the buyout offer was initially sent to air traffic controllers, along with other Federal Aviation Administration employees, an official with the Office of Personnel Management told the Associated Press on Friday that controllers are not eligible for the offer. An OPM spokesperson told Fortune air traffic controllers were exempt from the buyout, even before the administration’s clarification.
And on Monday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told CNN “the critical positions in regard to safety” are not given the buyout option. According to an updated fact sheet from the Office of Personnel Management, federal employees in “positions related to public safety and those in other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency” are exempt.
-
Saw this elsewhere:
Not everything is as good as it sounds. For example: 20,000 fed workers are said to have taken the buyout. That's 1% of the workforce. But 6% of the fed workforce churned in 2021 voluntarily. How many people did DOGE just give 8 months of severance to who were about to quit or retire anyway?
-
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
I'm making a SWAG they're shooting for a 10% RIF.
-
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
I'm making a SWAG they're shooting for a 10% RIF.
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
I was only joking
-
This seems to have no legal basis but there’s a chance the resignations will stick. I’d hold off, at least until it unfolds in court.
@jon-nyc said in 8 months of pay:
This seems to have no legal basis but there’s a chance the resignations will stick. I’d hold off, at least until it unfolds in court.
Frozen by courts.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/06/trump-federal-employee-buyout-court-challenge-.html
-
The people that took the buyout are 50/50 people that you want to keep. 70% of the people that didn’t take it need replaced…
-
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
Forgive my cynicism, but it's borne out of experience.
The place I used to work would have a big lay-off and they'd make a big fuss that they were cutting costs in the hope of increasing the share price. They never mentioned hiring people back to fill the void, frequently the same people. As you might imagine, it did wonders for morale.
I'm sure there's plenty of deadwood in the government. Whether those are the people who will take the offer is questionable.
-
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
Forgive my cynicism, but it's borne out of experience.
The place I used to work would have a big lay-off and they'd make a big fuss that they were cutting costs in the hope of increasing the share price. They never mentioned hiring people back to fill the void, frequently the same people. As you might imagine, it did wonders for morale.
I'm sure there's plenty of deadwood in the government. Whether those are the people who will take the offer is questionable.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
Forgive my cynicism, but it's borne out of experience.
The place I used to work would have a big lay-off and they'd make a big fuss that they were cutting costs in the hope of increasing the share price. They never mentioned hiring people back to fill the void, frequently the same people. As you might imagine, it did wonders for morale.
I'm sure there's plenty of deadwood in the government. Whether those are the people who will take the offer is questionable.
Forgive my experience. I went through a 6,000 employee RIF and three permanent hospital closures.
-
Any way you look at this it's a bad approach. The folks leaving are the ones who have options, are desired by other companies, or were planning on departing soon anyway and just got almost a year's salary for free. Yes there are a few folks who are taking who are deadwood (good term, @Doctor-Phibes) but the more effective way would be to require each agency to cut staff by 20% and let the managers weed out the folks who add the least value. It would suck but at least you'd reduce staff and NOT backfill positions (those leaving today, if they were doing an important job, you just have to rehire and train someone...costing more money). I'd imagine like 2-3% of the workforce will accept this offer, which probably is a net expense to the taxpayer (similar to the RTO mandate...all it's doing is costing taxpayers more), a complete backfire.
-
Any way you look at this it's a bad approach. The folks leaving are the ones who have options, are desired by other companies, or were planning on departing soon anyway and just got almost a year's salary for free. Yes there are a few folks who are taking who are deadwood (good term, @Doctor-Phibes) but the more effective way would be to require each agency to cut staff by 20% and let the managers weed out the folks who add the least value. It would suck but at least you'd reduce staff and NOT backfill positions (those leaving today, if they were doing an important job, you just have to rehire and train someone...costing more money). I'd imagine like 2-3% of the workforce will accept this offer, which probably is a net expense to the taxpayer (similar to the RTO mandate...all it's doing is costing taxpayers more), a complete backfire.
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
Any way you look at this it's a bad approach. The folks leaving are the ones who have options, are desired by other companies, or were planning on departing soon anyway and just got almost a year's salary for free. Yes there are a few folks who are taking who are deadwood (good term, @Doctor-Phibes) but the more effective way would be to require each agency to cut staff by 20% and let the managers weed out the folks who add the least value. It would suck but at least you'd reduce staff and NOT backfill positions (those leaving today, if they were doing an important job, you just have to rehire and train someone...costing more money). I'd imagine like 2-3% of the workforce will accept this offer, which probably is a net expense to the taxpayer (similar to the RTO mandate...all it's doing is costing taxpayers more), a complete backfire.
With civil service protections, I don't think managers and middle managers have that power.
At least with this, you get that 2-3%. You require people to go back to the office abd you get another what, 5%? Then, you institute a hiring freeze with any hiring done on a position by position approval by the appointing authority.
Before you know it, you're down total numbers in an agency 10-15%.
