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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Flyingmoose on Monday January 30 2017, @11:19PM
Isn't this when the judge starts throwing the customs agents in jail for contempt of court?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:40AM
A presidential pardon can be issued and eliminate the issue.
And don't forget, while it is customary for pardons to be given at the end of a president's term, it is in no way legally required to wait that long. And given other past precedents Trump has chosen not to follow, pardoning anyone following his rules for violating the laws is well within his capabilities (at least unless or until he is impeached.)
This is actually pretty brilliant though, because it is calling into question the rule of law in the US, something which has been violated for decades if not longer in the US, and which hasn't had a major abuse sufficient to rile up the citizenry since the civil rights movement back in the 60s. Maybe this will finally help American society decide which values it stands behind, and if the current unified states model is really what is best for all its citizens.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:16AM
What are the federal laws concerning officers acting under the colour of the law in the US?
In many countries they could be charged with assault or murder for "doing their duty" under these circumstances. People acting under the colour of the law effectively lose all civil rights while doing so.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM
The US does have a Deprivation of rights under color of law [cornell.edu] law. The biggest benefit is that the individual or individuals who are doing the deprivation cannon hide behind their position. I have long said we need to see more instances of this being used as it seems all too often overlooked.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:09PM
The problem, I am afraid, is that in USA there are two societies, and they are getting away one each other day by day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:20PM
Wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president has commuted the sentence of an underling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby_clemency_controversy [wikipedia.org]
Would probably be the first time of doing it openly though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:05AM
There is a process. The detainees' lawyers have to file for a motion of contempt. But CBP holds enough cards that they can prevent the lawyers from even talking to their clients. So it is a slog. Rest assured they are working on it.
It helps that over the weekend the ACLU got $24 million in donations [washingtonpost.com] - 6 times their normal amount of annual donations. They are gonna need it though, there are a lot more battles to come.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:31AM
Isn't this when judges pass unlawfull rulings they should be disbarred?
Ignorant prick.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:54AM
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the courts cannot compel an organization's employees to act against the orders of their superiors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:13AM
And the Neuremburg Trials were full of people "just following orders".
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:17PM
Way to Godwin the thread. Besides denial of entry is a long way from gas-chambers and concentrations camps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:52PM
Besides denial of entry is a long way from gas-chambers and concentrations camps.
Unless the denial of entry sends people back to the gas-chambers and concentration camps, as the United States did to Jews fleeing the Nazis. Barrel bombs and chemical weapons are also not a long way from it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:53PM
Are you volunteering to let them crash on your couch? Put up or shut up.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @01:02AM
Unintentional Godwin, but can you think of a better precedent showing how "following orders" does not make you exempt from the law?
Besides, the tiny-handed one is Godwinning himself, calling for mandatory registration of a particular religious group, travel bans, and mass deportations. If he wants to avoid comparisons to the man with the silly moustache, perhaps he should stop acting like him.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:45AM
Federal employees have an obligation to follow the law. By not following a judge's lawful orders they are in violation of the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:58AM
Federal employees have an obligation to follow the law
Everyone does. Who you work for has nothing to do with it, save for special powers granted by certain occupations (eg law enforcement).
By not following a judge's lawful orders they are in violation of the law.
No, your boss is violating the law.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:59PM
If you violate the law, you violate the law. If you ask someone to violate the law, you also violate the law.
Why is that complicated?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:58AM
Do you really believe that? The courts can tell your employers to get stuffed and draft you. The courts can decide if you have been given an illegal order or not and deny you protection if you do obey your employers (unless they are the military and maybe then).
No, you are not a lawyer. And you are not "pretty sure". You actually know otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:31AM
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure
Of course! Sure you are sure! That is because you are completely ignorant of the principles of law. Not just US law, but law in general. Here, pull my finger, before I shoot you through you head because, courts cannot compel me to not do it, if my Corporal (YeeHaa! Superior Orders, dude! ) orders me to do it. Or, we could follow international law, in the abeyance of US or EU law. But every were law does not apply, it has jurisdiction. We will find you, we will hunt you down like Nazis in South America, and you will pay for your craven fealty to the President of Small Hands! You will. I will insert my own little present, before you are executed, you traitor to America!
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:43PM
But the courts can punish individuals who deprived an individual of their rights. Since they are continuing to violate people's rights it might be time to slap the individual agents with Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law [soylentnews.org] charges. Their job does not protect them from this charge as they are held individually liable.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:46PM
That link should be Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law [justice.gov]
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:57PM
Wait, what? That is exactly why they are there!
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:31PM
No, because the customs agents complied with the law, contrary to what the lying media reports.
The same way that the media depicts this as a "Muslim Ban" despite the fact Muslims are still able to enter the United States through over a hundred different countries on Earth, this executive action was:
1) Completely in line with the President's powers in the Executive Branch
2) Obeyed, in conjunction with the Judicial ruling, in completely lawful ways by customs agents following the ruling, who are, by the way, not beholden to Congresspeople, protestors, or the "sentiment" which you believe the Order stands for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:27PM
The judicial stay ordered the immediate release of specific individuals, and some border agents allegedly defied the order by instead choosing to deport those they were instructed to release.
That's not obeying orders.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Nerdfest on Monday January 30 2017, @11:23PM
They also reportedly started blocking people before the executive order was made as well. This is why letting your police state get too powerful was a really bad idea.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:39PM
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?!"
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:23AM
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:27PM
A certain segment of the population has been warning you all about this. But it is just fine to aggregate power in one place as long as you like the excuses, isn't it? That is the sad part of this whole story, and why "the left" can't be taken seriously by normal folk. Whatever thought process is behind this probably has something to do with why every attempt at communism has ended up being run by totalitarian dictators as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:10AM
A certain segment of the population has been warning you all about this. But it is just fine to aggregate power in one place as long as you like the excuses, isn't it?
You are right on the money on this one, however the entire mainstream society in the US has been ignoring the growing powers of the president. It is kind of disingenious to imply this is a leftist mess when it was the republicans who kicked it into high gear with the full blessing of their core demographics.
That is the sad part of this whole story, and why "the left" can't be taken seriously by normal folk.
If by "left" you mean "democrats" then these "normal folks" of yours are making the grave mistake of not taking seriously one of the primary political forces of your country. The Democrats themselves are guilty of the exact same mistake during this presidential election, one would think you will learn from their failure, but apparently you didn't.
Whatever thought process is behind this probably has something to do with why every attempt at communism has ended up being run by totalitarian dictators as well.
Could it be the fact that every attempt at communism has been attempted BY a totalitarian dictator? Radical regime change usually ends up that way, regardless of the political system being implemented.
(Score: 2, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday January 30 2017, @11:32PM
I'm gonna make some popcorn.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by garrulus on Monday January 30 2017, @11:34PM
http://voxday.blogspot.nl/2017/01/the-order-is-illegal.html [blogspot.nl]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:37PM
On top of that the *best* he could have done is for the people already in transit.
