By "specific amendment" he should be saying "throw it out". This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero.
Saying "throw it out" isn't productive. Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. You get to, in the short term, choose between a substantial win (finding a better middle ground) and a feel-good victory (saying "screw you" and living with this policy).
The only winning move is not to play. Interacting with Trump's government, unless necessary for legal reasons, is stupid and makes it harder for everyone else to publicly denounce the current government.
It should be productive. When you make a mistake, you should be able to admit it, fix it, and live with it, and if Trump had any leadership ability, he would do just that. And gracefully.
I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level: The main goal seems to be to make Trump angry and not to solve any of those issues. For another example, it's not exactly news that calling Trump supporters (and Trump himself) names does not help, yet that still is what a lot of anti-Trump comments seem to concentrate on. It doesn't help, it doesn't change anything, but it's a main feature of the discussion. Most people on the side of "logic" don't follow logic, they go by emotions. If you cannot remove that president or the people who elected him, and you can't (you don't even have the means to get rid of them, so there's no need to even look at the morals of such a move) you would think that proponents of logical thinking actually use stone-cold logic to find a way, instead they use the biggest hammer they can find and try to use it on the opponents, deriving pleasure not from solutions but from eliciting angry reactions. "I made them angry - my job is done."
For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning.
As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
I don't give a fuck about what Trump thinks. Nobody should give a fuck about Trump thinks.
The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately.
> If you cannot remove that president ...
If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now.
> You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same.
Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
Well, you show you are unable even to read and comprehend a few simple sentences. As I said:
> I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level
Another example for your stupidity:
> Presidents can be removed.
So, DO IT! Oh, you can't? What I said.
It is what YOU can do, not what somebody else and/or the universe can do (but doesn't!!).
Amazing that people with such a lack of thinking-skills complain so much about Trump. I have the feeling what really irks you about that guy is that you are looking in a mirror, he's just like yourself!
> Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss.
Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings?
Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun.
You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest.
> This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero.
So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees?
So I could be wrong but when I tried looking into it I found that:
Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet.
Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through.
But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.
That covers legal permanent residents -- green card holders -- and visa-holders from those seven countries who are out of the United States after Friday, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the temporary ban. They cannot return to the U.S. for 90 days.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/29/federal-judge-grants-st...
Googling "Green cards visa blocked" gives plenty more results.
Finding a source isn't the problem. The problem is finding the truth amid all the confusion and partisanship.
> White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus: "We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn't affect them"
Now, of course, one could argue that the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was making things up, but the overwhelming evidence, from ideologically and geographically diverse news sources all says the same thing: the ban included green cards, before being reversed.
A senior White House official later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening.
Additional screening, not barring green card holders.
There had been some debate whether green card holders should be even allowed to board international flights. It was decided by the Department of Homeland Security they could fly to the US and would be considered on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening... Separately, a person familiar with the matter said career officials in charge of enforcing the executive order were not fully briefed on the specifics until Friday. The officials were caught off guard by some of the specifics and raised questions about how to handle the new banned passengers on US-bound planes.
Regarding the green card holders and some of the confusion about whether they were impacted, the person familiar with the matter said if career officials had known more about the executive order earlier, some of the confusion could have been avoided and a better plan could be in place.[1]
They were making it up as they went, and different parts of the government got different messages.
I think that is mostly because they didn't know themselves.
One key question for many is how the order will affect US green card holders and people who hold dual citizenship with a Trump approved country and one of the seven banned nations.
Adding to the confusion, Trump administration officials seemed to at times contradict themselves during appearances on Sunday news shows. In mere minutes during an interview with NBC, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then later said "of course" it affects green card holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- the seven countries Trump has temporarily stop immigration from for 90 days.[1]
and then:
Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as 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. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.[2]
Trump fans will hate it of course, but it seems CNN have the best source of leaks.
It's worth noting that Priebus isn't part of the Miller/Bannon circle, so his statements may have been a powerplay to try to moderate the policy.
