As a summer associate more than 10 years ago I asked the tech transaction partners how the iTunes terms of service could possibly be enforceable and they responded “after you click agree, it pops up a confirmation box you also have to agree to, so it’s basically the gold standard of enforceability“

And to think he was actually practicing his pubic hair doodle

My first day as an extern and I helped proofread a draft order and I suggested splitting an infinitive. The clerks literally laughed in my face and then threw me to the wolves (the judge).

Realizing this will come off as incredibly weird if I don’t provide the context, but this was on a billboard over 95 in Philly for years and *only* was extremely bold.

Jesus is the *only* lord and savior

I am persuaded by this. Today people are arriving here seeking opportunity and these people are (and would be as citizens) net payers. In a world with a global right to travel I wonder if the math would work out differently (a higher percentage of older family members coming).

To quote Andy “All the way, it simply should not matter, at all, for any purpose.” This I agree with as a moral matter.

This is why I never post.

I think the moral case for open borders is so that they can come here and live equally with people born here (ie eliminate the accident of birthplace issue). If you’re making the case that borders should be open but we should treat the immigrants how we treat immigrants now that’s different.

I’m open to my premise being wrong (ie that the balance of immigrants who would actually show up creating enough growth and tax revenue to offset the increased cost of benefits)

How do you address the generousness of the welfare state tradeoff? I’ve always thought you can have a very modest welfare state and very open borders or a generous welfare state and more closed borders. I favor the more open borders myself for exactly the reasons you two have laid out here.