"Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented."
I guess getting detained and denied entry into the country is "enhanced security measures"?
Interesting that they finally gave a scope to the people impacted. 3200 people doesn't seem like chump change to me.
And I guess deporting people is the most enhanced security measure of them all. If we could deport everyone that lives in the US, I bet security would be pretty tight.
The language is obviously chosen to minimize (and trivialize) the number of people. If it were 1600 people, don't you think they would say less than 0.5%? If it were 3 people, don't you think they would say that?
Anyway, read it however you like. I choose to read it as the maximum number of people that could fit within their language, because I think it was written to be purposefully ambiguous.
> If it were 3 people, don't you think they would say that?
If it were 3 people, they probably would, but it's not 3 people. But it's not likely they even know how many people are affected right now, given the situation changes all the time, so they used very vague description. It is not a description one can derive any specific number from, only upper bound.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the stay, said it would help 100 to 200 people with visas or refugee status who found themselves detained in transit or at U.S. airports.
ACLU has no reason to underplay the number of people affected while seeking emergency order to help them, so we can treat this as good approximation.
Agreed that the ACLU has no reason to downplay the number, so maybe it is more on that order of magnitude.
My only point of confusion is whether the ACLU is committing to helping all people in this situation (100-200 total) or if they are saying they have the resources available for a limited number of people (100-200 of potentially more).
Either way, it would be great if the US government -- which is the only entity able to factually calculate this number, and which could have determined the number before enforcing the EO by cross-referencing passenger manifests -- would act like responsible adults and admit what they have done.
Only people this one day will get these "enhanced security measures" though, I guess. Since they won't let any of these people board flights from now on, their experiences will be differently enhanced tomorrow.
Regardless of how many people are actually turned away or detained in the airports or elsewhere, every single person with citizenship of one of these countries and a valid green card or visa is impacted (hundreds of thousands of people). Those still in the US are prisoners here now. They can't risk leaving the country for any reason.
Even if this executive order expires in 90 days and things go back to normal (which I doubt), they will still be afraid. The rule of law has been weakened.
We now have a government agency publicly disregarding an injunction by the Federal courts. This is bad. This goes far beyond this specific issue (which, while nasty, affects relatively few people). This sets a fucking awful precedent.
This cannot be allowed to happen. I would love to see everyone violating this injunction (and ordering others to do so) be put in jail, just as if I or anyone else were to violate such a court order.
This link says there are "confirmed reports" that DHS disregards the stays - namely, deports people - but does not provide any details, e.g. which person named in the stays was deported, by whom, on what grounds (e.g. people can be rejected not only on this exec order, people has been deported long before Trump), who confirmed it, etc. Even that report plainly says "I simply don't have enough information yet, and hope to update as we know more". I suggest to wait until that update before proclaiming DHS is actually refused court orders with no proof of such. I understand that if they do it it would be a big deal, that's exactly why saying it happened before we know it actually happened is wrong.
I couldn't find any mention of announcing that DHS is ignoring the court order in the message. Could you quote where it _specifically_ says so? I mean not you interpret its meaning as such, but it _specifically_ says these _specific_ words?
Can you point me to the sentence that says they're ignoring the court order?
I think the intended interpretation of this seems pretty clear, maybe it's just me, but they seem to be saying "We will continue to enforce executive order minus any vetoes or alterations issued by courts." As you would expect them to.
Can you point me to the sentence that says they're ignoring the court order?
Yes, the first one.
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders...
The whole thing is self-contradictory. They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders. Your reading of it is one reading, don't pretend like it's the only reasonable reading. In fact, it's notable that the sentence you're picking out,"
The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders
does not say they will comply with all judicial orders. So, you want to revise how "pretty clear" it seems to you?
> They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders
Of course they can. They will enforce all the orders, except for the parts which are specifically prohibited (or otherwise instructed) by court orders. Exactly how it always happened before.
> does not say they will comply with all judicial orders
Of course not. They don't have to comply with all of the orders, just with those that relate to something they are doing. See, I can do it too. The point is that this release doesn't say anything but "we'll continue doing what we should be doing in accordance with the law" and all panic about it is completely self-generated, as so far we haven't seen even single case of non-compliance (actually, people are not only not being deported but are being released: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/iraqi-man-free-de...). Of course, whatever floats you boat...
You perhaps cannot see through your motivated reasoning enough to realize you just argued exactly my point -- that the press release is unclear and subject to interpretation.
Everything is subject to interpretation, especially if people are motivated to interpret it in a creative ways to prove their pre-existing opinion. However, one must distinguish between what the document actually says (next to nothing) and what creative interpretation can achieve (coup d'etat in DHS omg fascists). Nobody is banned from the latter, but it's still not the former and never will be.
That is one sentence in an order in which almost every other sentence contradicts it.
EDIT: I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order? Clearly to most people here, we are interpreting it as not following the order because the hint of "following judicial orders" is relegated to the end. The opening of the statement (first sentence) is:
>The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.
There, in the emphasis added by me, was a chance to mention the judicial order; they could have tacked "while respecting judicial orders" at the end of that sentence, and their intention would be clear, and that would set the tone of the rest of the order.
The reason I mention who their audience is because if it addressed is to those against the ban, then it doesn't do its job as it comes off as oppositional. If it's to save face with those for the ban, then yes, leaving that till the end does make sense. Perhaps that's why it is written this way?
Regardless, over analysing this seems unhelpful, I'm sure by tomorrow morning, their intention will be clear.
> We now have a government agency publicly disregarding an injunction by the Federal courts.
Which one? One I heard of prevents deportation of green card holders pending resolution of their cases. I don't see anything in DHS press release conflicting with it. Was there another one?
In fact, CNN reports that application of the order to green card holders may be misunderstanding:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b...
As of Saturday afternoon, Customs and Border Protection continued to issue the same guidance to airlines as it did Friday, telling airlines that fly to the US that green card holders can board planes to the US but they may get extra scrutiny on arrival, according to an airline official.
"Extra scrutiny" is kind of vague and worrying, but it's not the same as ban (if the intent was to ban no point in allowing boarding and flying in).
"No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States"-- how about those with green cards and visas that we are already gave the right to live here to?
It is obvious that DHS and all others must obey the law.
It is important to note that the people affected here are not just the hijab wearing sharia loving Muslims (as trump might describe them) but also people who helped US army carry out the unnecessary operations in their homeland and as a result face danger in their own country. Some top notch researchers or even activists who are fighting the oppressive regimes in their home countries.
As an immigrant I think I better max out my credit cards borrow all possible loans before leaving USA !
Actually those types of Muslims eg. from Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. are still welcome in the US. Even though some countries eg Indonesia have quite the homegrown terrorist network.
