The "it's not really a Muslim ban" Muslim ban

[RandBlade]

Randblade. The Obama Administration list targets people who have travelled to those countries within those past few years (since March 2011). The Trump EO outright bans anyone who has citizenship with one of those countries, even if they left when they were 8 or something.

It makes a certain amount of sense to take a closer look have people who have recently travelled to a war zone where terrorist groups are highly active. It makes none to simply bar outright on the basis of citizenship, at least not if you motive is security rather than racism.

I want you know that your attempts to obfuscate and normalize what the Trump administration is up, and redirect the blame onto democrats are incredibly transparent and you should give them up immediately.

I never said that Trump's actions were the same, equivalent or justified though did I. In fact I couldn't have been clearer that I oppose what Trump is doing.

The only time I have referenced Obama's list is in relation to the nations that are on it not the actions that Obama and Trump have taken.

[Steely Glint]

You linked to an article whose headline was, quote, "Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you" with the line "this is interesting" as if this cast the events of the past few days in an entirely different light.



You do ​know that we can see you, right?

[RandBlade]

It was interesting. Certainly has sparked a lot of side discussion here.

I never wrote the clickbait headline or said I agree with all of it but it was interesting.

[Aimless]

Most of it without merit.

[RandBlade]

Agreed there's been a lot of posts without merit.

[Aimless]

The main reason why it may be appropriate to cast this as being a "Muslim ban" is the apparent intention to make exceptions for non-Muslims from those countries. The list does not include most Muslim countries.

[Steely Glint]

"I just want to start a discussion" is up there with "playing devil's advocate" and "just asking questions, that's all", competing for the title of 'most weasely justification for pushing a bullshit agenda you having the guts to admit to openly' (2017)

'I'm not saying wi-fi causes cancer, but take a look at this random blog post saying it does. it's pretty interesting'

[RandBlade]

The main reason why it may be appropriate to cast this as being a "Muslim ban" is the apparent intention to make exceptions for non-Muslims from those countries. The list does not include most Muslim countries.

It doesn't include anywhere near most Muslims. It doesn't even include the whole Middle East let alone Muslim nations like Indonesia.

[Aimless]

What I'm saying is that the thing that makes this look like a "Muslim ban" are the things that also distinguish it from the Obama-era measures, notably the stated desire to make a religious exception and of course implementing an actual BAN.

[RandBlade]

The fact that this is a ban makes this a ban, no questions asked. Its a completely messed up, insane and unjustifiable ban that doesn't make any sense on any grounds.

It's not a ban on Muslims - most of the world's Muslims can still travel unimpeded by this.
It's not a ban on terrorists - they could be from other nations or these but there's no intelligence here.
It's not a ban on those affected by recent wars - it affects Green Card holders and dual nationals like Olympian Sir Mo Farah.

It's a lashing out on people based on rather arbitrary nations chosen for a list originally made for an entirely different purpose.

[RandBlade]

Looks like some of the insaner parts of the ban are already being scratched out.

Those with green cards still allowed to use them.
Dual citizens (like Sir Mo Farrah whom I mentioned yesterday) are to be allowed to travel using their passport from the nations not affected.

[Aimless]

You don't punish the rank and file when there's a dispute between branches, Minx, I'm sorry you think that means the world is a shitty place. You know that the government CAN hold someone for 24 hours, even if they're represented by counsel right?

Yes, however I was not aware that the government can stop your attorney from reaching you while you're being held. Nor was I aware that govt. officers can wilfully and arbitrarily ignore court orders, which was how several incidents were being described at the time. If the CBP officers were following directions from DHS when they disobeyed the court orders, as may have been the case, that's another matter. Stories like this make me think the world is an even shittier place than I originally thought.

[Ominous Gamer]

Looks like some of the insaner parts of the ban are already being scratched out.

Those with green cards still allowed to use them.
Dual citizens (like Sir Mo Farrah whom I mentioned yesterday) are to be allowed to travel using their passport from the nations not affected.

source? cause the whitehouse's anonymous media briefing used the alternative definition of "exemption" to explain the green card problems. Seriously, their senior officials had a "semantic debate" about what exemption meant as they attacked the "hyperventilating" media (So everyone assumes it was Spicer and Bannon giving the briefing). It was specifically stated that nothing has changed concerning green card holders.

Green card holders still have to apply for a waiver in order to have the green card recognized and usable. So they are still being caught up in this mess.

