• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

the media is inciting fear as usual and doing it very irresponsibly
 
birdman said:
This article asserts that the "boggled," disorganized roll out of the immigration EO was completely intentional and designed to see the judiciary had any power in halting actions of the executive branch. I am a smart, well educated person, not usually prone to conspiracy theories, but could some please tell me why this guy is wrong and that there is nothing to worry about here.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.sktxf3qa9
Click to expand...

OK. That article is a rambling mess. But what does ring true to me watching Trump is the following:

1 - Speed of Action - The guy is moving at an insane pace. In turn the attention of the media (and by extention, the public) does not stay focused on any one thing he does for very long. Immigration was Friday, today it was an announcement for every new regulation two must be cut, tomorrow it will be a Supreme Court nominee, etc., etc., etc.

2 - Executive Action - All the executive overreach conducted by Bush and Obama we have seen for the last 16 years is now a legacy Trump gets to absorb. And he is taking full advantage.

3 - Divide and Conquer - His positions on various issues are all over the map. To date he has been hitting on issues that are more likely to garner support from one wing of the GOP, but very soon he'll start pushing things the Dems want (infrastructure spending, urban renewal, etc.) He's absorbing all the body blows the Dem base can deliver right now. I'd hazard within the next 60 days he'll start rolling out things designed to appease them and that we'll see a shift in rhetoric to a degree once he does. You'll note there is a sense Obamacare may not end up being repealed as well - via the media.

It definitely has the feel of a man who wants to take as much power away from the other branches of government as possible. And I see nothing from our media (who loves a left vs. right fight) or our Congressional leaders to suggest they will unite to fight him.
 
I honestly think Trump wouldn't be quite as hated or demonized if the motherfucker could just improve his goddamned vocabulary. Everything is "great" "wonderful" "really great" "good" etc etc....its like listening to an interview from Jim Grobe.....you know every other word out of his mouth is going to be "pretty good". Speak in a manner that carries with it the office you hold and maybe so many people wouldn't think you're a mentally handicapped mouth-breather in way over his head.
 
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
I honestly think Trump wouldn't be quite as hated or demonized if the motherfucker could just improve his goddamned vocabulary. Everything is "great" "wonderful" "really great" "good" etc etc....its like listening to an interview from Jim Grobe.....you know every other word out of his mouth is going to be "pretty good". Speak in a manner that carries with it the office you hold and maybe so many people wouldn't think you're a mentally handicapped mouth-breather in way over his head.
Click to expand...

I think it has a lot more to do with him being a terrible person than the best words he uses, but that's just me. Because he, in fact, is a truly terrible human being.
 
Last edited:
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
I honestly think Trump wouldn't be quite as hated or demonized if the motherfucker could just improve his goddamned vocabulary. Everything is "great" "wonderful" "really great" "good" etc etc....its like listening to an interview from Jim Grobe.....you know every other word out of his mouth is going to be "pretty good". Speak in a manner that carries with it the office you hold and maybe so many people wouldn't think you're a mentally handicapped mouth-breather in way over his head.
Click to expand...

I think it's more about the fact he's a terrible person, but you're correct in that his grammar and vocabulary could stand to be improved.
 
Busy week but finally got around to reading Trump's EO, which wasn't on the WH website the last time I looked. I actually had to go to CNN to find the text.

A few things...

1- The order is a bit too broad and ambiguous. I'd have no problem if it suspended for 90 days immigrant and nonimmigrant entry from the stated countries for new entries, or the refugee program for 120 days, but it broadly sweeps up any H1Bs or other employment-based visas who may be traveling abroad. And while I don't read it to include green card holders, I can see why some overzealous inspectors might have thought that since it includes immigrants. A green card holder is technically the holder of an immigrant visa.

2- Clarification made as to it not pertaining to green card holders was the right thing to do. Those can't be rescinded en masse. There's a process for that. They need to do a similar addendum to include any folks with existing work visas and previous entries on those visas who are caught up in overseas travel at this time, assuming they weren't hanging out at jihadist camps or something. Lots of H1Bs need to travel for work.

