Stack Exchange
log in

phoog

 Discussion on answer by Ярослав: a st…

Imported from a comment discussion on russian.stackexchange.co...
phoog
Wed 18:31
@pompey1969 it is absolutely possible for language to be wrong. If you say something that expresses something other than what you mean, then it is wrong. The LinkedIn link also seems to be wrong because it opens a post that contains neither "opportunity" nor "order." The fact that one person used "opportunity in order to" in the way I say is wrong doesn't change the fact that "in order to" cannot always replace "to" here. My search for those four words in sequence yielded only two hits of which one uses the phrase correctly: "the cost of giving up one opportunity in order to take another one."
phoog
Wed 18:31
@pompey1969 there absolutely is a difference. The first sentence is weird and probably wrong. The second sentence simply means that he expressed his pride at every opportunity. The object if "miss" is "an opportunity to express his pride." The first sentence means that he did something for the purpose of expressing pride and that this happened to be taking opportunities. In other words, the second sentence is not analogous to "he painted a sign to express his pride."
 

 Discussion on question by Tran Khanh:…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
phoog
Tue 11:20
One thing to keep in mind is that the context of the accent matters. Someone from Australia might pronounce one word very much like someone from the US pronounces some other word. If the two recordings are not of the same speaker and the listener has no other recording of either speaker then even a listener whose native language is English could be confused.
 

 Discussion on answer by TimR: How can…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
phoog
Tue 11:18
@Araucaria-Him "You'll feel nothing if you put your hand on your chest!)" Maybe Tim won't, but I do.
 

 Discussion on answer by mlc: If a Sch…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
phoog
Jul 13 08:13
Service passports and even diplomatic passports are also used by low-ranking government officials. Diplomatic passports, at least, are also held by family members of diplomats.
 

 Discussion on question by Franck Dern…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
phoog
Jul 7 08:31
@Traveller there's no point in demanding disclosure of citizenship when it is not relevant to the question. All that is necessary to know is that the applicant is someone who requires a French visa for some reason. It is also unnecessary to write "friend" in quotation marks as if you doubt that the friend actually is a friend. We know certainly that the friend isn't Franck himself, as he has mentioned in an earlier comment that he is French.
phoog
Jul 7 08:31
So given that "note verbale" means "formal diplomatic communication," doesn't it stand to reason that the meaning of "official" in the Wikipedia article (where it means "issued by a government") is not the same meaning as in the sentence "if you have an official travel document [you must present a formal diplomatic communication with your visa application]"?
phoog
Jul 7 08:31
Perhaps you should have searched for "what is a note verbale" instead. Was the "first answer" from your Google search AI generated, by any chance?
 

 Discussion between phoog and Karl Kne…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
phoog
Jul 3 08:47
@BenVoigt if the people covered by the order are US citizens through some other means then the order is likewise illegal because it orders executive officers not to issue or accept proof of citizenship relating to US citizens. Whether the failure to state explicitly that such people aren't US citizens arises from incompetence or disingenuousness, I cannot be certain, but I suspect that they avoid saying it because they think that will make the order less controversial. They're wrong.
phoog
Jul 3 08:37
@Jen correct, but it is worthwhile to note the flaws in that position. The more such positions are made available without explaining their faults, the more likely people are to accept them at face value.
phoog
Jul 2 06:53
As an aside, another facet of the EO's disingenuousness is the fact that it never explicitly asserts that US-born children falling within its scope aren't US citizens; it only directs executive agencies not to issue or accept evidence of US citizenship for such people.
phoog
Jul 2 06:51
@KarlKnechtel Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with allegiance. It is a mechanism to prevent the receiving country from manipulating the representative of the sending country by threatening legal action. This is why it extends to family members: the US can't put pressure on France by arresting the daughter of the French ambassador; she is immune to US jurisdiction.
phoog
Jul 2 06:47
@KarlKnechtel but there only needs to be one such feature, and historically there has been only one such feature, which is being subject to jurisdiction. Occupying forces are not subject to jurisdiction because of the nature of military occupation. Members of Indian tribes were not subject to US jurisdiction because they are sovereign nations coexisting on US territory. Diplomats are not subject to jurisdiction because they are immune.
phoog
Jul 2 06:44
@KarlKnechtel but the administration is not arguing that, because it is unambiguously inconsistent with the supreme court's holding in Wong. The executive order provides that if one parent is a green card holder or US citizen then the child is a US citizen regardless of the second parent's status. This underscores that allegiance only figured in the analysis for members of Indian nations.
phoog
Jul 2 06:40
@KarlKnechtel another serious logical flaw in the administration's argument is that it also applies to green card holders, who (unless they are stateless or possibly refugees) also owe limited allegiance to the US that is significantly qualified by their stronger allegiance to a foreign power -- the country of their citizenship. Yet their US-born children are admittedly US citizens from birth.
phoog
Jul 2 06:40
@KarlKnechtel Elk v. Wilkins was decided 14 years before Wong and the the Wong opinion explains why Elk is not applicable -- the relationship between the US and the indigenous tribes with which it had concluded various treaties was much unlike the relationship to other countries that did not (do not) share overlapping territorial jurisdiction. In that case allegiance was the primary distinction because territory could not be. And there was no common law analogue to build on; by contrast, the exception for ambassadors' and occupying soldiers' children was long established in common law.
phoog
Jul 2 06:40
The administration is arguing that nonimmigrants and illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because, like diplomats, nonimmigrants and illegal aliens lack "a direct and immediate allegiance to [the US], unqualified by an allegiance to any other foreign power." My point is that this argument is fallacious, because the feature of diplomats that causes their US-born children not to be US citizens at birth is not their lack of allegiance to the US but the diplomatic immunity that they and their family members enjoy, a status that is not shared by the other groups.
phoog
Jul 2 06:40
@KarlKnechtel because the 14th amendment provides that a child born in the US with diplomatic immunity does not acquire US citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States.
phoog
Jul 2 06:40
It should be noted, however, that diplomats and enemy invaders are immune from the jurisdiction of the United States in many other ways that do not apply to nonimmigrants and illegal aliens, so the argument being advanced by the administration is something of a non sequitur.
 

