When I see ICE raid a farm or factory and take a bunch of illegal immigrants to praise, but the company has no consequences other than losing their employees and the anti immigration crowd is silent about that, then I feel like it’s just racism.

Also I would expect a push for limiting legal immigration from the camp that would be legitimate in arguing for less immigration to keep domestic wages higher, not necessarily pushing against the hiring of people who got past the rule system.

[1] https://www.wlrn.org/business/2026-03-23/florida-oranges-cit...

Everytime I get into the weeds with anti immigration people I feel like I run through the IQ meme with “it’s just racism” on the low and high ends and {insert whatever alternative argument they have} in the middle.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion

And the money for this _deal_ was primarily from the CHIPS act funds they were already awarded but had not been sent to them yet

> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips.[1]

This was at gunpoint from the government’s monopoly on violence.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel-goverment-equity-stake...

If it’s the latter then I missed the joke. If it’s the former I think you’re incorrect.

But your statement could be rephrased as

> The most ethical goal of a weapons manufacturer or government should be to bring the maximum number of nuclear weapons for as cheap as possible to the people equally.

Making sure everyone is a strapped as possible only makes sense to the type of libertarians who salivate at the idea of shooting someone who steps on their property to deliver a letter

IMO the non permanent nature of these sorts of grants is a good thing because if we don’t have limitations then we’ll eventually end up in a necrocacy where the long dead have more say over how property and the government is managed than the living.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Personally I don’t think once a week is absolutely necessary but I tailored it to the employees. I let them choose a cadence with a maximum of once a week and a minimum of once a month and had a mixture of choices amongst my team.

Some people also want to feel heard, but I had to balance that out with my other responsibilities and couldn’t guarantee I could drop everything to talk, so I carve out the time on my calendar and also made it clear that we could drop the meeting that week if both parties felt it was unnecessary

You're also an asshole manager if you're giving any sort of negative feedback on a person in a public setting.

You could always just schedule a meeting when someone needs a course correction, but then your employees who are clever little humans, will quickly figure out that any ad hoc meeting is going to be a problem for them and then have anxiety about those, even if its going to be a positive meeting for once.

Have you never heard people joke that their boss asked them for a quick chat and they thought they were getting laid off?

For an admin so obsessed with legal names instead of chosen ones, you’d think they’d be less hypocritical.