> I find it notable that the administration has dismissed the idea of supporting Maria Machado on hte grounds taht she 'has no support' when the extent of her support is why led the Maduro government to ban her from running for election in 2024.
Article is paywalled so couldn't read it.
The Trump admin likely wants someone more loyal and willing to cooperate with what the oil companies want to do to develop the oil reserves including ignoring environmental issues (rubber stamp).
Maria may have her own ties to China/Russia and half of the justification for this action was to push them out of the country.
> KDE Plasma will no longer sleep when your controller is plugged in
Misleading title:
"Using a game controller will now count as “activity”, stopping the system from automatically going to sleep or locking the screen. (Yelsin Sepulveda, KDE bug #328987)"
Using a controller, not just having it plugged in will count as activity.
This one youtuber, I forget his name, was fired as part of that layoff. He had a son with severe Autism and Microsoft's health benefits were very important to him.
> He had a son with severe Autism and Microsoft's health benefits were very important to him.
This really sucks for him. Through should Microsoft _not_ layoff specific people due to health conditions? Is that something we require from companies?
Employer provided health care insurance came about during WW2 because Roosevelt froze wages. Companies discovered they could "raise" wages by paying for the insurance themselves.
The practice persisted because employer paid health insurance is tax-deductible, while it isn't if a person pays it out of pocket.
The obvious solution is to make it tax-deductible.
True. Total employee compensation is around 145% of their salary. The government could tax that extra 45%, but I doubt that would fly politically.
Typical accounts of employee compensation only measure wages and salaries. I've only seen the WSJ using total employee compensation, which is a far more realistic figure.
The US healthcare system is non-functional for a month: what happens?
Hospitals and providers start running into cash flow problems and begin having difficulties providing service.
Fraud skyrockets because everything is getting blanket-approved because none of the data used for verification is available.
And about a month after that, people start dying from lack of care, after the last financial reserves of the system are exhausted.
Because that's the path the system was on when Change went down for several weeks, only averted by HHS/CMS saying 'Here's money, just do procedures, we'll worry about it later.'
You say this as if people aren't already dying of lack of care. And it's already disintegrating. Check back up in your estimated month as the realities of ACA subsidy drops start to kick in.
Maintaining the status quo just keeps killing people at an increasing rate. The sooner the system is unfucked, the fewer senseless deaths there will be overall.
Well you see it would free up a huge amount of money that employers are currently paying to insurers. If you take that money (by raising the Medicare premium on employees), plus the existing medicaid budget, existing medicare tax and payroll tax contributions America's healthcare system would receive over 40% more money to cover care per capita than the next leading contestant. Almost 2X the OECD average. In PPP dollars no less.
"But where would the money come from" is one of the wildest questions to ask about a system that already costs double the average. I'd say, give or take, the same place its coming from now, but like, less.
I pay $2k a month through work for a plan. I could pay that plus the payroll deduction plus the pittance my employer kicks in. I’d make that trade all day every day.
Estimates of health insurance fraud is also around $30 billion, so same order of magnitude, and considering the margins of error and the fact that they are estimates, by definition, it makes it hard to say public health insurance is more fraud ridden then private. Plus due to the inherent differences there are probably differing avenues of research and estimating possible between private and public insurance, and heck whole different forms of draining money that might affect ease of uncovering the level of fraud between private and public, which would make it have an even larger margin of error.
Wouldn’t that leave out the set of people who have no income? For example, long term unemployed, adults switching careers and needing to take a long time off for education, etc? While the solution gets close, I don’t think it’s strictly the same thing. Add on top of that our unnecessarily complicated tax system and this sounds even less equivalent.
It doesn’t. It’s part of a rosary of things people wield to stave off thinking about the topic. You can do other things besides nationalizing all care or insurance, but when you hear people talk about “open up markets to cross state competition”, or “everyone gets an HSA”, or “make insurance tax deductible/it’s fdr’s fault”, it’s rarely about the specific policy, those are liturgical texts / catechisms designed to give the impression of solutions without substance.
Tax deductibility is only a very minor reason why most private insurance is employer provided; the much larger reason is that employment is a decent way to get a reasonably distributed group (of people generally healthy enough to work) and that’s one way of getting balanced risk pool if you’re not doing community rating or a societ wide pool.
