While it's been easy to think about many possible negative outcomes in the proceeding days, weeks, months, another subtle aspect of this policy's ramifications is how it weakens trust and faith in the concept of stability for future American policy — the likelihood of future government actions, executed with little to no foresight, warning, or serious consideration, with serious consequences. How this effects this country's current reputation as a place to study, travel, find work, and start families + settle down can't be understated.
I think it is easy to underestimate the ugliness and disorder such a reckless executive order can unleash unless you start to think about the details or put yourself in the shoes of the people affected.
NBC News reports:
The Trump administration also has yet to issue guidance to airports and airlines on how to implement the executive order. "Nobody has any idea what is going on," a senior Homeland Security official told NBC News.
As James Gleick put it on Twitter:
And how was it communicated to Customs and Border Protection? Or have they just gone rogue?
And then there is the gross conflict-of-interest reflected in this map:
The event marks a horrible landmark. It's the first time I can point to the tangible harmful impact of Trump's executive policy on actual people. Up to this point, it has been possible for supporters and apologists to waive away his vague or careless remarks during the campaign as political rhetoric, jokes, or leverage for future negotiation. Now we start to see the mean (in every sense of the word) instinct that informed them and the harm they can do.
These countries were already hard for US citizens to do business in (hence no Trump holidings). I don't think Trump cares much about money - he is interested in Power.
"Corruption" is a distraction. I also think the thing about his tax returns is the same.
> I don't think Trump cares much about money - he is interested in Power.
It's hard to know what his true interests are. But based on his actions, and his lack of desire for publicly stating his net worth or tax returns, I think he is very interested in maintaining not only his worth but also his companies'.
Trump is the first President in a long time that can directly be influenced by foreign governments through his business and property holdings.
I think that his tax returns are a huge distraction. When they leak, what will change? Everyone already knows he doesn't pay much tax. His fans see that as a good thing.
The only thing that could change out of it is if there is a line item "Russian bribes". But that's unlikely, especially since I tend to think his ties with Russia are philosophical, not financial.
1)piss everyone off except his core vote base
2) be forced out of office
3) launch a movie/book/tv show
I don't think his original plan was to win the election.
(For real: I'm not from the US)
I agree with your comment though.
So, let's not pretend that he was constrained by some list from the Obama administration. It's an executive order, and President Trump owns the whole thing.
And the opposition and the media are so deep in Saud pockets, they can't even call Bush out for it.
If you poll this issue, you'll find at least 80% of Americans don't care how inconvenient our immigration policy is for those countries affected. And a very large majority wants no immigration whatsoever from any of those nations affected nor from any of their neighbors save Israel. Probably a majority of Hillary voters would approve if they could be reassured it would go no further than that.
Democrats (who voted 89% for Hillary) are strongly in support.
Overall 59% of Americans believe immigrants make the country stronger: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/15/americans-vi...
Most polls are quite vague approximations, when they aren't just lying with statistics. And you can easily frame them in all kinds of ways by how one asks the questions and how they present an issue.
But, of course, none of your comment answers the questions I posed. I'm less interested in litigating abstractions and more in the specifics. Care to take a whack at addressing them?
The polls about The Donald losing were also heavily reported:
In any case, unlike you, I'm more interested in abstractions based on large historical body of evidence (for not trusting pollsters in general) than in specifics (evaluating a particular poll, especially in hot political and partisan issues, which presupposes that I can trust what those that created it say, that is not only trusting the methodology as they describe it, but also that they followed it -- and we obviously have no way of knowing the latter).
How did you verify the poll? Because this is not some scientific paper where one can retract the steps and redo the numbers. Just trusting the methodology reported (a meagre page with a 10-mile high view of the procedure and no specifics in the case of Pew Research Center, for example?) and having faith that no poll and/or research center would ever misreport or falsify?
Maybe my mistrust is wrong, but I don't see the trust as being any better, especially with so many off the mark polls that been shown in practice to be so (the actually verifiable and falsifiable ones, like the ones on voting preferences).
American immigration policy towards Israelis is essentially the same as towards anyone else. My (Jewish Israeli) coworker from grad-school wanted to work for Google in Mountain View, but the company couldn't swing him a visa. He stayed at Technion to do a PhD.
He now says that he doesn't want to come to the USA with Trump in power.