3- Beyond it being wrongly read to include green card holders, it seems all very much within the scope of his authority. Whereas Obama used his authority to de-prioritize immigration enforcement that didn't fit his agenda, Trump is prioritizing most everything again. Selective enforcement can be a bitch.

4 - A court going against him in this would have to undo a lot of precedent. We are talking about port of entry refusals, and you pretty much have no rights at a POE or in border zones. Courts recognize wide latitude here, as well as no right to what is commonly recognized as due process. We throw Mexicans on a bus and drive it back across the border. We don't take them to a court hearing. Similarly, we put refused plane travelers on the first plane back. This has been the process forever. Moreover, he can direct the consulates to open/close, not issue visas, etc.

5 - Nobody would be challenging this if it were 1942 and he were directing the exclusion of aliens from the Axis, and he isn't directing Syrian-born US citizens to be sent off to internment camps, nor is that on the radar.

I'm guessing they polish up the turdier parts of the EO and move on. Save your outrage for something else. Half the Hillary crowd is going to give themselves heart attacks judging from the first week of Trump, thus insuring him of a second term. Pick your battles wisely, or else it's just going to be crying wolf at some point when it really needs to be serious.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The number of legal immigrants entering countries likely also has a nonzero percent of arrests, charges, and convictions correct?

Do we ban all immigrants period because a nonzero number of these events occur?
Click to expand...

Isn't the question really what characteristics you want to admit vs. not-admit.

For instance would you admit someone who:

- Said it was o.k. to have sex with children

- Said it was o.k. to marry off underage girls

- Said it was o.k. for husbands to beat their wives

- Said it was o.k. to commit violence against people because of their sexual orientation

- Said it was o.k. to assault or hurt innocent people because of something the United States government did

- Said they supported ISIS

- Were ever convicted of a violent crime

I have no idea how we draw these lines, btw. I'm just asking on what basis we choose to admit or not admit refugees. Are we concerned with questions like the above or not? Do we in any way seek to assure the values of the refugee conform to our own legal standards (you'll note all of the questions above go to the potential that someone would condone breaking serious laws)? Do we go further and look for them to confirm just more general values (which we do not do with our own citizens). And, frankly, there are instances where our own citizens will voice a willingness to condone lawlessness (and we obviously don't detain them until they commit a crime). In short, where do you think the line should be drawn?
 
Spicer: State Department officials employees "get with the program or get out" in response to memo disagreeing with Muslim ban.
 
Spicer: Those deported this weekend were "just temporarily inconvenienced for a couple of hours."
 
He is of mediocre intelligence, but more troubling is his apparent lack of basic historical context, basic government procedure, basic diplomatic procedure, basic economic theory, basic human rights standards, current statistics on crime, current statistics on employment, basic tax theory and statistics, or basic ethics and decency.

I mean, if once or twice he threw us a bone in an interview that suggested he was not only aware of the above, but even interested, I would give him a little more respect. Maybe pen an op-ed or something that demonstrates command over the material.

But this guy has spoken like a 9th grader trying to get through an oral exam after asking his buddies what was on the test 20 minutes beforehand.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I'm still trying to understand it myself, so I can make up my mind. I fully expect he will screw up. Bigly. I'm trying to invest my outrage wisely. If this is such a case, I'm all in. Still trying to get there factually first.
Click to expand...

Why do people use this word?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Busy week but finally got around to reading Trump's EO, which wasn't on the WH website the last time I looked. I actually had to go to CNN to find the text.

A few things...

1- The order is a bit too broad and ambiguous. I'd have no problem if it suspended for 90 days immigrant and nonimmigrant entry from the stated countries for new entries, or the refugee program for 120 days, but it broadly sweeps up any H1Bs or other employment-based visas who may be traveling abroad. And while I don't read it to include green card holders, I can see why some overzealous inspectors might have thought that since it includes immigrants. A green card holder is technically the holder of an immigrant visa.