Clearly this was never about terrorism. It's about cynically assigning blame to countries who have no means to fight back ie. a Trump hotel or military purchasing power.
> Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented.
Oh, well as long as it's only minorities who have to suffer, then I guess all is well.
"Works for me" - people every time this shit happens
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller, 1946
Now, of course the US aren't a Nazi state... yet. It's very important to make sure it stays that way, that should be the civil duty of all real democrats in your country right now.
Minority VS minorities, very important distinction to make here. Minorities as in groups of an existing population aren't inconvenienced here, a numerical minority of the 325,000 are inconvenienced.
> President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
Whelp (editing out the explicative here), this makes it the official position of the DHS that the already-over-the-top measures they have been taking in recent years are not sufficient to establish "control over America's borders and national security".
This is not hyperbole: if this statement is accurate, a coup d'etat is in progress in which our illegitimate "President" is overriding the authority of the judicial branch and it is time for every American who still believes in our constitution and our fundamental values of equality, diversity and multiculturalism take a stand and along with every congressman, every law enforcement officer, reporter, corporation, etc. to put aside petty partisan bickering and remove this fascist con-man from office immediately. If we don't, history will judge us all the same way as we judge those who looked aside while Hitler made a mockery out of his country's democratic institutions en route to handing himself supreme power.
I cannot overstate the danger we are all in every day this psychopathic fascist is allowed to remain in that office. He must be stopped immediately. Our most fundamental and cherished values are at stake here.
Its interesting how overreach in executive orders on one side is greeted as business as usual, versus being viewed as grounds for secession when the shoe is on the other foot
What the hell is this context that you speak of? Defending the country's borders? Defending native industry? Preventing immigration from groups statistically likely to commit terrorist acts?
The statistics on these people committing terrorism is literally zero. Not a single act of terrorism within the United States has been committed by a single person from any of these targeted countries. The statistics are unambiguously clear that you are statistically far more at risk from some white Christian guy who's obsessed with abortion than from some frightened refugee just looking for a roof over her/his head who happens to be of the Muslim faith.
Commenting like this will get your account banned, so please don't do it. Comments here need to become more civil and substantive, not less, as topics get more divisive. If you can't do that, please don't post.
I have a substantial history on HN aside from commenting on recent politics. And it's a gross distortion that you assert I've used this account primarily for "political battle".
The parent asked a question "Preventing immigration from groups statistically likely to commit terrorist acts?" and I answered it with a rhetorical question based on historical fact. Jewish refugees were returned to Germany under the auspices that they might be Nazis and threaten the security of the U.S. and they were murdered as a result.
The context of this entire thread is an executive order made on the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day in part, we remember how complicit we were in the murder of Jewish refugees by not protecting them, all because we were scared of hypotheticals rather than stand up for refugees. The ensuing national guilt is why we established the refugee policies we've had since WWII. Those policy makers refusing these refugees deserved to be called scared bunny rabbits, that's what they were and innocent people died because of the con game we played: that refugees were likely to commit terrorist acts. Calling them scared bunny rabbits is a kindness, and it is polite, and it is civil. Imagine what I really think.
That's good, but your recent comment history looked overwhelmingly political to me, hence my request.
If you really don't see what's wrong with posting like this, we have a problem. Even if your position is 100% right, such rhetoric makes this place worse. Right people don't get to do that any more than wrong people do. Indeed, they arguably harm more.
Scared people are not bad people. But they cannot protect the weakest among us. They will betray everything we claim is right, and moral, and give into fear. And they're among the first to demand everyone else be fearful, and to ask for the end to discussions that progress the conversation among those who are not fearful.
When people see something that isn't right or fair or just they have a moral obligation to say something. Saying otherwise is just another betrayal and weakens everyone.
Again, I will point out that the article linked to here says they will ALSO continue to comply with all judicial orders. Read carefully.
Really, the entire statement isn't that exciting, it just says "Agency will continue to follow legal structure of government as all agencies do." Mostly it's just an attempt to reassure people that things aren't as out of hand as they seem.
> Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, said: "Nothing in the Brooklyn judge's order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president's executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect."
There is no final court order yet, there is a temporary stay and this order merely prohibits deportation, not the detention or turning away of immigrants coming in. This order is just one small step in what is going to be a long hard case.
It'll probably end up going to the Supreme court, the Supreme court has two Obama appointees and with justice Scalia passed away there is a chance it could go in the ACLU's favor. . . but established constitutional law is clear, the Supreme court has ruled time and time again that America can turn away anyone at the boarder and non-citizens do not have a right to stay in America . . . so defeating this executive order at the Supreme court level will require some doing, which might happen because of the current composition of the court has judges that are willing to veer away from established precedent.
It's not even given Trump's admin would actually defend the position of turning away green card holders. So far there was only emergency stay which AFAIK does not even require participation from the other side, so we have no idea what position or argument the administration has on the case. The judge (quite correctly) decided to issue an order that causes least harm (not deporting anyone, but not ruling any broader) so I think we'd know on Monday more about admin's position on this.
ACLU of course would argue the whole order is invalid, but I don't think this part would be easy to prove and not likely to get emergency order broad enough, and it probably would take more than 60 days to go through which means challenging this particular order in its entirety may be moot by the time it gets to any sort of trial. If the subsequent policy will match it though it still may have a point.
First I acknowledge I don't know what I'm talking about. But.
It seems to me the last and the first paragraph are saying different things.
How can DHS be implementing ALL of the executive action, when part of it has been stayed by the court?
Assuming this statement is, as it says, a response to the litigation (i.e. the challenge which led the court to stay part of the executive action), I don't see how you can read that first paragraph as anything but a denial that they will abide by the partial stay.
Is there any evidence to suggest that they are following the court order and not enforcing that part of the action? The (admittedly hopelessly unreliable) twittering from human rights lawyers involved, seems to suggest they are not.
That last paragraph reads like a tack on to me.
But we're all trying to parse the words and I suspect the statement will be irrelevant, and what happens on the ground will decide how this goes forwards.
The stay was effective only for those (essentially) who had already begun travelling to the US when the executive order was signed. So they can't deport the people they detained in the airports. This isn't anything but a minor detail and it's reasonable for the DHS to consider itself complying with the court order and implementing all of the executive action.
It's just a minor difference in the people effected.
I suspect this is the angle they are going for. And, as I said, I think it unwise to read stuff into words, when actions are what counts.
Just FWIW, from what I can interpret, the ruling is broader than just the people currently 'on the ground' - they were the petitioners, but the judgement was not limited to them, but to:
"individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States."
There's no indication that the stay is limited to the petitioners or current detainees. I assume it would prevent deportation of anyone with legal grounds to be here, who arrive tomorrow, or any time until the full case is heard.
So we'll have to see if anyone is deported. Or if DHS get their act together and stop people boarding.