You tell me how a Jewish Israeli computer scientist poses a threat to the United States. And if you think you can, be aware that I'm such a person, on top of being American, so you had better explain to me how I'm a foreign threat to my own home country.
And what about the people I know without second passports? Should a certain friend refuse to visit China with her parents because Trump might decide to ban her (with an American passport!) from returning home over some spat about trade policy?
The Department of Homeland Security should have refused this order.
Trump can't do that. That would take something way beyond an executive order.
I moved to the US ~a year ago, now as a permanent resident. Debating on what to do if things continue going down along the current course.
However, my view on that is a bit different - if he can avoid, working on his own for his own future instead of a big corp is the way to go.
PS: goog emp.
As I understood it, he had gone through the interview process and been offered a specific role in Mountain View, for which they then couldn't get the visa. This was back in 2015, so no Trump craziness yet then, just the ordinary bureaucratic stuff.
And just to express my butthurt, Israelis don't even get visa-free tourism to the United States.
That said, it looks like it's past now. Good luck to your friend.
America is a nation and only those that further the aims of the existing nation should come. Even then it should be very few of those because America is already full.
We can't build enough space to live and infrastructure for the people that are already here. And our natural environment is already threatened by overdevelopment.
And just try driving in any major prosperous city at rush hour or riding the subway. Or renting an apartment in SF or NY. We can't expand housing or infrastructure in those cities and we're admitting millions of foreigners overfilling them even further.
We're 6 days in. At this point, can anyone really assure them of that?
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the U.S.
Executive Orders are there to fill in the implementation details that congress leaves out.. they can't override laws entirely.
In all the discussions I heard so far on Facebook and media I noticed a lot blame, name-calling, despair and so on. But I haven't seen enough solid self-reflections. Specifically focusing on why did the Democrats stay home that day. Without it we will have another Trump and then another ...
In the US the "blue map" does really matter except psychologically since everyone votes in a specific state, but the predictions from the media probably didn't help.
Hopefully Trump will drive democratic midterm voter turn out.
So far, their actions have been rather dismal. For instance, they've voted for most if not all of Trump's cabinet appointments.
Media might not be covering their response more? But, I don't know what they could do in Congress.
Not like they made it easy before but still we can expect similar responses to the proposed 20% border tax with Mexico.
Edit Some people seem to think US citizens cannot visit Iran. From the horse's mouth:
Cuba's been for a long time the only country the US won't allow its citizens to visit (head, meet desk); North Korea is, so far as I know, the only country that actively prevents US citizens from visiting, although that may be a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground.
Anyway, http://uncorneredmarket.com/american-travel-iran/ has more information.
The typical experience for Americans who have applied for visas to visit North Korea is a very long wait, with only gaining approval (sometimes after years of applications), only to have the approval revoked sometimes as late as hours before their flights depart. Some people report having had their travel visas revoked three or four times before finally being granted entrance.
"Not blocked" doesn't seem like the right term for whatever that is.
TL;DR: Visa applications take longer (but still usually <30 days) and you must be accompanied by a guide at all times, but other than that you're free to travel around.
It's worth noting that this is considerably looser than North Korea, where you not only have a guide, but can only go to the places that have been agreed in advance and your guides permit you to go to.
But we do this shit all the time. The US' immigration system is byzantine at best.
We deport "illegals" who have lives in the US routinely whose lives are no less worthwhile; Obama did something similar to Cubans coming here right before leaving office, leaving those moving to the US with the expectation that "wet foot dry foot" policy would continue stranded at airports.
We're just all more sympathetic to the MIT student.
Maybe I'm just overly cavalier, but it feels no different from the arbitrariness I have experienced in the US immigration system where random officials may make decisions with no relationship to the law with no grounds for appeal.
This country already makes it ridiculously hard for skilled workers to move here; the optics sure do look shitty though.
I do feel truly sorry for the refugees though, they have nowhere to go back to and are truly in a world of hurt. It saddens me that every country I have called home is so callous to them.
It's possible we may get some useful legal precedents, though, if some of this ends up in the courts. A good number of conservative judges are already skeptical of both excessive executive delegation and federal-government overreach, and were making moves in that direction during Obama's administration. Will Trump cause some liberal judges who have traditionally had differing views to wake up to the danger of such an executive, without an equal-or-greater number of conservative judges suddenly having a change of heart in the opposite direction? And will good test cases arise, with standing, etc.? Maybe, maybe not, but it's possible.
