Right, people on H-1B visas are being paid less in money because they are being partially compensated in the legal right to live in the US instead of India.

> On the other hand, nobody wants immigrants anymore. There are an increasing number of people for whom their birth citizenship is the only valuable asset they have, and this sentiment is geographically distributed. It's actually more prevalent in the kinds of countries that are sending people to rich countries - i.e. ask the average Indian how they'd feel about, say, liberalizing immigration with Pakistan or Bangladesh, and they'd probably say something so racist it'd make people at MAGA rallies blush.

Every single Pakistani and Bangladeshi could've been a citizen of India if a good number of people hadn't decided in 1947 to go to great lengths to make that not be the case; I for one am unwilling to say that they were wrong.

I think the framing that "their birth citizenship is the only valuable asset they have is mistaken; the actual valuable thing is not being a citizen of the other country demographically controlled by a rival ethno-religious group ("Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission / Having never set eyes on the land he was called to partition / Between two peoples fanatically at odds, / With their different diets and incompatible gods").

> The people who benefit from immigration visas being handcuff-shaped are the same people who own the news media and are reminding people day in and day out how dangerous and awful the people they're bringing in are.

No they're not; these are separate groups of people. The people who benefit from immigration visas being handcuff-shaped are the immigrants themselves (because it's still better than living in India or Bangladesh), and certain wealthy business interests (who like being able to hire cheap labor and can more easily insulate themselves from the costs of the people doing that labor also existing in American society). The people constantly reminding American citizens how dangerous and awful the immigrants are, are not the same people as the business interests, and are explicitly willing to accept economic costs in order to not have the immigrants be physically present.

Apart from the UI around the word parsing pop-up being kind of buggy (it doesn't close readily, the scroll position seems to get saved differently depending on the word), I'm pretty sure there's an analytical error in that sentence.

The word "nostra" is glossed as Nom Plur Neut; that is, the possessive adjective "noster", "ours", in its nominative plural neuter form. "Nostra", with a short final -a, is indeed the nominative plural neuter form of that possessive adjective. However in that sentence, the word is being used as an ablative singular feminine, with a long final -â (which is unmarked because the text as they present it doesn't seem to mark vowel length at all).

archive.org has this (https://archive.org/details/caesarscommentar07caes/page/n11/...) 1918 out-of-copyright literal word-by-word translation of the text, which does mark vowel length, and you can see that the translator words the last clause as "the third, (those) who in (the) language of themselves are called Celtae, in ours, Gauls". nostrâ is modifying an implied linguâ there, which is a singular feminine noun in the ablative case, so nostrâ has to inflect to agree with it - nostrâ [linguâ] translates to "in ours [our language]".

My Latin is self-taught and mediocre at best, but even I was able to spot that error. And The Gallic War is a very famous text that is routinely taught fairly early on in traditional Latin education - a lot of students of Latin over the centuries have read that exact line of Caesar's. The fact that the LatinCy neural language model for Latin, which the site claims performed the analysis, screwed this up doesn't leave me very confident about the quality of the grammatical analysis in more difficult corners of Latin grammar.

At one point I was seriously considering attempting an academic linguist career. Fortunately, I was also interested in computers; and as I often tell people who ask me about it, computer programming pays much better (and I'm glad I didn't pursue a humanities academic path for other reasons). Still, it's an interest I try to keep up with when I can.

1) political progressives who liked the way the pre-Elon-Musk management of Twitter engaged in political censorship on the platform (i.e. anyone using the term "nazi" with respect to Twitter or Musk)

2) software engineers who saw a bloated software company summarily fire a bunch of software engineers who the new leadership thought were mostly doing unimportant work, and really wanted it to be true that this was going to tank the company, because it was bad for their job security if it turned out that Twitter didn't actually need that many software engineers after all.

The idea that someone from another country on a temporary work visa is being unjustly punished by no longer being allowed to legally reside in the US is an argument against having any kind of temporary work visa at all. If the US can't legitimately revoke a foreigner's permission to work and live in the US because the company that hired them was abusing the system, then every visa the US government gives to any foreigner is effectively permanent and the state visa-granting apparatus should consider this before it gives anyone any kind of visa.

> As it relates to immigration policy, I have a fun prompt you can input into your AI of choice: "Would the US be shrinking in population if there was no immigration? What are the implications for economic prosperity if that were to happen?"

This is a difficult question to answer confidently because the presence of large numbers of immigrants extremely plausibly suppresses the native birth rate; and different groups of immigrants have different implications for overall economic prosperity - especially when important but hard-to-measure facets of quality of life are considered. If you're more economically prosperous on paper because of a growing economy, but the price of goods like housing in desirable areas has gone up because there are more equally-prosperous people competing for them, then decline in population is not necessarily against your interests.