Oh, I'd be inclined to believe anyone with an ounce of experience in the area over me!
That said, after another hour of research, I think I got it now :) I think I wasn't wrong, just my point about the judgement was totally moot. The deportation issue only arose because when the executive action came into force there were already flights with confirmed passengers (either in the air, or soon to leave). So they'd gone through the pre-flight checking under the old rules, but landed at immigration under the new rules. But the way of enforcing the action will be to prevent people flying in the first place. Passport details are required to be sent to DHS before a passenger boards a plane to the US, and have been for a long time, nothing new there. And DHS routinely prevents people flying at source. So the deportation issue shouldn't arise for new passengers (modulo edge cases like someone on a transatlantic cruise who'll ship up in New York at some point). So if I'm now right, the journalists are correct, this judgement will only apply in practice to those who are currently being detained for deportation.
But again, I'm happy to emphasise that I have done roughly 2 hours of online reading in this area now :) I'm posting here to try and figure it out, not to claim expertise!
Phrases like "first step" are anticipating stronger measures to come. The introduction makes it clear that the agency believes that these measures will in fact reduce security. I don't have enough information to refute that claim, but I don't believe it either.
As an outsider to the USA, I would have liked to have seen more balance. For instance, it would have been reassuring to hear that DHS had taken legal advice on its obligations and how best to implement them without rushing in.
I suspect that the release is written for individuals near to Cabinet who want to know that officials are complying without question. Does not bode well.
Congress has given the Executive broad powers to control immigration from countries. Please explain how a coup d'etat is happening. Obama bombed many of these countries and killed citizens of them, but I don't remember that being a scandal.
A federal judge issued an injunction against enforcement of part of the executive order. In a release titled "Response To Recent Litigation," DHS announced that it would continue to enforce the order.
That sounds for all the world like the executive branch rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.
The very first line implies that the injunction will be ignored. If they didn't want that interpreted that way, then they should have definitely written it differently.
The injunction was only about travelers in flight or already landed. Most of those have been released. The statement says "in a foreign land" and "without ties to the United States" - which is outside of what the injunction applies to.
To your main point, a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order. If true, this would mean that enforcing the order is currently illegal; and doing so could be called a "coup" by the executive branch (although I don't think this technically qualifies as a coup).
Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued, so enforcement of the order is still legal in all other cases.
One rule the courts generally follow is that they try to limit the scope of their rulings. Plus, of course, the country is divided into several federal districts, and a ruling in one district doesn't necessarily apply to other districts. So I understood the injunction out of a San Francisco courtroom only applied to particular travelers whom, via the ACLU, had filed a challenge to how the order was applied to them. The injunction does not apply to other travelers, other federal districts, or people who are affected by the order for other reasons.
I understand the DHS statement to simply amount to "we aren't lawyers, so until a judge rules on whether the entire order is constitutional, we have to assume it is and act accordingly. We have lawyers on staff who will tell us how other rulings affect our actions, and how far those rulings go."
It's important to remember that executive orders are legally binding on people who work for the president, but not anyone else. Usually, they say how an ambiguous law will be interpreted, or they add limitations on top of what the law requires.
In this case, the president has directed various people to take certain actions. The courts will have to determine if those actions are legal. It wouldn't surprise me if some actions are legal (cabinet members are supposed to review the policies for the refugee program) and others aren't (prioritize immigrants based on their religion). But DHS doesn't get to conduct its own review of the order; they have to assume the whole thing is legally binding.
If multiple federal courts start granting injunctions against particular parts of the order, then things might change. I'm not sure how that works; although I am sure that government-paid lawyers will conduct their own review of the order, and I strongly suspect that the president has to approve any decisions to not implement a portion of an executive order.
News stories I've seen today suggest that the order covers more people than I expected. Even so, people working for DHS are legally bound to enforce the portions of the order that aren't covered by the injunction (and, of course, to honor the injunction for the people it covers).
> a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order.
That story is false (at least as far as I know). The stay was put on one detail of the implementation of the order, not the whole order - namely, on deporting green card holders that has already arrived in US airports.
> Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued
ACLU is seeking class action status, but in the meantime if several judges agreed that the stay is warranted I imagine it would be not hard for any person (with access to law assistance etc. of course) to be able to obtain similar order.
No, it was Bush who bombed and destabilized the ME, and Obama was the one who didn't do enough to save the region -- the red line controversy -- and watched idly while the Arab Spring crumbling which led indirectly to the rise of ISIS and the next wave of global Islamic terrorism that we're living through.
The ball now is in the Judiciary's court. If this dept goes rogue, they should intervene and make some arrests for people violating the court orders and laws.
This looks day after day like a classical far-right takeover of the govt and people in the US should be really alarmed by these developments.
If the executive decides to ignore the courts, the ball passes to the Senate. If the Senate chooses to ignore the situation, then yes, we're pretty much screwed.
Alarmed also at their own naivety: Central Park Five, Birtherism, Steve Bannon the president's chief strategist and senior counsel and white nationalist former operator of Breitbart.com. The writing has been on the wall the whole time. Checkout the other executive order, the shakeup of the national security council which now has two conspiracy theorists on it (three if the president is included).
Don't count on Congressional Republicans to fix this. They've used coded bigotry since 1968. And now it's become uncoded. But either way always consistently there is the bigotry.
Now maybe some Republicans finally have an OMFG moment and can now actually hear the dirty dog whistle, and will revaluate. But for Pence, Ryan, McConnell, it's too late.
We keep failing each test. We couldn't flick them off at the primary. And then not at the general. At each step it gets harder and harder to fix, by design.
The policy is sadistic. They are attacking the weakest among us. It's easy for them to do it, and amounts to a test, how much they can get away with.
You are excited and over estimating the danger, and misstating facts such as his legitimacy. Those kind of things will cloud the discussion and prevent support from the kind of groups you need to defeat him.
The smart move would be to collect information and watch him fail, then move for impeachment. Then start dealing with Pence.....
It is not absolutely not hyperbole. And, based on your username, I will venture a guess that you are privileged white male who is fortunate enough to not (for now) be among Drumpf's scapegoats.
I challenge you to speak to some of the thousands of Muslims, refugees, undocumented migrants and others whose very existence is threatened by this fascist "President" and see if they think I'm engaging in hyperbole.
Do. Not. Minimize. The. Danger. We. Are. All. In. Just. Because. You. Are. A. Privileged. White. Person.