1. It's not what "half of you wanted". It's what a portion of the portion of those that voted in a 55% turnout election wanted. A tiny and vindictive portion, that lost the popular vote.
2. Even if it were what "half of you wanted", it's also what half of you did not want. This is not a kid's game where you count up the points and call the clear winner. If half of your population's will is being disregarded and worked against, there is a problem.
3. This is plain and simply abhorrent. Even if these were popular policies, they are reprehensible. The majority can be misguided.
PS: Your twitter feed is worse than an angry child's. Seriously, get a hold of yourself. Applauding Trump's targeting of the free press and minorities? "Civilizational cancer"? Are you seriously surprised that people dislike you and your ideologies?
Then it seems to me there has been a problem in the US for many years now.
(Good news everyone! There's now a problem in the UK, too!)
First, it's 46% of the people who voted (i.e. less than half). Second, it's quite disingenuous to suggest that all of those people would support this hamfisted immigration restriction, as-is; in case you were oblivious to your surroundings for the last year, vast numbers of voters -- if not the majority -- were merely voting for the person they despised less. It's more than a tad delusional that there's a mandate here to go and fuck over people's lives because of the happenstance of where they happen to come from.
And it is pretty capricious.
But yeah, he did repeatedly say he would do it.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
It is a trap to think this is about just Trump.
And you think 26.7% of eligible voters, after you've suppressed and disenfranchised so many people, entitles you to violate our laws, our Constitution, and the boundaries of morality?
No. "President" Trump and his neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Bannon can shove this fascist crap where the sun don't shine.
Regardless of how strongly you feel, how heated the discussion, or how others are behaving, you're doing yourself and your argument no favors with the name-calling. Even if you feel that you're just calling a spade a spade, you're just providing others with ammunition to dismiss you and anything you say as just an angry, unreasonable rant. And if you're not actually addressing the people who you don't agree with (which means you're addressing the people who already agree with you, or at best, people who are on the fence), is it really worth saying?
You make a lot of good points at the beginning of your comment. These figures need to be kept in mind, on all sides of these discussions.
I think the problem here is that I genuinely feel I'm calling a spade a spade. Trump himself is probably not ideological enough to be a devoted neo-Nazi. Stephen Bannon, on the other hand, makes Republicans allude to fascism.
>“The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office,” said John Weaver, a Republican strategist who ran the presidential campaign of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and previously advised Senator John McCain of Arizona. “Be very vigilant, America.”
 -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-who-...
 -- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-...
How many people strongly supported the candidate they ended up casting their ballot for? Both Trump and Clinton had historically low favorability ratings. If people think they're being attacked by one side or the other, it makes it all the harder for them to listen to reasoned debate, and much more likely that they'll be actively voting against a candidate.
Even this "other side" language is problematic, in my opinion. How are you going to find allies among those you don't already agree with when you think of them as "other"? How do you expect them to listen to you? People dig in, get defensive, when they feel they're being attacked. They're no longer listening. There are some people who will never listen to you, or even if they do listen to you, aren't going to end up agreeing with you. But that's not necessarily everyone you don't currently agree with. If you've already written off everyone who voted for a different candidate than you, then you're stuck with very few options. People are more complex than the effectively binary option that was the 2016 US Presidential Election admits.
It's not a "better than them" thing. It's a "what's actually going to make a difference" thing. Language alone isn't going to solve this, of course. But language used poorly can drive needless wedges between people.
All your statements about trying to make people understand, to make them feel equal and not defensive, I was 100% on board with such an approach. And then you realise it's futile.
India did not become independent because Gandhi won; India became independent because it became unfashionable to have colonies, and the British were pressured into letting their empire dissolve.
This is naked white supremacism. For as much bullshit as we've heard about political correctness, why not just come out and say this is straight up religious and racial discrimination?
The president's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor is a white nationalist, who used to run Breitbart.com, where there is a distinction made between white supremacists and white nationalists (I cannot explain the distinction, for I don't see one). A site all about how awful multiculturalism is, separation of races is necessary for the survival of a country, etc.
Without letting down your guard or concern, my advice is to moderate it with another possibility. The U.S. has much better insulation geographically than European countries, and a history that involves worse rhetoric and divisiveness and we've survived. There might be a pro where the whole world sees what even a little bit of white nationalism does to a country, and all those European countries flirting with their own far right nationalists, and have elections coming up soon, might just have an "OH FUCK NO" moment.
