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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:50AM
I need no excusing. Burning it all down is the most efficient and painless way to restore it. You, you'd have us spend another hundred years of riots and murders and trying to convince people to your way of thinking by calling them cocksuckers. You should be ashamed. Or silent. Either would do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:28AM
Kiss my ass, Uzzard. You think I wanted the status quo to stay in place? No. I want to see change as much as you do. But I want to see it done in ways that don't result in anything from a long, slow decline a la the Roman Republic all the way up to World War III.
You have no ability to handle nuance. Everything's black or white with you. We need a surgeon, not a berserker with an axe. Take your amoral nihilist bullshit and shove it so far up your ass your daddy chokes on it in Hell, then go join him.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:59AM
Right. Because all the surgeons have been so successful.
"Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?"
Wasn't he the great signer of the civil rights reform?
Or, if you like, Nixon, signer of so much environmental legislation that is deeply beloved these days.
You see, all those people in power love to tell us how nuanced and delicate and intelligent and surgical and careful they're being while wrecking more rights, while consolidating more power, while continuing to build the system that is the problem itself.
So maybe - just possibly, maybe - the scalpel isn't what it will take. Or there is a right surgeon somewhere, but we have no way of knowing who that is, and were to find such a person. Then it's time for the berserker, the Samson, the bull in the china shop.
Alas, but there it is.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:03PM
And what makes you think *I* think Obama was a surgeon? No, he was a slimy, self-serving, cowardly "community organizer," and his outrages agaisnt privacy, search and seizure, and due process are all the more egregious because of his background as a "constitutional Scholar."
Don't misunderstand me here; I believe the system went off the rails at least a decade before I was born, probably more. The blow that landed the country supine was Ford pardoning Nixon; Reagan's election was the mortal wound, and we've been bleeding out since then. I want to see the Demcorats either die or get back to where they were when they ran McGovern. We need statesmen, damn it all.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:05PM
I hesitate to interrupt a good flamewar, but I'll just throw another perspective into the mix. If you're going to start citing the decline of the Roman Republic, I really think you need to go back to FDR and the shift of the Democratic Party toward populism. (Teddy R. was also a good populist, but his changes were much less radical than FDR.) Constitutional law changed more during FDR's presidency than any other before or since, particularly with the switch in time that saved nine [wikipedia.org]. Whether or not that was because Owen Roberts actually feared the court-packing scheme or not, the net result was that the U.S. transitioned during FDR's presidency from a federal government with limited powers to one with essentially no limit on its powers.
That changed the nature of the presidency fundamentally, as well as the entire governmental system of the U.S., creating a path whereby future leaders in the U.S. could increase power exponentially. Couple that to FDR's populism and turn to embrace the "working man" in both North and South (rather than the traditional purview of the Democrats, i.e., southern racists), and you have the creation of the modern populist march toward republic decline.
Would we be anywhere near so worried about the damage a new President might do if he had only the pre-FDR powers of the federal government working for him?**
Those sorts of things (increasing powers of the central government, consolidation of power under a single government official, a turn toward populism and rural areas, a tendency to stay in power long than tradition -- FDR was elected for four terms, leading to a Constitutional amendment to prevent that sort of thing, and even stuff like concern over the plight of war veterans) should sound eerily familiar to those with knowledge of the Roman Republic. The Gracchi brothers in particular... except the Roman Senators had the good sense to club Tiberius Gracchus to death when he sought to be elected again.
84 years after the rise of Tiberius Gracchus, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and effectively ended the Roman Republic. FDR was elected in 1932 -- 84 years later, we hailed a new leader in early November, who has continuously threatened attacks on Washington and our existing governmental structure.
I'm not arguing for some sort of mystical historical coincidence here. Just saying the Romans themselves would have viewed this set of coincidences as a very inauspicious omen.