It was pretty much the same order as Obama did last July plus syria. So it was cool then but not now. That is more telling than anything.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:57PM
That is a lie.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/30/1627417/-Media-not-talking-about-President-Obama-s-ban-on-Iraqi-immigration-because-it-s-another-Trump-lie [dailykos.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:02AM
Here is one of the actual orders:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/fse_eo.pdf [treasury.gov]
So Obama targeted individuals not entire countries. Quite a massive difference there, but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative. I had a much longer post that was asking you for details because I was concerned that such a ban was implemented and I did not hear about it. Turns out to be more FUD from the Trump fanbois.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:57AM
Obama also claimed to have deported more people than all other administrations combined, remember?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:38PM
People are upset the president even has such powers. They think it shouldn't be legal for this to happen.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:50AM
Which is all fine and good for them to think. Unfortunately it is legal for him to do. That judge was letting his ideals outweigh the law [cornell.edu].
He's explicitly given carte blanche on this issue. The judge was wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:04AM
Ok, I said people think it shouldn't legal. Not that it isn't legal.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:23AM
Fair nuff. I even agree. Judges should not be making illegal rulings that they know will be overturned to allow people back in in the mean time though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:12AM
In which case the proper course of action is to go to a higher court and get the stay reversed, rather then ignore the Judge.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:21AM
Normally I'd agree but these judges made this ruling with every intention of it being overturned. They're simply trying to buy time for immigrants to return because when they do the order and the law it's based on no longer apply. They knowingly made illegal rulings for strategic reasons and such rulings should be ignored.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:31AM
All the judges are a bunch of SJWs. ::rolleyes::
And this from the guy who claims you gotta have "world class critical thinking skills" [theregister.co.uk] if you are a conservative on teh internets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:54AM
Four out of how many? Yeah, they're wrong and they knew they were wrong when they handed down the decisions. They didn't do it because they were right but to allow those outside of the country time to return.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19PM
Echo... Echo... Echo...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:07PM
Good question, how many Judges refused to grant a stay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:40PM
zero
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:27PM
Are you sure that there are no conflicting laws, treaties, or something in the Constitution? Even if what you say is true, America is a common law jurisdiction, which means Judges interpret the law and can even make law at times. The way it works is the Judges decision stands unless a higher Judge overrides or the Legislature (Congress) overrides or in the most extreme case, the Constitution is amended.
Just because some petty cop for hire doesn't agree with the Judge(s), doesn't mean that they're free to interpret the law and ignore it, at least if America is a country of law.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16AM
ok, now prove that 100% of the immigrants from country X will do us harm.
I'll wait....
if you have a list of individuals, FINE.
but that is NOT what is going on, here.
that's the issue. devil is in the details, which you seem to enjoy ignoring.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:24AM
You're trying to shift the argument. This argument is whether Trump's order is legal and whether the judges' orders should be obeyed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:25AM
Argument hasn't shifted, the president must act on the belief that they will cause harm. Trump's order is legally questionable based on mildly conflicting sections of 1182 and the Constitution, thus it is up to the judiciary to sort out. The POTUS can not act solely on personal opinion, there must be a reason that matches up with the law. In this case it is quite a fuzzy area.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:59AM
Those two statements do not jive. Beliefs are personal opinions and it is explicitly specified that this is the criteria for any such action to be taken.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:20PM
As the POTUS the "belief" must be backed by some sort of evidence, he can't just wake up and ban people from the UK because a british comedian made fun of him. Probably part of why such an order is subject to judicial oversight, to keep such crazy actions like I made up from being enacted.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM
No proof needed. Printed on every visa, printed on every application for an entry, the US has a statement that you may be denied entry for any reason. It's written so broadly, you may even be denied entry for no reason. Basically, "We'll welcome you if we feel like welcoming you."
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33AM
As with others, you are confusing a VISA with USCIS form I-551 (‘green card’); a permanent resident has to be given notice (quoting from the law) “The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status […]”
As you are too lazy to at least look up the law but feel entitled to voice an opinion, I will not tell you what the name of the law is. (Hint: LOOK IT UP, READ IT AND THEN VOICE YOUR OPINION)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:39AM
Those persons held out as poster children to prove how unjust Trump is have had visas or entry permits. I've not yet seen a documented case of a green card holder being denied permission to enter the country.
Looking at your own quote - it's pretty obvious that the green card can be revoked. Allow me to quote your quote:
“The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status […]”
"conditional permenent resident"
Interesting that. You attempt to use legal weasel words to imply some guarantee to the holder of the card? Good luck with that.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01AM
Of course it is conditional, otherwise it would be called citizenship. However, they can't be deported for any reason that doesn't violate US law. Being Muslim is protected by the 1st amendment.
You call the Constitution and laws of the US "legal weasel words"? C'mon Runaway, where is your reason? Are you so easily tripped up by emotional reactions?
I only got here by searching for jelizondo's reference to his own post somewhere in the thread, he was replying to TMB and got tired of repeating himself. The conservative arguments are crumbling as evidenced by the increase in ad hominem attacks. Why no more quoting of the law?
All that said, of COURSE some people should be denied entry!!! And 1182 clearly defines the terms. You'd think the all knowing NSA could provide some detailed evidence on who to admit and who to deny. Again, based on evidence and not irrational fear.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:15AM
"legal weasel words" was used in reference to a very specific quote, printed onto the green cards, that you mentioned yourself. The government has left itself an out, big enough to drive an entire brigade of Abrams tanks through. Legal weasel words, that mean, you've been promised nothing, and we can change our minds at any time, for any reason, with or without explanation.
It all boils down to the fact that green card holders have no more rights than a visa holder.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:51AM
It all boils down to the fact that green card holders have no more rights than a visa holder.
Which is farcical, why have two different documents if they are functionally identical? Why do foreigners jump through hoops (marriages of convenience etc) to get a green card if a visa is just as good? Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry. I think you are talking shit again. Besides, I can already see a significant difference just from the quotes in this thread: Visa holders can be denied at any time. Green card holders (AKA "legal permanent residents") must be given written notice - that's a huge difference. It means a green card holder can show up at the airport and (as long as they haven't received their written notice) be confident they will be admitted. Not so for visa holders.
However Trump has made the distinction less clear in his hasty, ill-considered, poorly-implemented, irrational and bigoted decision.
Oh, as for green card holders not being affected? Green card and visa holders were being blocked from boarding US-bound flights within hours of Donald Trump issuing an executive order [independent.co.uk]
Green card holders were originally part of the ban and many were turned away at the airports. The White house have apparently U-turned on that after about a day of chaos, (although they were somewhat confused about it: Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then {minutes} later said "of course" it affects green card holders [cnn.com] ). No Green card holders have been turned away since then, but green card holders from the 7 countries are likely to be subjected to extra "discretionary" scrutiny at the airport. Whether that involves a few extra background checks or a rigorous anal probing I don't know, but I do know if it was me I'd be very nervous about passing through a US airport.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:40PM
I'm losing so badly here, I'm switching sides. I'm going to start arguing Bill Clinton's side of this thing. I'm tired of Trumping here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0 [youtube.com]
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:17PM
Lol I was expecting something better. Podium rhetoric is not the best stuff to compare, gotta compare the actions. No one here is against immigration control as a thing, just the manner in which we go about it. You conservatives really need to stop acting like liberals hate everything you stand for, because most of the time there is middle ground to be had.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:25PM
But for you there are no sides, there is only "Runaway". You are like Trump in that regard, an ego so big and so unselfconscious that there is no room for anything else, let alone "sides".
