The fact that he said something about this topic during the campaign probably does count as planning on his eyes. Consequences can be dealt with on the fly.
This seems well planned to me. We were told it was coming (not in this exact form) throughout the campaign. Trump has also promised to arrest millions of immigrants in the next four years.
He has to start small. CBP already operates in the constitution free "border zone". It's a perfect way to normalize larger scale unlawful detentions in the public eye and set legal precedents.
Put another way, Oakland and San Francisco airports are almost certainly illeglly detaining innocent people that are in the country legally right now. If the feds started by pulling people with visas and green cards from desks in Silicon Valley or SF there would be riots in the streets.
I am talking about two groups of people within 50 miles of each other, which (until the executive order) had the same legal status.
This is not OK, and it is naive to think it is poorly planned. (I hope you're right though, and trump tweets an apology/release order this weekend.)
This is most of all a story about instability in Western societies. In my 34 years on this planet, I cannot remember any time where one would enter a plane with a valid visa, only to realuze everything changed so swiftly.
I'm concerned that this will be the trend many places in society now.
I saw one instance where someone was granted a fiancé visa, only to be turned away at the border because they answered "yes" for the question of having smoked pot once on one of the visa application forms. Unfortunately a visa does not guarantee access into the United States. You can stil be turned away or detained at the border.
If working as intended, this action by the executive in the US should prompt a swift reprisal from Congress, since the executive issuing secret orders to security forces which then go into effect (timed to avoid scrutiny before they happen) is massive overreach and enormously destabilizing.
Unfortunately, Congresspeople on both sides seem to have lacked a spine for the better part of a decade.
Just imagine what classified orders are being worked on, or already signed, right now. I wouldn't hold out much hope for any of the limits that have been in place regarding surveillance, foreign or domestic, on citizens or noncitizens.
Yeah, based on public executive orders (like no privacy unless you have a green card or are a citizen), I've given up on the idea of privacy from law enforcement at work. There are people with visas in ear shot, and on many of the pull requests I send out.
Presumably it will be slurped real time into some NSA data center. Thanks to that thing Obama did in the 11th hour, it will then be streamed back to local law enforcement for data mining.
This is disgusting. To show such blatant disregard for civil liberties and human rights and a dozen other pinnacles of developed/western/first world countries is an affront to what we've accomplished and supposedly learned from the past.
I mean seriously, barring refugees on Holocaust Rememberance day, and then only describing those killed as "victims", seems like it should be a very, very dark SNL skit.
Trump is putting the lives of soldiers who have to rely on these interpreters and local fixers at risk.
It's now clear to anyone in Irak that whoever works for or help the Americans takes risks on all sides, and will not be supported. Just grrrrreat.
The tl:dr is that interpreters are already vetted to an extreme degree before they can receive visas under the SIV program, and that this order may in fact cost lives.
We never should have been in Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place. Now that we have been for years, of course, we need human resources like interpreters and contractors just to maintain this nation-building crusade... but why are we maintaining it?
America used to have a neutral stance like Switzerland towards foreign affairs, but in the last half century we increasingly evolved into a world police.
Remember that before we entered WWII, we knew about Germany's injustices towards its neighbors but we kept our noses out of it––until they bombed Pearl Harbor.
We used to have a solemn regard towards a nation's sovereignty. That needs to return to America.
Trump's immigration executive order is the first step towards minding our own business and building up our nation via industry & innovation by American citizens.
I don't think that it's fair to ascribe all the ideals and values in the policies championed by Trump to all of his supporters.
Some of his supporters are pure evil and they don't hide it and they're not even satisfied by what he's doing and asking for more extremist measures like including all Muslim-majority countries on that list, and some of them are actually fooled by his economic demagoguery and platitudes and just want to get back to earning a decent living and screw everything else.
So, painting all of his supporters with the same brush is counterproductive.
They definitely should bear the blame for his policies whether they're willingly support them or not but that is not my point here. What I'm saying is that people need to differentiate between the faction in Trump camp which is drawn to him for his nationalist economic rhetoric and the other one that endorses his social policies like this awful ban and the latter is the one that should be the target of all the ire resulting from his despicable policies.
Sure, some folks that voted for trump are worried about their health insurance premiums (as Jon Stewart used as an example).