And that's probably better than if Europe were electing far right governments before the U.S. Europe has a history of conflagration. Maybe Europe gets cold feet and starts taking far right nationalist politics more seriously, and rejects it more concisely and clearly, at election time. It's much easier, safer, more stable, to squash this at an election.
You should be ashamed. Imagine being unable to go to work after a short vacation - because someone didn't like where you were born, and in the meantime, on a whim, decided not to let you go.
For absolute shame.
Every group on HN notices things that appear to be against them. It's normal human bias. I've seen plenty of flagging/down-voting going on all sides of various issues.
If you legitimately are interested to dig into this more, there are at least two different HN APIs available for you to mine the comments on the site. I'd be interested in the results if you chose to do so.
I don't think looking at a single submission is adequate in dealing with the perception issue, but for the sake of argument, I looked at all of the references for "nazi" (as it was the first on your list) in the comments for the submission you referenced. Only one of them in my opinion can be construed as name-calling, and that is nuanced in that it explicitly says "not all". Still not great, admittedly, but not the blanket name-calling you imply.
This is all the effort I'm willing to do for you on this front. I think this shows good faith. I encourage you to take a step back and look at everything as a whole as objectively as you can. I know this is hard (it's hard for me), but it's increasingly important lest we increase the polarization we already have. We can't control how other people behave directly. All we can do is do our best to control our own behavior to encourage others to do likewise and move forward constructively.
popular support for Nazism has been purged from German culture.
Trump voters are not 100% made up of nazis, in essence.
Germany wasn't 100% made up of Nazi supporters either. That didn't stop disaster.
I've sen a lot of angst over the last week about people on the left expressing approval for 'punching nazis' following Richard Spencer suffering a whack on the ear during a TV interview. It's true, someone, probably form the left, carried out an act of physical violence while he was just standing there talking.
I am even wiling to defend the concept of free speech for people like neo-nazis and the kkk - but only up to the point where they endorse violence against others as opposed to merely asserting their own superiority.
Punching nazis is OK. The left gets to decide who is a nazi.
Punching commies is OK. The right gets to decide who is a commie.
We restricted Nazi immigration, we restricted communist immigration, and we should certainly restrict Muslim extremist immigration.
If you mean Nazi Germany, my opinion is that there aren't actually that many parallels.
For some reason I'm thinking of a parable that goes like: "First they came for the Nazis"...
And Obama was the biggest nazi of all times
I'm not saying it has not errupted (it has) I'm saying violence and the glorification if it (as in people sharing the punch a Nazi video) is a dead end and will definitely strengthen trump support.
It is not possible to really invoke Godwin's law regarding Trump, he already opened this door when he accused the CIA of being like NAZIs for reporting he facts.
Good faith means doing that work upfront to ensure that what you're saying has some basis, and in the case of contentious issues, strong basis. Good faith also means backing down when you're called out on something and found to be lacking that strong basis, not continuing to push it forward.
Most people's good faith doesn't extend infinitely. They're fools if they do continue to extend it when repeatedly shown that the people they're engaging with aren't doing so as well.
And you still don't seem to have gotten my original point: I agree that name-calling is uncalled for and actively unconstructive and uncivil. The perception that "your side", whatever that may be, is being treated unfairly pops up on all sides of contentious issues here on HN. Go out and do some real stats work if you think there's something pernicious about some particular behavior. The data is out there. Just anecdotes don't cut it. Your bias (and mine, and anyone's) isn't going to let you see the picture clearly on its own. And when you're done, share the data, methodology, and results with the rest of us. I know there are a lot of people besides me who would be interested in seeing it, regardless of the actual results.
Even for those strongly against Muslims, or immigration in general, it seems difficult to believe that this kind of lame-ass shit is what they had in mind when voting Trump.
And for those few with enough animus to want to screw over some innocent PhD student because of where she was born? Fuck those guys.
That's the intention. The USA is more than a convenient incubator for foreigners. It's a nation responsible for its own future. Quite a lot of Americans don't want foreigners to make plans expecting that the USA will just always be there to fulfill their whims.
A little unpredictability goes a long way in changing your national reputation as an easily exploited doormat.
Also, why do you think immigrants are always going to be non-American? My father has lived here for nearly 40 years, pays taxes, pays into SS, and raised my family here. Is he just fulfilling his whims?
