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.

It links to a map, https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-states-most-likely-secede-1870679 (archive: https://archive.ph/oGlKO )

Surprising that support in Alaska (36%) and Texas (31%) is so much higher than the national average, I’d have thought it’d be blue states leading, shows what I know…

Yeah, especially that they just announced it with both immediate and retroactive effect, so no warning to those who were almost finished with the documents and ready to apply. I feel really bad for those who were just ready to apply on March 31st…

Good luck!

From reading other news reports it seems like this was pushed through because not enough folks were actually establishing a connection to Italy and just trying to get into the EU. Remember that one of the changes is that if you have the Italian passport today, but you were not born in Italy, you can still pass it on to your children - you just have to live in Italy for two years first.

According to https://www.studiolegalemetta.com/press/italian-citizenship-jure-sanguinis-restrictions/ they’re also planning to require spouses to live in Italy for two years before allowing them to naturalize (currently a spouse who lives abroad can naturalize regardless of where the couple lives).

And another planned change is to allow minor children of Italian citizens to naturalize after living in Italy for two years.

Rightly or wrongly, the basic theme seems to be that they’re trying to push more folks who want the Italian passport to actually move to Italy.

Even if upheld by the constitutional court, there’s still a use for the research and docs search.

From https://www.mazzeschi.it/italian-citizenship/italian-citizenship-by-naturalization/

Applications for naturalization can be filed after ten years of legal residence in Italy, which can be reduced to:
- 3 years of legal residence, for those who were born in Italy or who have parents or grandparents that were Italian citizens
Example: Ettore’s grandfather was an Italian citizen. Ettore has now been living in Pisa, Italy for 3 years. Ettore can apply for Italian citizenship at the relevant Town Hall where he has established his residency.

And if your great-great-grandparent was born in Italy, then there’s a good chance that your grandparent born abroad was Italian (even if never registered as such). So not as easy as before but having an Italian ancestor is still helpful in regaining ties with the country…

Don’t lose hope yet. See https://www.boccadutri.com/italian-citizenship-by-descent-decree-law-36-2025/ for a rundown on the timeline for the expected court challenges to this (along with the legal justifications to challenge this).

I think she’s confused the poll with her reflection in the mirror…

Yeah, it seems the best I can hope for was that Carney agreed to show support outside while pressuring to drop from within.

Seems like the NAFTA option is still open to you if you’re a US citizen, or maybe you can get your masters in Canada if you can scrounge up the funds?

I have a little bit of good news for you, and lots of bad. The good news is that as soon as someone becomes an asylum or refugee claimant in Canada, they can become eligible for IFHP which covers prescription drugs, see https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/help-within-canada/health-care/interim-federal-health-program/coverage-summary.html

(See also a recent example of an American citizen who got IFHP after applying for aslyum at the Candian-US border, https://www.tiktok.com/@katie/_katie2113/photo/7478861387322625322 )

And now the bad:

If the refugee claim fails, it’s very tough to get into Canada afterwards. See https://vancouverimmigrationblog.com/is-it-possible-to-go-from-a-failed-refugee-claimant-to-an-economic-immigrant/ and https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/trv-for-previously-refused-refugee-claimant.123089/#post-2004890

If you did get approved for asylum or as a refugee, then you need to be careful never to return to the US or use or renew your US passport (or similar like passport card I guess), at least not until you’ve taken the oath and become a Canadian citizen.

If you do either, you risk losing it all and getting deported back to the US: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-status-cessation-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/

Finally, I’ve been assuming that you’re a US citizen. If you are not - most folks who make a refugee or asylum claim at the US-Canada border are denied because of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the US, and so will usually be summarily returned to the US. (Somehow US citizens don’t fall under this agreement.) So don’t try this if you’re not a US citizen, unless you’re able to consult with a lawyer first.

So if you have any other way to get to Canada (you qualify for PR / Express Entry directly somehow and have enough points to get in - possibly because you are fluent in both French & English and have a masters; or you know someone who can get you a job offer that qualifies for a work permit under NAFTA; or you have enough funds to apply as an international student; or you are under 35 years and can qualify for a working holiday visa) - try that first. The consequences of failure there are less severe.

We’re thinking the same thing.

Name is actually a hash of some of my former posts from spez’s site, before I overwrote and deleted them (and reposted on kbin.social) and left for good.