But they were willing to overlook the racism and misogyny that Trump possesses. Even if they don't agree, they are enabling it when they could have just held off and taken other measures, such as looking at the representatives they are sending to congress and voting appropriately.
I think that the two of us share the same opinion as we both see that any Trump supporter or voter should be held accountable for all his policies irrespective of their intentions but I think where we disagree is who should be the target of our rage. I believe that people like Bannon & Co should be prioritized because they're the ones running the show and the brain behind those awful policies and to spare the common Trump supporter on the street the full brunt of this.
Realistically, I know you are correct. The people with the power are the ones that should take most of the blame for things: After all, some of these elements have been in society for a century and a half, but we've slowly been better at disregarding them, if only because such discrimination is viewed as unconstitutional. You know, until we weren't.
And again, realistically, the 'moderate' trump voters are the very ones that will be more easily swayed to the anti-Trump side. I'm just not sure how to open up their worldview to see it like that, and the policies being put into place might make that a little more difficult.
The whole thing is uncomfortable, to say the least. Especially when I factor in things like: I'm pretty sure I have family that voted for Trump. Some of those family members agree with some of the worst rhetoric as well - plus I come from the land of Pence. It might even be amazing that I view things like I do, actually.
> I'm just not sure how to open up their worldview to see it like that, and the policies being put into place might make that a little more difficult.
Let Trump do this part for you. I'm sure that he will step on a landmine or two while in office that will fire in his face undoing his policies and hurting this main constituency that are motivated by his economic fantasies he calls plans as the other one which is primarily driven by his far-right social policies should be equally worthy of our rage and disdain as they're his foot soldiers in this despicable cause.
I was just thinking the same. This breed of nationalism has been steeping for some time. Likely before 9/11, but that was when it really started taking off.
Remind me, who exactly voted the narcissistic nationalist into the executive office controlling the worlds largest surveillance and secret service/police apparatus?
Small Government is a nice, and good, idea, but history shows us that neither surveillance apparatus (pl.) nor secret police (pl.) relinquish power, ever, within existing in the same continuum of legitimation (ie. state). There has been no previous instance where either were reduced; they only grow until chopped off entirely.
It's an infestation of the state. There is only one - proven - cure. (And I think it's naïve to assume that those who built and grow these structures are not aware of this)
You're right though, the biggest problem is all the people cheering this on. I read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and this seems to be escalating even faster.
> Small Government is a nice, and good, idea, but history shows us that neither surveillance apparatus (pl.) nor secret police (pl.) relinquish power, ever, within existing in the same continuum of legitimation (ie. state). There has been no previous instance where either were reduced; they only grow until chopped off entirely.
Is there a book or article that I can read about this point?
I'd really appreciate it if you could show me a few examples.
I think the most prominent examples would be: Nazis (obviously), Stasi / DDR / GDR, Chile (Pinochet) and the dictatorship in Argentina; but in the last century there were many more examples, be it in South America, Africa or eastern Europe.
Current examples that are still alive and well could be the various GCC states, but especially Saudi Arabia there; the UK and the US to some degree each (both are obviously full-blown surveillance states at the very least; and it can be reasonably argued that (divisions of) the FBI and some other agencies qualify as a secret police) in the western hemisphere; Russia.
The last time anti-intellectual forces that praised authoritarian figures, promised to take the country back to a more glorious time and zoned in on people of a particular religion, we called it a word stronger than 'Nationalism'.
Christian refugees from these nations are allowed, only Muslims aren't. This is the definition of religious discrimination. This will go down as a dark day in US history, I only hope that it's the lowest point and things don't get worse. But that might be an unrealistically optimistic outlook.
Having been detained by CBP several times I can see the smug look on this officers face. Like, "It's not my policy but I'm happy to do my job."
You see, this is the biggest problem that no one is talking about. Sure, these policies (mass surveillance, unlawful detention, violation of human rights) are handed down by edict by a powerful faction at the top of the food chain, but they are enforced by every day people. People against people, that's what this is about. Its our friends, our colleagues, and neighbors that are doing this. People, the people who have these jobs, have the moral right to resist these policies. They must fight their supervisors or they must resign if they cannot fight. We as a society have to agree that we won't mindlessly follow such ignorant leaders.
Do you know why we still hunt down Nazi's 80 years later? Because "I'm just doing what I'm told" isn't a good excuse.