What I am trying to say is, if you believe USA is "an easily exploited doormat" you need to step out of the echo chamber and diversify your news sources.
Nobody chooses their birthplace, but these are the people that decided to make a change, and in a way that historically benefited the us.
Though one could argue 3 generations later that act of immigration is not benefitting the US.
It's too early to say what benefits the country will have after his presidency.
Barring employment and immigration to an ethnic group is absolutely disastrous for the country.
(Honestly, what happens when any Trump property around the world gets attacked? They've got giant signs advertising that the president of the US cares about them, and they don't have anywhere near the protection that US soil does.)
I don't want to speculate on how Trump might behave when it comes to his business now that he's the POTUS, but even without that, there are enough reasons for him to add Turkey to the list.
I think one of the few reasons it hasn't happened yet is probably because Incirlik base, but it's also been a long tension point between two countries.
Selfishly, I was hoping greencard holders would be exempt, and thinking we already go through thorough background check as part of the application, but it turned out futile.
I don't think so.
Tax laws come to mind, for example, when Turkish government wanted extra tax money, they started going after American companies.
Edit: Added last para.
The only recently new things is a guys in Washington recklessly driving car while DUI that is being officially called terrorist.
Next coming: jaywalking might be terrorism too.
Greencard holders will require additional screening at an embassy/consulate before they are allowed entering to usa.
This is a temp 90-day ban on non-reciprocating countries (and countries of concern), which the FBI said they are not able to properly vet (because those countries will not provide background info on the applicant, and some other reasons). It only affects non-citizens such as visitors, students, or employment visas holders - from leaving the country and coming back, and there seems to be a waiver process to help them.
They already have something like a 7 month backlog of applicants to process. 90 days is going to give them a chance to catch up and look for ways to improve the situation... Such as getting the "Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs" part of the order up and running.
The EO affects ALL legal immigrants from these countries like H1B visa holders and Green Card holders too.
Most of these though, I feel, should not happen retroactively. In other words, if they are already naturalized citizens and now have two citizenships, they should remain so. US shouldn't go after all the generations who naturalized. It's fair if they require you renounce your former citizenship going forward.
And immigrants shouldn't get special privileges that natural citizens cannot, especially special privileges conferred by foreign princes and potentates.
Being a citizen of a country typically means that you have certain rights and privileges in that country that non-citizens don't. That's about it. "Loyalty" doesn't enter the picture unless one is a hardcore nationalist.
Nah, I don't buy the idea, Is plain BS.
Don't tell me that they don't reject visa applications at their diplomatic missions and for reasons related to national security because that's what they do all the time in the ME.
The problem is it affects legal, permanent residents. And innocent people.
Trump is already busy throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm worried about this. My wife isn't from one of the banned countries, but who knows if that will remain the case in the future?
So your great-great-grandparents moved to America, killed most of the local population and now you think you own the place? The USA is made of immigrants.
The sad thing is, those with the most options, who pay the most taxes, will do just that. They'll take their expertise and productivity and contribute them somewhere else. And the racists will congratulate themselves on how smart they are while the country continues its crumbling slide into fascism.
Is 90 days a hard limit, or could another order introduce a further 90 days?
Protests will be banned, people will be put in prison, violence will be quashed by even more violent means
You need to speak up now, or one does not know where this will end.
Yep, and we are already all the way up to "arresting 6 journalists covering public protests against the unpopular ruler"
Who matters? Not the US public: von Clownstick & co know it will be forgetten in a month or three, and by the next election (if there is another election) enough red meat can be thrown to the know-nothing base to "win" again.
Who matters: other wealthy nation governments. That's it. And none of them, however loudly they profess civilised values, will risk a hair on their precious bankers' heads to protect distant low-status nonwhite humans. That's a plain fact.
We all know what ought to happen: civilised nations should band together and just say no to America. An escalating series of sanctions, starting with trade, going via targeted military cooperation downgrades, and ending with cancelling all visas to US citizens. Some nations have strong leverage over America, eg. Australia threatening access to Pine Gap would make the US tremble.
None of this can or will happen, and we will plunge into the abyss. WWI and II were prequels. RIP homo sapiens. You will be little missed by our once-glorious planet's other sentient beings.