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:08AM
Oh, gee! I’m quoting CNN [cnn.com] for you, as probably it is a trusted source in your view: “Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security initially interpreted Trump's order to not apply to green card holders from the seven banned countries. Trump White House overruled that reading, however, meaning those green card holders were initially barred.” (I bolded the relevant phrases.)
Can an executive order send all those people out of the U.S.? Of course! But with due process of law, not just throw them out like they were illegally entering the country. Which is why they backtracked, quoting from the same source: " 'This is our message to them: get on a plane. Come back to the US. You will be subject to secondary screening, but everything else will be normal,' the Homeland Security official told CNN. A White House official said Sunday more than 170 green card holders had been waived in as of 3 p.m.”
And not weasel words, just quoting the FUCKING LAW which you don't appear to hold dear. YES, they can be deported BUT following the law. No explanation needed, just an administrative resolution telling them to get the hell out. Yes, they can appeal the deportation order. And yes, they can be denied on appeal. But according to the law. Anyone not a citizen is a 'conditional resident' meaning they can be thrown out, even if they are married to a citizen; but they have a larger legal protection.
Visa holders are a quite different case, they can be denied entry on just not looking good enough to the agent at the airport and no appeal is available.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:19AM
Bottom line: The president has the legal authority to shut down immigration, at this point in time. You can appeal, which gains you a few weeks or months in detention, while waiting for your appeal to go through. And at the end of the process, if you haven't performed enough deviant sex acts for the right people, out you go.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:40PM
Real bottom line: the president issue an illegal order, has had to fire people that tell him it is illegal, four judges ruled it is illegal, annnd to top it off green card holders don't quite fit into "immigration" like you're imagining.
Deviant sex acts? Seems like the massive push back against this stupid order is pushing your personal limits of criticism. The strong man act doesn't work so well anymore, too many people are educated enough that you can't just intimidate them with strong phrases like "Bottom line".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 02 2017, @01:39AM
On the contrary, the push back is against the liberals, who want to redefine common words, so that they can confuse issues.
You don't get to decide that the United States isn't the United States anymore, just because you have been brainwashed into thinking that you are a "citizen of the world". Nations and nationalism are still a thing.
Trump has issued no illegal orders. He has acted within his legal authorities. You don't like that, so you want to change definitions. Doesn't work, Bubba.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:31PM
This is about changing an INDIVIDUAL's status after due process, just like suspending a driver's license. It is not about blanket changes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:42PM
Yeah Vox Day is where I go when I need me some legal advice.
That guy is widely known for his principled support for the institution of law.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NewNic on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:25AM
OMG, a blog posting saying that the judge is wrong!!!!!!
My whole world view just pivoted 180 degrees. Wow. How can an anonymous blog poster possibly be wrong?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:52AM
US Code 1182 also says he is wrong. There are no restrictions put on this presidential power. Trump has absolute free reign and both he and the judge know it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:09AM
trump is a PRESIDENT, not a KING.
no such thing as abs free reign in the US.
trump will get punished. you wait and see. judges do not like being told 'no' when they make their decision and they are not under the president's control. that's why there is an exec branch sep from the others.
pres != king
PERIOD!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:21AM
Read the law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:02AM
neither you (I assume) nor I are lawyers.
asking laymen to 'read the law' is like asking the milkman to read my python code....
I admit I don't know how to parse laws and legal documents. do you have such powers? somehow, I seriously doubt it.
(hint: even lawyers with decades of experience disagree about matters of law. why you think its simple: that tells us a lot about how your mind works, I guess. nothing in 'law' is simple. nothing!)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:15AM
Seriously, read it. It is quite simple. (f) is the bit you're looking for. Barring some case law between when Clinton did the exact same thing and now, there's not a chance in hell those judges' rulings will stand. And they knew it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Desler on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:23PM
Since when have laws been absolute and above judicial review? Oh right, never.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:51PM
Never said they were. A judge ruling on the law rather than ideals would have granted an immediate stay on their order though. These rulings were directly counter to both book and case law and thus illegal. Unfortunately you don't get to throw judges off the bench for that. Or do anything else to them. They are above the law. So you do the only thing you can and ignore their rulings until the appellate courts slap them down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:03AM
Nobody likes being told "no". You don't either. Unless you happen to be a petty tyrant, sometimes you have to suck it up, and stop acting like a special snowflake. Them's the facts of life.
Now, go read the law. It's been posted multiple times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:22AM
No vontrary to what you and Herr Trump think he is not an absolute monarch.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:27AM
Never said he was. But read the law. He does explicitly have this power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:19PM
And the judiciary has the power to overturn it. It's called checks and balances.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:47PM
And what happens when the judiciary makes a ruling it knows is illegal and will be overturned simply to buy time enough that those currently outside the country can return? Where's the check on that power? No, you do not follow illegal orders.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:10AM
So I read the law and I don't see any clause that allows for the President to unilaterally deny entry to people holding valid visas, unless they fit into a defined category. Do you perhaps think that they are all doctors planning to practice medicine when they arrive?
It's possible that I missed something, so I would appreciate you directing my attention to the specific relevant clause.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23AM
You're confusing my position that Trump is allowed to do what he does with the position that he should be doing it. As for him being allowed, he is allowed to deny entry to any alien or group of aliens, regardless of classification, for any reason he thinks justifies doing so. Search for:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:35AM
You could have said 1182(f) if you wanted to be constructive, rather than a douche.
1182(f) is a very broad delegation of authority, to be sure, but:
(1) There are limits on what authority Congress is allowed to delegate.
(2) Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have.
I'll focus on (2) since I know more about it. Both religion and national origin are recognized as suspect classes by the Supreme Court: the executive order directly discriminates based on the latter and is discriminating based on the former through a transparent pretense. That's certainly enough for a reasonable case to be made for unconstitutionality.
What will the ultimate appellate ruling be? No clue. I suspect this will be the first of many Supreme Court case which come into being over the next four years because no one was stupid or spiteful enough to do something before. But calling the judge a hack or fraud or whatever is absurd.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:50AM
Sure they can, just say it falls under the Commerce Clause like everything else they want to do but don't have the authority to do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:53PM
Well not like everything else. Sometimes it is considered a tax and not a tax so that it can wriggle in and out of the taxing authority of congress as needed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:52PM
Heh, good one. +1 for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:58AM
Don’t go for legal advise to an anonymous sources pal, you’ll get your ass in jail.
The travel ban included ‘permanent residents’ which does away with the opinion that the judges (four as of now) had no legal standing because visa-holders are not guaranteed entry into the US.
Quoting the BBC [bbc.com]: “[…] Department of Homeland Security officials had revealed that the executive order would extend to permanent residents of the US coming from the seven banned countries.”
You should have been suspicious when four different federal judges granted motions of stay against the travel ban for different people. One judge? Maybe she’s wrong, four? Don’t think so.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:57AM
Read then [cornell.edu]. The bit you're wanting is "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President". There is no gray area there. Trump can do what he thinks he can. The judges are wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:14AM
are you a lawyer?
you seem pretty sure of yourself...
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:18AM
Read the law. It's quite explicit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:55AM
The problem is everything else that you don't know.
The law does not exist in a vacuum.
Its modified by other laws.
And since you didn't even find that statute yourself, I'm pretty sure you have zero idea what other laws apply.
But you know who probably does know? A judge. Or maybe 2 judges. Or even 4 of them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:15AM
Is it? Show me where. I provided a citation for my claim, can you do the same?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:35AM
Ah, you're so cute. I literally just said I'm deferring to the experts, you stomp your little princess foot and demand that I not.
