Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday January 30 2017, @11:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-separation-of-powers dept.

From the what-separation-of-powers department:

The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:

The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.

The NY Post adds:

The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:39PM (#460863)

    It's been startling to hear my real-life social network's Obama lackeys asking the question "What's with all these executive orders?! When did that become a thing?!"

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Troll=1, Insightful=3, Interesting=2, Funny=1, Overrated=2, Touché=1, Total=10
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:23AM (#460885)

    Republicans have been abusing them since about the time of Teddy Roosevelt:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php [ucsb.edu]

    They've been on the decline in Democratic years, though.

    ... not that I support either of these bastard parties, but you seem so proud of your incorrect argument.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:55PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:55PM (#461331)

      Teddy Roosevelt is a pretty funny example of "Republican abuse." While he was originally a Republican, he did a lot of very unconservative things like trust-busting and actually resigned from the party to run against his successor Taft, in the process torpedoing both of them and getting Democrat Woodrow Wilson elected.

      Just because he has an (R) next to his name doesn't mean he's the same as a current Republican. Terms change over time. Lincoln was a Republican, too.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:55AM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:55AM (#460974) Journal

    They also reportedly started blocking people before the executive order was made as well.

    They've ALWAYS been blocking people. That's what they do. Its the law. [cornell.edu] That's what they do in EVERY country.

    Phony credentials? Blocked.
    Criminal record? Blocked.
    Terrorist? Blocked.
    Polygamist? Blocked.

    Where was this outrage when Obama blocked all Iraqi immigrants for 6 months citing the same 8 USC 1182?
    Or when Jimmy Carter blocked all Iranians under the self same 8 USC 1182?

    Do read half way down in the above url where you will find:

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    Yes: Used by Obama to block all Iraqis (except Catholics).

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:34AM

      by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:34AM (#461007)

      Well that is the section I missed when responding to TMB, but I find the full text adds a little more detail:

      (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

      and it conflicts with:

      (iii) Exception for other aliens

      An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

      I get the importance of both sections, and this is where a Judge comes into play. The POTUS isn't a dictator and can't just "make" things happen with zero regard for the law. Denying re-entry for green card holders is not covered in 1182 that I could find.

      Let us shine some more light on this comparison:

      the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

      from a conservative news outlet http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ [thefederalist.com]

      So they stopped processing refugee requests for 6 months, a similar yet quite different policy decision compared to Trump's. There was actual evidence that terrorists came in from Iraq (so they say) and it would probably have made a bigger stink if green card or valid visa holders were barred. Nope, Obama just paused refugee applications. I don't much like that decision and don't think it made anyone safer, but it doesn't compare to banning an entire religion. Oh wait, Muslims can still get in through Saudi Arabia, y'know, that country where the 9/11 terrorists were primarily from?

      Magagagagaga its so FUNNY! Oh wait, I mean the opposite. However I do get some humor from this travesty of "logic". Cold, bitter, black humor. Chuckles from the deep.

      If the conservatives here were being honest they would applaud Obama and say that Trump is just doing the same thing. But no, they're all raging and pointing fingers. All the articles I found started with "HYPOCRITES" or "HYPOCRISY", because as we all know conservatives are unable to agree with anything Obama has done. He bans Iraqi refugees for 6 months and you're treating it like a negative which should shame liberals instead of a positive you can draw a corollary from. Says a lot, that it does.

      --
      ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:33AM

        by tftp (806) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:33AM (#461091) Homepage

        An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations

        Does the Trump's edict have any religious test? I don't think so (please correct me if I'm wrong.) And in general, "beliefs, statements, or associations" are 100% falling into the primary test for a visa. If the applicant is known for chanting "Death to America!1!" and/or hanging out with OBL's buddies, he should not be permitted to enter.

        There is no conflict here because of the "if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States" clause. Harmless beliefs, like in Santa Claus, are OK. Clearly prohibited beliefs (like OBL) are no-go. Anywhere in between is up to the government (all parts of it) to decide. If Trump is not even asking the immigrant who his friends are, then he is acting legally. If he asks, then he might be in hot water. The law is written such that it is much easier to block immigration from a whole country than to stop a few militants - because then the criteria of selection will be endlessly debated in courts.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:55AM (#461095)

          > Does the Trump's edict have any religious test?

          Yes it does. It says there is special privileges for people from minority religions. That's literally a religious test.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:14AM

            by tftp (806) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:14AM (#461100) Homepage

            Yes it does. It says there is special privileges for people from minority religions. That's literally a religious test.

            You made me curious, and I read the full text of the executive order [cnn.com]. I found that these words do exist there... but they do not apply to the ban! They apply to RESUMPTION of the immigration after the 90 day period expires. I highlighted relevant phrases.

            (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

            It seems like they are giving priority to immigrants who are about to be killed by the majority, unless they are admitted. It is hard to find much wrong here if the total number of immigrants is limited. It's obvious that some Muslims would also like to get out of those hellholes, but at least they are not asked to convert or be beheaded on the spot - they are already Muslims, and Quran protects believers from other believers (how well - that's a different story, but at least they probably won't be killed for sport.)

            In any case, this executive order in this aspect only instructs the officials to propose changes to the policies. These changes have to be within the law, and they will have plenty of chance to be stopped by courts if need be, as they are not urgent acts. They will probably take months to formulate and approve.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:47AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:47AM (#461119)

              It's obvious that some Muslims would also like to get out of those hellholes, but at least they are not asked to convert or be beheaded on the spot

              Not entirely. Islam is split in two groups (Shia and Sunni). They hate each other just as much as the three main groups of Abrahamic religions (Christians, Jews and Muslims). That is, the extremists want to kill anyone from the other groups, and the moderates can live peacefully together.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:11PM (#461197)

                > Not entirely. Islam is split in two groups (Shia and Sunni).