I suspect this might be something people outside Germany or Europe are unaware of but
> Do you know why we still hunt down Nazi's 80 years later?
is actually a thing. There are still warrants out; Nazis (without the "Neo" part) are still arrested and convicted from time to time. Although I suspect this will come to an end soon, since people tend to die of old age now. Iirc some of the more recent trials ended with a conviction to incarceration, but no actual incarceration due to old age / medical issues.
That's why I'm in favor of the RW libertarians view of big government and how it's in the best interest of society to have as much small a government as possible to avoid situations like these as large bureaucracies tend to corrupt over time and when they turn evil, they hurt innocent people that come close to them.
This isn't the right answer. There are times when you need government intervention, and there are times when you don't. The trick is figuring out which is which.
As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.
I'm a left libertarian and therefore I have a natural allergy to statist solutions for problems but I acknowledge that government is a necessary evil that in many instances do good things but the fact remains that large bureaucracies, whether governmental or not, tend to corrupt over time and that's why the smallest size of government possible to carry out its function should be the goal of society.
The original Libertarians were left wing anti-government anarchists. The word was appropriated by the far right in the US, and The ones today are Ayn Rand fanatics- the likes of Paul Ryan, who are anti-labour and pro-business. Reducing the power of the government - an institution in which people have some kind of say in - while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in - leads to oligarchy.
There are interesting approaches to reducing government size from left-liberterains(Libertarian socialist and Anarchists) but they are not mainstream in the US, which has shifted so far right over the last few decades that Eisenhower would in many policy matters be considered a far-left unelectable today.
I'm a left libertarian, the real deal, and that's why I prefaced the libertarians designation with the RW label to avoid upsetting my leftist friends here :)
Well, large parts of the Right "Libertarians" are already in charge. All they do is remove healthcare, slash spending on PBS, environmental agencies and Science, while giving corporations and billionaires gigantic tax breaks.....These people are the ones in power.
Small government just means making the parts of the government that actually help the people smaller, according to these people.
I totally agree with you on this and your previous comment to me that right wingers are giving libertarianism a bad name by appropriating it to advance their agenda of screwing poor and other disfranchised groups while enriching their donors and paymasters.
> while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in
Wrong. Corporations are the one of most sensitive organisation types. Stop giving them money, see how soon and peacfully they die. Remind me a state that has given its power peacefully ?
Difficult to stop giving them money when they sell products billions use, and also employ millions. It's probably easier to overthrow the half the states in the world than to bring down Apple.
I've stopped giving my money to plenty of corporations. Nobody noticed or cared and nothing happened.
I've called a corporation and asked for transparency and data so I can see what they're actually doing. They oddly didn't return my call.
I've called a corporation and told them how I want them to represent my interests. They oddly didn't return my call.
I've complained corporations have no reason to do things which are good for me, the consumer or employee, and all the reasons to do things that are bad for me. By design. Not because of corruption or because of malicious actors who fail to do their jobs. My complaints fell on deaf ears.
I've been downvoted in HN before for posting this, but I have to say it again: It's not Trump who put jackbooted thugs in US airports. I'm no fan of the new president, but the US has been arbitrarily exercising unchecked power over noncitizens long time before Trump came to power.
I don't think anyone can deny this, the CBP has been at entry points for decades and decades. But its the current officers who have to deal with the biggest mess.
> People, the people who have these jobs, have the moral right to resist these policies.
IIRC, the percentage of people who resisted against the nazi here in France if only by quitting their jobs was around ~5%. This makes this kind of resistance highly inefficient when there are millions people willing to do the dirty job which thanks to government propaganda is considered moral and right anyway by most. The only way is to remove the people on top sending those orders (not easy) and by trying to avoid anyone from having so much power at the top in the first place (easier). The only way to do this is to distribute the use of force among society and not give the monopoly of force to one single entity as we tend to do.
Imo, this is another show of why politics doesn't work. Or maybe why politics is not efficient.
Somebody does something (an act of terrorism). Instead of fixing the issue at its core, a politician will, instead, do something that is completely unrelated, random and inefficient but that looks like he is doing real work (banning muslims from entry).
A terrorist going on a killing spree is not different than a destabilized white American 30-something going on a killing spree. Both are destabilized (mentally) but for different reasons.