Tell you what, I'll play chicken with you. You go find the rulings from those four judges and tell us all what's wrong their legal determinations.
Not just blindly cite a single statute that you don't really understand, read the rulings and tell us how they fall short.
Once you've actually put the work in that you demand of me, then I'll do the same for you.
Of course you won't, because your an idjit whose only skill is motivated reasoning.
But maybe I'm wrong. If I am, its easy enough for you make me look like a fool.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:57AM
You're doing that fine by yourself. I cite very definitive supporting law and you back your position up with... what? Rhetoric?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:10PM
Surprise, ya wussed out.
So what if you cited something?
Its not applicable to arguments presented in those courts.
I may be an anonymous coward, you are an intellectual coward.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:44PM
Name calling now? How juvenile can you get in an effort to not have to back up your assertions?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:07PM
You have yet to address any of the points raised in the FOUR rulings, but I'm the one not backing my assertions.
That kind of intellectual dishonesty invites name calling.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:12AM
I happen to be a LAWYER while you are not; so don't try to teach your grandma how to suck an egg.
You are confusing a VISA which is issued to a student, tourist or other aliens for temporary admission to the U.S. with a ‘green card’ which is issued to a person granting them a right to reside permanently in the U.S.
Most VISA holders are forbidden from working in the U.S., for example, while residents can and mostly do have a job or own a business, probably have bought a home and other stuff.
So don’t read any law, read the applicable law. (You seem so sure, so go on a dig a bit more.)
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:21AM
No, Mr. LAWYER, I was not. I said nothing about status whatsoever. Any alien of any status falls under that law unless you can point out somewhere else, because the quoted law does not, that says otherwise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:40AM
I just replied to another doofus, so go read that comment where I do quote the law, but since you too are lazy and feel entitled to an opinion in a field where you have no experience, I will leave you the task of looking up the appropriate law.
What would you say to someone who knew nothing about something but decides to give you an argument? I quote from your own journal: “Most days it's fun smacking down the willfully ignorant but sometimes outside forces conspire to make me too tired to bother.”
So I'll go pop me another beer and ignore you...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:52AM
Darlin, I can read code. Laws are easy. Cite your argument or STFU.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:49PM
Wow. You're actually as dense as your comments make you appear! Bravo!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:32PM
Are you also an Attorney?
Anybody can be a Lawyer, being an Attorney is a little bit more involved.
(Score: 2) by Desler on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:44AM
What authority! A random blogspot posting!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:50AM
From your link
It's more serious than it looks at first glance, and confirms my opinion that Trump needs to crush this attempt to delegitimize his authority.
A sentiment that would make Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stalin and Mao quite proud. Yes, we need to crush check-and-balances so Glorious Leader Trump can rule as a true dictator.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday January 30 2017, @11:38PM
They started with the Constitution, continued with all sorts of legislation to make past indiscretions legal, and now we get to see a flagrant disregard of a judicial order. No matter where you stand on the issue it is generally held that we obey the laws of the land. This is precisely how fascism progresses, rewriting laws to suit agendas and flagrant disregard for inconvenient laws. This is indeed the slippery slope, and it looks like we're sliding head first into a rule by FUD.
From their own update: We can now expect "public safety" to be a catch all for law enforcement to do whatever they'd like the same way they've been doing for years with "national security". This is the scope creep we have been expecting. But don't worry! It only affects a minor portion of international travelers. Sure sounds like it won't affect anyone living in the US, oh wait, greencard holders are being denied entry to their home. Suddenly there is a new invisible law that only exists in the heads of law enforcement, don't ever make a scene or they will stomp on your face yelling "for the safety of the public!"
Shall I Godwin this thread? Or are the parallels becoming eerily familiar yet? Checks and balances work only as long as they are respected. Seems like some members of the DHS should be thrown in prison right about now, but I'm pretty sure they'll trot out some bullshit and tell everyone to stuff it.
To be supportive of everyone's FUD I will say that if the experts believed this ban would work, and if the ban actually targeted the correct countries, then I would be supportive of it. However, currently the ban doesn't look like it will work given our knowledge of how past terrorists were able to enter various countries.
This ban is bullshit FUD aimed at whipping up partisan hatred: the left will call the right bigoted racists and the right will call the left traitorous morons. In the meantime families will be split, innocent individuals will be abused, and nothing good will come of it all.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:43PM
Only a market can produce law: Voluntary agreements between individuals, which establish a protocol of interaction whose enforcement is also well defined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:52PM
Hey, Amerikan! How much would you need let me come in you country, to, um, do some businesses? I can pay a lot! In'shalla!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:11AM
Only a market can produce law
Hammurabi says otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:46PM
Again, that's a dictate...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:47PM
Everything is a market as long as there are at least two goods, with one being the price numeral for the rest.
- An actual economist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:42PM
You weird wackos and your "system of contracts between individuals" can't address the huge glaring problems with your approach. You're reinventing the wheel and trying to sell it as antigravity. Probably best to ignore it from now on and stop wasting my own time trying to educate weird idealists.
(Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:17AM
Actually, Mike Godwin, the man who codified Godwin's Law in the first place, pointed out last month that it's okay [washingtonpost.com] to compare leaders to Nazis or Hitler if they actually are like Nazis or Hitler in a substantive way. He specifically mentions Trump:
He explains his reasoning in the linked article, which he wrote for the Washington Post.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:21AM
Oh yes I know, I've just gotten a bit of blowback for using the Nazi reference so I tip toed a little more with some tongue in cheek commentary.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:27AM
Nazis are overused. For some fresh comparisons, the US Civil War has lots of material. Trump is kinda like Jefferson Davis. Bigoted, delusional, and President of less than half the nation. And American. Davis was all too willing to preside over mass butchery. Wouldn't surrender either. Shouldn't he have surrendered unconditionally when the capital, Richmond, fell? Instead, he moved the capital to Danville. How about when Lee surrendered a week later? Nope, wouldn't quit then either, instead fleeing Danville to try to slip out of the country.
Difference is, Hitler was crazy, or at the least much crazier. Hitler committed suicide rather than suffer capture or retreat. Davis did finally find the sense to run, and when captured, took it with some dignity. I'd put Trump between Hitler and Davis on the crazy spectrum, but closer to Davis.
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:03AM
Well, now that we know it was OK... I just want to point out that HRC is just like Hitler. And the 'Protesters' are just like Brownshirts. And you that don't realize this are just like the sheeple of the German public in the 1930s - willfully blind and fully culpable.
This is why comparisons to Hitler and Nazis is generally a bad idea and almost always counterproductive.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:43AM
"I know you are, but what am I!"? That's all you've got? My 5 year old daughter stopped using that as a rhetorical device a couple of years ago. Are you sure we haven't always been at war with Eastasia, while your at it?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:02AM
"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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19AM
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
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
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.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:36AM
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
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!"
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:21AM
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
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.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33PM
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
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
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
>>> 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
I think that is scheduled for the week after Hillary is convicted for selling influence abroad.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:29AM
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
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.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:21AM
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
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.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:09PM
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
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.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM
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
Reprehensible? Is that better than deplorable? Am I moving up or down here?
