Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday January 28 2017, @09:22PM   Printer-friendly

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:36AM (#460136)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:06AM (#460154)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:22AM (#460189)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:18AM (#460449)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @01:14AM (#460463)

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @02:42AM (#460488)

          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]