Trump did an EO banning CBDCs lol. Good, actually.

@sun fednow no longer fed now

@sun

Unless he's mandating the persistence of cash, gold/silver and other untrackable media of exchange (eg. XMR), existing KYC rules make CBDC effectively redundant and unnecessary. The issue isn't so much a central bank as it is the ability for the government to monitor transactions and take legal actions to seize the contents of your wallet, which they can already do. Also these can be overturned, so there's no guarantee it will remain that way for very long, especially given the whole technocratic circle jerk that's evolving before our eyes.

@sun He ain't messing around. The four-year break did us a favour.

@sun I'm reading the Wikipedia page and still not understanding what that is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_digital_currency

@taylan programmable digital money issued by a national government

@sun i'm surprised how much he's actually doing

Why? He will literally be killed if he doesn't get a lot done quick.

@lain I think it would be impossible to not learn his lesson from his last administration and everything that happened to him after that. he's reacting rationally for his circumstances

@sun @lain I still think Trump 2016-2020's term was a lot more tame than a lot of people gave it.

What he did was about on par of what other country leaders would do, Probably now even more so albeit a bit more extreme with even Legal Immigrants can be deported if they did something wrong as in stealing.

@Anonsfw @lain @sun do you have a source on that legal immigrant thing? ive not heard as such
t. second gen immigrant

@Anonsfw @lain the thing I used to mention during the "muslim country" ban thing was, people were acting like it was new, but the USA already had in place a ban on immigration from certain countries due to terrorism, for example one was Chechnya. Remember those bomber brothers, their family only was allowed to immigrate to the USA by special exception because their uncle worked in the CIA and it apparently was a reward for services rendered.

@Anonsfw @lain @sun seems a baseless but common enough belief, we will see.
mothers approach to this is essentially "america isnt that great i'll be happy if they pay for my flight home"

No more anchor babies

@sun @lain @Anonsfw that's depressing as hell wow

@Anonsfw @lain @sun i could see that happening as trumps trying to end birthright citizenship but given its a constitutional right his ability to do so is quite unlikely
i'd probably be fine given i have a usa-ian father but who knows, i wouldn't mind losing my u.s. citizenship, it's still on me bucket list to revoke it anyways

@sun he can't, actually, which is the funny part. He has zero power over the Federal Reserve.

@feld I know they talk about it but does the federal reserve have the power to unilaterally implement a CBDC

@Anonsfw @lain @sun don't most legal migrants not bother getting citizenship? that would give limited rights, just not for the children who would be citizens if born in the country

If you want Obama admin got in the ability for holding citizens overseas without trail and extra-judicial killings. That said Trump isn't like Barry and wants to win hearts and minds instead wielding authoritarian power.

Like I tell people look at the history of Operation Chokepoint and the 2.0 Obama/Biden III did as soon as they got back in office.

@sun yes, they can make any monetary instrument they want AFAIK

@feld that makes me more concerned tbh.

@sun @feld is it too much to hope for that the federal reserve is exploded (legislatively)?

We just had guys held without trail in DC for four years and tortured.

Returning to rule of law is a choice.

@sun @lain @Anonsfw @thendrix flimsy but consistent, and i doubt trump would hold any differently, as iirc he's been in support of guantanamo bay for example, also riding off on that "our rights only apply within the countrys territory" bs

@lain @maija @Anonsfw @sun citizenship does get revoked for crimes in certain places, even for those who were born and raised in the country they’re losing citizenship from. The US is considered to the right of the UK but the UK does it, look up Shamina Begum. Revoking citizenship doesn’t seem outside the Overton window at all.

@lain @maija @Anonsfw @sun "Permanent Resident", so the usual step before citizenship, a probationary period of about 5 years so if they fuck up bad enough we don't have to keep them. They can't be deported for jaywalking, but they can be for theft, drug dealing, etc.

@sun based

@maija @lain @Anonsfw @sun @thendrix I thought he was making a deal with Mexico trying to copy the UK’s Rwanda scheme?

@sun @lain @maija @Anonsfw This is in relation to crimes though isn’t it in the thread?

@toiletpaper @sun I spent a bunch of R&D time figuring out how to transact in all manner of buttcoins with zero KYC and no centralized exchanges. I’m not a crypto enthusiast (in the sense that I believe much of it is a scam and/or simply bullshit), and I still suspect I might be glad I did all this prep work. for me it is absolutely a hedge against the above, and a hedge on being able to GTFO the country and be paid across borders

@arcana @lain @Anonsfw @sun Latvia does it too but tbh it's only extreme shit that's only been deserved
I don't think thats such a crazy thing to do, but maybe it is for the better it cant be easily wielded recklessly in america

@lain @sun now if he did the real stuff like abolishing the income tax

@sun @arcana @lain @maija @Anonsfw super rare, but it has happened
i think lucky luciano is like one of a very few if not the only one that's had their citizenship revoked
but that was basically a favor to him after he helped the feds so they sent him back to the old country, which the feds were busy rigging elections in anyway so he was probably just transplanted there to work overseas permanently

i dunno, lets work on getting more capital punishment actually mopped up, no more letting people hang around until they die on death row of natural causes after getting a sex change

@arcana @lain @Anonsfw @sun @thendrix not sure, he's said a lot of inconsistant things about mexico

@sun@shitposter.world Why is banning CBDCs a good thing?

