so if this shows up ... hi there everyone

I just saw a video on YT, and it was so wrongheaded that I felt compelled to write a rebuttal.

Basically it's broken down in three main parts:

How šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm St (Musqueamview St) raised havoc, implying that having non-English names for streets is bad.

So it's a bit sad that even in 2025 some places still can't handle unicode or something I guess. But like this article https://globalnews.ca/news/11265368/vancouver-man-institutions-new-indigenous-street-name/ or the official gov't web page at https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/musqueamview-st.aspx says, just use Musqueamview St as the name when this is the case and you'll have no issues. Like, the system can't handle 최진리 as a name so it has to be inputted as Choi Jinri. How is that a problem?

Second, there's mention of the fallout of the Cowichan title lands decision. (Overview of that decision is available at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/multimillion-mansions-cowichan-title-richmond-1.7607542 but TLDR is that a judge did the right thing and gave the land back to the rightful indigenous owners.) Now, there is a real problem here if you're a private homeowner in that area - the legal uncertainly is making it tough to get a mortgage or sell your place. Even so, remember that "the Cowichan did not seek a declaration that private titles in the area were 'defective and invalid'" so every indication is that they'll be reasonable and work out some kind of reasonable deal for the affected folks.

And more importantly, giving the land back is the right thing to do. If I steal your bicycle, and then sell it to someone named Third Guy, but the police find it, shouldn't you be able to get your bicycle back from Third Guy without having to pay him anything? Now however, I'm in trouble, since I'm the one who took Third Guy's money - so he can come after me. And, you can also come after me - maybe you had to miss some work because you couldn't get there without the bicycle, so now I have to compensate you. This is basically the situation the gov't is in right now - they've going to have to pay back both the individuals and businesses that got hurt by the defective title as well as the tribes that they took the land from.

The video goes further and makes the claim that these indigenous nations may split up and leave the country. As much as I'd like for the indigenous nations to have this right, unfortunately and sadly that's actually not the case. My understanding here is that while the Constitution does recognize indigenous sovereignty as a sui generis right, it's not the same thing as Crown sovereignty which continues to exist over the same land. For example, in the event of an invasion from a certain country in the South, the Canadian Armed Forces are still the ones obligated to defend the territory. Also, the CRA still can tax non-indigenous folks who live on that land (see https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/indigenous-peoples.html ). Basically, Canada as a country isn't losing any territory as a result of these decisions - it just has to start respecting the rights of the indigenous owners regarding their native land.

Finally, the video makes one good point. Very little of the gov't spending for indigenous folks is actually directly reaching the indigenous communities that need it, and that is something that needs to change. But even here it's filled with errors - so what if healthcare is no longer in the top three spending? Doesn't mean the cost going down or that we'll get less healthcare. And servicing the debt - well that's basically paying back for services we already spent, so it's wrong to say that there's no benefit to the individual taxpayer here (basically it's like you paid for your meal with a credit card and now you're paying off the credit card - you still got the benefit of the meal).

Also - there's going to be a revolution because taxpayers have to spend more supporting the country's elderly population as time goes on. Erm... I'm going by gut feeling here but I imagine most of us are happy to pay taxes knowing that this helps out out retired parents, grandparents, etc. Perhaps there will be some tweaks necessary in the specific formula used down the line.. but then we'll make those tweaks as necessary.

In conclusion the only thing I can find myself agreeing with is that we need to make sure more money directly reaches indigenous communities in need.

FYI this is the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2lTdgLxpk

I don't understand articles like https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-democrats-folded-government-shutdown-health-care/_n/_69136955e4b0ff332f7d7e0b?pge or https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/11/opinion/shutdown-democrats-schumer-midterms.html

The whole implication is that Dems lost the shutdown fight because they didn't get any concessions.

It's true that they didn't get everything they wanted. The original ask for "extension for enhanced subsidies for people enrolled in the Affordable Care Act" didn't come through, but hope isn't quite lost yet. A lot of folks think the vote that's been promised will fail, and so doesn't count, but Democrats have a month to try and hammer out a deal that will get enough Republican votes to pass.