[**I'm not saying FDR's actions as President were necessarily bad, or even that some consolidation in federal power is necessary in a modern world. But the way these shifts occurred and the resulting empowerment of the executive was bound to lead to a Constitutional crisis sooner or later. That's why the Romans fought so hard for centuries to keep power isolated and temporary.]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:45AM
I disagree that it's the most efficient, and you're full of fucking shit about the painless part. That being said, I can't blame you for feeling that way. The only thing that pulled me away from Trump was the new Progressive platform the Democrats were building and the slight chance that Hillary might play ball. Before that, Bernie seemed like the only sane option out of all of them.
Otherwise, I'd voted for burning it all down too, but not with the delusion that it would be the most efficient and painless way to do it. It's just the way they we have, because the most efficient and painless way would be to be united, organized, and with an idea of just what we want to accomplish. Burning it down is just easier.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:26AM
You, you'd have us spend another hundred years of riots and murders and trying to convince people to your way of thinking by calling them cocksuckers.
Basic, basic error, oh Might Bizzarando! We do not want to convince anyone to our way of thinking, we just want to convince them to think! Yourself is a fairly good example! So please, think before you burn stuff down? Arson is almost never the solution to your problems. But thinking can sometimes be!
Consider the last time rightwing nutjobs got us into a mess, way on back in Vietnam!
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:18PM
We do not want to convince anyone to our way of thinking, we just want to convince them to think!
Fine sentiment! But what does thinking mean here? Let's google a bit.
There's very strong indications that "thinking" merely means agreeing with aristarchus. For example, I wrote [soylentnews.org]:
And we've since found that Marxism is broken in a variety of ways. We don't need the broken beliefs of Marxism. We can do better. And I find it remarkable how so often the response to the obvious benefits of capitalism (such as a globally wealthier humanity [voxeu.org]) is to merely insist they don't exist.
What was your substantive response to this criticism?
This is obviously untrue, and you do not know what you are talking about, and it has become even more obvious that for an otherwise educated person, your knowledge of economic theory of any sort is extremely deficient.
Note the dishonest rhetoric. There is no reasoning here, just an ad hominem attack that I don't know what I'm talking about even though I give quite a few indications in this thread that I do. If someone with way too much time on their hands should happen to read the rest of the thread, they'll also note your curious insistence on what thinking is incapable of (such as insisting that one can't think for another even in the face of my examples to the contrary - the edifices of math and sciences don't exist in your universe, of course).
Then there's aristarchus downplaying corruption because we didn't know [soylentnews.org] whether it worked or not:
I don't know if that could make Clinton win, but it certainly didn't hurt Sanders at least a bit.
Log in, Francis! Yes, you don't know, that is kind of the point. And certainly? didn't? I do not think you meant to use a negative there, did you not? So what about the algorithm?
And to clarify [soylentnews.org] his opinion:
Are you really going to try to downplay corruption just because it had an unknown effect
Is this an actual question? How can it be corruption if it had no effect? Or a counter-corrupting effect? All you are saying is that you don't know. You are saying nothing. By trying to make it seem like I am saying something, you are still saying nothing. What was the algorithm the Clinton campaign used? Oh, you don't know? Was it corrupt? Maybe, you don't know. Was it inaccurate on predictions? Obviously. Why? You don't know.
Notice his insistence on "know". So yes, something can be discounted because aristarchus doesn't know. A classic application of the argument from ignorance fallacy. One might want to consider the truisms here. We know that the DNC actually did pull these schemes for Clinton and they had the choice of not doing so. That implies certain expectations from the parties in the know that their schemes would work as expected.
Then there's one of the many times aristarchus sneers at jmorris:
Just not seeing any possibility of a practical application until that happens.
More evidence that jmorris does not understand science. The motto is: Ars gratia artis, you may notice it when the MGM lion roars at the beginning of your practical application pirated movie. But more precisely, Scientia gratia scientae, or "knowledge is its own reward." This is the problem with conservatives, Falangists, Neo-conservatives, Neo-nazis, alt-right, L/libertarians, Roundheads, Know-nothings, Francoists, Peronists, and all the other right wing people on the planet: They do not value anything unless it can be sold. Whores and Mercenaries, and Trumpeteers, they are, the lot of them. Weird science, indeed.
