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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:02AM (#460903)

    "won't affect anyone living in the US"

    Correct. Greencard holders from those countries who had left the US are a funny case: they very obviously do not live in the US. Nobody living in the USA is affected.

    "greencard holders are being denied entry to their home"

    No. We have long required greencard holders to spend most of their time in the US or face loss of the greencard. (it's a pre-citizenship immigration tool, not an arbitrary unrevokable privilege) Those who stayed in the US are fine. Those who left the US are still permitted to enter their home, but they will first need to have it shipped to where they now live.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19AM (#460911)

    Did it cross your mind that people who live in the US (on a green card), may have been traveling abroad on business or vacation when the order came down?
    "Shame on you for going to London to sign a $50M contract benefiting your US employer. Now go back to the ruins of your dad's Aleppo home!"

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38AM (#460967)

      Did it cross your mind we don't give a shit? Get out. Stay out.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:19AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:19AM (#461000) Journal

      The law is very explicit. You have to "reside" in the US - you have to be a "resident". The only exceptions are for people who travel abroad on government business. People who join the military are considered to be "residing" in the US while on active duty overseas. People working for IBM, Toshiba, or whatever other corporation or company are NOT considered to be "residing" in the US while traveling on company business.

      That is the very same law that has been around for administration after administration.

      Trump's is the first administration to make a show of enforcing the law.

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:36AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:36AM (#461009) Journal

        Perhaps that's what the law says, but in practice, the way it is administered is that you have to spend at least one day in the USA every year.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:46AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:46AM (#461016) Journal

          So - that's interesting. Let me run that back at you, from another perspective.

          For the past 50 years or so, immigration laws have remained largely unchanged. Congress after congress has kicked the can down the road, each one refusing to address immigration reform. Each party in turn has ignored the law of the land, for it's own reasons. Democrats are proclaimed to be admitting potential voters, and Republicans are proclaimed to be looking the other way in the interest of cheap labor.

          Now, we have an administration which ran on (among other things) the promise to enforce immigration law. He is (wait for this) ENFORCING THE LAW - that is - he is actually doing the job that the Chief Executive of this country is supposed to do.

          Suddenly, we have some people who have been ignoring the law for decades, who are suddenly being made accountable. WHAT A SHOCK!! What I'm hearing in response is something like, "You mean, the law applies to ME???? Why, I have NEVER actually obeyed the law!"

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:21AM

            by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:21AM (#461040) Journal

            But he isn't just "enforcing the law". There is nothing in the law that requires the executive branch to deny entry to people of one particular religion from a few countries (which the President doesn't happen to have business interests) that don't have a history of sending terrorists to the USA.

            He may have the right to do this, but it is clearly the act of a bigot and it appears that his actions are motivated by his personal business interests.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:06AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:06AM (#461127) Journal

              Whoa now - these are people from specific countries, which are considered to pose a threat to the US. It isn't just Muslims who are being denied entry. That little 12 year old girl in Djibouti, who escaped Yemen from her grandparent's home? She's Christian, not Muslim. So, it's not just a Muslim thing. You can call it "primarily aimed at Muslims", but it isn't specific to Muslims. That little girl is going to be the poster child for all the prostests, and she is Christian.

              • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33PM

                by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33PM (#461253) Journal

                Read the actual order. You will see that it carves out exceptions for non-muslims.

              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:35PM

                by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:35PM (#461257) Journal

                And also, there is no reason to believe that the people from those countries pose a threat to the USA. Recent history suggests that, if the concern is really security, people from Saudi Arabia should be banned.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:44PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:44PM (#461783)

                  Notice the absolute silence on this one glaring point... All supporters of this ban are just small minded people who are afraid of brown skin. When they can't reconcile their own ignorance they just pretend it doesn't exist.

          • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:39PM

            by DutchUncle (5370) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:39PM (#461217)

            >>> people who have been ignoring the law for decades, who are suddenly being made accountable.

            I eagerly await Mr. Trump being made accountable for his tax fraud and hiring practices and rental practices and use of undocumented laborers and breaches of contract and all of the other business dealings he got away with for years.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:51PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:51PM (#461227) Journal

              I think that is scheduled for the week after Hillary is convicted for selling influence abroad.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:29AM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:29AM (#461090)

        I don't want to call you an idiot, so please stop spouting misinformed nonsense.
        People on an non-resident or resident visa/green card can come and go as they please for business or pleasure, as long as they satisfy minimum stay requirements (the only exceptions are at some phases of processing, where it's recommended to stay inside the US).
        I know. Trust me. Experience and a company full of foreigners...

        So, if some Syrian on a Green Card went to London to sign some contracts for his US company on Thursday, planning on coming back on Tuesday, that's pretty f--ing legal, normal, and boringly usual.
        Being told that she can't rejoin her kids in MN, where she's lived for the last ten years, after Assad slaughtered her parents, is a pretty dickish move. Where is she going to go?

        You never got a green card without "extreme vetting". About an inch of paperwork, background checks, fingerprints, and that's the "white educated dude from friendly western country, before 9/11" version. I can't imagine the shit Middle-East people have had to go through since 2001 to get their green cards. "residents" are more likely to be harmless than US-born people. Check the stats.