It was wrong then, it's wrong now. Here are some key differences:
1. Trump has made islamaphobic rhetoric a cornerstone of his campaign, giving this racist undertones
2. That was a quiet secret at the time, this was an extremely public executive order. Both are wrong, but that doesn't somehow detract from or excuse this massive escalation. There wasn't this outrage at the time because nobody heard about it
3. The political situation at the time wasn't as life-or-death for refugees. Sending political refugees back now is a death sentence. That said, the US has been pretty terrible at accepting refugees in general this past decade, which is very shameful
4. This order detained cleared refugees while in transit, and, originally blocked green card holders from returning to the US after exiting for any reason
5. Remember that Trump has a neo-nazi in his cabinet with bannon, who reportedly wrote this order. That alone should be reason for heightened suspicion
how is it wrong? is it wrong for a sovereign nation to take care of it's own national interests even if that offends some people? most of what is happening is media-driven hysteria with masses of people that haven't even read the words of the executive order. Do you have proof that Bannon is a neo-nazi? I've heard quite the opposite but it's a common leftist talking point so if that's where you got it I understand.
Except it's not. Trump is just doing what Obama did in 2011, who banned refugees from Iraq and countries with direct ties to terrorism for six months, due to terrorism concerns.
If that's his angle, rather than helping an ignoble command become more implementable (and directly playing into a door-in-the-face strategy), I'd love to see some suggested amendments that make it more vulnerable to legal attack.
The problem with this reasonable seeming approach is that it accepts the frame.
Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This claim is factually incorrect, and moreover it is an attempt to set up an "other" group (Muslims) as an enemy. Keep in mind Trumps unapologetic claim on the campaign trail:
Donal J Trump is calling for a
total and complete shutdown
of Muslims entering the United States
-- Donald J Trump, Dec 2015
By proposing "specific ammendments", Musk says the framework as correct, but the details are wrong. In fact, the opposite is the case: the framework is wrong, as well as the details. The entire order should be rescinded, without qualification.
Musk and other SV commentators should know better than this, and not lend their credibility to un-American actions by the administration.
Musk is saying "find a face-saving way for Trump to substantively repeal the order without saying that nor making it sound like that to his supporters".
Donald J. Trump is calling for a
total and complete shutdown
of Muslims entering the United States
until our country's representatives
can figure out what is going on. [1]
That's why the current order has set duration of 90 days, and it's announced that subsequent immigration from the affected seven countries will be allowed, subject to tougher vetting.
Yes, that is the full quote. The "90 days" is not what is at issue with the original quote or the Executive Order. Again--the details are not the issue, the entire frame of thinking is.
What is going on is that muslims such as the Iraqi government and Iraqi army are fighting IS tooth and claw right now. An Iraqi that had family members murdered for helping the US has been prevented from getting on a plane to the US. This ban is affecting thousands of people who support the US and some who are risking their lives to help the US fight terrorism.
Trump had no idea what he was doing when he made that quote, has no idea now. What better idea in 90 days? Cancel this order? Meanwhile his actions are increasing the risks to the US. This is all about posturing and victimising a minority that's easy to demonize and nothing to do with security.
we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries
Why is that claim factually incorrect?
If you had said "eliminate" terrorism I would agree it's incorrect. But not allowing foreigners into the US is certainly a way to combat terrorism. Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners. Not allowing them to enter the US would help combat terrorism.
NOTE: I'm not arguing this is actually a good idea. I'm just stating that I disagree with you claim that it's factually incorrect.
Are you claiming that a complete list of all terror incidents on US soil?
And if it would make you feel better, I could just slightly tweak my comment to say "most terror attacks [by number of Americans killed] have been by foreigners".
The war on terror has required the hiring of native speakers as translators for our military. Translators are often promised the opportunity for asylum since it is dangerous to be seen as a collaborator with the U.S. military. A ban on refugees makes people less likely to assist the U.S. military, hence, why some military experts have asserted that this ban will have a negative effect on the safety of our military.
They're doing the right thing, this is about as terrifying it gets based on history, so having people close to the decisions that are not bat shit insane is at least a strategy.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
And it should be noted that the list of countries of concern to which Trump's order applies came from the Obama administration.
That's not what the order states, and I SEVERELY doubt you have read it.
http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj so we are all on the same page here. There is literally one country mentioned in the document - that country is Syria. The other references are to other documents that group countries that I can't find.
I think if you read the executive order, you'll have much better framing for what it actually says, and why.
Framing is not just the executive order, but also the narrative around it, and the manner in which it's presented to Americans. That's why the comments Trump made on the campaign trail are important.
The narrative is that America is under siege, and that we are in grave danger of terrorist attack. The only way to stop is to take extreme executive action, and to frame our national security policy around fighting ISIS.
