• 0 Posts
  • 66 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 5th, 2023

help-circle





  • The article is not clear about what specific visas are affected, so I’m not sure what’s changing.

    To give two examples, my sister and I are both Canadians living in the US.

    My sister met a guy online twenty years ago, did some cross-border trips to visit each other for a year, then he proposed while she was visiting him one time. Since she was now planning to move to the US, she could not move towards getting a green card from a tourist visa. So, she and her new husband traveled to Canada and reentered the US, declaring her intent to become a permanent resident (and probably had a bunch of paperwork, including their marriage certificate). I believe she was allowed to stay in the US while the green card process played out. Maybe this is the part that’s changing?

    In my case, I was working for a US company abroad, and transferred to headquarters on an L1 visa (highly skilled internal worker). About six months after moving, the company’s immigration lawyers kicked off the process to get me a green card and I received it a little shy of two years after moving. Changing this process would mess things up, since (by definition) I was in the US for my job and would have had a hard time leaving the country for over a year while the green card process played out.

    The distinction is the “intent” of a given type of visa. The tourist visa specifically implies “I’m here to visit, then get the hell out”. The L1 visa (as well as the TN, the H1-B, and a few others) is specifically designated as a “dual intent” visa, meaning “I might plan to stay permanently”. If they’re changing the rules for dual intent visas, that’s messed up. If they’re not, I’m not sure what exactly is changing.













  • In Canada, polling stations are also run by members of the public. I think they get paid, but it’s a small enough amount that most people think of it as volunteering. In my experience, it’s usually retired people. They also sit there for the day. On election day itself, they’re also responsible for counting the ballots and making sure that the ballots are preserved. (I was once a volunteer scrutineer for one of the political parties, so I got to be there to watch the ballot-counting process.)

    Regarding early voting, my recollection is that a subset of polling places were open on two or three specific days in the weeks leading up to the election. Like, if my riding had 25 polling sites, only maybe 4 (one in each “quadrant”) were open for early voting. On the plus side, I think the early voting days were usually on weekends.

    On the topic of “remote voting”, my wife is Romanian and used to vote at the train station in Iași, since her official residence was still her home town. I always thought that was an interesting solution to the “voting outside your home district” problem, since it kind of implies that you’re away from home because you’ve been riding a train. That said, since Iași is a university town and most people never seem to update their official residence (like, most of my tech worker friends officially “lived” in their hometown, even if they’d been in Iași for 10 years), the lineup to vote at the train station during a presidential runoff could be hours long. Of course, nobody needs to “register” to vote at the train station, since they just show their national ID card to prove they’re eligible to vote.


  • Not saying that he won’t try, but the president has no (constitutional) say in the sitting of congress.

    I looked it up and in Powell vs McCormack (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the speaker of the house has no authority to deny a representative sent by their respective state. So, unless the current Supreme Court decides to overturn that precedent, it would require a 2/3 majority vote of the newly-seated house to expel someone, assuming I’ve understood correctly (which is questionable).

    Tl;dr: I think even this couldn’t necessarily prevent folks who win in November from serving.