Most people would not care because it doesn't affect their bottom line. Banning muslims isn't an issue for your average American family, even if it doesn't stop terrorism.
Spot on. In his ABC interview, he cited San Bernardino and 9/11 as reasons for this ban. The attackers in San Bernardino were a US citizen and Pakastani and the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Neither covered by this ban.
This is the same line of reasoning that prevents valid use of profiling. Until you can clearly identify and prove the "issue" that you mention then we have to make do with half-solutions that may be the wrong answer in some instances. As an engineer/problem-solver I find this perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't just throw your arms up and say "sorry" when it could very well mean people dying and the dying of people is exactly what you're trying to prevent. If this blanket policy saves even one life I would find it justified.
Either way... It doesn't sound like the two individuals in the article are actual persecuted refugees. The article doesn't elaborate on that. We're just expected to assume that. But we're told what amazing humans they are and how much they helped the US. That sounds more like a dishing out of green card favors in return for services.
> If this blanket policy saves even one life I would find it justified.
Seems like you'd be in favor of banning peanuts and their related products, as well as guns, considering how many accidental deaths occur from both each year. And of course, who could forget the dreaded and somehow still legal dihydrogen monoxoide...
> It doesn't sound like the two individuals in the article are actual persecuted refugees. The article doesn't elaborate on that. We're just expected to assume that. But we're told what amazing humans they are and how much they helped the US. That sounds more like a dishing out of green card favors in return for services.
Generally speaking, it's implicit that their lives are at risk because they helped the United States, a country that tends not to get much love in the Middle East.
Its always "anything to save a life!" when its nobody you know. But take away your liberties in the interest of lifesaving, and its a different story. That's called hypocrisy. And in this case its very harmful.
I never said I would oppose it if it affected me or someone I know. Even though from that position I might think the response is overdoing it, I still think that they could have logical justification for it.
So helping a defacto invading army and being targeted by the locals is now persecution? Scratch that, I guess I have a more narrow definition of what constitutes a valid refugee.
But yeah my bad I did miss that part of the article.
> If this blanket policy saves even one life I would find it justified.
It's quite likely to cost lives, since it also applies to refugees and asylum seekers. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it results in at least one suicide over the next few months.
Sure definitely, but for the most part a government is tasked with protecting its own citizens. Not the entire world population. If that weren't the case then I'm sorry but no brownie points can be given as there are countless scores of individuals dying all over the world right now and we're not doing absolutely everything we can in our power to stop it.
One of the byproducts of Putin's rule in the first years was to convince the Russian public that politics doesn't work and that Russia needs a benevolent dictator to rule it. It looks like it took just one week of Trump to convince you of the same...
>According to the filing, Hameed Khalid Darweesh was granted a special immigrant visa on Jan. 20, the same day Mr. Trump was sworn in. He worked with the United States in Iraq in a variety of jobs — as an interpreter, engineer and contractor — over the course of roughly a decade.
This is completely insane. Not only is it a blatant violation of human rights and our treaties regarding refugees, but this is going to be a major blow to our national security. The promise of American citizenship is one of the major driving factors for informants and interpreters around the world that help our armed forces. Trump seems hellbent on making life miserable for anyone tasked with actually protecting our country.
So we should invite traitors and collaborators into the USA? Those are the last people we should allow to join us here. That's the thing about cheaters: They cheated on their last partner with you and they'll cheat on you soon enough.
If we'd keep our noses out of nation building where it's none of our business we'd need a whole lot less of these people. Let that be a lesson to us the next time a fool president wants to invade a new Iraq.
These people have sacrificed more for our country than most Americans. They are some of the most patriotic people you'll ever meet, because they know how horrible other governments can be and they have worked incredibly hard to get to America, unlike native born Americans. Calling them cheaters for helping us kill terrorists is comical. They are heroes.
What an unbelievably stupid thing to say. Traitors from war-torn, corrupt and authoritarian countries become traitors by risking their (and their families) lives to fight for the right values not because they are cheaters! The countries that are built on these values should support them as much as they can.
I think that you're making a good point here. This should serve as a disincentive to those people from collaborating with a foreign enemy invading their country, and also could provide a disincentive to US governments from starting unnecessary wars and invading other countries and killing innocent people as no one would risk their life for them esp. in the absence of economic or social benefits.
