Your 2024 Presidential Election Thread

[Dame]

As far as unions go, there is an exemption to collective bargaining agreements. This is from the Federal Hiring Freeze memo. Last line.

This memorandum does not abrogate any collective bargaining agreement in effect on the date of this memorandum.

 

[AWP]

The memo appears to provide for that type of contingency:

"...the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary."

This is all understandably the talk of the office this morning. That's how the rank and file are viewing this, vague and open-ended enough that nothing will change UNLESS overzealous tries to make this a reality.

Buuuutttt, as @Steve1839 pointed out, not all gov't buildings can accommodate 100% in-office participation. Walking around this AM as part of my normal day-to-day, we're pretty close to being in that position if we aren't already there. We just took on a bunch of Army folks because they didn't have enough office space.

This all becomes a knee-jerk reaction leading to a dumpster fire or a nonevent.

And hell, if we want to properly secure the border we'll need to hire people. Probably a lot of people.

 

[Marauder06]

I think it’s kind of crappy they they lit “not properly securing the border“ on her, I mean, what was she supposed to do?

 

[Devildoc]

And hell, if we want to properly secure the border we'll need to hire people. Probably a lot of people.

Talking heads were on this today, saying the same thing. And you can't hire by EO, they need a budget, so they have to wait until the next budget cycle.

A lot of his EOs are low-hanging fruit that will give the MAGA crowd (myself included) warm fuzzies, but some face significant legal battles (looking at you, birthright citizenship). All I know is all of this is making me simply giddy.

 

[Cookie_]

I think it’s kind of crappy they they lit “not properly securing the border“ on her, I mean, what was she supposed to do?

I think it's to give the MAGA crowd warm fuzzies, as @Devildoc termed it.

It's an easy win on messaging to throw the border, DEI, and "weakness" at her with the other reasons she's being fired.

 

[Topkick]

think it's to give the MAGA crowd warm fuzzies, as @Devildoc termed it.

I think it's more substantial. She's just not the person the administration wants in the position. I'm guessing this wasn't an impulsive decision. Trump ran on firing DEI focused military leaders.

 

[Locksteady]

Truth.

Along with being literally one sentence long (or two if you count the 'consistent with applicable law' caveat), the EO was vague and open-ended enough to essentially let organizations decide when and whether or not to bring more people back to in-person work:

"Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary."

@AWP all our points aside, some 250k+ feds are now feeling karma's cold bite after four years of sunshine under their departed Patron Saint lol

Exclusive: DHS ends teleworking, requires employees to work in person

 

[Devildoc]

The other elephant in the room, birthright citizenship. Four lawsuits were filed yesterday to stop Trump's EO (I am not sure he can, legally, cover it with an EO anyway). Like 2A, it depends on how one interprets the language of the 14th amendment. I bet this will see SCOTUS before all is said and done.

Me, I am all for it.

 

[Box]

"Objective truth" being what it is theses days - exactly how are we going to define "properly secured"
...is it a turnstile that accepts tokens?
...is it a 20 foot high border wall that would rival anything ever built by the Ming Dynasty?
...is it 2000 miles of chain link fence secured by a few hundred gates held shut with Series-300 padlocks?
...is there a clearly defined consequence for violating the sanctity of said border?

Verily I say unto thee - to solve a problem, one must first define the problem.
The next thing is to figure out what our politicians will use as a campaign platform should they actually surrender to their voters and FIX the actual problem that they ran on.

There is no sustainable profit stream connected to "securing the border" - which should be enough to convince people that the problem - as it impacts the average aMErickan - is NEVER going to be solved.
Properly secure it - and the maintenance becomes little more than changing the oil in your car every few thousand miles.

Opening the discussion - creating dialogue - reviewing courses of action
These are all great ways to "show progress" without actually fixing anything and unless there is a true super-majority in both houses of congress that are willing to support any given presidents' campaign promises - talk and band aids is all we will ever get.

Trump had the congress AND the senate his first time around and people like John McCain FUCKED him out of pure spite. They didn't care that their ego and irresistible urges to score some camera time at any cost - they just wanted to fuck the Orangeman for being mean to them.
I lived in Yuma and watched McCain campaign on "completing the wall" as he walked side by side with a uniformed Border Patrol Agent. I listened to countless ramblings from them man on getting rid of Obamacare and then when he had the chance...
- he helped scuttle the ship because OrangeMan bad.

It isn't about what President Trump wants to do - or how bad "we the people" want him to do it.
It's about the 535 voting members of the US Congress that fill their days with networking and fundraising...

- what? you need me to cross the aisle and vote for your silly little partisan pet project so you can sell it as "bipartisan?
Well why not; I'm not up for reelection this cycle and my constituents will have long forgotten about it before I run again.
I'll tell ya what - if one of your lobbyists makes a charitable donation to the "Box Foundation" - your silly assed pet project has my zealous bipartisan support. Hell, I may even be able to get one of my colleagues to vote for it if you stay quiet about that donation to the "Box Foundation"

Rinse and Repeat

 

[Topkick]

I think it’s kind of crappy they they lit “not properly securing the border“ on her, I mean, what was she supposed to do?

Based on her performance, I'm good with it. The CInC ran on and needs to do a complete review/ overhaul of sr. military leadership. I will say this though, I served with the Army COS and he is a warrior.

 

[Jaknight]

I am firmly against Trump trying to remove birthright citizenship. To me, it’s one of the things that has made America great—the fact that it’s not blood that makes us American, but our belief in this country’s ideals. No matter who you are or where you come from, you can become something amazing in this country. We are, to me, a tribe of tribes, and if we take that away, I feel we would lose something truly special.