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:18PM
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
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
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
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.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:12PM
You do realise that nothing you have posted here is at all pertinent to the conversation, don't you?
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:41AM
Have you ever heard of an overseas holiday? Or is that un-American and deserving of permanent expulsion?
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:05AM
These aren't checks and balances we're talking about. They're blatant abuses of judicial power in order to allow returning immigrants time to return. They know that these rulings will be overturned; they don't care though as long as it serves its purpose for a week or two.
Read US Code 1182. There is no wiggle room. Trump explicitly has the power to do what he has done and there is no way to interpret the relevant bit in any other manner. These are illegal judicial orders.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:50AM
U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II - 1182
Section A:
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admissionExcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
.............
...........
(3) Security and related grounds
.......
(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.
First off, 1182 is about individuals and I saw no provision for entire nations. Secondly, the section I quoted specifically states that no one shall be excluded for any reason if it doesn't violate any U.S. laws. Of which, in the constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, shall the ideological traitors that like to comment on this site so vocally care to address this little conflict of law? I've had it with all the self-serving backwards logic trying to justify xenophobia and FUD being used to strip freedoms away from US citizens simply because it matches up with the bullshit so many were raised with. Land of the free, except when politically convenient.
No need to bring up all the bullshit Democrats have pulled, I would only join with you in decrying the crap that is foisted on us by manipulating people's compassion.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:52AM
Sonofabitch I thought I was logged in, AC was me quoting section 1182. It tickles me that you handed me the means to prove you wrong. I didn't do a detailed reading, did I miss a clause which makes it admissible to exclude innocent people?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:17AM
You didn't though. See above.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:45AM
So this [soylentnews.org] is by me and not an AC? Shows AC to me...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:55AM
It's AC, I just saw your "oops" post before I replied.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:16AM
There you are. Black and white. Any class of aliens.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:50AM
My reply to frojack [soylentnews.org]
The two sections seem somewhat conflicting, however if you read the top of 1182:
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
So "class" does not refer to the dictionary term: "a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort."
The code clearly defines the admissible classes and clearly defines the exceptions, you can't just group people together such as "all people with curly hair!". Since such distinctions can become quite tricky to sort out we rely on judges to help interpret the law. As someone else stated here [soylentnews.org] there are now four judges who have issued the same injunction.
Black and white? I think not.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:02AM
Those are simply the ones that are not allowed visas or admission. Even if you read it in the most favorable light possible, class was clearly not exhaustively defined above because those people are already ineligible for admission and the President would never have any need to deny them entry, thus it means what the dictionary says it means.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:17AM
Not how laws work. Unless a word is specifically stated to cover extenuating circumstances such as:
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
"under the following paragraphs" does not mean "and any other situation that the POTUS deems appropriate". The use of "class" in 1182 is very specific, as are the exceptions. Lawyers can't squeeze in a reason to give someone entry that isn't covered in 1182, and likewise they can't deny entry to anyone not covered by the extensive definitions put forth.
Your logic will quickly lead to tyranny if the letter of the law can become subject to human opinion. Legalese is a real word because it refers to the practice of general words obtaining very specific definitions when interpreted as law, and it is why we have ridiculous EULAs. Without legalese anyone could argue any point they'd like and judges could make decisions based on personal opinion of what any given word refers to.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:16AM
No, that law quite explicitly states that those aliens that would normally be allowed in can be denied entry by yon President. Allowing him only the ability to deny the entry of those already denied is not how that law is going to be interpreted by any judge with more intellectual honesty than he has ideals. You're reading what you want instead of what is there.
This action is not without precedent [strongvisa.com] (excuse the pdf and start looking at page nine) either. Every one of the last five Presidents has interpreted and used this law in exactly the same way, though in lesser scope. Interesting side fact: Obama used it more times than any past President.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:13PM
The scope is the big problem along with the rationale. At least four judges disagree with you, but I guess you'll write them off as pinko-commie traitors in the pockets of big media. Stop trying to make it seem like the POTUS is a CEO that can issue any demand because they're on top of the pyramid, that isn't how the US government is set up.
... any judge with more intellectual honesty than he has ideals
So if they don't agree with you then they're intellectually dishonest and operating purely on their personal beliefs? Four judges TMB, four. Probably more in the near future unless they fix this new EO to be in line with US law. Stop blindly defending the action just because you want to stick it to those illegals and Muslims
I looked at page 9:
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in specified ways (e.g., engaging in “actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability” of that country or may lead to or result in the
See, that targets individuals. Also I liked this piece above it:
Distinctions between aliens based on nationality, in contrast, have historically been viewed as a routine feature of immigration legislation and subjected to deferential rational basis” review by the courts
So banning entire nations is a gray area, and can be reversed by the judiciary. If it was good enough for Obama then its good enough for Trump, or are we done comparing the two now that it kind of breaks down your argument?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:12AM
"This is precisely how fascism progresses, rewriting laws to suit agendas and flagrant disregard for inconvenient laws."
You refer to the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Let us not forget that both parties were onboard with all that nonsense. Let us not forget that the Patriot act wasn't cobbled together, overnight, either. It had been sitting on a shelf for years, collecting dust, just waiting for some dire emergency to put the Fear of God® into congress and the American people.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:43AM
Yup, 100% agree. I've called many times for an end to our partisan discussions. Referring to "conservative" or "liberal" is bad enough, but hey we're human and need labels. However, Democraps and Republicants have shown themselves to be servants of the same fascist program. Let us start being more vocal about those institutions being their own thing and not representative of "we the people". They both cleverly twist the emotions of their constituents so that they'll support nasty shit that actually goes against their values.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01AM
Two wrongs do not make a right.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:19AM
But three lefts might make a right?
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:26PM
If it's on the same road it makes a u-turn, if pedestrians are in the way it makes a murder charge.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:40AM
We can now expect "public safety" to be a catch all for law enforcement to do whatever they'd like...
Maybe you'll be getting a suitable committee [wikipedia.org] to oversee things?
I'm surprised - I avoided yet another Hitler reference.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:49PM
A lot of CBP people see themselves as defenders of the country. This EO gives them all kinds of personal validation that their jobs are important, that they are important. Of course they are going to take every opportunity to keep the barbarians out. They've gone for so many years just waiting to catch a terrorist and be a hero. But since terrorists make up a barely measurable fraction of people who come through customs every day, essentially none of them have ever stopped a terrorist. Its like they've had blue-balls for a decade and Trump just gave them a handy.
Its the downside of discretion, it will be abused when the abuser thinks they are righteous. They don't see it as abuse, they see it as answering the call of duty.
