abff08f4813c

From a personal point of view, I'd still take the promise, provide that I can the person making it as being reliable.

But from a wider point of view, agreed. Perhaps there was something more Harris could have said, earlier, to back up those statements and give this voting bloc a stronger reason to believe in her without causing the Jewish voting bloc to move away from her. Alternatively, maybe the risk of alienating that other bloc with more concrete steps or plans should have been taken - as stepping to hard to avoid alienating them clearly didn't work out.

I came into Canada in 2018 and applied for PR in 2019. I didn't get it until recently, I faced a lot of delays in and with the system.

A lot changed post-COVID that made it easier to get in, such as:

• increasing the number of folks admitted for PR (as per https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2022/immigration-increase-pandemic/ ) meaning that you could get in more easily with a lower score

• post graduate work permits becoming renewable

• a new policy to allow some students to apply straight for PR - those lucky enough to apply fast enough anyways (you might remember that this is the one that became full on the first day it was open)

Not to mention US-focused changes like opening the door for H1b visa holders, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/work-canada/permit/h1b.html

There were provincial changes too, like Ontario dropping the three month waiting period so you could get OHIP right away as soon as you met other eligibility requirements.

Had these changes been implemented during orange voldemort's term, instead of Biden's, I recon we'd have seen the same increase. (Why the wait by Canada on doing this? Well it always takes time to get a new policy off the ground, and with COVID becoming a serious threat in March 2020 and the vaccine only making it to Canada in April 2021, if anything these changes seem to have come in absurdly fast.)

You're ... welcome?

• from a USian who voted for Harris and is preparing to take the Canadian citizenship test early next year

Absolutely. Wish I could do the same.

As a practical matter I expect it's less US citizens, or even those with green cards, who try to come over, and more folks who haven't yet obtained regular status in the US.

USian here - this honestly took far too long for me to get.

Optimistic. As per https://sopuli.xyz/post/18928087 it seems that "Zelensky was somewhat reassured"

Previously I had thought that this guy would just withdraw all support and hand free reign to Russia, but Zelensky is no fool. If he's feeling it, then I'm very happy indeed to be proven wrong about this point.

Another silver lining - if the US withdraws from NATO, then at least, they can't block Ukraine from joining...

TIL! Yep, that gives the EU exactly what's needed to suspend them from Schengen.

So I just answered my own question. I was confused by this,

If those crossing claim asylum, the RCMP cannot send them back to the United States.

Because I thought the Safe Third Country Agreement allowed them to be sent back with no right to be heard for asylum (unless they stuck in and evaded detection for 14 days).

However, according to https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/safe-third-country-agreement-expansion-causes-asylum-seekers-explore-new-routes

Asylum seekers are arriving at airports with tourist visas and petitioning for asylum at immigration offices after their arrival. The number of asylum applications made at airports in Montreal and Toronto have tripled since the beginning of 2023.
Overall, the expansion decreased the flow of asylum seekers coming from the United States directly but has not worked to decrease the flow of asylum seekers into Canada.

So I guess to get into Canada they'd leave the US and fly in from another country somehow.

Hmm. Could they legally kick Hungary out of Schengen without its approval?

Agreements outside of the EU framework - now that is indeed a clever workaround. I seem to recall similar maneuvers during the Greek financial crisis when the UK wouldn't agree to things.

That’s why I used the word, “unless.” If the words are addressing that point, then they’re meaningful, but as long as they aren’t, they are not.

Ah I think I got your meaning now.

Does it now?

Yes.

There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side’s willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, “finish the job,”

I assume this is just an example and you aren't seriously suggesting this is what Harris means. Harris has been very clear on the need for an immediate ceasefire.

You’re choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean,

Well, the alternative meaning doesn't fit with what Harris has said about getting to an immediate ceasefire - you can't have a ceasefire if you're trying to kill every last person on the enemy side. That contradiction makes me think I've interpreted it correctly.

What you don’t understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election.

I got that. I figured this was an important constraint on Harris being able to speak in support on Gaza in fact - AIPAC withdrawing their support of her.

After they get elected, then they’ve already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors.

This is a good point, AIPAC would still be around after the election.

That’s why there is zero chance that she would’ve become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.

I think zero chance is too extreme. Consider this,

Obama said in late 2010 that his views on gay marriage were “evolving,” and since then administration officials have pointed to those comments, stressing that Obama is a supporter

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/obama-expected-to-speak-on-gay-marriage-076103

Also, the goal wasn't necessarily to make Harris pro-Palestine, but simply more anti-genocide. As the situation in Gaza worsens, I could see a possibility where from the grassroots a movement of change, going thru e.g. Sanders and AOC, would eventually convince Harris to evolve her position here as well.

Now, as you point out there are powerful forces that would resist that, but the outcome of that battle would not have been a foregone conclusion.

Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.

No need to rehash what I said above, beyond that I'm still waiting for the data.

As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she’ll do: place conditions on arms shipments

Agreed. Now, my understanding is that Harris as VP can't actually do this, that authority runs from Biden down to his cabinet secretaries. But she could have made that promise. It's still not taking action, but maybe it would have been enough.

Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel’s actions.

So minor disagreement here. You say complete, or 100%, while I'd say like 95% or 97%. Perhaps an immaterial difference.

Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed

But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: "Harris could have said"

all she ever said was essentially, “Wouldn’t it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting?"

I think calling for a cease-fire is a mite bit stronger than that, but again perhaps the difference between us is so small as to be immaterial.

"and will keep arming them unconditionally.”

Agreed, definitely a problem. No need to rehash about the Jewish voting bloc stuff - we understand why this was done and we saw first hand that it didn't work out. So with 20/20 hindsight...

"But of course I fully support Israel’s right to defend itself"

After Oct 7, 2024, I would too. To say otherwise is an insult to the families of the hostages - telling them that they aren't important enough to protect, that it's okay for this to happen to them again.

There is no indication that she would’ve been at all willing to take meaningful action.

On here we completely disagree. "I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary." seems like a pretty big indication.

Meanwhile,

Trump says he's about to speak to Netanyahu and says, "Biden is trying to hold him back ... he probably should be doing the opposite, actually.

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-trump-cease-fire (link to quote in the "free rein" link on that page)

To be fair, the above is also a really big indication.

What I fear is that he's technically right - because he'll use Hungary's position as an EU member to tear up and otherwise interfere with EU attempts to fund Ukraine (something he's not able to do to the US) and do it well enough that Ukraine's position in it's war of self-defense is seriously compromised.