> Tax deductibility is only a very minor reason why most private insurance is employer provided; the much larger reason is that employment is a decent way to get a reasonably distributed group
From what I saw, the combination of "no exclusions for pre-existing coverage" and "penalty for not having health insurance" worked pretty well to balance the risk pools without nationalized healthcare.
I would still like nationalized healthcare, but I think there are other ways to fix the problem at hand of people being dependent on their jobs for healthcare.
Absolutely. I'm a fan of the ACA's patchwork of wonky choices including no pre-existing exclusions and community rating. Additionally the subsidies made it genuinely accessible for most, at least where they made it through attempts to hamstring them. It's been one of the most helpful practically advanced policy achievements of my lifetime, even with all the effort to destroy it (which has recently found new success and may even succeed entirely in the end).
Universal insurance could be better, and perhaps the day will even come when the American electorate recognizes priorities like this and candidates who will advance that kind of policy, contrary habits of the past notwithstanding.
* Your total qualified, unreimbursed medical and dental expenses (including premiums and costs like co-pays, deductibles, prescription medications, etc.) must exceed 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).
* You can only deduct the amount of expenses that exceeds this 7.5% threshold.
* You must choose to itemize deductions instead of taking the standard deduction.
Most taxpayers use the standard deduction as it is often larger than their total itemized deductions.
How about you do some research on the kind of healthcare that people in countries with socialized healthcare receive.
6 month waitlists for a cancer screenings, multi day emergency room waits for broken bones, maybe you've heard of the oh so wonderful death pods in Canada?
Our system is by no means the best, but I'll take it any day over socialized systems.
This is not my experience in Canada. It is not the experience of anyone I know.
There are often long wait times in ERs for things that are non urgent. I waited 5 or 6 hours my last visit after initial assessment.
I’ve known a few people that had life threatening cancers here: they were treated quickly, and compassionately by the health care system.
There are bad wait times for some things: a hearing assessment took 6 months (there are private options for this but many people would rather wait - they trust the system more). There is a shortage of family doctors. Medications are not fully covered.
But I promise you we have no death pods in our hospitals. If you get hit by a car, diagnosed with cancer, need an X-ray, a breathing test, etc. You get that care.
It’s nowhere near perfect, but I’m thankful for it and most people I know feel similarly.
Can you cite the sources you researched? I’ve known people from all over the world and none of them found that to be true: the American healthcare system was commented on in disbelief over both the cost and difficulty of getting treatment compared to where they had previously lived.
Yes it is. The system has some very deep issues due to government involvement/meddling with both healthcare and insurance, but at least you can still receive life saving treatment in a timely manner.
They can be in disbelief all the want, but when people in countries with socialized healthcare get cancer or other life threatening medical conditions they come to the US and a private healthcare to get treated.
That’s one country, and I note that the authors of that paper directly contradict your thesis: “the Commonwealth Fund’s survey results show that other universal health care systems (eg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, and France) have much shorter wait times than Canada does”
The American system is also not looking so good as our wait times have been going up and access has been worsening for much of the country, especially over the last year.
What does 'usually' mean? In my experience 'usually' has never worked in my favor. Say it does, does it kick in immediately? What do they have to do to switch over providers? Does all currently being coveraged treatment just move over to being covered by Medicaid automatically or will they need re-approvals?
If you are saying they are covered either way, why not just have consistent healthcare coverage for them and for everyone, all the time?
In my state it would kick in immediately. You would report your current income, which is now $0 since you just lost your job.
Virtually every provider in my state is in-network for the various Medicaid options to choose from, so you would not need to "switch over providers". It's usually better than private insurance.
As far as "why not just have consistent healthcare coverage for them and for everyone, all the time", because it would be very expensive to do so? Medicaid covers poorer Americans (including people who just lost their jobs), not the entire population.
(Looking at this from an American centric point-of-view):
The Czar of health-care in the US today is a brain-worm addled, drug-addicted, vaccine-denying, conspiracy mongering, incompetent jackass. And the overall current administration has shown itself to be hostile to basically anyone who isn't a cis-gendered, white, heterosexual, Christian male.
How many of us really trust these people to make good decisions regarding our health-care? A position that they (or their delegates) would find themselves in if we "nationalize health care".
I think this is a classic example of an idea that sounds good on paper, but doesn't survive contact with reality.