 

[AWP]

@AWP all our points aside, some 250k+ feds are now feeling karma's cold bite after four years of sunshine under their departed Patron Saint lol

Exclusive: DHS ends teleworking, requires employees to work in person

CISA can do a large part of its work remotely, minus the lab rats and even they can telework with the right infrastructure (which if CISA doesn't have will be a surprise). FEMA even less so, and the Coast Guard? WHAT? That needs to be shut down with a quickness, but the others don't bother me as much.

Really want to trim the fat? GS-14, -15, and SES-1 should be the first places to look.

 

[Devildoc]

I am firmly against Trump trying to remove birthright citizenship. To me, it’s one of the things that has made America great—the fact that it’s not blood that makes us American, but our belief in this country’s ideals. No matter who you are or where you come from, you can become something amazing in this country. We are, to me, a tribe of tribes, and if we take that away, I feel we would lose something truly special.

That is the spirit for which it was intended, but has ramifications and consequences that the founding fathers could not possibly envision. I admire you for having that spirit.

The 15 year-old Latina who is dumped across the border in order to give birth, knowing the child gets the bennies of being American and cannot be deported has very much changed my now very cynical perspective on this. American birth tourism is a thing.

 

[amlove21]

That is the spirit for which it was intended, but has ramifications and consequences that the founding fathers could not possibly envision. I admire you for having that spirit.

The 15 year-old Latina who is dumped across the border in order to give birth, knowing the child gets the bennies of being American and cannot be deported has very much changed my now very cynical perspective on this. American birth tourism is a thing.

The 14th Amendment issue is very interesting to look at. From the Wong vs US ruling (that actually addressed children of lawful permanent residents and not those here illegally), to the intent of the 14th- it'll be interesting on how this plays out. FTR, I think this one is logically solid in theory and for what the intent of the Amendment was meant to do, however, in practice birthright citizenship as we know it won't change. I think it's wasted effort.

The phrase most in question is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... if you're here illegally, you aren't under the jurisdiction as such, you're under the jurisdiction and laws of your home country. There are already exemptions in the ruling (enemy combatants, foreign dignitaries), and the EO, as written, clarifies and expands those categories.

If you're Canadian going on vacation to the Bahamas and have a layover at JFK, and during that layover you have a baby- that baby is American thanks to the 14th, right?

That's the argument from the folks arguing for what birthright citizenship has become, not the intent of those who wrote it. It's also super fun to see the left try and square the circle of saying things like "Borders and citizenship are just imaginary lines on a map and a construct" and then argue for those magical lines to count and citizenship to be applied.

 

[Locksteady]

I am firmly against Trump trying to remove birthright citizenship. To me, it’s one of the things that has made America great—the fact that it’s not blood that makes us American, but our belief in this country’s ideals. No matter who you are or where you come from, you can become something amazing in this country. We are, to me, a tribe of tribes, and if we take that away, I feel we would lose something truly special.

I suppose the question for you (and any others who'd like to chime in) is:

Do you feel the historical material incentive for unrestricted birthright citizenship, which for the US and the rest of the Western Hemisphere included populating vast swathes of newly claimed territory and providing sufficient manpower to maximize industrial growth, is (or could ever be) reduced enough to justify joining the rest of world outside of the WH by introducing basic caveats to address emerging second-order concerns?

 

[Devildoc]

The 14th Amendment issue is very interesting to look at. From the Wong vs US ruling (that actually addressed children of lawful permanent residents and not those here illegally), to the intent of the 14th- it'll be interesting on how this plays out. FTR, I think this one is logically solid in theory and for what the intent of the Amendment was meant to do, however, in practice birthright citizenship as we know it won't change. I think it's wasted effort.

The phrase most in question is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... if you're here illegally, you aren't under the jurisdiction as such, you're under the jurisdiction and laws of your home country. There are already exemptions in the ruling (enemy combatants, foreign dignitaries), and the EO, as written, clarifies and expands those categories.

If you're Canadian going on vacation to the Bahamas and have a layover at JFK, and during that layover you have a baby- that baby is American thanks to the 14th, right?

That's the argument from the folks arguing for what birthright citizenship has become, not the intent of those who wrote it. It's also super fun to see the left try and square the circle of saying things like "Borders and citizenship are just imaginary lines on a map and a construct" and then argue for those magical lines to count and citizenship to be applied.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key point, and I agree with your interpretation. I'll be very curious to see how the courts rule.

 

[Cookie_]

The phrase most in question is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... if you're here illegally, you aren't under the jurisdiction as such, you're under the jurisdiction and laws of your home country. There are already exemptions in the ruling (enemy combatants, foreign dignitaries), and the EO, as written, clarifies and expands those categories.

I'm willing to bet this is how the Supreme Court will interpret it once it gets up to them.

The 2nd category in the EO (lawful but temporary) is what might not stand up in court.

 

[amlove21]

I'm willing to bet this is how the Supreme Court will interpret it once it gets up to them.

The 2nd category in the EO (lawful but temporary) is what might not stand up in court.

Yeah it’s gonna be interesting for sure.

As our former dementia patient said- “No amendment is absolute.” /Sarcasm

 

[ThunderHorse]

Honestly, there needs to be tighter controls on Jus Soli, if you are born to someone who does not have legal status, neither should you. The amount of people flowing over our border right now is insane. The amount of people who buy holiday packages to shit out a child in an American hospital so that they have an anchor is also insane, they're just wealthy. The Supreme Court has made it legal previously to deny citizenship to those born of foreign diplomats in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia