Congress also added INA §214(h). In the 1990 Act, that new subsection said, in substance, that being the beneficiary of a preference petition under §204, or otherwise seeking permanent residence, does not count as evidence that the person intends to abandon a foreign residence for H(i)/L purposes. That is the clearest statutory confirmation of dual intent.

"Congress originally intended H-1B to permit temporary work status while also allowing pursuit of permanent residence. The House Judiciary Committee report reinforces that reading. It had a section titled “Dual Intent” and explained that this problem was especially burdensome for H and L beneficiaries, and that the bill treated the filing of an immigrant petition as not, by itself, proof that the person meant to abandon a foreign residence" (attached link is the legislative history) https://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/wp-content/uploads/HR-...

"Congress added INA §214(h), providing that pursuit of permanent residence “shall not constitute evidence” of abandoning a foreign residence for H(i)/L nonimmigrants" https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009...

"H-1B is “coming temporarily,” while permanent residence is handled through the employment-based immigrant categories in §203(b) and adjustment under §245(a)" https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A8+section...

"Congress enacted INA § 214(b) in 1990, explicitly excluding H-1B visas (under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)) from the presumption that nonimmigrant applicants are intending immigrants. Unlike most nonimmigrant categories requiring proof of no immigrant intent, H-1B omits any foreign residence requirement in its definition, enabling holders to pursue permanent residency without jeopardizing status" https://global.temple.edu/isss/faculty-staff-and-researchers...

"The Immigration Act of 1990 created the modern H-1B program as a "bridge" to green cards, allowing immediate work while navigating permanent residency processes that included labor tests. Senate Judiciary Committee reports emphasized streamlined H-1B procedures without recruitment delays to avoid productivity losses, with senators like Arlen Specter and Slade Gorton highlighting needs for quick access to skilled talent. This dual-intent design responded to prior issues, like the Schwartz case, where immigrant intent prosecutions prompted the 1990 carve-out" https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...

Edit to include: I mean this is coming the same day as the Supreme Court throwing out the piracy case against Cox Communications 9-0. Remember that this case originated with $1 billion dollar jury verdict against them! Was reversed by an appeals court 5 years later and completely invalidated today. Juries should not handle complex civil litigation, I'm sorry

https://www.energy.gov/hgeo/articles/does-early-investment-s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_in_the_United_States https://clearpath.org/tech-101/hydraulic-fracturing-a-public...

The definition of democracy is that we hold regular elections for political office. It does not mean that every single decision in society is up for a vote at the local level. 51% of my neighbors cannot decide that they'd like expropriate my house or checking account. The point of YIMBYism is that these kinds of decisions have negative externalities and a larger group of voters- at the state or national level- are removing that decision-making power from a smaller group at the local level. This is a democratically legitimate outcome!

Of course I would strongly prefer to not be a presidential system at all. But if we're discussing post-Trump constitutional reforms that could plausibly pass, I think removing the Attorney General/DOJ from the president's purview and also placing some checks on the pardon power seem doable

You're borrowing to short, and your broker can call your loan at any time for any reason or no reason at all, including 'our risk algos felt nervous this afternoon'. If you try to short a stock or ETF and the market surges in a dead cat bounce before declining, you get completely wiped out even if you're going to be eventually right

2. This has already been adjudicated and this argument lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

3. What market is Youtube a monopoly in?

If 'silencing people' doesn't work- so online platforms aren't allowed to remove anything? Is there any limit to this philosophy? So you think platforms can't remove:

Holocaust denial? Clothed underage content? Reddit banned r/jailbait, but you think that's impermissible? How about clothed pictures of toddlers but presented in a sexual context? It would be 'silencing' if a platform wanted to remove that from their private property? Bomb or weapons-making tutorials? Dangerous fads that idiotic kids pass around on TikTok, like the blackout game? You're saying it's not permissible for a platform to remove dangerous instructionals specifically targeted at children? How about spam? Commercial advertising is legally speech in the US. Platforms can't remove the gigantic quantities of spam they suffer from every day?

Where's the limiting principle here? Why don't we just allow companies to set their own rules on their own private property, wouldn't that be a lot simpler?

Eh, sort of disagree. The journey to modern democracy started with centuries of concessions by kings, first to other nobles (Magna Carta, etc.) Then, to other local power brokers like large landowners, business elites, etc. None of these parties wanted one single figure to have absolute power over their affairs & finances, mostly because they tended to make terrible decisions (random wars, taxation, and so on). Early proto-parliamentary systems in the UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Japan in the 19th century etc. were just a council of local, powerful elites who wanted to check the power of the king. The 'middle class' part came absolutely last

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_we...

Meanwhile Southern Europe has reasonably high income inequality, but not much wealth inequality. Just kind of an underdiscussed piece, especially as many people like to issue catastrophic warnings about how wealth inequality destroys a society- then quickly change the subject when you note that the Nordics are more unequal than America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wynn

Experienced career professionals don't generally move to the US as adults, and anyways if your company really needed one you could just hire them remotely