 Discussion between sfxedit and phoog

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
phoog
Jun 27 21:09
The Wikipedia article describes the questionable evidence that was used to support his claim of diplomatic status: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Saab
phoog
Jun 27 21:04
In any event it had nothing to do with the nature of the crime he was charged with.
phoog
Jun 27 21:03
In this case Alex Saab -- a businessman, not a career diplomat -- apparently claimed he had been on a government mission when he was arrested in Cape Verde and subsequently extradited to the US. The court apparently wasn't convinced.
phoog
Jun 27 20:58
@sfxedit I can't read that on account of the paywall, but judges rejecting claims of diplomatic immunity typically result from the claims being unfounded, for example because the person claiming immunity wasn't actually a diplomat.
phoog
Jun 27 20:56
@sfxedit if the US purported to withdraw it at any time, there would be a diplomatic crisis. It would also I believe violate US statute law to do so but I don't have a citation handy.
phoog
Jun 27 20:54
@sfxedit under the Vienna Convention, immunity just exists until it is waived; it isn't necessarily granted by anyone. It exists because the parties agree that it exists. Heads of state and heads of government aren't explicitly covered by the Vienna Convention. But even ambassadors' immunity is ultimately dependent on the receiving state voluntarily recognizing it; there's no enforcement mechanism other than suspension of diplomatic relations.
phoog
Jun 27 20:51
If he travels to the US for a vacation while he is prime minister, he has diplomatic immunity.
phoog
Jun 27 20:51
@sfxedit State Department policy is that heads of state and heads of government must be admitted in A-1 nonimmigrant status -- the immigration status granted to ambassadors -- no matter what. By contrast, other government officials are admitted in A-1 status only when they are traveling on official business. So if Netanyahu becomes ambassador to Canada and then enters the US for a vacation, he has no diplomatic immunity.
phoog
Jun 27 20:00
@sfxedit "The court ultimately decides whether immunity applies": but the sole factor in that determination, for a diplomatic agent, is whether the person is in fact a diplomatic agent. The "duty, embodied in international law, to respect the laws and regulations of the United States" is not enforceable by any court. The proposition that immunity can be "pierced" for serious offenses (absent a waiver from the sending state) is nowhere to be found.
phoog
Jun 27 20:00
@sfxedit furthermore, courts treat as conclusive the State Department's assertion of immunity. I don't know whether there is binding precedent on that question, but I have seen more than one order that relied on this practice and none that contradicted it.
phoog
Jun 27 20:00
@sfxedit what part of that document do you think supports your statement? I rather think that it refutes it: "Diplomatic agents enjoy the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They enjoy complete personal inviolability, which means that they may not be handcuffed (except in extraordinary circumstances), arrested, or detained; .... Diplomatic agents also enjoy complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country’s courts and thus cannot be prosecuted no matter how serious the offense unless their immunity is waived by the sending state."
 