        This is insanity, smoke and mirrors. Don't defend it.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:10AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:10AM (#461128) Journal

          Well - which law, precisely, guarantees that we admit any body from anywhere? Is there some right to immigrate, that is guaranteed to some group of people? We aren't required to admit anyone at all, if you want to be honest. So - a lot more people want in, than we want to admit. It's a seller's market. We pick and choose.

          Syrians and Yemenis are out of style this year. We are still importing some Saudis, but you can expect those to be out of style soon, as well. Don't invest in imported Syrians, Yemenis, or Saudis.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:21AM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:21AM (#461154) Journal

            We're not talking about "anyone from anywhere". We are talking about LEGAL, PERMANENT US RESIDENTS who have LEGALLY APPLIED to live in the US and have already been APPROVED and ALLOWED to live in the US and have the necessary paperwork to prove it.

            Are you wilfully trying to steer the conversation away from what is being discussed or are you just not reading the posts you are replying to? Maybe you need to go get some sleep because frankly, your complete disconnect with the content in this particular subthread makes you look either stupid or dishonest.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:33PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:33PM (#461211) Journal

              You're leaving out the word "conditional", which other posters have mentioned. Those legal, permanent, residents are here on condition that they continue to make all of us happy.

              Conditional residents. If you do things our way, you can stay. If you don't make a fuss over things you don't like, you can stay. If I rent an apartment, and allow a room mate to move in with me, he's there conditionally. Conditions like, do your laundry, wash some dishes, if you take my beer, you supply some beer next week, don't drape your orgies out the window to attract the attention of the police - things like that. And, I might even want to re-negotiate those conditions at some point in time. Like - I have NEVER seen anyone completely miss the damned toilet as often as you do - from now on, sit like a girl, or move out.

              Conditional. They aren't citizens. They don't have a "right" to be here. We can cancel their privileges at any time, with or without notice.

              • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:09PM

                by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:09PM (#461239) Journal

                Exactly which one of those conditions was violated when Trump arbitrarily decided to deny these people access to their homes, families and jobs?

                Once again: These are legal US permanent residents - husbands and wives to Americans, parents to American children - who have done nothing wrong. They pop out of the country for a short spell for whatever reason, only to discover that upon return they are suddenly and without warning considered undesirable based on nothing more than their place of birth and turned around at the airport. Is that really acceptable in your eyes?

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:19PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:19PM (#461245) Journal

                  Ya know, I actually might feel bad about a hard luck case, here or there. That little twelve year old girl stranded in Djibouti, for instance. (not a green card holder, but an applicant to become a citizen) People do get screwed, and the worst cases should be exempted from the rule.

                  But, the more harping and whining I hear on the subject, the more difficult it becomes to really give a damn.

                  The poster above claimed that one day per year resident in the US was enough to get by with? I'm saying, "WTF?"

                  But still, when we get down to it - these people still aren't citizens. They aren't exactly entitled to all the same rights that a citizen is entitled to.

                  And, it's not like they weren't warned. The freaky looking redheaded guy spent months, running a campaign full of promises to DO SOMETHING about immigration. We don't need those immigrants. Send them home.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM

                    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM (#461248) Journal

                    Well then, thanks for making your position perfectly clear.

                    It's an utterly reprehensible position IMHO, but at least I know I'm not misunderstanding you.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:31PM

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:31PM (#461252) Journal

                      Reprehensible? Is that better than deplorable? Am I moving up or down here?

                      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:18PM

                        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:18PM (#461310)

                        Down, actually. Congratulations.
                        Deplorable is a judgement of character. Reprehensible implies violating some social rule.
                        Since the US constitution protects your right to say xenophobic crap, we've called the Native American Immigration services to kick your long-term immigrant ass out of the country back to wherever your great-great-great-grandparents came from, because it's a genocidal place so they can't trust you.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:48PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:48PM (#461786)

                        Down. You are such a hypocrite, you stand for the US and freedom and all things good, but then when it comes down to specific issues you waffle based on fear and prejudice. Then you have the gall to hide it behind, as you call them, legal weasel words. I'm sure you will occasionally have decent points, but overall I'm finding your support of the FUD way of live despicable (to give you another adjective for your collection).

      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:09AM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:09AM (#461151) Journal

        Wait, you're saying that to "reside" in the US you have to stay within the country's borders all day, every day, all the time? You can't go abroad to visit relatives, go on holiday or go on business trips. Is that what you are saying?

        If not, you need to re-read your post and the post you replied to.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM (#461213) Journal

          Yeah, it's kinda like, you gotta actually maintain your primary residence here, to be considered a resident. There are other time sensitive things in our lives, as citizens. Like, in the service, if we stayed outside the US for xxx days continuously, we could bring in a bunch of booty, tax free. But, they guy who flew home for a week's leave in the middle of the cruise had to pay taxes on all his shit. And, booze. The longer you were out, the more booze you could bring back. And, Cuban cigars - oh, wait. I had to smuggle my cigars back. And, little hot women - oh, wait again. No wild women either.

          But, back to those legal residents. You want to go visit Mom, in Borneo? Cool. Go visit. But, if you STAY IN BORNEO for 6, 9, 12 months out of the year, guess what? You aren't RESIDING in the US of A.

  • (Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:41AM

    by Demena (5637) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:41AM (#460926)

    Have you ever heard of an overseas holiday? Or is that un-American and deserving of permanent expulsion?