Trump is an asshole however he is our legitimate president no mater how much some of us do not like it. He won the election as the rules require. Period. Let's not forget that. The office should be respected no matter what asswipe he is in it. If you disagree with his policies then call your congressman, et. al. Protest by all means. That is your right as an American. He was elected because a large majority of people in individual states did not follow thought with their duty to vote pure and simple. Let's make sure that those voices are heard and we do not make this same mistake in 4 years. The man scares the hell out of me but I am not going to say he is not the ligitimate president because he won and I do not like him. It is our duty to protest and make our voice heard if we disagree. It would have been great if we did the before the election but your fellow Americans did not and we have to live with that. Please do not give me any bulsshit about the popular vote because that is not they way the rules work. If you do not like that then do something about it. He, president trump is the president no matter how much it sucks.
As I understand it, your parent is (if verbosely) pointing out the use of the phrase our illegitimate "President", and points out that we can and should be protesting. These points aren't in contradiction of yours. Indeed, depending on the outcome of everything surrounding this Executive Order, your point as well as those of your parent may all well be true.
The parent is not saying Trump is not the legitimate president. He's saying that the US government has three branches (congress, executive, judiciary) which provide checks and balances and Trump is ordering an executive agency to ignore that, and the agency is following this order. Characterizing this as a coup is not totally inaccurate.
"...in which our illegitimate "President" is overriding the authority of the judicial branch..."
The subject is 'President' and the adjective is 'illegitimate'. If the parent meant that Trump's actions are not legally sound, then they would have written:
"...in which our "President" is illegitimately overriding the authority of the judicial branch..."
100% agreed. Trump was elected fair and square, citizens still have recourse through official channels, and the American experiment will continue. I don't agree with most of his policies but these are facts.
To some extent it appears that the American public enjoys working itself into a hysteric frenzy. One might almost view it as political virtue signalling on a national scale.
Trump can only be a legitimate president under our constitution. If he fails to respect the limits on presidential power laid out by that constitution, including the right and responsibility of the judicial branch to block an order deemed unconstitutional, then he disavows the very document on which his legitimacy is predicated. To say that he's legitimate under those conditions is not even wrong. It's gibberish.
> put aside petty partisan bickering and remove this fascist con-man from office immediately.
All I see is the fascist partisan bickering in your post. Trump has legitimately won the election and is doing what his powers let him do. He was clear about Muslim ban before election too and people voted for him.
I think we can make better arguments as to why his moronic executive orders hurt USA in a major way and perhaps work to gather political support to reduce the damage but getting angry and abusive does not help.
He lost the popular vote by millions of votes. The majority of America has made it very clear they do not want this fascist to be their President and the only reason he got through is because of Russian hacking our election to try and throw our country into chaos (and boy have they ever succeeded).
And don't you dare lecture me about getting "angry" over this. Why don't you learn some empathy and consider how you'd feel if you were among the millions of Muslims, refugees and undocumented migrants whose very existence is at stake thanks to some angry old white people who are so afraid of brown people coming into the country they thought they'd teach us all a lesson by voting for a failed businessman con-artist turned neo-fascist politician for President.
True. That said, the popular vote does not matter in any sense other than showing how the country as a whole is pretty evenly divided. If the popular vote (as opposed to the Electoral College) were the deciding factor in the election, the campaigns and GOTV efforts would have been run very differently, and the result wouldn't likely look like it did.
Don't get me wrong, this is very important. The fact that the country was closely split along in an election for historically unfavorable candidates shows just how dissatisfied voters were as a whole with both candidates, and how much work we can do to find common ground—surely there is some: many (most?) people aren't single-issue voters.
(The fact that the Electoral College results and the popular vote results haven't been in agreement is definitely a problems as well, and one that should be addressed. But that's a separate issue, and not the rules the 2016 election was conducted under.)
Yes, and those ignorant scared and angry won an election per the rules. Sure, I hope they have buyer's (voter's) remorse. But even more I hope the 42% eligible who did not vote have some remorse and commit to participating in 2018, onward.
The majority of America has made it very clear they do not want this fascist to be their President and the only reason he got through is because of Russian hacking our election to try and throw our country into chaos
While it is extremely clear that Russian propaganda helped Trump, it doesn't explain now the Republicans ended up with majorities in all houses, and also have a majority of governors.
I think Democrats need to confront some hard truths: The popular vote means shit (because CA and NY). Pretending otherwise means nothing.
The parent poster is steeped in identity politics, and such people do not confront hard truths. I don't expect much from corporate democrats either. There is a movement within the party called Justice Democrats that might have a chance at reform if they gain enough traction.
You are clearly advocating for something beyond a more appropriate processing of green card and visa holders.
In fact you seem to be arguing that the US has some sort of obligation to accept millions of immigrants, refugees, and 'undocumented migrants' because ...? The US hasn't had an open border policy like that for over 100 years. Freaking out about Friday's policy changes with overwrought and hyperbolic language isn't very persuasive towards a different policy.
There is a very reasonable argument based on due process that the administration's implementation of these visa changes was bungled terribly and that it will create some considerable hardship for people in-transit or out-of-country. I hope that this situation gets quickly addressed and that the administration takes a bit more care in its administrative logistics going forward.
We've banned this account for crossing into personal attack and abusive rhetoric, even by the standards of these overheated threads. Please don't create accounts to break the HN guidelines with.
All: Hacker News is for the gratification of intellectual curiosity, not political and ideological battle. Those two things are incompatible, so most politics is off-topic here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Some politics is inevitable. The litmus test for moderation here is: does an account use HN primarily for political purposes? If so, that's an abuse of the site and we eventually ban accounts that do it. Incivility and flamewars are two other abuses that we ban accounts for.
If you're going to comment in these threads, please take extra care not to violate HN's rules. Discussion needs to become more civil and substantive, not less, as topics become more divisive.
There is wide misconception about what the court stays were on-- they actually prevented deportation, not detention. DHS did not say they were going to deport people against the court orders.
>...a coup d'etat is in progress in which our illegitimate "President..."
Well there's a rational statement. We had an election. Trump won it, under the rules which have been in place for centuries. Clinton knew what the rules were as well, and she didn't play the game as well. Another country attempted to influence public opinion during the election, which has also been going on for centuries.
I assume your "illegitimate President" comment is due to the leaked emails. If the Hillary/DNC emails had all been about how they were going to work hard for America, then the leak wouldn't have affected her and would have actually helped her. Instead, they were about unethical and illegal activity aimed at ensuring she won the election. If you engage in that sort of thing as a Presidential candidate/political party executive, you should get caught and you should lose.
I'm sorry but this is exactly hyperbole. In a democracy you have elections, and the person who wins the election is invested with certain powers for a limited amount of time. If you want to undermine the whole game just because Trump is unpalatable to you, proceed at your own risk. You may set in motion a self-fulfilling catastrophe much worse than the worst Trump could ever do. At the very least keep in mind that roughly half of the country wanted Trump for president. Have you considered how they might feel about deposing the person they voted for?