But anyways that's not what I'm talking about. Even if they're right about that, Democrats did win something substantial. In the beginning, drumpf wanted to blame layoffs of federal workers during the shutdown on Democrats for having a shutdown. See https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/reductions-in-force-during-shutdowns

Actually however, Nick Bednar puts it well in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIIbJxBWfnA&t=1696s

What he says there basically is that these are federal workers who were going to get laid off anyways, even before there was any fears of a shutdown. So threatening to lay off workers in a shutdown who were going to get laid off if there hadn't been a shutdown ... not much leverage there, indeed.

In fact, prior to the shutdown, there was an open letter signed by over 2,000 federal workers in support of Democrats during a shutdown: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/09/despite-layoff-threat-some-feds-see-government-shutdown-opportunity-push-back-trumps-lawlessness/408503/?oref=ge-author-river

They knew who had their backs. Many supported the shutdown in the hopes that Democrats might win a concession for them, on preventing more layoffs.

This is exactly what they got. Even Fox News ( https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-senator-reveals-deal-secured-shutdowns-fate-says-worth-it-stop-federal-layoffs ) admits it:

Instead, Kaine secured a guarantee that the Trump administration would not conduct any more mass federal worker layoffs — at least until Jan. 30. The bill also requires the government to reinstate the employees it let go during the shutdown, with back pay included.

So while Democrats may not have gotten everything they wanted out of the fight, they did in fact win at least one major concession.

Archive available here: https://archive.ph/KGYmP

I found this decision to be really troublesome. Here's the gist of it:

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,” the justices who sided with the Trump administration wrote in an unsigned order.

This is a very much a good point about how US law provides equality but not equity, as pointed out in https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/boards/general/equality/_v./_equity/_04/_05/_2021.pdf

Here's a good picture explaining the difference, https://assets.aecf.org/m/blogimg/Blog-equityvsequalityexmpl-2023.png

(Source: https://www.aecf.org/blog/equity-vs-equality )

Basically, SCOTUS got it right on equality - everyone gets a passport with marks based on their historical circumstances, just like everyone on the left gets one box to stand on to see over the fence. But just as some don't need a box, and for others one box is not enough to look over the fence, having a passport with marks based purely on historical circumstances doesn't work out the same for everyone.

On the right side of the picture, the tallest person has no box as they don't need one to see. The middle person still has one box and is still able to see. But the shortest person has two boxes, and can finally see over the fence. Like the tallest person with one box, for those of us who are cisgendered and not intersexed or non-binary, a passport with marks based solely on historical circumstance works out just fine. But transgendered folks are like the shortest person in the picture - what is offered isn't what is needed.

A passport that shows only one's birth-assigned sex will obviously conflict with how a transgendered person sees and presents themselves. Potentially it may serve to "out" them, perhaps in an area of the world that is hostile to such individuals. Thus despite having an "equal" passport, they are exposed to additional harms and risks that a cisgendered person would not experience. They need an "equity" passport - one that provides them the full protection that the US of A is able to offer.

And this starts by agreeing with them on their gender identity.

This might be slightly off-topic, but I wanted a place to jot down my thoughts regarding a recent event that ended up involving a junction of US politics, immigration, and the fediverse vs enshitification.

I was having a discussion on an old style (non-federated) forum with someone (ref: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/daily-commute-detroit-windsor-h1b-and-canada-pr.501011/post-11096394 ) and had a very insightful conversation on why folks still resort to using spez's website.

The source of the topic has been discussed elsewhere on the fediverse (see for example https://piefed.social/post/1283563 ) - but in this case it was down to an affected person (an h1b visa holder worried about traveling between the US and Canada) asking for advice. The only communities that were able to offer help seemed to exist on spez's site.

(The short summary is that affected folks were being advised to cancel all travel and do whatever it takes to be in the US by 11:59pm ET on that Friday. Later the admin walked it back and said it'd only affect new applications but not e.g. extensions, meaning - despite having Sept 21 2025 as the date in the proclamation - it wouldn't have practical effect for anyone until Feb 2026, which is when a new lottery will be held and new applications will start getting approved.)

The forumiverse (the part of the fediverse devoted to forum-like posts and threads) doesn't do it, since there's no real communities that support immigration and the like. (I started ![email protected] a short while ago but still have zero subscribers.) Even the wider fediverse didn't have much. I was finally able to track down a couple of Bluesky posts (skeets?) that covered what to do, but a random lawyer's Bluesky feed doesn't seem like the right place to get support for one's questions.