I think this is a very important point and pose a threat to democracy. I submitted a new word addition request in Merriam Webster's open dictionary and Oxford:
demagogocracy - government by the demagogues
The actual 120 day ban is bad enough, there's no reason to lie about it. People with green cards/existing visas need to be re-approved, they're not "banned". There's no intention AFAICT to keep people who should be in the US out of the US.
FFS people, Trump needs actual opposition, not knee-jerk virtue signaling, hyperbole, and hashtag protests!
You can say that, but I don't believe it. And you're not going to shut down my legitimate outrage and distress by pretending like it's not sincere.
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, and it sounds like the administration is backpedaling as well, but it's important to note that in the mean time some people with a (previously) legal right to enter the US were turned away because of Trump's recent executive order.
I guess the tl;dr for that article is “She’s not going to be able to get a visa for at least 90 days”
Careers are sometimes fragile and international flights are expensive. It's not as if none of this idiocy matters.
> FFS people, Trump needs actual opposition, not knee-jerk virtue signaling, hyperbole, and hashtag protests!
This is a deeply stupid comment.
This is false. U.S. visas (regardless of type) are different from those issued by other nations. A US visa does not give someone the right to enter the United States, it gives them the right to go to a port of entry (like an airport) and ask for permission to enter the United States.
Trump's order added additional scrutiny for border agents for people with visas from the seven countries. Many (most?) of those people were admitted, and the ACLU suit forced border agents to keep people "in limbo" in the US while that determination was made (vs. sending them back and forcing them to get a new visa—IMO, this is the right decision and I'm happy the courts made it).
But your specific assertion, that they had a legal right to enter the US is false. At best, they had a reasonable expectation that once they arrived, they would be let in without any difficulty or delay.
The only opposition yesterday worth anything was the ACLU lawsuit, and it was the only thing that actually made any concrete difference in the lives of the people affected.
The rest was just people engaging in fantasy politics in the streets, who got what they wanted by appearing to care in front of their peers—without actually changing, literally, anything at all but their own perception of themselves.
Everything beyond the ACLU lawsuit was either pointless virtue signaling or flat out lies (c.f. #MuslimBan hashtag). But sure, carry on protesting and virtue signaling, we all enjoy Trump running roughshod over the US while idiots live out their fantasy of political action and #Resistance on HN and Twitter.
It's weird, Trump really has a lot of people "off their game" as it were, and it saddens me because the guy's kind of an idiot. I'd like to see people I respect get their shit together and mount and effective opposition.
Short of talking to them (like I'm doing here), I'm not really sure what else you would expect me to do given my goals.
I am personally not politically active, I don't blog, tweet, or any of that stuff. I rarely even comment on HN.
So yeah: I just want to see the middle/left mount effective opposition. If you don't value my comments, ignore them. :)
What else would I expect you to do? I'd expect you to stop complaining about imaginary slights and insulting people for talking about things that they dislike.
What do you think I should do? You haven't given me any suggestions, just virtually shouted at me for being such a lying asshole. So I should... what? You said the ACLU mounted the only effective opposition, maybe I should donate to them? Well, I did already. Hmm, if I were virtue signaling, wouldn't I put that front and center on everything I write? Hey everybody, look at how virtuous I am, I donated to the ACLU!
I apologize if my comments seem overly directed at you personally; that was not my intent and I should have made a top-level comment. You're a good guy and perhaps I've misunderstood how effective your approach will be over time.
It is certainly a heck of a lot more effective than making pointlessly cynical comments like yours from behind a computer monitor.
I never stated their were equivalent, but the silence pre-Trump about immigration issues was deafening.
But yes, the current situation is several orders of magnitude worse, if you simply measure the number of people affected. Therefore, people's will be much more vocal.
And what most people don't realize is that without grad students, most research will be severely impacted. So if this continues at the rate it's going, we begin to lose foreign grad students to other countries.
I hope this ends well, but I have my doubts.
Of course they realize it. White nationalism is building its own epistemology - we already have alternative facts, and soon we will have "American science" . Eviscerating the liberal/globalist scientific/academic community isn't some sad unintended side effect, it's the core of what an electoral majority of this country believes with all its heart we should be doing with gusto.
I want to sign it, but don't want it to be used against the petition later if someone in the administration says it is a 'fake petition' because x% of outside the US jurisdiction signed it.
EDIT: Link looks like it is currently broken for me too.
I can't say I'm not proud of the Netherlands, but in this context... isn't this a big source of much evil? Us versus them? Ours vs. not ours?