In the UK, it's operated as trusts separate from day to day government. In Canada it's provincially administered. In Australia, Medicare is a national, tax-funded system with independent statutory authorities overseeing parts of it. Germany, France, Japan have social insurance systems.
I would imagine individual states would manage their own health services, with the federal government acting as more of a coordinating and standard setting body. At least that's how it works in UK, Spain etc.
Even so, the issues I am referring to go all the way to the top (POTUS) and descend down through everybody in the reporting chain to various degrees. And even for people who are Trump supporters, just ask yourself the question "What happens if the ONE PERSON I HATE MOST gets elected POTUS in a world where I depend on the federal government for health care?"
I know in years past we all though the US government was somewhat immune for really radical swings in direction and what-not, but I think now we have an existence proof that really sudden and radical changes can happen.
Legally, Microsoft, or any company, cannot use any personal factors in determining who to lay off. If they do, they risk a very real lawsuit. All one needs to do is show some evidence of discrimination, and the EEOC doesn't charge a dime, the worst they will do is deny to pursue. If that happens, most private lawyers will take the case on contingency.
This is the reason you see sweeping cuts without regard to age, sex, etc.
There have also been lawsuits in the past that have settled out of court where a company's layoffs appear to overly inflict damage on one class vs. another, even if the intent was not to do that.
I am not defending these companies at ALL btw. I just have a bit of experience in this area due to the legalities, and I wanted to share it.
I am also not saying that companies don't do this, but the smart ones don't, and the smart ones at least try to at least avoid making it look obvious.
In Germany, yes. For mass layoffs, this absolutely has to be considered. In general, the older the employee is, or if the employee has dependents, the more difficult it gets to both fire them or lay them off.
The regulations that make it hard to lay off someone have an equal and opposite effect of making companies very reluctant to hire. This impedes the efficient allocation of labor, resulting in a poorer GDP.
How much of this years GDP growth in the USA went to average citizens? What does GDP growth matter if your citizens have zero access to healthcare, can't improve their conditions, can't innovate, can't try new ideas because they are tied to healthcare via their current job?
How much of American GDP growth goes to Billionaires and isn't a useful health metric?
Billionaires become billionaires by making and selling things people want. Obviously, a lot of people want what they are selling, and think it is worth buying.
That's such an excessively naive, childlike take that it's hard to know where to start. You don't become a billionaire by "making and selling things". That doesn't scale beyond the low millions. You become a billionaire by leveraging existing capital to rearrange bits of the economy in such a way that money flows towards you [note]. Productive output, be it goods or services (which you seem to have forgotten exist) is strictly optional. You think Warren Buffet sits in his garage cranking out widgets? What planet are you on?
[note] For example, you might contrive to purchase the entire supply of some valuable resource with inelastic demand, and then sell it back to people, perhaps at an inflated price.
> You don't become a billionaire by "making and selling things".
See Microsoft, Walmart, Amazon, Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, Pixar, Lego, and on and on.
> you might contrive to purchase the entire supply of some valuable resource with inelastic demand, and then sell it back to people, perhaps at an inflated price.
It is irrelevant, if both are available as base package.
I guess you want to point out that choices are subjective.
That subjectivity is relevant within their classes (air—food-water, security-health-plumbing-heating, smartphone-car-vacation, yaht-designerBrands)
Definitely there will be one person who choses to die, just to get latest smartphone, but most people will not.
These classes get less clear/useful as you go up, but most people will agree on the basics.
Tangent: it is important for me personally for my neighbour to have the basics (and more), as that increases my basics like security, sanitary conditions.
it's not. An economy where only a select few benefit from the GDP (e.g. via stocks - the richest 10% of Americans own 93% of the stocks!) is not a "quality of life" measure at all.
It's not a good one though, because weird effects like the AI bubble incest investment web artificially blow up the GDP, and because it doesn't reflect the economy "feeling" the population experiences.
To expand on the latter point - say you have automation enabling more economic growth. A significant amount of people lose their jobs, others are afraid they'll be the next ones on the chopping block, and people hold their money together as a result - if you ask general people on the street or in representative surveys, you'll get the feedback that the economy is going to the dogs, but "the numbers" don't reflect that.
It is, but more generally. In many other countries, it is not so easy to lay off employees as it is in the US. It is also not necessary that your access to healthcare be contingent to your employer's whims.