I thought that traditional immigration forums would cover it (and really, this is the sole reason why I still use forums), but as it turns out, not so much. It turns out that they more or less ignored this development over the weekend, and still haven't covered it as of the time I'm writing this. (The other gap that I've noticed on the fediverse and forums is with communities for third culture kids - but afaik even spez's site has only the one.)

I am not sure what the right answer here is, as we can't just create such communities overnight. But as long as we don't have an answer, companies like spez will be able to maintain a foothold. Enshitification will continue.

I'm sure this won't happen. We will find a solution. I'm just not sure how we get from here to there yet - and I think it's important to acknowledge the gaps that still exist. The first step in solving a problem is admitting that one exists.

Was inspired by this post on Blind, https://www.teamblind.com/us/s/yUjnjpV0 which is claiming that the current US President said he wants to deport Musk.

Now, that's actually wrong. From actual news articles, like https://www.newsweek.com/could-elon-musk-deported-donald-trump-what-know-2081809 , we know that it's actually Steve Bannon calling for this, not Drumpf.

Usually, if Bannon is the one saying something, you just automatically know it's wrong. But I think it's worth digging into a bit.

The WP has a couple of good articles about Elon Musk working illegally, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/26/elon-musk-immigration-status/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/11/01/musk-illegal-work-trump-immigration/

The thing is, while this might be technically true (Elon had a J-1 visa but worked without attending school and thus was working illegally), Elon actually did have a legal pathway to do what he wanted.

Elon is and was born Canadian, and Canadians have favourable access to the US. Especially with NAFTA, he'd have been able to use the TN-1 visa.

As per https://www.bdzlaw.com/nafta,-tn-blog/applicant-ownership-in-company-sponsoring-tn-visa the TN-1 visa doesn't allow for self-employment, and being sole owner of a business counts.

The key is to have a person in the US (almost certainly someone who's a US citizen or green card holder) form the business, and that you own a minority stake only. In the case of Zip2, the startup Musk helped found, it turns out that - as per the Post - there were at least three co-founders, "the Musk brothers and another Canadian co-founder". So even in the beginning, Musk himself would have had no more than a 33% minority stake at most, and perhaps even less than that. This would only shrink as new angel investors were brought on.

So if Musk had a US person contact who could have helped him found the company, then Zip2 would have qualified to sponsor a TN-1 visa for him. (The last bit is concerning actual control, but between the Musk brothers and the third Canadian co-founder, Musk would have had a good argument that he didn't had sole control himself. Also remember that TN-1 visas are applied for at the border in a matter of hours, and sometimes accountants and lawyers need to spend months to figure out who had actual control.)

From the TN-1 Musk could have directly gotten a green card, or perhaps he would have preferred to get an H1b visa. (I think the main difference is that TN-1 to GC direct requires leaving the US briefly, while TN-1 to H1b and H1b to GC can both be done without leaving.)

Of course, when Musk first started this, he probably couldn't afford to check with a lawyer, and the internet was not back then what it is now. So he might not have known how to do this.

The WP does make this point, "a determination that he had been less than truthful with immigration authorities" - but remember that by the time he would have switched visas, Zip2 was already paying for his lawyer. After it was sold, Musk was a multimillionaire. Since Musk's immigration history and records are not public, there's no evidence this was the case. In fact I'd bank on the opposite - that the lawyer would have truthfully disclosed everything, pointed out that there was a legal pathway to do it even if Musk didn't, and asked for discretion and forgiveness. (This was the case as late as 2024, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqx2AZPYsvM ) Under Dubya's administration I can easily see the gov't deciding that Musk's business ability was worth the forgiveness. Also, the legal requirement (being an immediate relative of a US citizen, such as a parent of a US citizen) would have been met by Musk via Musk's daughter Nevada Musk.

So there's actually a very good chance that Musk never fraudulently misrepresented or lied to the government on this matter.

Finally, even if Musk had lied when becoming a citizen, perhaps he shouldn't then be eligible for a security clearance. But there's good reason to say that he shouldn't be denaturalized (stripped of his US citizenship). Musk became a US citizen in 2002, or roughly 23 years ago.

Note that from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/86/1009/2398201/ administrative denaturalization must occur within "two years after she was naturalized" and if going through the court system, criminal denaturalization has a 10 year limit as per https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Advisory-for-Defense-Attorneys_-Identifying-clients-at-risk-of-denaturalization-02-2025.pdf - so Musk is well beyond the time limits for these.