Consider, as an example, the hasty nature of this executive order. It went into effect immediately, and refugees previously approved for entry had that approval revoked. Was there really something so urgent that happened on Thurs Jan 23rd that required immediate action? This is a similar strategy used by the Bush Administration, where the government uses the spectre of terrorism to justify actions completely disproportionate to the threat.
The question I would ask apologists of the travel ban is this: what was the real, imminent threat that required such a hasty executive order to be made on Jan 23rd? Is it a real threat, or is it political theatre for another purpose?
I think that Musk is trying to be diplomatic. I think he's fully against this measure because:
1) As I know Tesla does hire foreign engineers
2) He, himself is an immigrant to the US, and he was - if not an actual illegal alien, at least in a gray area immigration wise - at some point while building x.com
Yeah I agree I think he's against it but realizes the best we can hope for, at least going through the administration which he has access to, is offering amendments to soften the executive order.
I get the feeling Musk is trying to do what he can, the best he can, but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it. I think he's in a very difficult spot either way he goes.
> but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it
That's, unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] at play.
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular."
Suggestions on the vetting process will have a potentially greater effect. The obvious goal is the person(s) should on average be a net benefit to the United States. What that means is what needs to be hammered out and it's unknowable if that's the standard. More basic tests like freedom of speech are what I want to be used.
Part of the problem is "a 1952 immigration law [giving] the chief executive the power to bar 'any class' of immigrants from the country if allowing them is deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'" [1].
I think this can be viewing as harm reduction, analogous to giving needles to drug users. Sure it's easy to just say "They shouldn't be banning immigrants", but if they will anyway, we might as well make sure they do it less harmfully.
The muslim ban is probably as effective as the internment of the Japanese during WWII ordered by Roosevelt.
Which under Carter have been proven totally illegitimate and useless.
Well, segregation in the USA based on religion (Feynman barred from a PhD in Princeton for being jew) or colour of skin (until 1969), or birth (slavery-native americans) is part of the dark side of its history. Nothing new under the sun.
Question, is this a new cause of secession between rural and urban america growing up? I mean, if history repeats itself ...
67 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 173 ms ] threadAn activist can tune-out and entrepreneur has to adapt.
These are basic life skills people.
Edit: s/work/engage
For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning.
As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately.
> If you cannot remove that president ...
If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now.
> You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same.
Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
> I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level
Another example for your stupidity:
> Presidents can be removed.
So, DO IT! Oh, you can't? What I said.
It is what YOU can do, not what somebody else and/or the universe can do (but doesn't!!).
Amazing that people with such a lack of thinking-skills complain so much about Trump. I have the feeling what really irks you about that guy is that you are looking in a mirror, he's just like yourself!
Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings?
Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun.
You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest.
No negotiations. This is playing for keeps.
So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees?
http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-pr...
Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet.
Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
It's so hard to find the actual facts amid the rhetoric.
From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through.
But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.
That covers legal permanent residents -- green card holders -- and visa-holders from those seven countries who are out of the United States after Friday, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the temporary ban. They cannot return to the U.S. for 90 days. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/29/federal-judge-grants-st...
Googling "Green cards visa blocked" gives plenty more results.
> White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus: "We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn't affect them"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/priebus-immigr...
I'm wondering if this was a reversal or a misunderstanding.
In case you don't trust The Independent Here's a solidly right wing source to back it up: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444372/trumps-executive...
The order was signed on Jan 27. On the morning of Jan 29, Priebus said that it did not affect green card holders.
If that's a reversal, it was remarkably quick.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-Homeland-Security-Gree...
Now, of course, one could argue that the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was making things up, but the overwhelming evidence, from ideologically and geographically diverse news sources all says the same thing: the ban included green cards, before being reversed.
A senior White House official later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening.
Additional screening, not barring green card holders.
They were making it up as they went, and different parts of the government got different messages.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-trav...
Not that surprising given their lack of experience in government.
One key question for many is how the order will affect US green card holders and people who hold dual citizenship with a Trump approved country and one of the seven banned nations.
Adding to the confusion, Trump administration officials seemed to at times contradict themselves during appearances on Sunday news shows. In mere minutes during an interview with NBC, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then later said "of course" it affects green card holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- the seven countries Trump has temporarily stop immigration from for 90 days.[1]
and then:
Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as 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. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.[2]
Trump fans will hate it of course, but it seems CNN have the best source of leaks.
It's worth noting that Priebus isn't part of the Miller/Bannon circle, so his statements may have been a powerplay to try to moderate the policy.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-trav...
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-trav...
