SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's executive order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. also applies to green card holders from those countries, the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday. "It will bar green card holders," acting DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told Reuters.
Green cards serve as proof of an individual's permanent legal residence in the U.S. A senior administration official clarified on Saturday afternoon that green card holders from the seven countries affected in the order who are currently outside the U.S. will need a case-by-case waiver to return to the U.S. Green card holders in the U.S. will have to meet with a consular officer before departing the country, the official said.
Source: The Hill
At least one case quickly prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy International Airport in New York filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry. Shortly after noon on Saturday, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an interpreter who worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq, was released. After nearly 19 hours of detention, Mr. Darweesh began to cry as he spoke to reporters, putting his hands behind his back and miming handcuffs.
[...] Inside the airport, one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, a supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, asked a border agent, "Who is the person we need to talk to?"
"Call Mr. Trump," said the agent, who declined to identify himself.
[...] An official message to all American diplomatic posts around the world provided instructions about how to treat people from the countries affected: "Effective immediately, halt interviewing and cease issuance and printing" of visas to the United States. Confusion turned to panic at airports around the world, as travelers found themselves unable to board flights bound for the United States. In Dubai and Istanbul, airport and immigration officials turned passengers away at boarding gates and, in at least one case, ejected a family from a flight they had boarded.
[...] Iranian green card holders who live in the United States were blindsided by the decree while on vacation in Iran, finding themselves in a legal limbo and unsure whether they would be able to return to America. "How do I get back home now?" said Daria Zeynalia, a green card holder who was visiting family in Iran. He had rented a house and leased a car, and would be eligible for citizenship in November. "What about my job? If I can't go back soon, I'll lose everything."
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:54AM
I'm a Socialist (anti-Capitalist) and there are not enough folks metaphorically standing close to me to accomplish what you have claimed.
I'm also an anti-Authoritarian (on a completely different axis of the political palate). [politicalcompass.org]
Anti-Authoritarians have showed up by the tens of thousands in scores of USAian cities (and across the globe) to march against Trumpian Fascism.
They have also been calling/writing/visiting their Congresscritters (most effectively done at his/her local office) to let their views be known.
This latter group is almost exclusively Right of center WRT economics.
They DON'T reject Capitalism[1]; they think that the economic system that allows concentrated wealth (and, subsequently, concentrated political power) can be tweaked a bit and everything will be just dandy.
[1] They also DON'T form/join worker-owned cooperatives; DON'T even tend to form/join labor unions; DON'T fight like hell when publicly-owned stuff gets slated to be privatized; yada,yada,yada.
It would be good if people would get a clue and stop calling those folks "The Left".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:55AM
Yeah, you can't be a socialist and anti-authoritarian. It's logically impossible to tell people you will be controlling what they have earned and not be authoritarian.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:36AM
Socialism isn't Stalinism nor is it any other form of State Capitalism.
Taking away people's stuff doesn't have anything to do with Socialism.
You're describing Despotism.
Once again, Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.
It is a system of PRODUCTION where ownership is distributed, not concentrated, and the workers are also the owners.
The associated -governmental- system is Democracy.
Examples of Socialism include Mondragon in Spain (since 1956) and the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of worker-owned cooperatives which sprang from laid-off workers starting their own businesses via Italy's Maracora law which re-thought unemployment benefits beginning in 1985.
...but do continue to show that you know NOTHING about the topic.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:06AM
Oh, cool!
So, in socialism, nobody's telling you what to do with capital you accumulated, because it's a democratic system that does not involve state mandates!
Yay! I'm there for socialism!
(Sounds kind of like capitalism, but gewg__ will explain the details real soon now, I'm sure.)
Since nobody's taking stuff from anybody from the mighty halls of government, I can accumulate billions! Yay, socialism!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:22AM
In that both Capitalism and Socialism are methods of production[1], you are correct.
[1] That was already mentioned. Apparently, you missed it.
In Capitalism there are people who produce nothing yet share in the profits.
In fact, in Capitalism those non-productive people get to decide how the profits are divided up.
Socialism realizes that those non-productive people aren't necessary.
Only workers make the decisions and only workers share in the profits.
Socialism is a much more logical system.
I can accumulate billions
Sure. Socialist workplaces are still businesses.
There are profits from those businesses.
The difference is that a Socialist business doesn't have any non-productive people skimming off any profits--much less, most of the profits.
It is all left for the workers to divide up, reinvest, whatever they choose.
Again, Socialism is a much more logical system.
Socialism works very nicely for the 100,000 worker-owners of Mondragon in the Basque Country of Spain.
It works just fine for the worker-owners in the more than 8,000 cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna in northern Italy.
In short, Socialism works.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:18AM
OK, cool, so if I socialistically accumulate socialist billions and reinvest them socialistically as I choose, how am I different from a capitalist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @01:14AM
Normal people, having accumulated over a billion, would retire and engage in recreation.
Some Capitalists, have small-penis insecurities, continue trying to accrue wealth long after it makes any sense.
I can't imagine how you could *invest* billions in a *Socialist* enterprise.
In order for an enterprise which you have seeded (not "invested in") to be Socialist, *you* would have to work there and produce.
The vote of any worker there (with all matters being democratically decided) would also be equal to your (single) vote.