But yet, jmorris remains quite correct and quite understanding of what science and knowledge and what they can do or not do for us. Notice here that you give absolutely no reason for why "knowledge is its own reward" is at all relevant and completely ignore that knowledge has cost as well as reward. Your argument is not knowledge, but its opposite, anti-knowledge, which would make us worse off than if we remained ignorant. I suppose that is its own reward too.
Through these three examples, I think I demonstrate that you frequently do twist the meaning of "think", "know", "understanding", etc to mean "agrees with aristarchus". Far too often, you use empty assertions of knowing to cudgel your foes: khallow doesn't share my opinion of Marx, therefore, he is ignorant; Frances doesn't perfectly understand the impact of Clinton-biased DNC interference in Sanders's campaign and I, aristarchus know even less than Frances does, so therefore, it could have actually helped Sanders and not be corruption; and jmorris spoke of practical application of science so I, aristarchus must belittle him with irrelevant cliches about knowledge.
And that leads me to my final observation. aristarchus, how can you help others think when you so many times refuse to do it yourself and when you twist the meaning of mundane words and concepts, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:49PM
λογίζομαι γάρ, ὦ φίλε ἑταῖρε—θέασαι ὡς πλεονεκτικῶς—εἰ μὲν τυγχάνει ἀληθῆ ὄντα ἃ λέγω, καλῶς δὴ ἔχει τὸ πεισθῆναι: εἰ δὲ μηδέν ἐστι τελευτήσαντι, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν τοῦτόν γε τὸν χρόνον αὐτὸν τὸν πρὸ τοῦ θανάτου ἧττον τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀηδὴς ἔσομαι ὀδυρόμενος, ἡ δὲ ἄνοιά μοι αὕτη οὐ συνδιατελεῖ—κακὸν γὰρ ἂν ἦν—ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον ὕστερον ἀπολεῖται. παρεσκευασμένος δή, ἔφη, ὦ Σιμμία τε καὶ Κέβης, οὑτωσὶ ἔρχομαι ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον: ὑμεῖς μέντοι, ἂν ἐμοὶ πείθησθε,
σμικρὸν φροντίσαντες Σωκράτους, τῆς δὲ ἀληθείας πολὺ μᾶλλον, ἐὰν μέν τι ὑμῖν δοκῶ ἀληθὲς λέγειν, συνομολογήσατε, εἰ δὲ μή, παντὶ λόγῳ ἀντιτείνετε, εὐλαβούμενοι ὅπως μὴ ἐγὼ ὑπὸ προθυμίας ἅμα ἐμαυτόν τε καὶ ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσας, ὥσπερ μέλιττα τὸ κέντρον ἐγκαταλιπὼν οἰχήσομαι.
Plato, Phaedo, 91b-c [tufts.edu]
To paraphrase, ὦ φίλε khallow, you should think little of aristarchus, but much more of the truth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:08PM
To paraphrase, ὦ φίλε khallow, you should think little of aristarchus, but much more of the truth.
Don't you worry, I already have that covered. Also, should you ever become interested in the things you purport to care about, like say knowledge or truth, please let us know how that works out, kay?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:19PM
Oh, khallow! You were just starting to think, even critically, for a little bit there! And then you just shut it all down and made it all about me. I am truly sorely disappointed. Won't you try again?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:58PM
And then you just shut it all down and made it all about me. I am truly sorely disappointed.
You no doubt noticed that I didn't do that. I can't correct what I didn't do.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:25PM
You no doubt noticed that I didn't do that.
No, I did notice that you did, which is why I brought it up. Are you alright, khallow? This is not up to your normal level of coherence.
I can't correct what I didn't do.
Granted. But you could correct what you didn't know you did! See? There is that word again! ἐπιστήμη, the "epi" means "on" or "upon"; the "sta" root means to "stand", as in stasis, statue, etc. So knowledge is actually closer to "understand", even though the Greek means "stand upon".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:40PM
But you could correct what you didn't know you did!
Actually no, you completely miss the point of control systems (like this one of making corrections). Without sufficiently accurate feedback there is no control no matter what parameters I can adjust. In this case, there hasn't been sufficiently accurate feedback.