Maybe this is the silver lining in all this mess created by this far-right administration
>So we should invite traitors and collaborators into the USA?
I'd like to see you call the Kurdish interpreters I served with in Iraq traitors. Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about, or just spouting nonsense? These people are fighting for their lives against terrorists, too. And at much greater risk than we did.
Of course the USA should support the recognition of the Kurdish state and its success and freedom. And that is where Kurdish aides to the US have a right to live.
Orders such as these will cause people in foreign countries to no longer support or trust US soldiers. Imagine what a storm this will cause when troops start dying because they have no intelligence as to who is friend or foe and what the situation is. Anything you do to people in the US risks having the same happen to Americans in general and not just soldiers in other countries. Note Google is trying to get their people who happened to be traveling in those countries home as soon as possible. I also find it amusing that none of the countries Trump does business in are affected.
Instead of down voting, could you present a better idea? Spouses of American citizens on legal visas are being indefinitely detained without any cause.
So are members of the US government. They did nothing at all to provoke this reaction from the authorities. Some of them even actively "kept their heads down".
If people do nothing about this now, where will it end?
To me, what is striking is that USA has always been glimmering example of a civilized society. An asymptote, if you will, of the curve of human progress. It showed other countries what laws are logical ("self-evident"), what is the best way to run an economy and what is the distilled essence of western civilization. Sure, when you look closer, you can always find flaws and internal-struggles. But the principles were always there as an inspiration.
Regardless of the geopolitical situations, it is fair to say that USA is rapidly reaching a point where it can no longer lay a claim on those principles. And I am not claiming that this happened on Nov 8, 2016. This has been happening steadily since the beginning of this century (Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay etc.). And simultaneously it comes at a point where the long term sustainability of its other important contribution (free-market capitalism) is brought to question.
We are really living in an inflection point in history (Like end of European imperialism, fall of communism etc.)
Sure, ethno-nationalism has a claim on this mantle. But is it curving it towards the right direction? Remember, we
have been here multiple times before (like the pre World War I world order). We had to suffer through a lot of carnage
to reach here. As a species, we reduced the total human suffering, improved our lives, developed technology
to overcome our ailments, began to adopt reason over organized religion and we are almost figuring out how to live with each
other in spite of our genetic and cultural differences. Centuries from now, when we are cruising towards stars (if we are lucky enough) to spread through the galaxy, can we look back and say that this step was in the right direction? I don't think so.
I think it of as more as an over-correction, an exploitation of the flaws in the system which unfortunately will bring more
bloodshed and suffering to get through before getting replaced.
81 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadHe has to start small. CBP already operates in the constitution free "border zone". It's a perfect way to normalize larger scale unlawful detentions in the public eye and set legal precedents.
Put another way, Oakland and San Francisco airports are almost certainly illeglly detaining innocent people that are in the country legally right now. If the feds started by pulling people with visas and green cards from desks in Silicon Valley or SF there would be riots in the streets.
I am talking about two groups of people within 50 miles of each other, which (until the executive order) had the same legal status.
This is not OK, and it is naive to think it is poorly planned. (I hope you're right though, and trump tweets an apology/release order this weekend.)
I'm concerned that this will be the trend many places in society now.
Unfortunately, Congresspeople on both sides seem to have lacked a spine for the better part of a decade.
Presumably it will be slurped real time into some NSA data center. Thanks to that thing Obama did in the 11th hour, it will then be streamed back to local law enforcement for data mining.
I mean seriously, barring refugees on Holocaust Rememberance day, and then only describing those killed as "victims", seems like it should be a very, very dark SNL skit.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/28/trump-refugee-...
The tl:dr is that interpreters are already vetted to an extreme degree before they can receive visas under the SIV program, and that this order may in fact cost lives.
America used to have a neutral stance like Switzerland towards foreign affairs, but in the last half century we increasingly evolved into a world police.
Remember that before we entered WWII, we knew about Germany's injustices towards its neighbors but we kept our noses out of it––until they bombed Pearl Harbor.
We used to have a solemn regard towards a nation's sovereignty. That needs to return to America.
Trump's immigration executive order is the first step towards minding our own business and building up our nation via industry & innovation by American citizens.
The Trump supporters really are making themselves look like weak fools when they do something as pathetic as this.
America needs to rid of these Trump people as soon as possible.