Musk technically remains eligible for civil denaturalization with the courts as there's no time limit for this, but as per Valerio v. USINS, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D. Haw. 1999) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/86/1009/2398201/,

The decision whether to institute denaturalization proceedings is discretionary. In exercising its discretion, the Justice Department is guided by the longstanding policy that denaturalization should not be sought "unless some substantial results are to be achieved thereby in the way of betterment of the citizenship of the country." Department of Justice Circular Letter No. 107, Sept. 20, 1909 § 15; see also 7 Charles Gordon et al., Immigration Law and Procedure § 96.09 (rev. ed.1999); 3C Am. Jur.2d Aliens and Citizens § 3039 (1998). In light of this policy, a twelve-year citizen of apparent good standing ... would seem to be an unlikely target of denaturalization proceedings.

Even denaturalization for something as serious as being an active spy for another country, has traditionally been brought much faster than this. See https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2021/01/05/why-hasnt-the-u-s-deported-xunmei-grace-li/ and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2012cv00482/684044/220/ - the timeline is becoming a citizen in May 2005, but being investigated in 2007, convicted of immigration violations in 2009 - so within five years. It took longer for the court system to actually grant the denaturalization, but that happened by 2014 - so still within ten years.

If it was anyone other than Musk, denaturalization wouldn't make sense, period. And rule of law means we can't treat Musk as a special case. And without denaturalization there can be no deportation.

Bloc Québécois voter's mail-in ballot was returned to sender after the election
Elections Canada said the return address printed on this elector's return envelope was incorrect — specifically, part of the postal code.

Courts could force byelection, expert says
But Ara Karaboghossian, professor of political science at Vanier College, says there's a chance this saga isn't over. He said the election could be contested through Elections Canada's contested elections process. He said irregularities can be the basis for contesting a decision
"It says that if there is any type of irregularity that has an effect on the result, then the person can actually contest," said Karaboghossian. "The elector can contest. A candidate can contest. It's open to anybody."
The case will hinge on what an irregularity is, but it seems to Karaboghossian that a misprint on a self-addressed, stamped envelope could fall into that category.

Good news for Bloc Québécois

Regulation Needed to Guarantee Living Wages and Benefits, Decent Working Conditions
Major digital labor platforms, also known as gig companies, operating in the United States misclassify gig workers as independent contractors, denying them labor rights,

And the kicker...

“They promise flexibility but, in reality, they leave workers at the mercy of unstable and subminimum wages, little social protection, and in constant fear of termination without recourse.”

These folks need to be recognized as employees, so they can immediately

• sue to get paid a living wage
• and reliable working hours
• feel more comfortable organizing around (that is, joining or forming) a union

In short, independents and minor parties combined got more vote than a major party (the LNP coalition). I think this is actually great news, it shows how well ranked choice and proportional voting work to empower smaller parties and diversify them.

The gist is that a lot of people are showing up and making in-person visits to SSA offices to prove that they're still alive and restart their benefits, and with all the budget cuts and loss of experienced staffers, even the most basic of services are taking forever to deliver now.

Two Labour MPs say they are "astounded" to have been denied entry to Israel while on a trip to visit the occupied West Bank.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy criticised Israeli authorities, describing the move as "unacceptable, counterproductive, and deeply concerning".

The lawyer, Erez Reuveni, answered most questions asked by Judge Paula Xinis with "I don't know why" or "I haven't been told why". For example, when asked on what legal basis or authority the US government had deported the man in question, Abrego Garcia, the lawyer said he didn't know.

"From the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional," Judge Xinis said during the hearing. "If there isn't a document, a warrant, a statement of probable cause, then there is no basis to have seized him in the first place. That's how I'm looking at it," the judge said.
(Source is linked article)

The judge also questioned why the U.S. can’t get him back. Reuveni said that was the first question he asked when he was assigned to the case.
“I have not received today an answer that I find satisfactory,” he added.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-orders-return-of-maryland-man-wrongly-deported-to-el-salvador-mega-prison

The judge also asked for evidence that the deported man, , was a member of the gang MS-13. But Reuveni couldn't provide

Xinis noted in her opinion Sunday that the Justice Department presented “no evidence” that Abrego Garcia belongs to MS-13, effectively abandoning that position in her court.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/06/judge-order-return-man-el-salvador-00274526

Finally, the lawyer made one last request, to wait and let him ask his client - the US government - to try and return Abrego Garcia first. But look at how he frames his request:

“I would ask the court to give us, the defendants, one more chance to do this,” Reuveni said. “That’s my recommendation to my client, but so far that hasn’t happened.”

