8 months of pay
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 16:53 last edited by
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@jon-nyc said in 8 months of pay:
Money quote: “sought legislation”
Is Trump's proposal illegal?
There doesn’t seem to be any legal basis for unilaterally deciding to give them 8 months pay. We’ll see how far the current scotus takes the unitary executive doctrine.
-
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
I wonder what would happen if a party actually focused on winning a supermajority in Congress instead of the Presidency? Put 80-90% of their funding and groundwork on congressional races and pulled waaaayyy back on the Presidential race?
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 17:26 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
I wonder what would happen if a party actually focused on winning a supermajority in Congress instead of the Presidency? Put 80-90% of their funding and groundwork on congressional races and pulled waaaayyy back on the Presidential race?
Which is more expensive? To win the Presidency or to win a Congressional supermajority (presumably in both chambers)? Which one gets you bigger bang for the buck?
-
@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?
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 18:55 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 21:49 last edited by
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.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 22:58 last edited byIn 1780 they would have said ‘what’s an illegal immigrant?’
-
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.
wrote on 1 Feb 2025, 05:04 last edited by@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.
wrote on 1 Feb 2025, 06:38 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2025, 06:43 last edited by
Again there were no restrictions on immigration in 1780 so the very concept of ‘illegal immigrant’ would have been nonsensical.
-
@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.
wrote on 2 Feb 2025, 02:54 last edited by@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?’
wrote on 2 Feb 2025, 03:33 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 19:23 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 3 Feb 2025, 20:23 last edited by
It's almost like it will regress into the shape of some normal strategy with logic behind it, what a concept.
-
wrote on 6 Feb 2025, 17:33 last edited by
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?
-
wrote on 6 Feb 2025, 19:36 last edited by Jolly 9 days ago
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.
wrote on 6 Feb 2025, 19:40 last edited by Doctor Phibes 9 days ago@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.
-
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.
wrote on 6 Feb 2025, 21:48 last edited by@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
-
wrote on 7 Feb 2025, 00:13 last edited by
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.
wrote on 7 Feb 2025, 12:23 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Feb 2025, 12:59 last edited by@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.
wrote on 7 Feb 2025, 13:11 last edited by@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.