Yes exactly. Nixon's approval was about 24% upon departure. It will take far more damage than this ban to get an approval rating low enough to motivate and give cover to this Congress.
I find this sort of overwrought rhetoric more disturbing than lawful, if objectionable, policy changes.
We've got institutional processes for dealing with executive branch policies that we disagree with. It certainly looks like the legislature and the judiciary are responding and peaceful assembly and protest can help motivate change as can healthy reporting by the press.
On the other hand you are advocating for overthrow of the government and a complete disregard for the democratic process and the rule of law. Instead of arguing on the merits your spit out overwrought accusations of fraudulent, fascist, and psychotic behavior.
Our most cherished value is that of the rule of law. Even in the presence of flawed policies and corrupt practices, belief and adherence to the rule of law provides a way to respond to and rectify these mistakes. Asserting that things are so bad that the rule of law should be disregarded and that someone should be removed from office because you don't agree with their lawful policy changes is a certain path to disaster.
Since when are diversity and multiculturalism part of our fundamental values?
There's certainly an argument to be made that diversity of thought and behavior has a net positive effect on society.
However, it's become apparent that the dogma of multiculturalism is causing major problems where a certain religion is concerned. We'd be foolish to ignore this fact.
I wonder how much of the ambiguity is incompetence and how much is willful?
This administration would be far from the first government to deliberately play dumb, issue contradictory statements, and otherwise sow confusion to keep any potential opposition scattered and on the defensive. Of course it could all just be a really sloppy transition.
I'm going to assume the last paragraph in the statement is controlling and they will comply (even though we are getting reports of some DHS offices ignoring the stay). But what if they don't?
Refusal to follow court orders will be the end of the United States. Once you break that seal everything falls apart. We have appeals for a reason. Congress has the power to change the law (thus overriding the courts) for a reason.
This is also something some of us warned you Trump supporters about and you ignored it or laughed it off.
If you think Steve Bannon (new de-facto head of the National Security Council) gives two shits about the rule of law I've got a bridge to sell you. We already know Trump doesn't give a crap when he started bashing the US citizen judge presiding over his Trump University case by saying he wasn't qualified to judge the case because he was "Mexican". It's a trivial step to declare Congress invalid and establish "temporary emergency measures".
Even if you agree with Trump and support him you should understand how refusal to follow our legal process is a direct threat to everyone... a far greater long-term threat than letting 10,000 terrorists into the country. We can rebuild buildings. We cannot so easily rebuild a functioning democracy.
If you think the FBI or police agencies would step in to stop Trump from declaring himself dictator you are sadly mistaken.
I hope this is just incompetence. If it isn't then the day is coming soon when every one of us must pick a side and take direct action. Fortunately I don't expect that to happen, but the chances have moved up "impossible".
That doesn't really seem to say much. The stay was only for in-transit passengers, it said naught about denying boarding. And the statement said they'll comply with court orders.
As much as I detest what's happening - what else would they say?
Sounds like a puff piece by the Trump DHS to appear tough while adding a tiny line > The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders
> No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States
Well, Commonwealth citizens have a head of state who:
> Requests and requires ... all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
:) - I'm sort of joking of course, nothing wrong with the DHS quote, it's just unfortunate (to put it lightly) for those who have been there and are suddenly... well, fettered.
I think this story is the most important thing I've read so far:
Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries [..] did not apply [..] to [] green card holders.
The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon.
.....
Bannon wanted turmoil and condemnation. He wanted this executive order to get as much publicity as possible.[..] He thinks this will be a PR win.
Liberals think the same thing. All the protests, the court judgments, the press coverage: this is something that will make middle America understand just what Trump is really all about. And once they figure it out, they'll turn on him.
[..] After a week of skirmishes, this is finally a hill that both sides are willing to die for. Who's going to win?
I was a foreign student at UCSD during 9/11 and have witnessed the hysterical reaction of the Bush administration, the establishment of the DHS and the TSA and their ridiculous security theatre.
At a time when the world is more interconnected than ever, and technology offers "the world at your fingertips", these bigots want to shut us in and make everybody hate each other.
Personally, it is heartbreaking to see the self-proclaimed "land of the free, home of the brave", the nation that once promised to be a sanctuary to the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free", in the grip of a paranoid meltdown.
The entire country is not in a meltdown. There's a president and a handful of Angsthasen in a meltdown, pretty much successfully dragging their party with them, and trying to drag the country into one also.
Give it time to process. We have been through much worse. Don't write off the whole lot who do not agree with the true intent of these policies.
Now maybe some of us can stop being so naive about broken campaign promises? Obviously there are some that should not have been made, but they certainly should not have been kept. Notice the emphasis by the administration on keeping campaign promises. That is an explicit dig at all Trump voters: they are claiming you want this. You are being made complicit, even if you think you voted for other reasons.
Trump guys are, have been, and always will be complicit in the pain, suffering, and death we are visiting on people. I will never forgive them for this.
My niece and my aunt are coming to visit in a few days and there seems to be no issues. A lot of noise over stalling a few countries with serious terrorist and isis presence. Its going to be a few tough years as the media openly has the knives out and will do anything to bash the president.
Were your niece and aunt born in one of the 7 countries in the ban (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia)? If not, then their situation is irrelevant.
151 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 95.1 ms ] threadsays the opposite to me
I just saw this on my G+ stream: https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/T72eVRRHv39
Also wow.
If the tsa would fold up and go away, I would be the happiest
I guess getting detained and denied entry into the country is "enhanced security measures"?
And I guess deporting people is the most enhanced security measure of them all. If we could deport everyone that lives in the US, I bet security would be pretty tight.
Anyway, read it however you like. I choose to read it as the maximum number of people that could fit within their language, because I think it was written to be purposefully ambiguous.
If it were 3 people, they probably would, but it's not 3 people. But it's not likely they even know how many people are affected right now, given the situation changes all the time, so they used very vague description. It is not a description one can derive any specific number from, only upper bound.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the stay, said it would help 100 to 200 people with visas or refugee status who found themselves detained in transit or at U.S. airports.
ACLU has no reason to underplay the number of people affected while seeking emergency order to help them, so we can treat this as good approximation.
My only point of confusion is whether the ACLU is committing to helping all people in this situation (100-200 total) or if they are saying they have the resources available for a limited number of people (100-200 of potentially more).
Either way, it would be great if the US government -- which is the only entity able to factually calculate this number, and which could have determined the number before enforcing the EO by cross-referencing passenger manifests -- would act like responsible adults and admit what they have done.
Regardless of how many people are actually turned away or detained in the airports or elsewhere, every single person with citizenship of one of these countries and a valid green card or visa is impacted (hundreds of thousands of people). Those still in the US are prisoners here now. They can't risk leaving the country for any reason.