Companies don’t have agency. People do. Compassion is a cross cultural value. Including amongst those that run companies.
For the most part none of us has any “required” obligation to anyone else.
Is it something we require of companies? No. But being a responsible, compassionate human being that considers the totality of circumstance is something I expect of that company’s leaders. Especially a company that has the money and need for technical skills elsewhere in the org.
The golden rule does not stop being true just because you are at work.
Preemptively: duty to shareholders is broader than short term profit maximizing. Avoiding bad PR like this is also in the service of MS shareholders.
As a side note: Nadella moved his home to Canada, while working at MS, so his special needs kid could go to a specialist school. That is absolutely the right choice. The argument that MS should not consider the health of their employees children is horseshit when they allow the CEO to set up house hours away in a different country for that exact reason.
At the end of the day, a kid suffered unnecessarily through no fault of his parents or his own.
And that's why people think 5 times before hiring such. It's already super hard to fire people unless they make gross mistakes. It's nearly impossible to fire someone like that. It's stupid.
Its not stupid rather humane, just very ineffective from economical perspective.
You want society where its everybody for themselves, fuck the rest, be lucky with ie your health so you and your family can have a decent life and one problem big enough can wipe you out? The benefit is more money, economy works better, is more agile to ever-changing situation. Just those extra money often go to that healthcare (since we all end up with various issues over time, the only exception is early death), or university for kids, or cost of properties.
Or something glacial, without real pressure to improve, more poor, but with additional safety nets.
I keep saying it over and over - EU should take over system (and mindset, good luck there) of Swiss folks. They strike the best balance between predatory capitalism that often grinds unlucky individuals and various safety nets (free top notch public education, almost free public healthcare, very good but not ridiculous social system etc). Unsurprisingly, mix of European competency and a bit of proper capitalism creates one of best stable living standards in the world, and arguably still The most free nation in the world (TM).
Its a place that french or germans just can't swallow - neighbor showing them how much better a similar society can end up functioning with few rather minor tweaks.
Read my comment history if you care, you couldnt be further from the truth.
What I wrote is reality about EU, whether you like it or not is another topic. I dont mention russia at all, that medieval shithole has (hopefully) no say in how European future will look like.
it is stupid because it leaves the company holding the bag.
The state can take over for such cases but instead, once a company hires such a person, they can become permanent leeches. Even when the company is having trouble with market/financials, it is difficult to cut.
> You want society where its everybody for themselves
Never said that.
> be lucky with ie your health so you and your family can have a decent life and one problem big enough can wipe you out?
How about working hard and taking care of health? How about not drinking/smoking, not doing drugs, and eating healthy?
> fuck the rest
Yes, fuck the ones who don't take care of health (and I'm not talking about homeless people) and then overburden the healthcare system. Why should we have to carry the weight of the trash humans? Why should one have to pay €1000+ every month for insurance, get cigarette smoke on face (of infant) while walking around in public places, and then watch these people drain healthcare?
In the US at least, there are needs-based high-risk insurance programs run by states that do just that.
Even so, while it's not a good argument against layoffs, the fact that it's even considered as such is in itself a reasonable argument against health care being tied to specific employment.
It's always the departments that are closest to the customer that pay the price in my experience. At one company, after killing QA, the support team created their own internal QA process. They were going to deal with the issues anyways, so they wanted to catch as many as they could first.
Jerry Berg is the person you're probably thinking of. His YouTube channel is
Barnacules Nerdgasm.
He's a super smart programmer, but seems to be suffering from depression since Microsoft laid him off. He often talks about his issues when he livestreams Tech Talk on Saturdays.
The other is a deeper societal problem with healthcare and loyalty between companies and their employees.
For me, they are unrelated problems. In a welfare state, the QA team may have been reaffected to some other tasks within the company and have the health benefits provided by the state, but it wouldn't have made the software less shitty.
Was he the reason shift-left hit mainstream? Recently, smaller non-faang companies followed suit and fired all the qa people. DevOps/SRE people are likely next.
Microsoft pays well. The prudent move is to not increase spending until saving up at a bare minimum 6 months of "runway".
I live in Washington. My accountant told me stories, one of which was a Microsoftian who got the big job, and promptly bought the most expensive house he could swing. He soon ran into trouble because he didn't have enough left to pay the property tax, and was forced to sell it.