[RandBlade]

Saw it on TV.

I had the news on in the background and a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was giving a press conference and stated that there were no restrictions on Green Card holders and that all Green Card holders who had been detained had now been released. He also stated that dual nationals would be free to travel so long as they use the passport that is NOT one of the seven restricted ones to travel with. Yesterday US embassies were warning dual nationals not to travel.

[Ominous Gamer]

So nothing's changed for green card holders cause that's the same line they used in the briefing. Green card holders are exempt, after they jumped through extra hoops, like applying for waivers. The green card holders that were caught were released, 170 of them, because their waivers were processed and saying that no one was still being held makes a great soundbyte when you have protestors mobbing your airports and even the taxi drivers are striking over it.

[RandBlade]

If Green Card holders know that they need to file paperwork then they can do that going forward so nobody need get caught up and detained again.

That's generally why when you make changes like this you give a period for people to adjust rather than announce it effective immediately even for people who are travelling what was legally when their flight departed

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes, however I was not aware that the government can stop your attorney from reaching you while you're being held.

Nor did they. Aimless, those people were not YET represented by counsel. The lawyers were there so they could sign 'em up to be represented, not because they already were. I will note as well, that "illegal immigrants" do NOT have an absolute right to counsel. Things like deportation are considered administrative, not criminal, and the due process requirements are not the same.

Nor was I aware that govt. officers can wilfully and arbitrarily ignore court orders, which was how several incidents were being described at the time. If the CBP officers were following directions from DHS when they disobeyed the court orders, as may have been the case, that's another matter.

Even if they weren't, the response to not obeying a court order is "contempt of court," which as I've struggled to explain in the past is not punishment. And also not appropriate in that confused situation. If the situation remained completely unchanged after the weekend maybe but. . .

Stories like this make me think the world is an even shittier place than I originally thought.

Now THAT, if true, is punishable and should be punished. That's fraud and malfeasance, actual statutory violations.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://time.com/4656182/trump-muslim...d-immigration/
Green-Card Holder Dies a Day After Being Prevented From Returning Home by Trump's Order, Report Says

Its not so much that this woman died, its that she has lived in the US since 1995. Shes been here longer than Trumps current wife. Getting a green card is both costly and extensive. This goes beyond being simply evil for Trump to ignore the processes we already have in place to vet people.

[Aimless]

Conservative America explodes due to the Starbucks CEO's announcement that SB will commit to hiring 10,000 refugees worldwide. This is outrageous! They should be forced to hire 10,000 veterans instead!

When informed of the fact that SB has already committed to hiring 10,000 vets, the response is a combination of disbelief ("no they haven't!"), mockery ("ha ha they're 3-4 years in and still have 12% to go before they can reach their 5 year goal!"), dissatisfaction ("it's not enough!") and of course hatred ("refugees should never get any jobs! They'd probably turn up their nose at these jobs anyway so that they can live large on benefits! No refugee should ever be employed so long as there is a single unemployed veteran out there! Vets don't want to work at liberal Poobucks anyway!!")

This is a growing and increasingly influential subset of the American electorate, lovingly nurtured for years by both the Republican establishment and by people like Lewk, gladly tolerated by complacent "principled" college-educated Republicans and now turned loose upon the civilized world by lulz-seeking nihilists. Varsågod, as we say in Sweden--enjoy the fruits of your political labor. May you live long enough to choke on them

[Ominous Gamer]

Conservative America explodes due to the Starbucks CEO's announcement that SB will commit to hiring 10,000 refugees worldwide. This is outrageous! They should be forced to hire 10,000 veterans instead!

When informed of the fact that SB has already committed to hiring 10,000 vets, the response is a combination of disbelief ("no they haven't!"), mockery ("ha ha they're 3-4 years in and still have 12% to go before they can reach their 5 year goal!"), dissatisfaction ("it's not enough!") and of course hatred ("refugees should never get any jobs! They'd probably turn up their nose at these jobs anyway so that they can live large on benefits! No refugee should ever be employed so long as there is a single unemployed veteran out there! Vets don't want to work at liberal Poobucks anyway!!")

This is a growing and increasingly influential subset of the American electorate, lovingly nurtured for years by both the Republican establishment and by people like Lewk, gladly tolerated by complacent "principled" college-educated Republicans and now turned loose upon the civilized world by lulz-seeking nihilists. Varsågod, as we say in Sweden--enjoy the fruits of your political labor. May you live long enough to choke on them

The number of times in the past 24 hours I've explained on facebook that Starbucks has been pushing a veterans hiring initiative since 2015, and that this new initiative is focusing on the refugees that helped US armed forces overseas (that we have systematically been abandoning for years now).

