No, I wouldn't have recognized him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge/_Paulo/_Lemann
abff08f4813c
joined 11 months ago
I have always found it hugely ironic that these guys are supporting a US administration that will only make it harder for them to immigrate to the US.
Meta can go eff itself.
Google provides the correct translation:
Crisis: We Must Plan for the Worst
Trade War
Who's Better Against Donald Trump?
I find serious flaws with this.
It's for a different country, but consider from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-21/australia-rent-crisis-not-international-students-fault-study/105076290
"Our data did not directly explain why international students didn't cause the rental crisis, however … when we looked at the broader literature we actually knew international students had different housing needs compared with locals," Professor Mu said.
"Some of them were in student accommodation, some of them would choose shared bedrooms, so obviously their housing needs were somewhat different from the local people."
Meanwhile, the original article says,
From 2021 to 2024, the study reported, Canada’s population increased by an average of 859,473 people per year while only 254,670 new housing units were started annually.
But this makes the false assumption that those who came had identical housing needs as local citizens, when we know international students (for example) did not.
Also, aside from this token callout,
driven almost entirely by immigration
there's no breakdown in the article on how much of that increase is actually from immigration as opposed to citizens moving back home because of covid - let alone a breakdown of new PRs vs international students vs temporary workers vs refugees vs etc...
Perhaps the study actually does contain this information. I wanted to double check there but couldn't find the study linked in the article, so I wasn't able to do this. Basically it's a very poor article that conflates different things, I'd go as far as to speculate that they came up with the conclusion that they wanted first and then tried to find support in the data while disregarding or outright ignoring contrary indicators...
I may accidentally carry something illegal across the border.
Don’t say this. They will use that as justification to search you and your vehicle for suspicious behavior.
Ah, you're probably right under the current regime. Open to suggestions for better phrasing like "I did this because I want to comply with the laws of the USA and also because it was suggested by the recent travel advisory issued by Canada" , except
the best thing to do is simply not travel.
100%. My advice was more for these folks,
If you have to cross the border for whatever reason
As per https://dailyhive.com/canada/us-canada-travel-phone even lawyers are recommending this now.
Ackah Business Immigration Law founder and managing lawyer Evelyn Ackah told Daily Hive that Canadians should leave their electronic devices behind if possible. She also suggests travellers use a burner phone (pre-paid phone) to protect their personal data from border agents.
As to what to say when asked about the obvious burner phone, I wonder if the following would help:
"Yes officer, I got a brand new phone with nothing on it to take with me. I did this because I want to comply with the laws of the USA and am afraid that if my phone got hacked I may accidentally carry something illegal across the border. I left my phone with all my lifetime photos and other history behind and I look forward to being reunited with it when my trip is over and I return home."
My two cents: In the before times, this would have seemed like something more suited to a virtual personal assistant kind of service (like getfriday dot com). Though searches reveal a lot of AI tools that do exactly what you are asking for (but it's AI).
It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.
Agreed, 100%
He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.
Again, in 100% agreement.
There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.
I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,
“He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.
Now, it wasn't clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google's AI did report this to me, below.
If Google's AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it'd end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia's suffering.
So my case is that he didn't do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.
From Google's AI:
Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it's typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases:
DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of.
Reasons for Passing on a Case:
There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including:
Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case.
Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case.
Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work.
Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ.
Formal Process:
Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves:
Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority.
Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented.
Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority.
Consequences of Passing on a Case:
There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including:
Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors.
Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome.
Alternative to Passing on a Case:
Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case.
Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.
One nice thing about being in Canada. Meta opted out of the news game and now we can say that any "news" shared on Meta is legit fake.
Me: So where did you see this "news" ?
Other Person: I don't remember who sent it but it was in my Facebook feed.
M: You're still in Canada, right?
O: Yes, so? What's that got to do with anything?
M: So it's fake.
O: How do you know? How do you know the other stuff isn't fake and the only true news is on Facebook?
M: Because under C-18, big megacorps like Google and Meta would have to pay up for each piece of genuine news that they share. Google agreed and worked out a deal, but Meta said no way.
O: And...?
M: So that means anything you see in Facebook isn't real news. Because Meta won't pay for it, so they'd block it if it was real. Literally everything you see there is fake news.
O: No way that's true.
M: Why don't you ask Facebook? https://about.fb.com/news/2023/06/changes-to-news-availability-on-our-platforms-in-canada/
O: (long pause)
O: Dang.
Is anyone else able to access youtu.be/hd3wvxk23H ? For me YouTube just says the video isn't available anymore.
I've pointed out before that most of the MAGA-land folks in Canada likely currently don't have a viable path to immigrate to the USA, see https://lemmy.ca/post/41215108/15425311 and https://lemmy.ca/post/41215108/15458003
But that doesn't mean we can't make one for them!
I imagine we could easily negotiate something like the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, but between Canada and the USA - but with the additional condition that MAGA is a disqualifying condition for coming to Canada.
Like the TTTA, we should also allow the green card holders in.
Everyone, the article explains the situation very well.
The government's stance is otherwise normal (reasonable is too strong a term here). Basically, the 2 year old was technically not deported - but in light of not separating families from their children, the 2 year old was sent with the mom at her request.
A Trump-appointed judge was very skeptical of this however, since the father is still in the US and was asking to take custody of the child, so the judge reasonably wanted to double check with the mom that the mom really was ok with keeping the 2 year old with her. Only double checking wasn't possible because the mom was supposedly already released to another country and outside ICE custody - even though the plane was still in the air according to flight tracking information for that time.
Apparently ICE also tried to deport the father once he started complaining. The status of the father isn't clear at this point but I would not be surprised if - in a parallel to the case of Kilmer Abrego Garcia - the parents turn out be a US Citizen + unregularized pair.