Basically telling the judge "I've already asked and got told no way but let me ask again" as a surefire way to make the judge ignore the request.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412

Admittedly, it's not entirely clear yet that this was deliberate malicious compliance - but Erez Reuveni has nearly 15 years of experience and almost certainly would have known how to make a more compelling argument before the court, had he been so inclined.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412

In fact, the current US attorney general said this about the matter,

“He did not argue,” the attorney general complained, although Reuveni did argue that Xinis had no jurisdiction to consider the case. “He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said. “You have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client.”
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412

He could have not taken the case, it seems. But he would have known that if he passed on it, someone else would argue it, and that someone might do a much better job in front of the court. So it's probable that he took it upon himself to throw the case and save this man.

Alas, it seems his bosses saw through that. Even though he did argue that the court had no jurisdiction to consider the case, as he was likely ordered to do,

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent Reuveni suspending him for failing to follow “follow a directive from your superiors” and “engaging in conduct prejudicial to your client.”
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412

To me, that reads as if Blanche had figured out that Reuveni had complied with orders, but only maliciously so, and thus treated it as a case of non-compliance. (In truth, malicious compliance here hurt the government's case worse than actual non-compliance - refusing to take the case at all - would have.)

I'm not 100% sure I'm right - after all Erez Reuveni is a professional lawyer and thus knows what to say and not say in public to protect himself - but if I am right, then I'd consider Erez Reuveni a true USian hero.

A great-grandparent or even a great-great grandparent from Italy used to be all it took to guarantee Italian citizenship. A surprise decree has now changed all that, making it much harder for those with Italian ancestry to use blood line as a pathway to become Italian.
On March 28, the Italian government tightened regulations for claiming citizenship by jus sanguinis, or descendent blood line, effective immediately.

Basically you now need an Italian parent or a grandparent who was born in Italy, or an Italian parent who lived in Italy for at least two years before you were born, to be eligible. This is a major change to the citizenship law, and caught everyone by surprise.

Far-right leader found guilty of embezzlement of European funds and immediately barred from running for office
Le Pen, 56, said before the verdict that that any immediate ban on running for election would be like a “political death sentence”

So this is a bit disturbing on multiple levels.

1 - who is request the password reset of my account and why? (though this is probably the least interesting or important question - my guess is it's a script kiddie who found an email address from one of the public mailing lists and gave it a go for grins)

2 - the email says to let facebook know if i didn't request this reset (which i did not), but doesn't say how. why don't they include that info?

2.1 - minor, but, so how do i actually let FB know? keep in mind that i don't have an active account with FB right now and i don't use any Meta products currently.

2.1.1 - and would FB actually care or do anything if i do tell them, or would i just be wasting my time?

3 - does Facebook still retain my account, in spite of the fact that I deleted it?

4 - if they do - how much? all of it?! is this more like LinkedIn's hibernate, where the account is dormant and invisible but can be revived at any time?

The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations says the fourth victim of a Winnipeg serial killer has been identified as Ashlee Shingoose.
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak says she has spoken with the woman’s parents and offered her condolences.
“My heart goes out to all the families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls,” she said.
Police are scheduled to confirm the identity of the victim, who was given the name Buffalo Woman, at a news conference Wednesday afternoon.

So not too much is known yet. We don't know who called 911 - just that the caller refused to perform CPR. We also don't know what this medical condition is yet, and no autopsy has been performed yet.

So some potentially interesting developments to speculate about, but it's looking like there might not be much more than, for example, someone famous with a heart condition dying from complications of a heart condition.

Filipino Catholic bishops called for unity, but differed in tone, after former president Rodrigo Duterte was arrested and detained at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

This is interesting food for thought. Essentially saying that this new playbook we're seeing is actually an old one, back to the days of 1950s's era McCarthyism. The article also points out that there are Jewish voices critical of Israel's recent actions that risk being silenced under this.

Good on them for trying all possible avenues to get these folks freed.