1. Trump has made islamaphobic rhetoric a cornerstone of his campaign, giving this racist undertones
2. That was a quiet secret at the time, this was an extremely public executive order. Both are wrong, but that doesn't somehow detract from or excuse this massive escalation. There wasn't this outrage at the time because nobody heard about it
3. The political situation at the time wasn't as life-or-death for refugees. Sending political refugees back now is a death sentence. That said, the US has been pretty terrible at accepting refugees in general this past decade, which is very shameful
4. This order detained cleared refugees while in transit, and, originally blocked green card holders from returning to the US after exiting for any reason
5. Remember that Trump has a neo-nazi in his cabinet with bannon, who reportedly wrote this order. That alone should be reason for heightened suspicion
"Here's a list of the similarities - and a much longer list of differences between the controls Obama used in 2011 and Carter used in 1979."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/no-barack-obama-jimm...
What he is doing is legal and within his powers as the President.
Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This claim is factually incorrect, and moreover it is an attempt to set up an "other" group (Muslims) as an enemy. Keep in mind Trumps unapologetic claim on the campaign trail:
By proposing "specific ammendments", Musk says the framework as correct, but the details are wrong. In fact, the opposite is the case: the framework is wrong, as well as the details. The entire order should be rescinded, without qualification.Musk and other SV commentators should know better than this, and not lend their credibility to un-American actions by the administration.
Can you back this statement up with facts?
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and... - first hit in Google search.
Trump had no idea what he was doing when he made that quote, has no idea now. What better idea in 90 days? Cancel this order? Meanwhile his actions are increasing the risks to the US. This is all about posturing and victimising a minority that's easy to demonize and nothing to do with security.
Why is that claim factually incorrect?
If you had said "eliminate" terrorism I would agree it's incorrect. But not allowing foreigners into the US is certainly a way to combat terrorism. Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners. Not allowing them to enter the US would help combat terrorism.
NOTE: I'm not arguing this is actually a good idea. I'm just stating that I disagree with you claim that it's factually incorrect.
And if it would make you feel better, I could just slightly tweak my comment to say "most terror attacks [by number of Americans killed] have been by foreigners".
This is not a ban on refugees from Muslim countries. It's neither a ban, nor targeting refugees, nor limited to Muslim countries.
It's a 90 day suspension of immigration from countries described by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), specifically:
* Iraq and Syria
* Governments which have repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism
* Countries or areas of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187
Rudy Giuliani has now claimed on Fox News that he helped design the restrictions as a legally valid form of Trump's "Muslim ban":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
And it should be noted that the list of countries of concern to which Trump's order applies came from the Obama administration.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
That's not what the order states, and I SEVERELY doubt you have read it.
http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj so we are all on the same page here. There is literally one country mentioned in the document - that country is Syria. The other references are to other documents that group countries that I can't find.
I think if you read the executive order, you'll have much better framing for what it actually says, and why.
The narrative is that America is under siege, and that we are in grave danger of terrorist attack. The only way to stop is to take extreme executive action, and to frame our national security policy around fighting ISIS.
Consider, as an example, the hasty nature of this executive order. It went into effect immediately, and refugees previously approved for entry had that approval revoked. Was there really something so urgent that happened on Thurs Jan 23rd that required immediate action? This is a similar strategy used by the Bush Administration, where the government uses the spectre of terrorism to justify actions completely disproportionate to the threat.
The question I would ask apologists of the travel ban is this: what was the real, imminent threat that required such a hasty executive order to be made on Jan 23rd? Is it a real threat, or is it political theatre for another purpose?
1) As I know Tesla does hire foreign engineers
2) He, himself is an immigrant to the US, and he was - if not an actual illegal alien, at least in a gray area immigration wise - at some point while building x.com
I get the feeling Musk is trying to do what he can, the best he can, but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it. I think he's in a very difficult spot either way he goes.
That's, unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] at play.
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular."
[0] - https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
2) what does Elon's resume as a legal immigrant have to do with anything? most legal immigrants that I know are covertly/not-covertly pro-Trump
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/early-wins-against-tru...
Which under Carter have been proven totally illegitimate and useless.
Well, segregation in the USA based on religion (Feynman barred from a PhD in Princeton for being jew) or colour of skin (until 1969), or birth (slavery-native americans) is part of the dark side of its history. Nothing new under the sun.
Question, is this a new cause of secession between rural and urban america growing up? I mean, if history repeats itself ...