Even if this executive order expires in 90 days and things go back to normal (which I doubt), they will still be afraid. The rule of law has been weakened.
Permanent residents who have lived in the US for years and are travelling have no ties to the country? That's a stupid statement.
This cannot be allowed to happen. I would love to see everyone violating this injunction (and ordering others to do so) be put in jail, just as if I or anyone else were to violate such a court order.
Think you might've read over that
This press release is words, not actions.
I think the intended interpretation of this seems pretty clear, maybe it's just me, but they seem to be saying "We will continue to enforce executive order minus any vetoes or alterations issued by courts." As you would expect them to.
Yes, the first one.
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders...
The whole thing is self-contradictory. They cannot enforce all the executive orders while complying with all judicial orders. Your reading of it is one reading, don't pretend like it's the only reasonable reading. In fact, it's notable that the sentence you're picking out,"
The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders
does not say they will comply with all judicial orders. So, you want to revise how "pretty clear" it seems to you?
Of course they can. They will enforce all the orders, except for the parts which are specifically prohibited (or otherwise instructed) by court orders. Exactly how it always happened before.
> does not say they will comply with all judicial orders
Of course not. They don't have to comply with all of the orders, just with those that relate to something they are doing. See, I can do it too. The point is that this release doesn't say anything but "we'll continue doing what we should be doing in accordance with the law" and all panic about it is completely self-generated, as so far we haven't seen even single case of non-compliance (actually, people are not only not being deported but are being released: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/iraqi-man-free-de...). Of course, whatever floats you boat...
There are a few comments on this story which seem to reference things which aren't in the actual release.
EDIT: I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order? Clearly to most people here, we are interpreting it as not following the order because the hint of "following judicial orders" is relegated to the end. The opening of the statement (first sentence) is:
>The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.
There, in the emphasis added by me, was a chance to mention the judicial order; they could have tacked "while respecting judicial orders" at the end of that sentence, and their intention would be clear, and that would set the tone of the rest of the order.
The reason I mention who their audience is because if it addressed is to those against the ban, then it doesn't do its job as it comes off as oppositional. If it's to save face with those for the ban, then yes, leaving that till the end does make sense. Perhaps that's why it is written this way?
Regardless, over analysing this seems unhelpful, I'm sure by tomorrow morning, their intention will be clear.
> I'm not sure who they are trying to speak to here, are they admitting they will follow the judicial order?
It's a press release, so the audience is the press (and the public.)
It's probably deliberately contradictory specifically so that people able to read their own preferences into it.
Which one? One I heard of prevents deportation of green card holders pending resolution of their cases. I don't see anything in DHS press release conflicting with it. Was there another one? In fact, CNN reports that application of the order to green card holders may be misunderstanding:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b... As of Saturday afternoon, Customs and Border Protection continued to issue the same guidance to airlines as it did Friday, telling airlines that fly to the US that green card holders can board planes to the US but they may get extra scrutiny on arrival, according to an airline official.
"Extra scrutiny" is kind of vague and worrying, but it's not the same as ban (if the intent was to ban no point in allowing boarding and flying in).
Only a DHS agent can grant entry to non-citizens. On a case by case basis.
I imagine the questions are going to get harder. No more easy peasy things like "Where do you work?", "Why are you coming?", "Are you staying?".
It is important to note that the people affected here are not just the hijab wearing sharia loving Muslims (as trump might describe them) but also people who helped US army carry out the unnecessary operations in their homeland and as a result face danger in their own country. Some top notch researchers or even activists who are fighting the oppressive regimes in their home countries.
As an immigrant I think I better max out my credit cards borrow all possible loans before leaving USA !
Clearly this was never about terrorism. It's about cynically assigning blame to countries who have no means to fight back ie. a Trump hotel or military purchasing power.
Oh, well as long as it's only minorities who have to suffer, then I guess all is well.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller, 1946
Now, of course the US aren't a Nazi state... yet. It's very important to make sure it stays that way, that should be the civil duty of all real democrats in your country right now.
Whelp (editing out the explicative here), this makes it the official position of the DHS that the already-over-the-top measures they have been taking in recent years are not sufficient to establish "control over America's borders and national security".
I cannot overstate the danger we are all in every day this psychopathic fascist is allowed to remain in that office. He must be stopped immediately. Our most fundamental and cherished values are at stake here.
Scared little bunny rabbits. Go scurry and hide rather than demand the rest of the world live in fear with you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
Also, please don't use HN primarily for political battle. That's an abuse of this site, and we ban accounts that do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13515696.
The parent asked a question "Preventing immigration from groups statistically likely to commit terrorist acts?" and I answered it with a rhetorical question based on historical fact. Jewish refugees were returned to Germany under the auspices that they might be Nazis and threaten the security of the U.S. and they were murdered as a result.
The context of this entire thread is an executive order made on the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day in part, we remember how complicit we were in the murder of Jewish refugees by not protecting them, all because we were scared of hypotheticals rather than stand up for refugees. The ensuing national guilt is why we established the refugee policies we've had since WWII. Those policy makers refusing these refugees deserved to be called scared bunny rabbits, that's what they were and innocent people died because of the con game we played: that refugees were likely to commit terrorist acts. Calling them scared bunny rabbits is a kindness, and it is polite, and it is civil. Imagine what I really think.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autoc...
Now, if you folks can't handle political conversations, ban the submissions, not the ensuing discussions.
If you really don't see what's wrong with posting like this, we have a problem. Even if your position is 100% right, such rhetoric makes this place worse. Right people don't get to do that any more than wrong people do. Indeed, they arguably harm more.
When people see something that isn't right or fair or just they have a moral obligation to say something. Saying otherwise is just another betrayal and weakens everyone.
Really, the entire statement isn't that exciting, it just says "Agency will continue to follow legal structure of government as all agencies do." Mostly it's just an attempt to reassure people that things aren't as out of hand as they seem.
(especially not people we gave green cards and visas to after subjecting them to years, or decades, of bureacracy and vetting)
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Following-Detainment-Re...
It'll probably end up going to the Supreme court, the Supreme court has two Obama appointees and with justice Scalia passed away there is a chance it could go in the ACLU's favor. . . but established constitutional law is clear, the Supreme court has ruled time and time again that America can turn away anyone at the boarder and non-citizens do not have a right to stay in America . . . so defeating this executive order at the Supreme court level will require some doing, which might happen because of the current composition of the court has judges that are willing to veer away from established precedent.
ACLU of course would argue the whole order is invalid, but I don't think this part would be easy to prove and not likely to get emergency order broad enough, and it probably would take more than 60 days to go through which means challenging this particular order in its entirety may be moot by the time it gets to any sort of trial. If the subsequent policy will match it though it still may have a point.
It seems to me the last and the first paragraph are saying different things.