2- Clarification made as to it not pertaining to green card holders was the right thing to do. Those can't be rescinded en masse. There's a process for that. They need to do a similar addendum to include any folks with existing work visas and previous entries on those visas who are caught up in overseas travel at this time, assuming they weren't hanging out at jihadist camps or something. Lots of H1Bs need to travel for work.

3- Beyond it being wrongly read to include green card holders, it seems all very much within the scope of his authority. Whereas Obama used his authority to de-prioritize immigration enforcement that didn't fit his agenda, Trump is prioritizing most everything again. Selective enforcement can be a bitch.

4 - A court going against him in this would have to undo a lot of precedent. We are talking about port of entry refusals, and you pretty much have no rights at a POE or in border zones. Courts recognize wide latitude here, as well as no right to what is commonly recognized as due process. We throw Mexicans on a bus and drive it back across the border. We don't take them to a court hearing. Similarly, we put refused plane travelers on the first plane back. This has been the process forever. Moreover, he can direct the consulates to open/close, not issue visas, etc.

5 - Nobody would be challenging this if it were 1942 and he were directing the exclusion of aliens from the Axis, and he isn't directing Syrian-born US citizens to be sent off to internment camps, nor is that on the radar.

I'm guessing they polish up the turdier parts of the EO and move on. Save your outrage for something else. Half the Hillary crowd is going to give themselves heart attacks judging from the first week of Trump, thus insuring him of a second term. Pick your battles wisely, or else it's just going to be crying wolf at some point when it really needs to be serious.
Click to expand...

The rollout of this was either grossly incompetent; intentionally chaotic, or some combination of the two. At least some faction of Trump's inner circle intended this to apply to green card holders and intentions aside it was actually applied to green card holders in defiance of a court order. That is troubling and only remedied by swift condemnation and protest.

Even if the order had only been "no new visas from these 7 countries" it would have been unnecessary, counterproductive, and in the case of Syria especially, inhumane.

To the extent parallels can be drawn between this situation and 1942, I'm not really sure you want to do so.
 
DeaconSig said:
So maybe the administration should have, you know, looked at it. This is not "looking at it" This is doing something.
Click to expand...

I think the entire point Sig is that neither side knows on what basis the vetting done of refugees admits or does not admit people. All we heard from Obama was how it was super stringent and took lots of interviews and time. And all we heard from the GOP was how it didn't properly vet out potential wrong doers and people who would seek to do us harm. But no one has yet shown me on what basis exactly the vetting determines to admit or not admit someone. And that is the entire crux of the issue we are now facing. And somehow no one has even asked Trump what, exactly, it is about the present vetting he thinks does not work properly. Perhaps the vetting really is fucked up and doesn't properly screen for people inclined to condone all sorts of horrible things. Perhaps it just needs to be tweaked and a ban isn't necessary while the tweaking occurs. But we can't even have a good conversation on this as a country because none of us really know the substance of the vetting.
 
DeacMan said:
I think the entire point Sig is that neither side knows on what basis the vetting done of refugees admits or does not admit people. All we heard from Obama was how it was super stringent and took lots of interviews and time. And all we heard from the GOP was how it didn't properly vet out potential wrong doers and people who would seek to do us harm. But no one has yet shown me on what basis exactly the vetting determines to admit or not admit someone. And that is the entire crux of the issue we are now facing. And somehow no one has even asked Trump what, exactly, it is about the present vetting he thinks does not work properly. Perhaps the vetting really is fucked up and doesn't properly screen for people inclined to condone all sorts of horrible things. Perhaps it just needs to be tweaked and a ban isn't necessary while the tweaking occurs. But we can't even have a good conversation on this as a country because none of us really know the substance of the vetting.
Click to expand...

The "extra" vetting done this weekend was a couple of hours of interviews by CBP officers. Doesn't support the idea that the previous system was seriously lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top