                Its not just shia and sunni, islam is hugely fragmented, much more than christianity.
                For example, there are sufis, which are the source of their greatest artists and poets and are also universally looked down on.
                And within the sunnis there are qutbists and whabbi who are the ultra-crazy and are nearly as happy to murder mainstream sunnis as they are to murder shias.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16PM (#461199)

              > These changes have to be within the law,

              You know just saying that in the order doesn't make the order lawful.
              Kinda like the democratic peoples republica of korea isn't really democratic.

              > that's a different story, but at least they probably won't be killed for sport.)

              The sophistry is weak in you. Muslims are overwhelmingly the largest number of victims of extremist violence.
              Other religions are just a sideshow, its conventional muslims who are real enemy of the extremists.
              Did you not see that guy daesh burned alive in a cage?

          • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:57AM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:57AM (#461123) Journal

            Also, from the mouth of Trump-stooge Rudy Giuliani himself: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-rudy-giuliani-how-legally-create-islam-us-immigration-entry-visa-new-york-a7552751.html [independent.co.uk]

            Trump wanted to ban muslims, this was intended as a muslim ban. It is a Muslim ban with a thin (and inadequate) veneer of legality plastered on top.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:42AM (#461106)

          Does the Trump's edict have any religious test? I don't think so (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

          Yes, you are wrong. Have you heard of the Thirty Years War? Oh, American, sorry, I forgot that you are all geographically and historically disabled. Yes, Religious War, Protestants against Catholics, Dutch again the Austro-Hungarians, and the Fucking Spaniards fit in somewhere. So are you a Jew? Here, eat this bacon. No? Drop trow, and let us see your Johnson! Mostly, we just wanted to see your Johnson, like Peter Thiel wants to. But the point is, Religious test? Fuck yeah! Muslin? Wrong fabric! Calico? Gingham? Now those are true American Fabric! So let them through! Why does Steven Bannon insist on calling Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove? And why are they all rolling in Chiffon?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:25AM

        by Adamsjas (4507) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:25AM (#461102)

        There is no difference that I can see.

        ISIS is taking credit for all the carnage in europe an california and floridia. You can ignore these and insist it is some how not the same when obama does it.

        You can pick at it and try to create differences between obama and trump and carter all you want. But the point is that 6 months is a hell of a lot longer than 90 days. And carters multi year ban is longer yet.

        What Frojack quoted (f) was passed by democrats, signed by carter, used by carter and obama. But because they are democrats (oh, excuse me "Progressives") everything they do is somehow good or at least excusable.
           

        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:15AM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:15AM (#461129) Journal

          There is no difference that I can see.

          Then you aren't looking. Obama stopped processing refugee requests. Trump is turning people away at the airport. People with US green cards, even.

          It's the difference between the bank saying "no you can't apply to open an account with us" and "no you can't withdraw the money in your existing account".

        • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:46PM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:46PM (#461360)

          And banning valid visas and green cards is much broader than banning applications for entry. You can't insult your way out of a logical argument the way Trump does. He actually doesn't get out of them either, he just ignores people and keeps doing what he wants. You may see that as some sort of "strong man gets it done" attitude, which if you care to be honest with yourself is just your desire for a dictator to come in and force all the dirty liberal "progressives" to go along with conservative xenophobia. As someone else mentioned, it seems more likely this is a calculated move to appease the Trump supporters and polarize the country even further.

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:18AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:18AM (#461111) Journal

      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this passport. I am American suck-up collaborator! My name is frojack. Why do you betray me now, ofter I have put my entire life on the line for your country? You bastards! I a frojack! Translator! Helpful guy! Iraqi! And you will not let me in. Well, screw you. I am frojack. I can just as easily shill for the other side! You bastards!

      Can't really say FTFY, but modified for satirical effect. Sorry, froj, but you have it coming.

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @04:26AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 01 2017, @04:26AM (#461553) Journal

        What? Nobody knew that frojack was an interpreter for the American Forces in Iraq? At least his service record is legit, unlike that stolen valor bastard who keeps repeating the crazed ramblings of Cabinet Member Loony Flynn. Have you listened to this guy? Always amazes me that someone could get up to the rank of General without someone actually shooting at him with nefarious intent. But it amazes me more when said General just loses it at that point, because, you know, they were actually trying to kill him. So out with the "Islam is not a religion" and the "they are after my precious bodily fluids", and the classic "they want to impose Roman law on us!" (Wait, that might be Britain in the 2nd Century, my bad.) Crazy, crazy stuff, so crazy that the crazy cannot recognize how crazy it is. Those whom the Gods would destroy, the first drive mad. Logos, dudes and dudettes, logos! (Logos is Greek for "word", root of Logic and all those -ologies.)

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM (#460979)

    Executive orders "became a thing" in George Washington's administration. They're nothing new. The presidents who signed the most executive orders were, in order:
    - Franklin Roosevelt
    - Woodrow Wilson
    - Calvin Coolidge
    - Teddy Roosevelt
    - Herbert Hoover
    - Harry Truman
    - William Howard Taft
    - Warren Harding
    - Dwight Eisenhower
    - Ronald Reagan

    Obama was at about the middle of the pack in terms of both total number and frequency of use of executive orders. The idea that he was somehow unusually using executive orders has always been total nonsense.

    Trump is right now the most frequent user of executive orders, but that may settle as his administration gets into its second week.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.