How can DHS be implementing ALL of the executive action, when part of it has been stayed by the court?
Assuming this statement is, as it says, a response to the litigation (i.e. the challenge which led the court to stay part of the executive action), I don't see how you can read that first paragraph as anything but a denial that they will abide by the partial stay.
Is there any evidence to suggest that they are following the court order and not enforcing that part of the action? The (admittedly hopelessly unreliable) twittering from human rights lawyers involved, seems to suggest they are not.
That last paragraph reads like a tack on to me.
But we're all trying to parse the words and I suspect the statement will be irrelevant, and what happens on the ground will decide how this goes forwards.
It's just a minor difference in the people effected.
Just FWIW, from what I can interpret, the ruling is broader than just the people currently 'on the ground' - they were the petitioners, but the judgement was not limited to them, but to:
"individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States."
There's no indication that the stay is limited to the petitioners or current detainees. I assume it would prevent deportation of anyone with legal grounds to be here, who arrive tomorrow, or any time until the full case is heard.
So we'll have to see if anyone is deported. Or if DHS get their act together and stop people boarding.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-chao...
That said, after another hour of research, I think I got it now :) I think I wasn't wrong, just my point about the judgement was totally moot. The deportation issue only arose because when the executive action came into force there were already flights with confirmed passengers (either in the air, or soon to leave). So they'd gone through the pre-flight checking under the old rules, but landed at immigration under the new rules. But the way of enforcing the action will be to prevent people flying in the first place. Passport details are required to be sent to DHS before a passenger boards a plane to the US, and have been for a long time, nothing new there. And DHS routinely prevents people flying at source. So the deportation issue shouldn't arise for new passengers (modulo edge cases like someone on a transatlantic cruise who'll ship up in New York at some point). So if I'm now right, the journalists are correct, this judgement will only apply in practice to those who are currently being detained for deportation.
But again, I'm happy to emphasise that I have done roughly 2 hours of online reading in this area now :) I'm posting here to try and figure it out, not to claim expertise!
Phrases like "first step" are anticipating stronger measures to come. The introduction makes it clear that the agency believes that these measures will in fact reduce security. I don't have enough information to refute that claim, but I don't believe it either.
As an outsider to the USA, I would have liked to have seen more balance. For instance, it would have been reassuring to hear that DHS had taken legal advice on its obligations and how best to implement them without rushing in.
I suspect that the release is written for individuals near to Cabinet who want to know that officials are complying without question. Does not bode well.
"@pierre: This is unbelievable. When asked by two Congressmen [who they report to] CBP agents at LAX said "Donald J Trump" and hung up."
That sounds for all the world like the executive branch rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.
The statement then goes on to say:
"The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders..."
So no, the executive branch is not rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.
I do remember that being a scandal.
To your main point, a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order. If true, this would mean that enforcing the order is currently illegal; and doing so could be called a "coup" by the executive branch (although I don't think this technically qualifies as a coup).
Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued, so enforcement of the order is still legal in all other cases.
I understand the DHS statement to simply amount to "we aren't lawyers, so until a judge rules on whether the entire order is constitutional, we have to assume it is and act accordingly. We have lawyers on staff who will tell us how other rulings affect our actions, and how far those rulings go."
It's important to remember that executive orders are legally binding on people who work for the president, but not anyone else. Usually, they say how an ambiguous law will be interpreted, or they add limitations on top of what the law requires.
In this case, the president has directed various people to take certain actions. The courts will have to determine if those actions are legal. It wouldn't surprise me if some actions are legal (cabinet members are supposed to review the policies for the refugee program) and others aren't (prioritize immigrants based on their religion). But DHS doesn't get to conduct its own review of the order; they have to assume the whole thing is legally binding.
If multiple federal courts start granting injunctions against particular parts of the order, then things might change. I'm not sure how that works; although I am sure that government-paid lawyers will conduct their own review of the order, and I strongly suspect that the president has to approve any decisions to not implement a portion of an executive order.
Maybe you can link me to the comment thread where HN was breathless about the need for assassination or civil war.
That story is false (at least as far as I know). The stay was put on one detail of the implementation of the order, not the whole order - namely, on deporting green card holders that has already arrived in US airports.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darweesh_v._Trump
> Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued
ACLU is seeking class action status, but in the meantime if several judges agreed that the stay is warranted I imagine it would be not hard for any person (with access to law assistance etc. of course) to be able to obtain similar order.
This looks day after day like a classical far-right takeover of the govt and people in the US should be really alarmed by these developments.
Don't count on Congressional Republicans to fix this. They've used coded bigotry since 1968. And now it's become uncoded. But either way always consistently there is the bigotry.
Now maybe some Republicans finally have an OMFG moment and can now actually hear the dirty dog whistle, and will revaluate. But for Pence, Ryan, McConnell, it's too late.
We keep failing each test. We couldn't flick them off at the primary. And then not at the general. At each step it gets harder and harder to fix, by design.
The policy is sadistic. They are attacking the weakest among us. It's easy for them to do it, and amounts to a test, how much they can get away with.
You are excited and over estimating the danger, and misstating facts such as his legitimacy. Those kind of things will cloud the discussion and prevent support from the kind of groups you need to defeat him.
The smart move would be to collect information and watch him fail, then move for impeachment. Then start dealing with Pence.....
I challenge you to speak to some of the thousands of Muslims, refugees, undocumented migrants and others whose very existence is threatened by this fascist "President" and see if they think I'm engaging in hyperbole.
Do. Not. Minimize. The. Danger. We. Are. All. In. Just. Because. You. Are. A. Privileged. White. Person.
Actually, the parent does explicitly say this:
our illegitimate "President"
The subject is 'President' and the adjective is 'illegitimate'. If the parent meant that Trump's actions are not legally sound, then they would have written:
"...in which our "President" is illegitimately overriding the authority of the judicial branch..."
>"The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders..."
Yeah, not seeing it. The stay is temporary, not permanent. He is allowed to continue enforcing his EO.
To some extent it appears that the American public enjoys working itself into a hysteric frenzy. One might almost view it as political virtue signalling on a national scale.
All I see is the fascist partisan bickering in your post. Trump has legitimately won the election and is doing what his powers let him do. He was clear about Muslim ban before election too and people voted for him.
I think we can make better arguments as to why his moronic executive orders hurt USA in a major way and perhaps work to gather political support to reduce the damage but getting angry and abusive does not help.
And don't you dare lecture me about getting "angry" over this. Why don't you learn some empathy and consider how you'd feel if you were among the millions of Muslims, refugees and undocumented migrants whose very existence is at stake thanks to some angry old white people who are so afraid of brown people coming into the country they thought they'd teach us all a lesson by voting for a failed businessman con-artist turned neo-fascist politician for President.