Or even if a member of your immigrate family has Autism, from anywhere in the world, due to the financial burden to the healthcare system.
Where is the outrage over THAT? But of course platitudes are dished out that give the appearance of openness. That is obviously the only thing that matters in these cases, for the leaders to give the public a warm, fuzzy, general statement whilst doing the exact opposite.
There is a huge amount of sanctimonious talk coming out of other leaders and the public at the moment. People do not seem to be aware just how restrictive most country's immigration policies are. This is all getting lost in the Trump hate.
Canada completely rocks when it comes to immigration policy and is exactly how globalism in the US should be: welcome everyone, from anywhere—no papers, no problem! We're all people after all.
Undocumented workers specifically are a problem not because we don't want immigration - but because they are at risk of abuse by their employer.
Eh, technically, yes. But like anti-sodomy laws in many states in the US, they are rarely applied. Canada does not have a problem with immigration, "legal" or otherwise, no matter what the "laws" say.
Open borders is a human rights issue and Canada is on the right side of history. They do not preference their own citizens over other people, just because of where they were born or what nationality they are. Canada is compassionate to all people and a model for the United States.
> Undocumented workers specifically are a problem not because we don't want immigration - but because they are at risk of abuse by their employer.
Agreed, that's why I suggested undocumented immigrants just forge their papers; that's how it's done in the US and at least in California, works pretty well and tends to keep employers more honest.
Ideally Canada should just automatically give any undocumented worker (and their family) whatever papers/status necessary to make their de facto immigration to Canada legal, so they can stop being abused by their employer (and anyone else). Perhaps by setting up a center or something that undocumented workers can go to to get legal sanction. (California does something similar—anyone can get a valid drivers license here without any gov't papers.)
In fact, Canada not already just giving undocumented workers full rights and legal papers could reasonably be considered to be a human rights violation, since by not doing so, they are enabling inevitable abuse by Canadian employers. Same with visa grants, Canada IMO should just abolish visas entirely and let anyone who can get to Canada in, with full papers on arrival. It's probably some shit arrangement with the US gov't that's preventing them from doing so, now that I think about it.
I'm sure that over time, Canada will repeal all laws preventing foreigners from immigrating to Canada, establishing quotas, wait-lists, or anything else that takes away anyone's right to immigrate to Canada if they want to. Maybe even faster now that Trump is pissing everyone off in the US.
Like ending slavery, fully unrestricted open borders can't come soon enough. Future generations will judge us accordingly that we did not do so sooner, and at least Canada is on the right side of history, even if their laws have to catch up a bit to their hearts.
I thought excessive chauvinism is what led to Trump at first place?
I have no idea how you equate him saying "Canadians will welcome you" with chauvanism. And if you're referring to Justin getting his shirt off, that isn't what chauvanism means. (He is actually the exact opposite of the definition of chauvanism).
He didn't say that, I quoted what he said. There is no need to be proud of anything, like a nationality would make someone "more virtuous" and people from other nationalities would be defacto "less virtuous". That's chauvinism.
I was quoting what Justin said. I see you were talking about the OP instead.
>like a nationality would make someone "more virtuous" and people from other nationalities would be defacto "less virtuous"
Being part of a nation that welcomes people seems a good reason to be proud.
McCullom reassures Canadian women: low risk for sexual assaults by Syrian refugees
As far as I understand, there is no legal requirement for the White House to even entertain the petitions.
The far reaching and long term consequences the US will experience from this executive order are staggering.
This policy is still an injustice, of course. And maybe I'm wrong about the chilling effect; we'll find out, unless the courts step in and thoroughly block or cripple this short-sighted executive order.
I wish you the best of good fortune in everything back home.
This is the time to follow the "no quarter given" tactics of the NRA - they get their members to show up at any legislation anywhere that even smells of Gun control and raise a massive ruckus - similarly the time to protest is NOW before Trump rolls out the really evil stuff.
EDIT: I just signed the petition, and with email verification, and it's not showing up. Anyone else having that problem?
We're in for a 4 year marathon of trying to save our country from Trump, and the first thing to do is to estimate what has more of an effect.
Comments and upvotes here are more likely to do some good than signing that petition.
Conversely von Clownstick finds it remarkably easy to forgive nations he personally has no business with: http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-exclude...
 "Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."
"The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation."