The United States has a lot of unique traits that few other countries have (American exceptionalism), birthright citizenship being just one characteristic. I'd think an executive order is just testing the water, but to change it definitively requires a constitutional amendment.
>or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
It specifically says the child of someone here on a work visa would not be a citizen. If that person became a citizen or permanent resident after the child’s birth, the child would need to pursue residency/citizenship through their own merit as a non-citizen.
What visa is given to non citizens born while in the US I wonder?
Expect this to go all the way to SCOTUS. I would imagine multiple lower courts will rule on it in the near-term, probably with injunctions and such. Multiple lawsuits challenging it have already been prepared and will be filed shortly
Certainly reminiscent of Bannon's shock and awe strategy from '16
False. I would have agreed with you if this order also included ending it also for all "US Citizens" and "lawful permanent residents", but it does not.
Read it again and you can clearly see that it is for those who are *not born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents"*.
>>> (c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; if you're born to US citizens (wherever you may be born) you get citizenship through your parents, not birthright.
The important distinction is that this order is only for:
>>> those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
This order does NOT affect children born IN the US to US citizens or "lawful permanent residents" while the OP suggested that this order was "ending birthright citizenship in America" which that is totally false, otherwise it would have included everyone including US citizens or permanent residents, but it does not.
Only for those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
They became a serious VPS contender amongst DigitalOcean, Linode, and other similar providers. DigitalOcean raised prices while Hetzner gave more powerful server capacity (read double) at lower price points. Hetzner has been increasingly popular in self-hosting communities.
I started using their services since last year for some of the operations, including business, and it's been rock solid. I plan on increasing usage, but will hold on this new object storage offering.
For a research article, modifiers may be more important in imposing constraints and necessary insights in cause and effect. The full title of this article is "Dance training is superior to repetitive physical exercise in inducing brain plasticity in the elderly".
While the current title on HN is "Dance training superior to physical exercise in inducing brain plasticity".
Specific performance is a last resort. In contract law, the bias is towards making the plaintiff whole, and frequently there are many ways to accomplish that (like paying money) instead of making the defendant specifically honor the terms of the original agreement.
Not sure about English law but in Roman law (and derived systems as in South Africa) the emphasis is on specific performance as a first resort — the court will seek to implement the intention of the parties embodied in the contract as far as possible.
This is actually American law, neither English nor Roman. While it is derived from English common law, it has an even stronger bias against specific performance (and in fact bright-line prohibits some which would be allowed in the earlier law from which it evolved, because of the Constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.)
That's very interesting, thanks! I just learned that courts actually tend to grant monetary damages more frequently than specific performance in general.
However, I have always maintained that making the plaintiff whole should bias toward specific performance. At least that's what I gathered from law classes. In many enterprise partnerships, the specific arrangements are core to the business structures. For example, Bob and Alice agreed to be partners in a millions-dollar business. Bob suddenly kicked Alice out without a valid reason, breaching the contract. Of course, Alice's main remedy should be to be back in the business, not receiving monetary damage that is not just difficult to measure, but also not in Alice's mind or best interest at all.
It was looking like he would lose and the courts would force the sale, but the case was settled without a judgement by Elon fulfilling his initial obligation of buying the website.
No, he wasn't forced to buy Twitter, but he didn't want to pay the $1bn deal failure fee, so instead he spent $44bn to buy Twitter and drive it directly into the ground. But he COULD have just paid $1bn and walked away.
I think this is downvoted because (and I could be wrong) he could have paid a breakup fee instead of buying the business. So he wasn't compelled to actually own and operate the business.
No. He couldn't back out as he had already agreed to the 44B. The breakup fee was for if the deal fell through for other reasons, such as Twitter backing out or the government blocking it. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/technology/twitter-musk-l...
You are wrong, I’m afraid. The breakup fee is reimbursement for outside factors tanking the deal. A binding agreement to buy means that if you arrange financing and the government doesn’t veto it, you’re legally obligated to close.
> I think this is downvoted because (and I could be wrong) he could have paid a breakup fee instead of buying the business.
No, he couldn't, the widely discussed breakup fee in the contract was a payment if the merger could not be completed for specific reasons outside of Musk’s control.
It wasn’t a choice Musk was able to opt into.
OTOH, IIRC, he technically wasn't forced to because he completed the transaction voluntarily during a pause in the court proceedings after it was widely viewed as clear that he would lose and be forced to complete the deal.
It's a thread about OpenAI. Some people seem to spend their days looking for ways to make every thread about their angst over Musk purchasing Twitter and will shove it into any conversation they can without regard of its applicability to the thread's subject. Tangent conversations happen but they get tedious after a while when they're motivated by anger and the same ones pop up constantly. Yes, the thread is about Musk, that doesn't mean his taste in music should be part of the conversation any more than some additional whining about him buying Twitter should be.
reply