BTW, Microsoft has unusually generous benefits for autism. Many autism clinics have sprouted up around the campus to take advantage of that.
Never, ever, EVER assume that a high paying job is a guarantee for life.
> Microsoft pays well. The prudent move is to not increase spending until saving up at a bare minimum 6 months of "runway".
> I live in Washington. My accountant told me stories, one of which was a Microsoftian who got the big job, and promptly bought the most expensive house he could swing. He soon ran into trouble because he didn't have enough left to pay the property tax, and was forced to sell it.
> Never, ever, EVER assume that a high paying job is a guarantee for life.
I do not know why you wrote this. This wasn't a guy who blew all his money on a big house and was forced to sell it when he lost his job.
The guy's kid was born with a low functioning level of Autism that required expensive therapy to treat. You do not choose that. He had savings, but he may be taking care of the kid for the rest of his life. What is he suppose to do? Eat ramen to save up 40 years of out of pocket therapy treatment when he was fired from a position that Microsoft should have kept? No, that is ridiculous.
The point was when you get a high paying job, the first order of business is to build up savings because jobs are not guaranteed for life. 6 months of runway gives one time to find another position.
> The point was when you get a high paying job, the first order of business is to build up savings because jobs are not guaranteed for life. 6 months of runway gives one time to find another position.
That applies to 'any' job and is besides the point since I mentioned above he did keep savings. Your comments comes off as insensitive since few jobs will make up for the generous Autism therapy benefit.
The difficulty is if you demand that once given a benefit, that benefit must be given for life, then nobody will provide those benefits. The more costs are imposed on an employer for hiring people, the fewer they will hire.
As for sensitivity, it is neither sensitive nor virtuous to demand that other people fund one's sensitivities. It is sensitive and virtuous to freely donate one's own funds.
Microsoft has, for decades, been known to provide generous funding for autistic family members of their employees. It's sensitive and virtuous. Criticizing them for not giving more is a bit unfair.
> The difficulty is if you demand that once given a benefit, that benefit must be given for life, then nobody will provide those benefits. The more costs are imposed on an employer for hiring people, the fewer they will hire.
I never demanded anything. You have an issue with reading comprehension. I took issue with your offtrack comment.
> As for sensitivity, it is neither sensitive nor virtuous to demand that other people fund one's sensitivities. It is sensitive and virtuous to freely donate one's own funds.
Your opinion-that is not mine. My other opinion is you need to up those reading skills.
> Microsoft has, for decades, been known to provide generous funding for autistic family members of their employees. It's sensitive and virtuous. Criticizing them for not giving more is a bit unfair.
Once again, improve your reading skills. I criticized them for firing people that they clearly needed to maintain a good product; one of them happened to have a kid with severe Autism. If they were not a monopoly; people would stop buying their product.
I haven't compared it in years, but Firefox's bookmark sync is better than Google's, it is a reason why I have stuck with it.
I think Firefox manages hundreds of tabs better than Chrome does as far as memory usage goes. I haven't used Chrome seriously in years, but people continue to complain about how RAM hungry Chrome is so I assume it is still an issue.
But Mozilla has been doing odd things that makes me question them. I would move to some Chromium based browser if ublock origin was... blocked... pun intended... because the web does prefer Chrome over Firefox. If this 3rd party browser is able to integrate some of the functionality of ublock origin that Firefox chose to remove; I would use it over the reasons I listed above in a heartbeat.
It's only Firefox that is never satiated with however much memory I throw at it. Any time my machine slows, the solution is to kill Firefox. Not sure what exactly they are doing wrong.
Set `browser.low_commit_space_threshold_mb` and/or `browser.low_commit_space_threshold_percent` to something you'd prefer, and confirm that `browser.tabs.unloadOnLowMemory` is set (I think it is by default).
The default settings are to allow it to acquire memory until memory pressure on the system reaches 5% free, at which point it will begin freeing memory. You can set a custom percentage or a specific amount of memory.
That or just run it in a cgroup with a memory limit.
Are you sure it is not malware? When was the last time you changed the profile?
Also, I have a ton of bookmarks and as I been slowly deleting them Firefox's performance has improved. This same giant size of bookmarks Chrome seems to sync out of order causing their placement to change.