If you can't break free from your maximize-profits, top-down thinking, and make-money-without-doing-labor notions, you will never be welcome in any Socialist operation.
Socialism is about maximizing the wellbeing of the community.
Socialism is NOT about a few individuals maximizing wealth extraction.
N.B. The Socialist operations already mentioned compete with Capitalist operations and routinely eat their lunches, earning roughly the same per widget.
Not having to surrender any of the profits to someone who was not involved with the production of those widgets means that every worker earns more per widget.
Socialism is better than Capitalism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @02:42AM
The reference was to the workers COLLECTIVELY reinvesting profits back into the operation i.e. a larger building; newer, more efficient equipment; expanded capability.
It's clear that you are simply a drone where you work and aren't involved in any decision making.
That's just as well; you have no imagination.
different from a capitalist?
Are you skimming off profits while not producing any widgets yourself?
That would be a Capitalist.
If you're the boss and you're actively involved in producing widgets and you reinvest *your* money into YOUR OWN company, that makes you an entrepreneur.[1]
Socialists can also (collectively) be entrepreneurs--without the "boss" part.
[1] Did you know that the French don't even have a word for "entrepreneur"?
(That's a Dubya-ism.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday January 30 2017, @12:53AM
Socialism doesn't have to be someone "controlling" what you earned. It can be entirely voluntary, in which case yes you can be anti-authoritarian. There's entire political movements based on the idea. You might want to look into them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @01:57AM
You're -almost- there.
Socialism IS entirely voluntary.
Don't think Socialism is for you?
Go work for a Capitalist operation.
(The 2 systems can both exist at the same time; they are just competing methods of production.)
The Bob Crosby Orchestra, back in the 1920s, was a worker-owned cooperative.
Though the name[1] sounds like one guy[2] was the boss, they actually made decisions democratically.
At the time, there were lots of bands which had a "leader" (owner) who made all the decisions.
[1] Bob's big brother Bing had already made a name for himself, so the band capitalized[3] on that fame.
[2] Bob was actually the least-skilled of the bunch; he didn't play an instrument and couldn't read sheet music.
[3] See what I did there? 8-)
Forced Collectivism is NOT "Socialism".
That's called Tyranny.
It's also governmental.
The governmental system that coexists with Socialism is Democracy.
Properly described, Socialism is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday January 30 2017, @01:48PM
I don't think that that's true; if you draw the political compass with its 2 axes "left-right economy" and "authoritarian-libertarian" then you can have both old-fashioned authoritarian left wing parties (e.g. Socialistische Partij in the Netherlands) and non-authoritarian left wing parties (e.g. Groen Links in the Netherlands). Of course just because you can draw it doesn't mean it makes sense or can exist :-)
If you mean something like: "socialism needs authoritarianism in order to force the corporations to pay tax" (I'm interpreting your "tell people you will be controlling what they have earned" here):
To form a corporation, is just a legal stamp that the *government* gives on a bunch of people's plans. The government can just dissolve the incorporation, if the corporation refuses to pay their taxes due, or if it refuses to have its accounts signed off by an external accountant.
Therefore the government doesn't need to be particularly authoritarian; it can be all hippy lovey dovey, and still refuse bloodsuckers to game the system, just by sticking to the already agreed rules. See how the directors like it if they are no longer shielded, and it's their own house on the line for any risks they take. If *I* would stop paying the bills, the government would wring me dry (I'm unincorporated self-imployed in Sweden, so the government is already wringing me dry, but that's beside the point).
Of course multinational corporations could threaten the government that they'll leave (taking the employment with them) if the government does'nt cut them some slack. So let them. Good riddance. I suspect it's for that reason that Royal Dutch Shell has headquarters both in the Netherlands and in the UK; so they can try to play both governments out against each other for favours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @09:01PM
Socialistische Partij
A political party (and pretty much anything) can call itself by any name it wants to.
(...and, again, Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.)
When you see a political party calling itself "Socialist", you have to ask "Are they attempting to empower The Workers?"
(Led by actual Socialists, the government of Italy did this in 1985 with their Maracora law.)
...or is the party/government simply trying to grab power in the name of the traditional elites?
(In Greece, SYRIZA recently pulled this bait-and-switch thing. Add Podesta in Spain as well.)
Socialism embodies distributed power and wealth, strong Democracy (with everyone getting a vote and all votes being equal)[1], and public ownership of natural monopolies (roads, bridges, water systems, electricity, natural gas, communications infrastructure, airports, mass transit, etc.).
If you have ONLY the last bit, what you have is is NOT Socialism.
It may be Liberal Democracy/Social Democracy/Christian Democracy as in northern Europe.
...and you likely have an Oligarchy.[1]
It could also be that you have State Capitalism (with a Totalitarian gov't.)
[1] To achieve actual Democracy and avoid Oligarchy will obviously require publicly-funded elections and hand-counting of paper ballots by lots of citizens.
If you let the rich buy up/mechanize your electoral system, you are doomed to always get what you've always had (a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich).
"Left" is Anti-Capitalist.
If you have questions about what is Left and what isn't, the World Socialist Web Site [google.com] will be glad to straighten you out.
.
If you mean something like: "socialism needs authoritarianism in order to force the corporations to pay tax"
Socialism overlaps Libertarianism in the principle that government should be as small and as local as possible.
For the logical exceptions to "small", see "natural monopolies", above.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]