If you take your hands off the wheel you can go a surprisingly long time before you crash. This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point.
> This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point
What would that mean? Do you expect the government to put their hands back on the wheel, does the US "crash" and become a dictatorship and/or does it lead to WW3?
This has been going on forever, everywhere.
Laws have always applied selectively, particularly when it comes to whatever group is responsible for enforcing them.
The TikTok rationale essentially came to ‘we want genz voters’
US will not lock up a single asshole who helps kill thousands of people abroad (not even inconvenience them with a simple court appearance to have to justify themselves), but it sure can lock up thousands on flimsiest justifications like FTA in court because of whatever, or technical parole violations, or driving on suspended license, basically for failures to navigate bureaucracy while poor.
I'll believe in rule of law when at least shits who materially support mass killings of children will start getting locked up. But alas, no. No such thing.
Until then it's all just bullshit that normal people have to submit to, and ruling class gets to excuse itself from with endless lawyering, exceptions, and nonsense, while it's clear they're still just scum psychos doing scum psycho things.
Once the Baltic nations gained independence they tried everyone involved in the administration of those orders, which took place without trial or oversight and often resulted in the replacement families being deported if the actual tagets could not be found.
Ofc Stalin or any of the power brokers at the time were long dead, so instead it was a parade of lower level admin workers, all who were elderly in their 80s or 90s and who at that time were young, simply doing the bidding of their employers.
The lesson: don't be a bag holder for people who will die before you leaving you to hold the responsibility for their crimes.
From https://archive.is/E6zXj :
> But, as Chayes studied the graft of the Karzai government, she concluded that it was anything but benign. Many in the political élite were not merely stealing reconstruction money but expropriating farmland from other Afghans. Warlords could hoodwink U.S. special forces into dispatching their adversaries by feeding the Americans intelligence tips about supposed Taliban ties. Many of those who made money from the largesse of the international community enjoyed a sideline in the drug trade. Afghanistan is often described as a “failed state,” but, in light of the outright thievery on display, Chayes began to reassess the problem. This wasn’t a situation in which the Afghan government was earnestly trying, but failing, to serve its people. The government was actually succeeding, albeit at “another objective altogether”—the enrichment of its own members.
This is the unitary executive theory. It’s a novel Constitutional theory that even this SCOTUS seems reluctant to honestly embrace.
Read the Fed case transcripts.
HHS says “under the Immigration and Nationality Act, ‘any information in any records kept by any department or agency of the government as to the identity and location of aliens in the US shall be made available to’ immigration authorities.” If that’s true, they’re following the law.
I’m honestly curious if this would be a Privacy Act or HIPAA violation. The article seems to be unsure on this.
If that EO was legal, then sharing the data is, too. If it wasn't, then it's probably a privacy violation, but the CMS isn't allowed to make that call themselves, they have to rely on court decisions for it. And challenging EOs is not trivial.
It’s not. Palantir “receives peoples’ addresses from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)” [1]. That’s broader than Medicare or Medicaid.
If you’re on a legal visa and have to get a prescription filled, I think you’ll wind up in those data. (Same if you are legally on Medicare with a spouse who overstayed their visa.)
> does that mean that undocumented migrants are getting Medicare and Medicaid?
Not necessarily. As I said, these data are broader than CMMS. And the targets of the current ICE are not undocumented migrants. (I live in Wyoming, near the Idaho border. The farm workers are fine.)
[1] https://www.404media.co/elite-the-palantir-app-ice-uses-to-f...
“Several federal laws authorise the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to make certain information available to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),”
> > does that mean that undocumented migrants are getting Medicare and Medicaid? > Not necessarily.
Not necessarily, but probably. I was told explicitly that undocumented migrants weren't getting Medicare and Medicaid services, but at this point, I don't know who to believe.
I assume if you then fill paperwork out, they’d have your data - though I’m not sure why you’d agree to fill it out if you know you can’t pay, and that you’re just going to be discharged.
As a general rule, the first amendment protects the right to say, e.g. "John Doe lives at 123 Main St." John may not like that people know that, but that doesn't generally limit other peoples' right to speak freely.
If the law says you can share aliens information, but not Americans information, and then you do share Americans information I think you're probably breaking the law, and at the very least there should be a process to find out what the basis is for you doing it. Normally these things would be decided by a court.
'Show me the man, I’ll find you the crime'. - Lavrentiy Beria (Stalin secret police)
If only there was an independent Judikative or something idk...
> There is no data sharing agreement between CMS and DHS on “US citizens and lawful permanent residents,” they added.
It's dehumanizing and it leads to a path where you can justify humiliating, torturing, and murdering other humans. Which is already happening with ICE.
It’s the legally-correct term.
For what it’s worth, I’m a naturalized American. When I was doing my citizenship paperwork, I found the term fun. The word doesn’t dehumanize. Murdering people does.
This is an unsubstantiated slippery slope. We can categorize people, even sort them by desirability for some purpose, without resorting to dehumanization much less genocide. (Citizenship and immigration necessitate an us-them delineation. So do team sports, families and like club memberships. Us and them are fine. Us versus them is dangerous.)