
The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It - jakefuentes
https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5#.9hbbusxs2
======
bbctol
If the goal is to test the extent that checks and balances can be
circumvented/authoritarianism implemented, then showing up in protest is
absolutely effective, especially when it pressured CBP officials to follow the
court order. At airport protests, the illegality of the order and executive
coup when the courts were not complied with was a huge, huge focus.

~~~
cderwin
It's important to remember that no part of the order has been deemed illegal
yet. The NY court just granted a stay so that people affected would be able to
proceed with the case on American soil.

------
virtuabhi
Before November I would not have upvoted this story. But given that Steve
Bannon is in WH to come up with ideas to 1) end international co-operation 2)
destroy existing democratic institutions 3) create a nation state on the
shared heritage identity (descendants from a specfic group of European
countries practicing a specific religion), such theories do not seem out of
place

~~~
norea-armozel
If you have the time, you should look up the transcript of the 2014 speech
Bannon gave regarding some of his views. I think Buzzfeed has a copy (I know
Buzzfeed sucks but this is one of the rare times there's a gem on that site).
To break it down, Bannon seriously believes the West has lost its way since
the fall of the USSR. And that he wants to bring it back into balance for
Christianity. That includes manipulating capital owners into conformance any
way he can. Basically, Dominionism 2.0. It's weird how this flew under the
radar but I suspect it's intentional because most people in the US aren't the
kind of Christian that would sign up for any kind of Dominionism anymore since
the generational split on this is firmly established. I think it's a question
of whether or not Bannon and his ilk realize you can't engineer people to
accept it. But then again this is the same guy who got violent on Biosphere 2
with researchers when things didn't go his way. When reality smacks him a few
times in Congress I expect either he'll try to force Trump to be more
draconian than even he's capable of being or misstepping big time and winding
up getting fired (I can see Kellyanne Conway or Reince Preibus pulling this
off against him).

------
DashRattlesnake
> Second, pay journalists to watch for the head fake. That’s their job. Become
> a paying subscriber to news outlets, then actively ask them to more deeply
> cover moves like the NSC shakeup. We can no longer breathlessly focus media
> attention on easy stories like the immigration ban. The real story is much
> more nuanced and boring — until it’s not.

This finally convinced me to get an online subscription to the New York Times,
after trying to avoid paying anything for news for years. It makes sense to me
to think of a subscription not so much as product-purchase, but more like a
patreon-like pledge of support.

I kinda wish I could get one to the WSJ too, but their prices seem too high :/

~~~
DarkKomunalec
The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after
Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author
not threatened to publish a book [1]? I think it's great you're willing to pay
for news, but I urge you to find a source that's less cozy with those in
power, such as The Intercept, of Snowden fame.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story)

~~~
offa
What would HN recommend for a news source that is worth paying for lately?

~~~
leonroy
Wondering the same thing myself. In the U.K. I can attest to the quality of
The Guardian although it does get a little emotionally charged - particularly
its editorials - excellent paper otherwise. The Financial Times is another
excellent paper and funnily enough regarded by Noam Chomsky as the most
accurate.

As far as US papers go The NY Times has a pretty spotty history. It is still a
very good paper, just gotta be aware of its short comings.

I hear The Wall Street Journal is also very good but never really read it
personally - usually pickup The Economist instead (despite all its problems).

As far as free stuff goes Democracy Now is up there with any news I've seen on
television and since it refuses corporate, advertising or government funding
is entirely reliant on donations to remain as unbiased as possible. Very good
indeed and worth supporting.

~~~
scaryspooky
Democracy Now is certainly not an unbiased news source.

------
differentView
Although I agree this is likely a setup for more to come, I disagree that this
is a "headfake".

A "headfake" implies it achieves nothing if one's opponent ignores it. In this
case, if there was no pushback, then he would have successfully banned green
card holders from seven nations. Then it would receive even less
coverage/reaction when he adds an eighth nation, a ninth, a tenth, and so
on... Pretty soon, you'll only have legal immigration from nations Steve
Bannon deems worthy.

------
edblarney
I loathe Trump, and despise Bannon, and I wouldn't put it past them to have
some dirty tricks, but this conspiracy theory doesn't pass muster

The political optics of having to 'roll back' are not beneficial for POTUS,
because it would be an admission that he's 'wrong' \- and he does not like to
be wrong.