True. That said, the popular vote does not matter in any sense other than showing how the country as a whole is pretty evenly divided. If the popular vote (as opposed to the Electoral College) were the deciding factor in the election, the campaigns and GOTV efforts would have been run very differently, and the result wouldn't likely look like it did.
Don't get me wrong, this is very important. The fact that the country was closely split along in an election for historically unfavorable candidates shows just how dissatisfied voters were as a whole with both candidates, and how much work we can do to find common ground—surely there is some: many (most?) people aren't single-issue voters.
(The fact that the Electoral College results and the popular vote results haven't been in agreement is definitely a problems as well, and one that should be addressed. But that's a separate issue, and not the rules the 2016 election was conducted under.)
The majority of America has made it very clear they do not want this fascist to be their President and the only reason he got through is because of Russian hacking our election to try and throw our country into chaos
While it is extremely clear that Russian propaganda helped Trump, it doesn't explain now the Republicans ended up with majorities in all houses, and also have a majority of governors.
I think Democrats need to confront some hard truths: The popular vote means shit (because CA and NY). Pretending otherwise means nothing.
In fact you seem to be arguing that the US has some sort of obligation to accept millions of immigrants, refugees, and 'undocumented migrants' because ...? The US hasn't had an open border policy like that for over 100 years. Freaking out about Friday's policy changes with overwrought and hyperbolic language isn't very persuasive towards a different policy.
There is a very reasonable argument based on due process that the administration's implementation of these visa changes was bungled terribly and that it will create some considerable hardship for people in-transit or out-of-country. I hope that this situation gets quickly addressed and that the administration takes a bit more care in its administrative logistics going forward.
All: Hacker News is for the gratification of intellectual curiosity, not political and ideological battle. Those two things are incompatible, so most politics is off-topic here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Some politics is inevitable. The litmus test for moderation here is: does an account use HN primarily for political purposes? If so, that's an abuse of the site and we eventually ban accounts that do it. Incivility and flamewars are two other abuses that we ban accounts for.
If you're going to comment in these threads, please take extra care not to violate HN's rules. Discussion needs to become more civil and substantive, not less, as topics become more divisive.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
The President is not issuing a coup. It says directly in the statement they will comply with the judicial orders.
And in Mass (and Mass only) now they are not allowed to detain: https://twitter.com/sdooling/status/825602397007409153
Although some are reporting otherwise: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enf... It seems they are mistaken
Well there's a rational statement. We had an election. Trump won it, under the rules which have been in place for centuries. Clinton knew what the rules were as well, and she didn't play the game as well. Another country attempted to influence public opinion during the election, which has also been going on for centuries.
I assume your "illegitimate President" comment is due to the leaked emails. If the Hillary/DNC emails had all been about how they were going to work hard for America, then the leak wouldn't have affected her and would have actually helped her. Instead, they were about unethical and illegal activity aimed at ensuring she won the election. If you engage in that sort of thing as a Presidential candidate/political party executive, you should get caught and you should lose.
We've got institutional processes for dealing with executive branch policies that we disagree with. It certainly looks like the legislature and the judiciary are responding and peaceful assembly and protest can help motivate change as can healthy reporting by the press.
On the other hand you are advocating for overthrow of the government and a complete disregard for the democratic process and the rule of law. Instead of arguing on the merits your spit out overwrought accusations of fraudulent, fascist, and psychotic behavior.
Our most cherished value is that of the rule of law. Even in the presence of flawed policies and corrupt practices, belief and adherence to the rule of law provides a way to respond to and rectify these mistakes. Asserting that things are so bad that the rule of law should be disregarded and that someone should be removed from office because you don't agree with their lawful policy changes is a certain path to disaster.
There's certainly an argument to be made that diversity of thought and behavior has a net positive effect on society.
However, it's become apparent that the dogma of multiculturalism is causing major problems where a certain religion is concerned. We'd be foolish to ignore this fact.
This administration would be far from the first government to deliberately play dumb, issue contradictory statements, and otherwise sow confusion to keep any potential opposition scattered and on the defensive. Of course it could all just be a really sloppy transition.
I'm going to assume the last paragraph in the statement is controlling and they will comply (even though we are getting reports of some DHS offices ignoring the stay). But what if they don't?
Refusal to follow court orders will be the end of the United States. Once you break that seal everything falls apart. We have appeals for a reason. Congress has the power to change the law (thus overriding the courts) for a reason. This is also something some of us warned you Trump supporters about and you ignored it or laughed it off.
If you think Steve Bannon (new de-facto head of the National Security Council) gives two shits about the rule of law I've got a bridge to sell you. We already know Trump doesn't give a crap when he started bashing the US citizen judge presiding over his Trump University case by saying he wasn't qualified to judge the case because he was "Mexican". It's a trivial step to declare Congress invalid and establish "temporary emergency measures".
Even if you agree with Trump and support him you should understand how refusal to follow our legal process is a direct threat to everyone... a far greater long-term threat than letting 10,000 terrorists into the country. We can rebuild buildings. We cannot so easily rebuild a functioning democracy.
If you think the FBI or police agencies would step in to stop Trump from declaring himself dictator you are sadly mistaken.
I hope this is just incompetence. If it isn't then the day is coming soon when every one of us must pick a side and take direct action. Fortunately I don't expect that to happen, but the chances have moved up "impossible".
As much as I detest what's happening - what else would they say?
Well, Commonwealth citizens have a head of state who:
> Requests and requires ... all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
:) - I'm sort of joking of course, nothing wrong with the DHS quote, it's just unfortunate (to put it lightly) for those who have been there and are suddenly... well, fettered.
Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries [..] did not apply [..] to [] green card holders.
The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. .....
Bannon wanted turmoil and condemnation. He wanted this executive order to get as much publicity as possible.[..] He thinks this will be a PR win.
Liberals think the same thing. All the protests, the court judgments, the press coverage: this is something that will make middle America understand just what Trump is really all about. And once they figure it out, they'll turn on him.
[..] After a week of skirmishes, this is finally a hill that both sides are willing to die for. Who's going to win?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/trumps-immigra...
At a time when the world is more interconnected than ever, and technology offers "the world at your fingertips", these bigots want to shut us in and make everybody hate each other.
Personally, it is heartbreaking to see the self-proclaimed "land of the free, home of the brave", the nation that once promised to be a sanctuary to the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free", in the grip of a paranoid meltdown.
Give it time to process. We have been through much worse. Don't write off the whole lot who do not agree with the true intent of these policies.
Now maybe some of us can stop being so naive about broken campaign promises? Obviously there are some that should not have been made, but they certainly should not have been kept. Notice the emphasis by the administration on keeping campaign promises. That is an explicit dig at all Trump voters: they are claiming you want this. You are being made complicit, even if you think you voted for other reasons.