Its shitty as fuck for all the people these glorified mall cops are fucking with and I'm not excusing it. I'm saying its completely predictable human nature.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:26PM
Or maybe it's just about people obeying their local supervision who have the power to fire them for not doing their job, which supervision is in turn afraid of losing THEIR job, and so on. The summary phrase is "I was just following orders. "
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:44PM
Well, the EO has caused their unions to have multiple orgasms. [theintercept.com]
So I don't think its just the supervisors.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:02AM
For the next few years, at least, we're not going to be taking our vacation in the united states. From canada and usually drop several thousand dollars a year in america but just can't do it with a clear conscience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:08AM
What the fuck does Canada have to do with this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:24AM
Looks like poor phrasing, I expect they fly into Canada and visit the US from there. Goodbye tourist cash!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:07AM
We don't want jobs kissing tourist butt. We don't need the crowds. We'd rather make things in factories.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:38AM
You mean you would rather buy manufacturing machines from overseas (further increasing your debt) and use those to manufacture things in factories. Well, ok, what work are americans going to do to pay other americans for the goods now manufactured in the US? Eventually the only human jobs will kissing tourist butt. In many cases quite literally. Just remember, if your job can be done by a machine then you are surplus to requirements. Wherever the factory resides.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:11AM
OK, that's incorrect, and, honestly, imbecile. Americans don't know how to manufacture anything? Nah, you're right, you're right. America became the world's sole superpower by not knowing how to make anything or do anything complicated. I mean, obviously, right? Heck, if you want to do something truly complex like game emissions testing then you would have to ask a German, correct? And if you want to design a nuclear plant that can fail only in the incredibly rare circumstance of a tsunami, in a place that is particularly tsunami prone, then would have to ask a Japanese, right?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:52AM
With such a defective mentality as your own you presume to call me an imbecile? You did not even answer my post, you failed to understand it. Building factories in the US is not going to bring many, if any jobs. The automation of factories is increasing and increasing. There are not jobs for everyone now and it is only going to get worse.
As to your remarks, this is where you show that you do not think. I am quite sure that americans know how to screw people over with software. You have the best example. Bill Gates. The Japanese plant you refer to was not designed in Japan (I will leave finding out where as an exercise for the student) and was over its design period and designer recommendations had not been followed. It was a political error not a technical one. Whatever point you are trying to make is just lost in ignorance and silliness.
It is all very well to wish for the moon but it takes a lot of work to get it. Relocating factories will achieve little or nothing in increasing employment because factories are employing less and less people. It might change where or who some of the money goes to but it will not be into your pocket unless you own the damn factory.
That seems simple enough but you take as if I were attacking America. No mate, I have always been the US's 'loyal opposition'. All I have ever wanted of the USofA is that it live up to its principles. And all I ever will be is a 'loyal opposition' as I consider myself totally unsuited to power. There is a reason for this.
I recognise Trump. There are people I have seen and met that bear a certain resemblance to me. We have some german blood. We are redheads or reddish. We are smart in many ways but the intelligence is raw and lacks judgement. We are charismatic under certain circumstances and have almost infinite chutzpah. Unless we listen to others and assess our ideas accordingly we can produce incredible disasters. Two of the names you might recognise are R.L.Hubbard and Trump. So forgive me if I am trying to warn you about people like me.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:39PM
Yes, I can waste time arguing the fringes of your point, or I can cut to the chase and call your premise absurd. It is absurd, and your doubling down on it does not make you more intelligent, or me incorrect. Maybe it's because you're young and inexperienced. Maybe you have not seen the last 30 years of manufacturing jobs being eliminated in the United States thanks to free trade agreements. Maybe the outsourcing wave, from manufacturing to knowledge work, has somehow not bitten you or yours in the ass, personally, yet. Maybe you have not seen work visa programs abused to now import foreign workers to suppress wages and eliminate hard-won gains in the workplace. It seems you have seen and experienced none of that, and instead substitute a self-serving talking point promulgated by those interests that profited handsomely from hollowing out the American Middle Class (and the middle class of other industrialised countries); you're being played for a fool.
Making things still requires humans. Fewer humans can produce more now, thanks to automation. But some is better than zero. And your claim that Americans don't know how to make anything and require foreign machinery to do it is risible. Apart from the obvious fact that America is a superpower, and you don't get that way with fairy tales and uplifting language, but rather with the ability to make stuff, there is the ranking from the International Business Times [ibtimes.co.in] that puts the US as the world's #2 manufacturer, only recently surpassed by China as #1.
It rather points up your youth and/or inexperience that you think software that "screws people over" is the only thing Americans know how to do. No, kimosabe, it merely has gotten the most press in the last 20 years because it's the new shiny.
Well, that was a nice, tidy sweep of the hand to explain away mankind's need for productive activity. "There's no magic bullet, so therefore it's not worth even trying waaaaaaaahhh" Yes, clearly a country that put a man on the moon and has built enough nuclear missiles (because those were built by child labor in India, because Americans don't understand how to make things, right?) to end all life on Earth could not possibly figure out how to bring back manufacturing activity to this country and make it work again.
(As a brief aside, it's "L. Ron Hubbard." I only mention it because he seems to have significance for you and you might want to get his name right if you go around using it rhetorically as I suspect you are wont to do.) This paragraph suggests you're a socially maladjusted misanthrope, a basement-bound Aspie, or that you're 13 without a single hair on your chest or notch in your belt, but its callow petulance should persuade no one and certainly not attract mod points.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:47PM
Boy did you fuck up.
I was born in 1950. Some things were still rationed (after WWII y'know) when I was 18. I got into computers when I was 18 too by building my own from a stack of parts - not populated boards, parts. Pointing out my youth - fail. Pointing out my lack of experience - fail. With judgement like you have shown, I do not expect sense from you, "kiddo".
I love your straw men but they only make you look like and idiot. Really, my experience tells me that is not a good idea. It is like jumping to conclusions. Oh, I am sorry, you did that too, didn't you. Whatever you think about me you have proven yourself to be an idiot. I am going to show this two my three successful kids. They will be entertained.
If you think I post for mod points then that is probably what you do. I couldn't give a stuff. But it is one more nail in _your_ coffin.
If I was that fixated with Hubbard I would have got it right, no? (more fail for you). I do tend to get that wrong because or the nickname he got after that Caribbean disaster. But you are probably too young to remember that (or were not in the SF community)
Sorry, sonny Jim, but everything in your post is a cock-up.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:20PM
It ought then be telling that, sight unseen, you argue, write, and think like a pimply 13-yr old. (But then, it is said that in dotage a man does return to childlike simplicity.) Next you're going to tell us that the sun is really a butterscotch lollipop, and when the rest of us say that's an absurd premise, you'll respond with more blather.
To sum up, your thesis was that America doesn't know how to manufacture anything, and returning manufacturing jobs to America is pointless. My response was, that's a silly statement because superpowers don't become superpowers by not knowing how to make anything, and that bringing some jobs back to the American middle class is better than no jobs. I am no jingoist and there is a lot of complexity on the subject to sort through, but when someone leads with a premise that is so flat out wrong, prima facie, it does no good for anyone to pretend otherwise.
Or, maybe you're a special snowflake who melts when people respond with vigor to what you say.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Wednesday February 01 2017, @10:32PM
Grow up and learn to read.
Look up the terms 'ad hominem' and 'straw man'.
You are spouting vitriol for no reason.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:10AM
They don't want you there, Akbar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:50AM
Seems like earlier comments in this thread missed your point? As I read parent, you are Canadian and have often vacationed in the USA. I'm a US citizen, live near the northern US border and have often welcomed Canadian friends to visit. When I was a kid (1950s, 60s) the border was a formality, we crossed with little problem and certainly no fear. Casual tourism--day trips by many people--generated significant income on both sides of the border.
I don't blame you for staying out of the USA at the present time. The border cops have way too much power and are prone to over-reacting, with or without executive orders.