Also, what purpose does a CBDC even serve when fiat currency can already be used digitally?

@dictatordave @sun @arcana @lain @maija @Anonsfw Perhaps death by sex change?

@feld @arcana @lain @Anonsfw @sun > “The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes. If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.

incredibly flimsy, and the flimsy legal argument also would not apply to typical migrants, this argument is nonsenical

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw I do think birthright citizenship is a very silly idea, most of the world doesn’t have that, and places like India don’t either. The fact people can get in by having a baby while on their holidays is silly and extremely abusable. Citizenship should be able to be earned but should ultimately be based on ancestral connection to the country.

@aetios @sun @arcana @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw all for it
act like whites or gtfo
simple rules

[The Fed] can make any monetary instrument they want

This is not correct, for instance: the federal reserve is explicitly barred from minting coins, only the treasury can do that. They have wide latitude in creating open market instruments, but I do not believe they can create new kinds or denominations of 'legal tender' without the treasury's direction to do so.

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw he was literally the son of a US admiral of course he was American. That’s like saying my granddad isn’t British because he was born in the Empire

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw surely natural born means born to American parents without a Caesarian?

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw also if it’s genuinely interpreted that the child of an American soldier with an American woman can’t be President what even is that, genuinely a stupid interpretation

@sun @Anonsfw @feld @lain @maija I’m pretty certain that interpretation is not what the founders intended

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw >The Panama Canal Zone (Spanish: Zona del Canal de Panamá), also simply known as the Canal Zone, was a concession of the United States located in the Isthmus of Panama that existed from 1903 to 1979.

Surely this counts as US territory. My granddad grew up in Hong Kong but that was British territory

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw being the child of military on deployment isn’t no connection though, that’s a very stronger connection than somebody who has parents who aren’t American who have a baby in the US. Look at all of the British leaders who were born and grew up in India or Africa, they aren’t Indian or African, they’re British due to heritage

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw I don’t think it was the founders intent to disinherit the children of their soldiers or sailors, nor of their colonial administrators

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw they quite literally attacked the Barbary States very soon after independence

The 14th Amendment was in 1868

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw yes, and those marines on deployment and camp followers may have had children

@sun @Anonsfw @feld @lain @maija also if things like the 14th amendment come in almost a century after the foundation of the country, why does it matter anyway, clearly it’s arbitrary and can changed

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw yes, the “natural born requirement“ itself is not, that was heavily inspired as many things were in the young United States by British Law. “Natural born” as it was defined in the Anglosphere in the 18th century includes the foreign born children of citizens. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

These are the kinds of legal texts the founders would have been very familiar with and influenced them

>And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw when did it diverge though, that’s the question? 1898 is enough time for that original understanding to have diverged. The founding fathers would have understood “natural born” as it was described by the likes of Blackstone

The arbitrary reinterpretation of many things over the years have eroded that original quest of the founders for their rights as Englishmen

@sun

That was more of a clarification of existing policy. I’ve known a number of children of servicemen born abroad who were confused about their potential to be president. None of them were president material but ending the ambiguity is important.

@arcana @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw if they didn’t they would have specified, the reason they didn’t is like in many historical sources, because the author presumed no need to. Perhaps not as future proofing as it should have been but the authors of the constitution would have expected anybody reading and interpreting it to be familiar with the legal system and definitions of their time

This is true, and has always been the case. If you violate the terms of your visa or other travel authorization, by, for instance, criming, the authorization to be in the country can be revoked and you can be forced to leave (i.e. deported). If you entered the country under a valid legal travel authorization, you are entitled to certain protections and processes before deportation that you may not be entitled to if you didn't have valid travel documents. If you are an immigrant who has become a full naturalized citizen, you can no longer be deported.

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw oh no, it’s no problem and it certainly is interesting and it’s something I do believe is an interesting example of likely being misinterpreted from original intent.

I think these days it’s generally just used as a political cudgel by the opponents of a candidate rather than actually understood meaningfully.

@sun @feld @lain @maija @Anonsfw I think a big part of it is that it’s all highly politicised lawfare, it’s why everybody makes such a huge deal about Supreme Court appointees because they bring a partisan bias

The state of (iirc) Iowa once legislated an alternative value of Pi. Their wheels, however, all stayed round.

@Anonsfw

Imma be honest, I’ve never been sympathetic to the “someone I like broke the law therefore the law is bad and shouldn’t be enforced” angle. It’s an abuse of the natural tendency to want to help your friends.

@lain @maija @sun

@Leyonhjelm @lain @Anonsfw @sun yeah but i can get the complaints about differeing treatment, whether that be too lenient or too strict

@maija

That’s an odd argument to respond to my post. It seems like a diversion

@lain @Anonsfw @sun

@Leyonhjelm @lain @Anonsfw @sun thats not an argument thats an idle comment on reasons why some people may be for or against it
not everything has to be an argument

@maija

You started it with “yeah but” so I call bullshit

@lain @Anonsfw @sun

@Leyonhjelm @lain @Anonsfw @sun ok buddy