SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's executive order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. also applies to green card holders from those countries, the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday. "It will bar green card holders," acting DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told Reuters.
Green cards serve as proof of an individual's permanent legal residence in the U.S. A senior administration official clarified on Saturday afternoon that green card holders from the seven countries affected in the order who are currently outside the U.S. will need a case-by-case waiver to return to the U.S. Green card holders in the U.S. will have to meet with a consular officer before departing the country, the official said.
Source: The Hill
At least one case quickly prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy International Airport in New York filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry. Shortly after noon on Saturday, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an interpreter who worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq, was released. After nearly 19 hours of detention, Mr. Darweesh began to cry as he spoke to reporters, putting his hands behind his back and miming handcuffs.
[...] Inside the airport, one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, a supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, asked a border agent, "Who is the person we need to talk to?"
"Call Mr. Trump," said the agent, who declined to identify himself.
[...] An official message to all American diplomatic posts around the world provided instructions about how to treat people from the countries affected: "Effective immediately, halt interviewing and cease issuance and printing" of visas to the United States. Confusion turned to panic at airports around the world, as travelers found themselves unable to board flights bound for the United States. In Dubai and Istanbul, airport and immigration officials turned passengers away at boarding gates and, in at least one case, ejected a family from a flight they had boarded.
[...] Iranian green card holders who live in the United States were blindsided by the decree while on vacation in Iran, finding themselves in a legal limbo and unsure whether they would be able to return to America. "How do I get back home now?" said Daria Zeynalia, a green card holder who was visiting family in Iran. He had rented a house and leased a car, and would be eligible for citizenship in November. "What about my job? If I can't go back soon, I'll lose everything."
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday January 30 2017, @01:48PM
I don't think that that's true; if you draw the political compass with its 2 axes "left-right economy" and "authoritarian-libertarian" then you can have both old-fashioned authoritarian left wing parties (e.g. Socialistische Partij in the Netherlands) and non-authoritarian left wing parties (e.g. Groen Links in the Netherlands). Of course just because you can draw it doesn't mean it makes sense or can exist :-)
If you mean something like: "socialism needs authoritarianism in order to force the corporations to pay tax" (I'm interpreting your "tell people you will be controlling what they have earned" here):
To form a corporation, is just a legal stamp that the *government* gives on a bunch of people's plans. The government can just dissolve the incorporation, if the corporation refuses to pay their taxes due, or if it refuses to have its accounts signed off by an external accountant.
Therefore the government doesn't need to be particularly authoritarian; it can be all hippy lovey dovey, and still refuse bloodsuckers to game the system, just by sticking to the already agreed rules. See how the directors like it if they are no longer shielded, and it's their own house on the line for any risks they take. If *I* would stop paying the bills, the government would wring me dry (I'm unincorporated self-imployed in Sweden, so the government is already wringing me dry, but that's beside the point).
Of course multinational corporations could threaten the government that they'll leave (taking the employment with them) if the government does'nt cut them some slack. So let them. Good riddance. I suspect it's for that reason that Royal Dutch Shell has headquarters both in the Netherlands and in the UK; so they can try to play both governments out against each other for favours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @09:01PM
Socialistische Partij
A political party (and pretty much anything) can call itself by any name it wants to.
(...and, again, Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.)
When you see a political party calling itself "Socialist", you have to ask "Are they attempting to empower The Workers?"
(Led by actual Socialists, the government of Italy did this in 1985 with their Maracora law.)
...or is the party/government simply trying to grab power in the name of the traditional elites?
(In Greece, SYRIZA recently pulled this bait-and-switch thing. Add Podesta in Spain as well.)
Socialism embodies distributed power and wealth, strong Democracy (with everyone getting a vote and all votes being equal)[1], and public ownership of natural monopolies (roads, bridges, water systems, electricity, natural gas, communications infrastructure, airports, mass transit, etc.).
If you have ONLY the last bit, what you have is is NOT Socialism.
It may be Liberal Democracy/Social Democracy/Christian Democracy as in northern Europe.
...and you likely have an Oligarchy.[1]
It could also be that you have State Capitalism (with a Totalitarian gov't.)
[1] To achieve actual Democracy and avoid Oligarchy will obviously require publicly-funded elections and hand-counting of paper ballots by lots of citizens.
If you let the rich buy up/mechanize your electoral system, you are doomed to always get what you've always had (a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich).
"Left" is Anti-Capitalist.
If you have questions about what is Left and what isn't, the World Socialist Web Site [google.com] will be glad to straighten you out.
.
If you mean something like: "socialism needs authoritarianism in order to force the corporations to pay tax"
Socialism overlaps Libertarianism in the principle that government should be as small and as local as possible.
For the logical exceptions to "small", see "natural monopolies", above.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]