when there's a Sane, Normal US President.
The US Department of Justice has dropped its lawsuit against California’s net neutrality law. The decision to scrap the legal challenge, brought about during the previous Republican regime, was not unexpected. However, the fact it has come so early on in the Biden administration indicates that there will be an aggressive push …
Everyone should encourage each state to continue in their efforts to pass Net Neutrality laws similar to (or even the same as) Cali. That way the election in 4 years time will not be the deciding factor in whether it stays in place after that time.
If enough states make their own decisions then lobbying on the hill won't actually do the comms industry any good.
Otherwise it will just flip back and forth depending on who is in the White House, with no certainty for either business or consumers.
Now maybe there's no chance of getting 60 senators on board with this, but here's where that old "compromise" thing can come out with the non-Trumpy republicans like Romney. Find something they want that most democrats are against but some of the more moderate ones would be willing to compromise on and give them that. Democrats get net neutrality, republicans get (for instance) tighter immigration restrictions. The mark of a good compromise is that neither side feels they won, but also doesn't feel the other side won.
" ... republicans get (for instance) tighter immigration restrictions".
That's an alias for "the right to turn a blind eye to the illegal acts of employers hiring "illegal" immigrants, while throwing money at ICE employees, private prisons, and wall builders to capture, hold, and 'punish' a tiny percentage of of those "illegals", while the majority quietly get though to fill the US jobs they brokered for while in Mexico and without which US agriculture would collapse.
'In 1952, Congress approved a bill making the "illegally harboring or concealing an illegal entrant" a felony, but the Texas Proviso, named for the delegation demanding its inclusion, specifically said that employing undocumented migrants would not constitute "harboring or concealing" them. ' [ https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=10 ].
Personally I'm in favor of a Canada style approach - employers are required to provide transport for migrant workers, housing, health insurance, pay a minimum wage, and the workers have legal protection. The law works FOR the migrant workers. Employers who try to bypass those constraints are actively prosecuted. Yeah, the milk costs more, but no money wasted on a wall.
There is currently not a chance in hell of that happening in the US. Neither party can even approach such a position, they are so deeply committed to their own status quos.
Oh I totally agree about turning a blind eye to hiring illegals. I've always thought the way to prevent illegal immigration is not to build a wall, but to heavily fine or jail employers who hire illegals without following steps the government requires to establish their status.
If illegals can't work in the US, then it would greatly reduce the incentive for them coming. Yeah I know some come as criminals, but the vast majority come because they know there are plenty of farmers and farm adjacent stuff like meatpacking where they can get hired on despite their employer being fully aware of their status.
If as farmers claim there won't be enough people to do the work and "crops will rot in the fields" well then the easy solution is for the US to increase the number of guest/migrant workers who come seasonally and do that work above work - with both them and their employer paying taxes. If they overstay their visa, then they are off the approved to work list and will be deported if found.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022