Here's a random example from last year--when I crossed lower Ontario (Detroit=>Buffalo) a border guard saw that I had an orange in my lunch bag...and confiscated it. Yes, I know there is a rule about fresh fruit, but it's for a truckload that might be carrying some invasive pest, not for a single orange that can be seen to be intact with no worm holes. This pea brain (with a damn big gun) made me wait while he got a special evidence baggie.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:11AM
I've seen scattered reports of various companies and other organizations pushing back as they try to help their community members (from one of the 7 countries) complete their travel. Here's one, http://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/best-serve-nation-and-world [mit.edu]
I was hoping to write to you today with some uplifting news. Yet, as I write, we continue to push hard to bring back to MIT those members of our community, including two undergraduates, who were barred from the US because of the January 27 Executive Order on immigration. We are working personally with each of the affected individuals we are aware of. If you know of others who are directly affected, please inform us immediately so we can try to help: ... ...
I know some SN posters like to hate on MIT, but this MIT president is actually an immigrant, from Veneseula, so he has personal experience with the process of getting into the USA (after he completed university).
The timing of this action couldn't have been worse relative to MIT. January is called Independent Activities Period with many non-credit activities on campus, and the option to take an extended holiday until spring term classes start in Feburary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:19AM
I mostly hate on MIT for what they did to Aaron Swartz and how they threw my friend Star Simpson under the bus.
Hope they've learned the price of sucking up to power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:52AM
Both of those incidents occurred before the current president of MIT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif [wikipedia.org] Reif became MIT president in 2012. Read the parent's link and I hope you will agree that MIT is trying to do the right thing in this case.
Anyone else have links that discuss corps/universities/etc pushing back for their own people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:10AM
So, we caught the terrorists at a time when they were out of the country? Sweet. I'd have gone for summer, or ramadan, or ideally both if ramadan falls in summer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:24AM
MIT community appears to be overrated.
Trump promised these actions during the election. MIT wasn't listening? MIT didn't warn it's community? For a bunch of brilliant eggheads, MIT seems to be a bunch of dumb fucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:52AM
Trump promised a lot of shit during the campaign. Are you the one that knows what part of it was true and what part was bs? If so, there are a lot of people wanting to hear from you...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:30AM
I've been reading the comments. I have been reading mostly anger about the Muslim ban.
I am a 20-60 year old white male and a United States citizen and I feel the need to voice my opinion. (I will be speaking for my entire family because we feel the same. I will be using the word you as "Muslim people".)
We do not want you here. We do not need you here. If your family is in a banned country, then move back home with them. I promise you we will not miss you. Everywhere Muslims go, destruction, terror and death follows.
Are the people even from the United States, that are writing these comments advocating acceptance of refugees? If they are, why do they advocate this? Do they say to themselves, "Well it worked out great for Berlin."? Look how well it did in France. We should definitely let in more Muslims because it's been a long time since a Mac truck drove through a parade in my town and killed forty or fifty people. There's nothing like a random pressure cooker bomb to turn a few of my family members into paraplegics. The only thing I can think is that they have coke bottle thick rose colored idealist glasses.
There's nothing I like more, than when I go to Wal-Mart and see a burka wearing Muslim refugee buying steaks with an IBT card. Now I see what our troops are fighting for.
We love our country. We will love it even more without you. If you miss your family, go back to where you came from and never come back.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:50AM
Why the fuck aren't you pressuring Trump for a blanket ban from *ALL* Muslim countries, instead of just ones that we don't have enough economic ties to make a difference to our bottom line?
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Turkey, Chechnya. All of those deserve to be on the list. Three of those aren't on the list and coincidentally have Trump business interests in them. At least three of those have been directly involved in aiding and abetting terrorism on US soil (Saudi Arabia), or housing and providing aid to a terrorist leader (Pakistan), or being the country terrorists came from (Chechnya).
All of those are *FAR* greater threats of Islamic terrorism in the US than the 7 currently being banned. So if you truly believe what you just said, I expect to hear yourself and those that follow your beliefs on the subject to be protesting just as loudly as the anti-Ban protesters out in the streets of DC or other major state/federal political centers and making it known that it is not okay to only ban SOME Muslim states while allowing others, especially others who only seem to get a pass because of US commercial interests there.
Own it or GTFO.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:11AM
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan.
Here's a map with banned countries in red, and trump countries in yellow. [bloomberg.com]
No overlap. How convenient.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:50AM
The wonderful Trump would never do business in a bad country, thus he didn't need to ban any which intersect with his businesses. Discussion solved. Next issue?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:57AM
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that countries in red have some sort of civil war or instability within? Well, Iran is stable, but who is going to be surprised that it was swept into the new axis of evil?
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:34AM
That does seem like a reasonable way to draw a line - a somewhat arbitrary one, but a line non-the-less. So why isn't Turkey on the list?
Turkey is a majority Muslim country, had an attempted coup a little over six months ago, have a on-going violent insurgency with elements of their Kurdish populace in the East, suffers repeated and regular attacks from Daesh extemist, has its own Muslim extremists, and President Erdogan is engaged in a a crackdown on pretty much any form of political dissent without any due process; suspects are just detained to await trial, and with many judges also locked up that's essentially arbitrary and indefinite detention. Sounds like it ought to be a shoo-in to me, so, does the US *really* need the use of Incirlik to attack various groups in the Middle East that much, or is it just a case of follow the money to Trump Tower?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:22AM
Same AC here. I agree 100%. I own it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:29AM
If you love the fucking Muslims so much, why don't you move to one of those countries? We don't want you. We don't need you. You love destruction and terror so much, you love these people so much, why don't YOU GTFO and move in with your friends in Mosul? You run your mouth about letting terrorists into the country on your fucking high horse... I hope a terrorist blows up a few of your family members. I wonder what you would think then. Stupid fucking cocksucking prickface idiot moron commie jewfaced retard.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:55AM
Are the people even from the United States, that are writing these comments advocating acceptance of refugees?
Are you even an American?
A real patriot would know these lines by heart:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:53AM
We didn't write those lines, France gave them to us. It's just a big lie for the French to toss their problems onto someone else. We're lifting our lamps to make sure the golden door hasn't been stolen!
Anything can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:57AM
I love it. Quoting a poem written by a Jewish bitch from 1887.
I say, take your tired poor ass home.
Stop blowing shit up.
We don't want the refuse.
We don't want the terror teaming on our shore.
Send these evil people back where they came from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:04AM
I love posts like yours.
Unlike runaway, VLM, buzzard, sulla, etc you don't try to dress up the fact that you are a nazi.
You own it. Respect for that.
If all the nazis would just cut the sophistry and let their raw naked hatred speak for itself, life would be a lot simpler. Probably less pleasant, but oh so simple.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:35AM
Statement was invalidated when the frontier closed, just like the social contract.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM
What does that even mean?
What social contract?
Who says 'the frontier' was even relevant? I don't see mention of it on lady liberty.
What I do see is someone resorting to barely coherent nonsense to avoid taking moral responsibility for endorsing the suffering of others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:31AM
A pretty poem written by some nobody broad who won a stupid contest, had her words engraved onto a plaque, to be affixed to a statue, built by foreigners, and shipped here as a token of their awe for us.
The poem isn't a legal device, it has no place in a court of law, it doesn't even have any place in a discussion like this.
