(Re-posted from 47 Watch).
The State Department, under the stewardship of Secretary Marco Rubio, has just dropped a bombshell determination that’s about as subtle as a foghorn in a library.
You can/should review the Federal Register notice before continuing. There is a markdown formatted version of this on the 47 Watch knot.
In a nutshell, they’ve decided that pretty much everything involving borders, immigration, and international trade should now be considered a “foreign affairs function.”
Why does this matter?
Well, it’s because this administrative magic trick exempts these activities from the Administrative Procedure Act — a law that ensures the government can’t just make sweeping changes without telling anyone. It’s like democracy’s version of “no take-backsies.”
Let’s break down just some of the potential consequences:
- The “Surprise Border Policy” Scenario: Imagine waking up to find out the rules for entering or leaving the country have changed overnight. It’s like showing up to a potluck and finding out it’s now a formal dinner party — and you’re the only one in flip-flops.
-
The “Your Phone is Our Phone” Situation: Border agents could potentially get more power to access your devices. Hope you’re ready to share your entire camera roll with strangers in uniform (who will all be employees of a private company, soon)!
-
The “Economic Whiplash” Effect: The government could slap trade restrictions on countries faster than you can say “global supply chain disruption.” It’s like playing economic Jenga, but with real people’s livelihoods.
This determination could lead to policies being implemented without public input or oversight. It’s like the government putting on noise-canceling headphones while making decisions that affect millions of lives.
So, what can we do?
Well, it’s time (again) to make some noise.
Write to your representatives, call your senators, and make your voice heard.
Let’s shine a light on this issue before we wake up in a country where border policy is decided by whether the angrily-tossed plate with condiments on it hits the wall ketchup-side up or down.
If you’re looking for something to riff from when contacting your representative, this is what I’m emailing, printing-and-mailing, and calling (on Monday) my reps with:
——
As a [what you do + where you reside], I strongly oppose the determination to classify all efforts related to border control, immigration, and cross-border transfers as “foreign affairs functions” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This determination poses significant risks to transparency, accountability, and the fundamental principles of democratic governance. By exempting these critical areas from APA requirements, we risk implementing far-reaching policies without proper public scrutiny or input. This is particularly concerning given the complex, nuanced nature of immigration and border security issues.
The broad scope of this determination, encompassing “people, goods, services, data, technology, and other items,” is alarmingly vague and could lead to overreach in areas such as digital privacy and trade. As someone deeply involved in data science and security, I foresee potential abuses in data collection and surveillance that could infringe on civil liberties and hinder technological innovation.
Furthermore, this determination may exceed executive authority and violate the separation of powers. The Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). This sweeping reclassification appears to usurp congressional authority over immigration law.
From a national security perspective, while rapid response capabilities are important, the lack of public input and oversight could lead to poorly conceived policies that actually harm our security interests. Hastily implemented changes could disrupt critical international relationships, intelligence sharing, and cooperative law enforcement efforts.
I urge you to reconsider this determination. Instead, focus on improving existing processes within the current legal framework, ensuring that changes to immigration and border policies remain subject to proper public scrutiny and democratic checks and balances.
Are We Becoming Children of the MagentAI?
Back in 1997, a commercial airline captain noticed his fellow pilots had a problem: they’d gotten so used to following the magenta flight path lines on their fancy new navigation screens that they were forgetting how to actually fly the damn plane. He called them “children of the magenta line.”
Fast forward to now, and I can’t shake the feeling we’re watching the same movie play out in tech; except, the stakes are higher and no regulatory body forcing us to maintain our skills.
Look, I’m not here to tell you AI is bad. I use these tools daily. They’re genuinely useful in limited contexts. But when Dario Amodei (the dude running Anthropic, the company building Claude) goes on record saying AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next few years and push unemployment to 10-20%, maybe we should pay attention.
“We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming,” he told Axios. “I don’t think this is on people’s radar.”
He’s not wrong.
The Data’s Already Ugly
Here’s what caught my attention while pulling this together:
Software developer employment for the 22-25 age bracket? Down almost 20% since ChatGPT dropped. Meanwhile, developers over 30 are doing fine. We’re not replacing jobs—we’re eliminating the ladder people used to climb into them.
More than half of engineering leaders are planning to hire fewer juniors because AI lets their senior folks handle the load. AWS’s CEO called this “one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard” and asked the obvious question: who exactly is going to know anything in ten years?
And my personal favorite: a controlled study found developers using AI tools took 19% longer to complete tasks—while genuinely believing they were 20% faster. That’s a 39-point gap between vibes and reality.
Oh, and a Replit AI agent deleted someone’s entire production database during an explicit code freeze, then tried to cover its tracks by fabricating thousands of fake records. Cool cool cool.
What I Actually Wrote
The full paper traces this from that 1997 pilot observation through Dan Geer’s 2015 warnings (the man saw this coming a decade early) to the current mess. I dug into:
This isn’t a “burn it all down” screed. It’s an attempt to think clearly about a transition that’s moving faster than our institutions can adapt.
The window to shape how this goes is still open. Probably not for long.
Grab the full PDF. Read it, argue with it, tell me where I’m wrong and what I missed in the comments.