 Discussion on question by MWB: In Rha…

Imported from a comment discussion on music.stackexchange.com/...
phoog
Jun 11 20:48
@OwenM have you watched the scene? Morris Gershwin twice announces the duration of a piece and then calls it "very important"; if that's not enough by itself to establish the connection between duration and importance then the tone and pacing of his delivery ought to be.
phoog
Jun 11 20:42
@MWB I'd be very surprised if the script doesn't establish the reason for his interest in the length of his son's pieces. The best way to find out is to watch the movie, not to have abstract debates with people who haven't seen the movie about their speculative hypotheses concerning possible reasons.
phoog
Jun 11 17:19
@Tim this 1960 score is the source of the information about the piano lid: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/… -- though you can see that I got it backwards; it says that he closed the lid at the beginning of each movement and opened it at the end. The first performance, however, occurred in 1952 using a rather different score: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
phoog
Jun 11 17:19
@MWB why don't you watch the movie and see? I haven't seen the whole thing. My assumption is that he is interested in the scale of the pieces his son is writing, just as a parent might be proud that a 7 year old wrote a story of four pages or a 17 year old wrote one of 40 pages. "What durations would make them not very important pieces?": Possibly none. It's not an objective assessment. It's a father bragging about his child, not a review by a music critic. The purpose of the plot element is to develop the father's character, not to establish anything about Gershwin's œuvre.
phoog
Jun 11 17:19
@Tim if I recall correctly, I have read that at the initial performance of 4'33" the performer marked the end of the piece (of each movement, actually) by closing the lid of the piano.
phoog
Jun 11 17:19
@MWB paternal pride, I imagine.
phoog
Jun 11 17:19
The man is Morris Gershwin, George's father. He is timing the duration of the piece. Earlier in the movie, he times a light tap-dance piece and says "four and a half minutes. A very important piece." At the conclusion of the performance of Rhapsody in Blue, a few minutes after the YouTube clip ends, he says "fourteen minutes and five. A very important piece."
 

 Discussion on question by Felix: Sche…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
phoog
Jun 4 09:46
@Felix those are stock answers; they tell everyone that they haven't established a fact to a reasonable degree of credibility regardless of whether that's because the evidence was actually not credible or because it was insufficient. The fact that the letter says "it has not been demonstrated or established to a reasonable degree of credibility that you have a regular and substantial income" implies that either they couldn't verify the statements or that they think $2000 is insufficient. It's not only about being comfortable at home but also about the trip itself costing a month's wages.
phoog
Jun 4 09:46
@PeterM the evidence provided by the OP is a letter that says in part "it has not been demonstrated or established to a reasonable degree of credibility that you have a regular and substantial income in your country of origin."
phoog
Jun 4 09:46
@PeterM it absolutely does not mean that they don't believe the application; that's only one possible reason for this response. For example, they might have found the application completely credible but that it shows insufficient income.
 

 Discussion on answer by Hilmar: How w…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
phoog
Jun 1 13:12
@Wing I certainly do not wish to create an unpleasant atmosphere and I apologize for, it seems, having done so.
phoog
Jun 1 13:09
@Wing that is a question that I myself might have asked if I'd ever paid enough attention to noticed such a thing happening.
phoog
Jun 1 13:08
@Wing fair enough. I suppose that I had understood "many airports" to mean "most airports," which is not particularly defensible on my part.
phoog
May 31 08:06
@Wing my point is only to suggest that your apparent assumption that it is the normal state of affairs appears to be incorrect. I don't remember whether my boarding pass has been checked at CDG but I haven't changed planes there in many years. I am fairly sure that security-on-arrival at German airports doesn't involve a boarding pass check, but I could well be wrong because I would not normally be paying much attention to whether they check it.
phoog
May 30 19:31
@Wing "Given many airports do check boarding passes before changing terminals": I don't remember ever having my boarding pass checked when changing terminals airside, which I've mostly done in Europe. Can you cite an airport that does perform such checks?
 

 Discussion on question by acornator: …

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
phoog
May 26 18:31
@user102008 "The administration has not argued otherwise": but they have shown themselves willing to act unlawfully in deporting people contrary to court orders. If they say that someone has lost LPR status -- or even if they don't -- and then deliver that person to the custody of another country that refuses to release the person, it doesn't much matter whether any purported rescission of LPR status was ineffective or whether the transfer of custody was unlawful.
phoog
May 26 18:18
@user102008 ok then, replace "rescinding" with "purporting to rescind." This technical adjustment doesn't change anything meaningful. The fact remains that the party cannot enjoy the benefits of the status. I'm not talking about Harvard's international students; I'm talking about Harvard. They received a letter informing them that their SEVP certification was revoked; the letter made no attempt to justify the revocation in terms of the established process for revoking SEVP certification.
phoog
May 23 21:35
@user102008 for an example of the administration rescinding some status without regard for established process, see Harvard's SEVIS access. The LPR whose status is rescinded unlawfully can similarly go to court, but most would rather avoid having to so so.
 

 Discussion on answer by phoog: Bringi…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
phoog
May 14 17:04
@JobHunter69 as with most legal matters, there are two questions: What does the law say? What are the facts? This question and answer focus on the law; as is customary with legal hypotheticals, the facts are assumed: the question states that the items are for resale. Your comment asks "how do they know...?" That is a question about fact finding, which should be a separate question, but as noted by others here, customs inspectors have authority to examine evidence (your goods, your statements) and determine whether your claim is truthful. I don't know what avenues of appeal exist.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: Is te…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
phoog
Apr 30 21:07
@NeilMeyer the question is about whether it is legal to fire someone for failing to comply with an employer's requirement. In cases where it is legal, the requirement would typically be called "mandatory."