I usually get ignored, sometimes I'll get a like, I think 2 have deleted the post. no one has responded.

Facebook announced they were rolling out their new algorithm to limit the spread of false or sensational news today. Tagged every motherfucker on my list that shared the boycott starbucks bullshit.

[Aimless]

One of those refugees might be a terrorist though, OG, and as you know, one bad apple spoils the barrel (old conservative proverb).

[Lewkowski]

This is a growing and increasingly influential subset of the American electorate, lovingly nurtured for years by both the Republican establishment and by people like Lewk, gladly tolerated by complacent "principled" college-educated Republicans and now turned loose upon the civilized world by lulz-seeking nihilists. Varsågod, as we say in Sweden--enjoy the fruits of your political labor. May you live long enough to choke on them

Ah the age old 'guilt by association.' I'll remind you I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't support him in the primaries and I didn't vote for him in the general election. I still consider him the lesser of two evils compared to Clinton but I certainly don't support everything he does.

And in reality it is the media that is responsible for this. They destroyed the trust the people had in the institution with their liberal bias and so now people turn to other sources to get their news. Sometimes those sources are great and eye opening and other times they are tabloid trash. It is the media who was to blame for it, they just couldn't call the news straight they had to swing it toward their political preferences.

[Lewkowski]

It isn't a 'Muslim Ban' since it actually doesn't ban Muslims. It is pretty horribly implemented however. I'm generally supportive of restricting immigration from countries that have huge swathes of their population who hate us but this was pretty incompetently done.

[Steely Glint]

It isn't a 'Muslim Ban' since it actually doesn't ban Muslims.

Testing the waters. Reportedly, the part about targeting green card holders came from Bannon & Miller. It's not hard to guess what they were trying to pull.

[Loki]

It isn't a 'Muslim Ban' since it actually doesn't ban Muslims. It is pretty horribly implemented however. I'm generally supportive of restricting immigration from countries that have huge swathes of their population who hate us but this was pretty incompetently done.

Half of the affected visa holders are Iranian. Remind me of the last time a Shi'a Muslim carried out acts of terror in the US.

Though a majority of the respondents viewed the U.S. government and its policies toward Iran negatively, around half held positive views of the American people: 28*percent reported very favorable views, and 24*percent reported somewhat favorable views. (Another 20*percent of respondents reported neither favorable nor unfavorable views of the American people.) Only 8*percent of the respondents had a somewhat unfavorable view of the American people, and only 9*percent viewed Americans very unfavorably.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_TR910.pdf

[Aimless]

Ah the age old 'guilt by association.' I'll remind you I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't support him in the primaries and I didn't vote for him in the general election. I still consider him the lesser of two evils compared to Clinton but I certainly don't support everything he does.

And in reality it is the media that is responsible for this. They destroyed the trust the people had in the institution with their liberal bias and so now people turn to other sources to get their news. Sometimes those sources are great and eye opening and other times they are tabloid trash. It is the media who was to blame for it, they just couldn't call the news straight they had to swing it toward their political preferences.

The bullshit in your second paragraph is a good illustration of what I was talking about. Trump is just the culmination, the natural consequence, of what you've been doing for over a decade now so whether or not you actually voted for him is pretty irrelevant.

[Aimless]

It's hilarious to see you complain about guilt by association btw

[Lewkowski]

The bullshit in your second paragraph is a good illustration of what I was talking about. Trump is just the culmination, the natural consequence, of what you've been doing for over a decade now so whether or not you actually voted for him is pretty irrelevant.

I'm sure it is in your eyes. Liberals loved it when people believed the media because they were able to control the story. To you the idea that people don't trust the 'so called' objective news stories is frightening. To conservatives it just means there is a more equal playing field, the downside is that standards for what counts as a 'news story' has dropped with the advent of social media.

[Aimless]

Given that your favored sources--gleeful purveyors of fake news and bullshit one and all--are the ones that have enabled the Trump presidency I think it's fair to say you're full of it.

[Steely Glint]

"liiiiiibburrl media refuses to pretend there's still a debate about climate change, so I was forced to turn to a new source I know posts outright lies "