Poems. Do you want to recite Humpty Dumpty now? Or, Three Blind Mice? Those carry as much legal weight as your tired and hungry masses. Better, let's get right to the fairy tales - the Brother's Grimm. Go ahead, post the text of some of those. You might even want to use some of them in court when you attempt to impeach the president you don't like.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:10AM
Ozymandias, by Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by boxfetish on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:05AM
It's bullshit. As someone who generally supports more vigilance and tougher immigration laws/restrictions upon immigrants and tourists from countries more likely to grow or support terrorism (and who is, in theor,y supportive of something akin to the recent executive order) it is complete and utter bullshit that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Chechnya, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are not on the same list. The hypocrisy is becoming very difficult to ignore. I support the president and his handlers less and less every single day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:35AM
> I support the president and his handlers less and less every single day.
Are you sorry yet? [areyousorryyet.com]
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:09AM
Sure am. I didn't actually vote for him, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:35AM
Wonderful xenophobia, the irony in your statements with respect to the founding of the US is phenomenal. I'm sure the native americans might agree with you....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:03AM
You just proved my point. Look how well it worked out for them.
Stupid idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:58PM
So you're concerned about Muslims literally taking over the US? And you call me an idiot? Hooo boy, good luck with that aneurysm you're working so hard on.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:41AM
Found this lengthy, but really interesting analysis [medium.com]
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:02AM
Yes, it is. Bannon is on record stating he wants to burn the entire system down, and that he's a "Leninist" for that reason. He wants some sort of nationalist-economic revolution.
THIS is why I have a problem with the "burn it down" crowd; they're shortsighted, self-serving, and frankly traitorous. Lookin' at you, Uzzard; you and Bannon will burn in Hell together.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:01AM
You are a fucking idiot.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16AM
Got a counter-argument? If so post it. If not, shut up.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16AM
Thank you Sister Bertha Better-Than-You. You can toddle on back to the amen pew now. There'll be a squirrel along directly to disabuse you of your self-righteous notions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:30AM
Oh wow, was that YOU posting AC, you gormless oxygen thief? I had guessed but wasn't sure. Put up or shut up, coward. I reiterate: you and Bannon are going to end up screaming like a pair of whistling teakettles in the unquenchable flames of your own evil made manifest. Don't worry, I'll come visit now and then to make s'mores over you :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:45AM
You should think before you spout stupidity like that. When have I ever been shy about what I post?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:14AM
Who knows? Seems like the kind of cowardly ball-less bullshit you'd pull if you thought it would benefit you though. Hope you're wearing your asbestos panties when the shit hits the fan, Uzzard! You may very well get exactly what you wish for, but you won't survive it...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:18AM
Hahahahaha! You're funny.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:22AM
And this is how I know you've got nothing, Uzzard. You sink to infantile elementary school bullshit.
This is a sensitive issue for you. You tipped your hand as one of the "burn it all down" types ages ago and we're all calling you on it. If you think you'll survive the kind of conflagration "burning it all down" will cause, you're delusional...and if you somehow do, you'll envy the dead.
I will never, ever, ever stop pointing out what you are. And you mostly do my work for me.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:52AM
What, you think I'm ashamed of my position? Not remotely. You've "caught" nothing when I say it plain as day.
I laugh at you because you have no argument except "I don't agree and you're evil".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:15PM
There can be no arguing with someone who's renounced the use of reason. This isn't, as I've said many times before, for your benefit; I long ago accepted that you can't be saved in this lifetime.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:18PM
There is no point arguing with that fucking idiot. You can't rationally argue someone out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33AM
"you and Bannon are going to end up screaming like a pair of whistling teakettles in the unquenchable flames of your own evil made manifest."
Wow - you've suffered some shock, and now you're a deist?
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:20AM
Uh, where have you been? I've been a Deist (well, panentheist, but almost no one knows the word...no, it's not a typo) since around 2011. My girlfriend, as I am sure I have mentioned before, has been to Hell, and NOT as a tourist during an NDE. It's more of a state of mind than a concrete place, and it's generated from within, but it's very much real. I've also spoken with a "dead" relative, one who died almost half a decade before I was born, and gotten information that made zero sense until I asked older family members.
Besides which, why would afterlife or lack thereof have anything to do with whether there is or is not a God? Could be a perfectly naturalistic process.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19AM
That article really needs a critical counterpoint.
It smacks of conspiracy theory and if you don't have any contextual knowledge you don't even know what the author has left out or just got wrong.
Like when it says the Steele memo predicting that 19% transfer of ownership to Trump was written in July, it was actually written October 18th (check it yourself, [cryptome.org] its page 30) and only referred to something the source said happened in July.
And frankly, hanlon's razor applies. The EO was written so incompetently [lawfareblog.com] that it looks bannon is an ignorant idealogue who "failed upwards" and is now completely floundering. He's still dangerous, but he's not evil genius dangerous, more like cornered rat dangerous.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:52AM
And here's someone who applies a little more critical thought to the coup theory. [tompepinsky.com]
The term "kremlinology" sure seems to be in vogue nowadays.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fritsd on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:56AM
I didn't want to say it yesterday, because it sounded too extreme, but I'll don my tin foil hat this morning:
The executive order comes across as a very carefully balanced provocation in a delicate dance to topple the US government.
Not as a ham-fisted push/putsch. Isn't Putin good at judo?
Two facts:
(1) the executive order isn't religious discrimination because it can be argued that only a small percent of the muslims are banned
(2) the executive order uses a list of countries that was apparently named for similar or other reasons by president Obama, so it can be argued that (a) Obama did it too, and (b) it has nothing to do with Trump's investments
(haven't checked if that list of countries was really from some Obama law, you can fill me in)
I, as a non-American and non-lawyer, have the feeling that the executive order was constructed in order to be easily struck down by the courts.
This will create a polarization in society between the people who believe in the Rule of Law, and the authoritarian followers who believe in the Rule of Trump.
They can't do a coup, because Trump doesn't have organized followers. Yet.
Now that this polarization is growing, I expect the following to happen next:
A new meme will be forged of the narrative:
"Your Leader wanted to protect you against (some) MOOSLIMS, but those lily-livered liberal law-thumpers are frustrating your Leader's attempts to keep you safe, and they hide behind the so-called rule of law. Are you with your Leader or against him?"
This meme will be pushed through all channels that the Trump government has at its disposal: Breitbart, Fox News, etc.
This will enlarge the wedge between the 15%? minority authoritarian followers and the silent majority. A more important effect will be that the followers will be able to self-identify as a Trump follower and coagulate as a group in society. Place a large order for brown shirts in China! Do they have a biker gang, yet? Putin has his own biker gang. Maybe a Homeland Security Motorbike Enthusiasts Club can be created.
There might be other provocations, ending in an impeachment lawsuit against Trump. Maybe they'll put him in jail (cf. Beerhall putsch).
If that point is reached, it's time for the ace up the sleeve: REICHSTAG FIRE.
They can either wait for a real terrorist attack to happen, or some deluded idiot will be found to shoot Trump dead, while wearing a sandwich board: "I'm a gay muslim jew liberal, and I hate God, America and Trump!". (With a signed autobiography of Hillary, and an EU passport in his pocket, for good measure).
After that it's time for state of emergency, and that with sadness in their hearts, Bannon and Pence and Cruz etc. see no other option than to accept to shoulder the heavy responsibility of power, for God and America and the Brave American Army (which stands behind them). Military religious dictatorship. The End.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:33AM
You are getting played either way.