Ublock origin also does slow down the browser a bit on websites that.. don't.. have ads.
Go to about:processes and kill whichever website's subprocess is using the most memory. Sometimes it's the main process but more commonly it's a specific site. Looking at You, Tube.
Supported by whom? Xorg, the server, no longer maintained. Also, OpenBSD users already a tiny fraction of users...if every single OpenBSD desktop switches to Linux and Wayland, not a single metric will change significantly.
The `-X` and `-Y` options were a mistake to integrate into `ssh(1)`, it makes an assumption that everybody uses an Athena/X11 type system. That said, you can combine waypipe with ssh to do the same thing (ie. `waypipe ssh` will give you the same effect as `ssh -X`).
> Their ssh supports the -X and -Y options to run remote X applications.
Cool, I remember using it in 2003 a few times. I highly doubt many people going to miss if those were gone. I would not be surprised if the majority of ssh server installations disable x11 session forwarding.
> Until then, get comfortable in a small and discardable minority.
Are you sure you're not confusing Wayland users with OpenBSD users?
X is deprecated. Its maintainers do not want to maintain it. They want you to use Wayland instead.
The major DEs have removed their X code paths, or will in the next year. The toolkits will follow suit. X is a dead end for new and non-legacy software.
Are there hard numbers to back up the 80% thing? I don't know one way or the other, I'm just skeptical because I still have applications which don't work correctly under Wayland (Discord), and if I have such problems it wouldn't surprise me if others do too.
I'm not sure why you would need to have "heard of that". If I was getting Linux to work on my computer as many people have, and got xeyes or xterm to work, I would expect other X11 apps to work as well.
Listen in most discussions bringing up security is a good way for you to shut the conversation down, but in the case of IPC anyone who cares enough will be knowledgeable enough to see it for the red herring it is
It is almost gone for me too, except that I can't adjust brightness on my laptop with Wayland. I can with X11. It's a long story but that's the TL;DR of it. So until all of that almost goes away, it's full X11 at least for some people like me.
I was surprised to learn that Wayland still doesn't offer control of keyboard LEDs like Scroll Lock, so unprivileged programs that use those LEDs cannot be ported to Wayland.
Even if I didn't depend on such a program myself, I would find it strange that Wayland gives the compositor responsibility for only part of the keyboard: its keys, but not its indicator lights.
After all they started by locking down everything and then they are creating all the openings that real world programs need to do what people use computers for. It's probably a better approach that starting with everything open and attempting to lock down, but it takes a long time and some of us will be locked out by some hardware / software mismatch. In my case it seems that Noveau can't talk properly with the backlight control of my card. Neither X11 can with those new kernel and driver but at least it can use gamma correction to simulate a darker screen. Wayland does not have gamma correction or it doesn't work as it should, I can't remember.
It's a failed article IMHO. It's to the point that the article should be pulled and corrected. None, as in zero TVs are made in the USA. They haven't been made in the USA for many decades. I HATE to say it, but an LLM would have given a better researched article.
I am not in data science so I can not validate your comment, but 30% of viewing I would assume mean users or unique/discreet viewing sessions and not watched minutes. I would appreciate it if Netflix would clarify.
Save you a click or two. Looking at this I have so many questions. Am I buying a mainboard? It is not clear. It lists ports: it only supports 2 ports? You have four options with 16/32gigs and 1tb of storage? Is the storage soldiered? If so, what is the storage? emmc? Soldiered memory seems to be a given in the ARM ecosystem, but the storage is completely unacceptable on a framework mainboard.
The only difference between the pro and the regular is that the second port is a usb-c over an hdmi? I am assuming this is the mainboard even supporting framework extension cards.
No listed Linux compatibility support. Forget if the NPU even works in Linux; I do not even know if this will boot Linux because the company did not bother to submit devicetree patches to the kernel for their SOC. No listed Windows support even.
my impression was the "pro" is the same board but comes with a framework 13 chassis, but yeah the lack of explicit details does not inspire confidence.
Article is paywalled so couldn't read it.
The Trump admin likely wants someone more loyal and willing to cooperate with what the oil companies want to do to develop the oil reserves including ignoring environmental issues (rubber stamp).
Maria may have her own ties to China/Russia and half of the justification for this action was to push them out of the country.