Edit: As a reminder, refugees are innocent, while the Trump people are actually malicious.
Nothing wrong with being punitive towards harmful and dangerous people.
Nothing wrong with being punitive towards harmful and dangerous people.
Some of his supporters are pure evil and they don't hide it and they're not even satisfied by what he's doing and asking for more extremist measures like including all Muslim-majority countries on that list, and some of them are actually fooled by his economic demagoguery and platitudes and just want to get back to earning a decent living and screw everything else.
So, painting all of his supporters with the same brush is counterproductive.
Sure, some folks that voted for trump are worried about their health insurance premiums (as Jon Stewart used as an example).
But they were willing to overlook the racism and misogyny that Trump possesses. Even if they don't agree, they are enabling it when they could have just held off and taken other measures, such as looking at the representatives they are sending to congress and voting appropriately.
And again, realistically, the 'moderate' trump voters are the very ones that will be more easily swayed to the anti-Trump side. I'm just not sure how to open up their worldview to see it like that, and the policies being put into place might make that a little more difficult.
The whole thing is uncomfortable, to say the least. Especially when I factor in things like: I'm pretty sure I have family that voted for Trump. Some of those family members agree with some of the worst rhetoric as well - plus I come from the land of Pence. It might even be amazing that I view things like I do, actually.
Difficult times indeed.
Let Trump do this part for you. I'm sure that he will step on a landmine or two while in office that will fire in his face undoing his policies and hurting this main constituency that are motivated by his economic fantasies he calls plans as the other one which is primarily driven by his far-right social policies should be equally worthy of our rage and disdain as they're his foot soldiers in this despicable cause.
These orders should not be followed. Nuremberg defense doesn't hold up.
Small Government is a nice, and good, idea, but history shows us that neither surveillance apparatus (pl.) nor secret police (pl.) relinquish power, ever, within existing in the same continuum of legitimation (ie. state). There has been no previous instance where either were reduced; they only grow until chopped off entirely.
It's an infestation of the state. There is only one - proven - cure. (And I think it's naïve to assume that those who built and grow these structures are not aware of this)
You're right though, the biggest problem is all the people cheering this on. I read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and this seems to be escalating even faster.
Is there a book or article that I can read about this point?
I'd really appreciate it if you could show me a few examples.
Wikipedia has a list of historical secret police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_secret_poli...
--
Current examples that are still alive and well could be the various GCC states, but especially Saudi Arabia there; the UK and the US to some degree each (both are obviously full-blown surveillance states at the very least; and it can be reasonably argued that (divisions of) the FBI and some other agencies qualify as a secret police) in the western hemisphere; Russia.
The last time anti-intellectual forces that praised authoritarian figures, promised to take the country back to a more glorious time and zoned in on people of a particular religion, we called it a word stronger than 'Nationalism'.
Christian refugees from these nations are allowed, only Muslims aren't. This is the definition of religious discrimination. This will go down as a dark day in US history, I only hope that it's the lowest point and things don't get worse. But that might be an unrealistically optimistic outlook.
Having been detained by CBP several times I can see the smug look on this officers face. Like, "It's not my policy but I'm happy to do my job."
You see, this is the biggest problem that no one is talking about. Sure, these policies (mass surveillance, unlawful detention, violation of human rights) are handed down by edict by a powerful faction at the top of the food chain, but they are enforced by every day people. People against people, that's what this is about. Its our friends, our colleagues, and neighbors that are doing this. People, the people who have these jobs, have the moral right to resist these policies. They must fight their supervisors or they must resign if they cannot fight. We as a society have to agree that we won't mindlessly follow such ignorant leaders.
Do you know why we still hunt down Nazi's 80 years later? Because "I'm just doing what I'm told" isn't a good excuse.
> Do you know why we still hunt down Nazi's 80 years later?
is actually a thing. There are still warrants out; Nazis (without the "Neo" part) are still arrested and convicted from time to time. Although I suspect this will come to an end soon, since people tend to die of old age now. Iirc some of the more recent trials ended with a conviction to incarceration, but no actual incarceration due to old age / medical issues.
As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.
There are interesting approaches to reducing government size from left-liberterains(Libertarian socialist and Anarchists) but they are not mainstream in the US, which has shifted so far right over the last few decades that Eisenhower would in many policy matters be considered a far-left unelectable today.