Second - if the ACLU can 'win' cases against the administration - this is
hugely damaging for them, as it speaks to their lack of credibility to
everyone except the hardcore followers - it gives momentum to their opponents
- and a 'permanent record' of things to wail about for 4 years.

More importantly - it weakens them vis-a-vis the GOP controlled congress.

Right now - Trump is strong, only because he has a very solid base support.
The GOP do not like Trump, but right now they are afraid of his wrath -
politically. And Trump will go a long with most of what they want so it's not
so bad.

But - if Trump is weakened too much, then the GOP don't have to listen to him,
and they'll start fighting him on agenda issues.

The reason Trump is rushing through this stuff is not for issues of power -
it's popular politics: he has the power 'now' to do some things - and may not
have it later. He's trying to appear as though 'he's done what he's said he's
done'.

Also - the refugee ban is not even meaningful, other than in terms of
perception. There will be some disruption for 90 days, and then things will be
as they were. This is political theatre, not a conniving power grab.

A few more things like this from Trump and he will be weakened, he could
feasibly be the biggest 'lame duck' president ever, though surely he will make
a lot of noise during that period.

If the GOP abandons him, he can only scrawl together so many executive orders
- granted, he'll wield his veto power like a drunk king ...

~~~
brian-armstrong
As the article points out, he doesn't have to admit to being wrong. By making
the order overly broad, he is able to later claim that a future implementation
is what he intended all along.

------
apeacox
‪During the 20 years of Berlusconi in Italy, we called this tactic "weapons of
mass-distraction". Indeed, they worked.‬

------
helthanatos
Trump did promise to make our country more secure. Whether he is testing power
at the same time or not, it doesn't really matter. We have allowed the
President too much power and it needs to be fixed.

------
tn13
This is always obvious to me. I think at this moment Trump's wet dream is that
some frustrated person from these 7 nations might do something really stupid
that will help him go even harder after Muslims and other minorities.

Asians, Mexicans etc. are next on the anvil.

------
MR4D
This should be downvoted as horribly misleading. This idiot is FACTUALLY and
PROVABLY wrong.

One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the President
"removed a permanent military presence from the NSC".

The military is on the Council according to LAW. No president can change that.

SOURCE:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021)

Now stop repeating crap that isn't true. It takes away from real issues, and
divides the country on YOUR Headfake.

HN readers deserve better. Much better.

~~~
grzm
_" removed a permanent military presence from the NSC"_

This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as
the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the
NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if
the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently
in attendance: just occasionally.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-
donald-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-
national-security-council.html)

~~~
MR4D
My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and
subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The
law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee.

Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual):
[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2017/jan/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2017/jan/31/sean-spicer/spicers-misleading-claim-trumps-
national-security-/)

~~~
grzm
Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're
wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it
difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not
interpreting the author in the same vein.

If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the
author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid
representation of the facts", I'd be more willing to consider the rest of what
you have to say.

I think his use of the word permanent is valid: they're no longer permanent
members. I can understand your point of view as well. I also don't see him
making the argument that doing so is against the law, or even implies that
it's illegal: just that it's a significant change from the past (or, in his
words "a _much_ bigger deal). Bringing this legal aspect up as to why he's
being misleading is a bit of a straw man, in my opinion.

Anyway, I find arguments made calmly and reasonably, and in good faith (of
which there sometimes seems to be an ever-dwindling supply) unless there's an
abundance of evidence to believe otherwise to be much more persuasive.

~~~
MR4D
One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an
article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought
it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it.

I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been
commendable)

~~~
grzm
Thanks. I appreciate it.

Unfortunately, this exchange has exhausted what was left of my good will, at
least for now. It's decidedly not effort-free yet for me. The past couple of
days have been particularly taxing. The last three comments I've written I've
immediately deleted because they weren't up-to-snuff. I'll keep at it, though,
because I think it's a very important practice to keep.

If that's something you value, and would like to further cultivate in
yourself, I've got some references I rely on in my profile. I encourage you to
check them out.

Cheers.

~~~
Erem
Thanks for dropping those links, grzm. Between them and the content of your
comments I have been reminded what civil disagreement is supposed to look
like.

------
HeyLaughingBoy
At least I don't feel so crazy now for thinking this...

------
relics443
How many sheep will read this, assume it's true, and not realize it's
somebody's daydream?