Small government just means making the parts of the government that actually help the people smaller, according to these people.
Wrong. Corporations are the one of most sensitive organisation types. Stop giving them money, see how soon and peacfully they die. Remind me a state that has given its power peacefully ?
Market always tend toword decentralisation. More so in AnCap one.
I've called a corporation and asked for transparency and data so I can see what they're actually doing. They oddly didn't return my call.
I've called a corporation and told them how I want them to represent my interests. They oddly didn't return my call.
I've complained corporations have no reason to do things which are good for me, the consumer or employee, and all the reasons to do things that are bad for me. By design. Not because of corruption or because of malicious actors who fail to do their jobs. My complaints fell on deaf ears.
Telling someone to call the president isn't exactly related when its the person's legal defense asking to speak with a supervisor who can help.
IIRC, the percentage of people who resisted against the nazi here in France if only by quitting their jobs was around ~5%. This makes this kind of resistance highly inefficient when there are millions people willing to do the dirty job which thanks to government propaganda is considered moral and right anyway by most. The only way is to remove the people on top sending those orders (not easy) and by trying to avoid anyone from having so much power at the top in the first place (easier). The only way to do this is to distribute the use of force among society and not give the monopoly of force to one single entity as we tend to do.
Somebody does something (an act of terrorism). Instead of fixing the issue at its core, a politician will, instead, do something that is completely unrelated, random and inefficient but that looks like he is doing real work (banning muslims from entry).
A terrorist going on a killing spree is not different than a destabilized white American 30-something going on a killing spree. Both are destabilized (mentally) but for different reasons.
Most people would not care because it doesn't affect their bottom line. Banning muslims isn't an issue for your average American family, even if it doesn't stop terrorism.
Either way... It doesn't sound like the two individuals in the article are actual persecuted refugees. The article doesn't elaborate on that. We're just expected to assume that. But we're told what amazing humans they are and how much they helped the US. That sounds more like a dishing out of green card favors in return for services.
Seems like you'd be in favor of banning peanuts and their related products, as well as guns, considering how many accidental deaths occur from both each year. And of course, who could forget the dreaded and somehow still legal dihydrogen monoxoide...
> It doesn't sound like the two individuals in the article are actual persecuted refugees. The article doesn't elaborate on that. We're just expected to assume that. But we're told what amazing humans they are and how much they helped the US. That sounds more like a dishing out of green card favors in return for services.
Generally speaking, it's implicit that their lives are at risk because they helped the United States, a country that tends not to get much love in the Middle East.
Yes it does...
*The filing said he [Darweesh] had been directly targeted twice while working for the United States Military."
But yeah my bad I did miss that part of the article.
It's quite likely to cost lives, since it also applies to refugees and asylum seekers. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it results in at least one suicide over the next few months.
This is completely insane. Not only is it a blatant violation of human rights and our treaties regarding refugees, but this is going to be a major blow to our national security. The promise of American citizenship is one of the major driving factors for informants and interpreters around the world that help our armed forces. Trump seems hellbent on making life miserable for anyone tasked with actually protecting our country.
If we'd keep our noses out of nation building where it's none of our business we'd need a whole lot less of these people. Let that be a lesson to us the next time a fool president wants to invade a new Iraq.
Maybe this is the silver lining in all this mess created by this far-right administration
I'd like to see you call the Kurdish interpreters I served with in Iraq traitors. Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about, or just spouting nonsense? These people are fighting for their lives against terrorists, too. And at much greater risk than we did.
So are members of the US government. They did nothing at all to provoke this reaction from the authorities. Some of them even actively "kept their heads down".
If people do nothing about this now, where will it end?
Regardless of the geopolitical situations, it is fair to say that USA is rapidly reaching a point where it can no longer lay a claim on those principles. And I am not claiming that this happened on Nov 8, 2016. This has been happening steadily since the beginning of this century (Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay etc.). And simultaneously it comes at a point where the long term sustainability of its other important contribution (free-market capitalism) is brought to question.
We are really living in an inflection point in history (Like end of European imperialism, fall of communism etc.)
The curve of progress according to one faction, which it turns out has a lot less popular support than it thought.
I think it of as more as an over-correction, an exploitation of the flaws in the system which unfortunately will bring more bloodshed and suffering to get through before getting replaced.