The immigration ban covers 7 specific countries by halting entry for 90 days (they are already subject to I think 120 day wait period) while the White House reviews the procedures for screening immigrants from those specific countries.
The US did not ban immigration. I wish people would stop saying that. It's factually incorrect whether we are for or against this specific measure.
Ummmmm ok it's not a ban, because they haven't banned immigration. They've increased the amount of time for somebody to enter the country from 1 of 7 countries for 90 days longer than the current 120 days. This is not a ban on immigration, because immigrants can and still come here.
reread your comment that I replied to... first three freaking words of it are you calling it an "immigration ban". I guess it was a case of lack of better words?
Not true. A dual citizen German-Iranian with a valid visa had no "120 day wait". The green card holders on airplanes to the US as the ban was enacted had not waited 120 days before boarding a flight to the US after visiting their relatives.
Despite your best efforts at pretend nuance, this really is an unprecedented step. And it fully justifies the term immigration ban.
WTF are you talking about? People with valid visas could have entered immediately before this. Now they are banned! People coming back from vacations were being deported before the courts intervened.
I think a large part of this outrage is about the scale of the Trump admin's actions in recent days. We know this policy is just the tip of iceberg. It's just the start of horrible policies that will start to affect us all. People need to protest now - early, while they can. Because first they came for the immigrants...
90 days that could be expanded with the same ease that this was implemented with, and it includes people who have already been vetted and are legal immigrants. And you are trivializing how impactful 90 days is.
When his platform ran on the promises of bans, you'll forgive people for calling it as such, as this is just step one. Stop splitting hairs, if the word ban upsets you, take it up with the POTUS and his team and his platform.
I think the really important thing (that people seem to have glossed over) is the nature of this change.
The validity of a blanket immigration ban on any country is debatable (although not something I would generally support). However this change occurred in such away that it impacted people who were literally in the air. When they boarded a plane they had the right to enter the US (indeed had the right to live their indefinitely and some didn't even have a home anywhere else). When they landed they found this right no longer existed.
That is not a sustainable way to make policy - people need to have confidence when the US says something they mean it and it won't just change on the whims of one man.
If a nation tells me I have an indefinite right to remain that can't just become a thing that disappears over night. It is a thing that tells me I can invest my time, money and expertise building a life in America - taking that away with zero notice is both immoral and massively undermining to confidence in the system of government.
> However this change occurred in such away that it impacted people who were literally in the air. When they boarded a plane they had the right to enter the US (indeed had the right to live their indefinitely and some didn't even have a home anywhere else). When they landed they found this right no longer existed.
This is not correct.
A green card permits someone to live and work in the US indefinitely. It does not and has never entitled the holder to re-enter the country at will.
It's definitely a change in policy, without question. My point is that the pre-existing policy was in fact already based on the whims of one man, and that all this really represents is him changing his mind.
FWIW, I'm 100% in favor of reducing the power of the executive. Previous decisions by other executive agencies have declared things that I possess a felony without warning.
The big worry about this is that lots of parts of politics have a huge amount of power but there is a general sort of understanding that things aren't done because they aren't done.
This kind of shoot from the hip action really undermines that confidence. You might like to change the powers of the executive but that's not going to happen easily.
A Muslim ban is what Trump campaigned on. A Muslim ban is what Trump asked his team to design [1] according to his own people. And this is as close as Trump can get legally to a Muslim ban with an executive order right now.
The reflexive attempts to relativize and normalize this immigration ban with the same old worn "oh people are just overreacting because they are not as clever as me/don't really understand what's really going on" reaction deeply troubling.
> the ban will create a barrier to innovation, economic development and global impact. Immigrants bring world class skills and expertise to build advanced technology that can improve the lives of people everywhere.
Perhaps this will happen on its own, but if companies are really worried about this, they should have more remote offices (I know Mozilla is remote-friendly, I'm talking in general).
Those are the optics that Trump cares about, job numbers. If tech can get the narrative that job growth will be outside the US w/o skilled immigrants, perhaps that will resonate?
Too soft, too passive. Trump wont listen to predictions (it will create ...). You need declarations. It creates obstructions to business. And if you really want to cut at him, call it a "regulation" impacting daily business decisions. Tell him how this is costing businesses money. That he cares about.
31 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 33.0 ms ] threadThe US did not ban immigration. I wish people would stop saying that. It's factually incorrect whether we are for or against this specific measure.
Despite your best efforts at pretend nuance, this really is an unprecedented step. And it fully justifies the term immigration ban.
Immigration pause
Nothing as sexy as ban though
There is no "increase" here.
Where were these people when Indians were massively abused by 'immigration officers' at NY airports in 2009.
When his platform ran on the promises of bans, you'll forgive people for calling it as such, as this is just step one. Stop splitting hairs, if the word ban upsets you, take it up with the POTUS and his team and his platform.
This is not a stop on issuing Visas, this renders existing Visas invalid. It's a travel ban.
The validity of a blanket immigration ban on any country is debatable (although not something I would generally support). However this change occurred in such away that it impacted people who were literally in the air. When they boarded a plane they had the right to enter the US (indeed had the right to live their indefinitely and some didn't even have a home anywhere else). When they landed they found this right no longer existed.
That is not a sustainable way to make policy - people need to have confidence when the US says something they mean it and it won't just change on the whims of one man.
If a nation tells me I have an indefinite right to remain that can't just become a thing that disappears over night. It is a thing that tells me I can invest my time, money and expertise building a life in America - taking that away with zero notice is both immoral and massively undermining to confidence in the system of government.
This is not correct.
A green card permits someone to live and work in the US indefinitely. It does not and has never entitled the holder to re-enter the country at will.
FWIW, I'm 100% in favor of reducing the power of the executive. Previous decisions by other executive agencies have declared things that I possess a felony without warning.
This kind of shoot from the hip action really undermines that confidence. You might like to change the powers of the executive but that's not going to happen easily.
The reflexive attempts to relativize and normalize this immigration ban with the same old worn "oh people are just overreacting because they are not as clever as me/don't really understand what's really going on" reaction deeply troubling.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
Perhaps this will happen on its own, but if companies are really worried about this, they should have more remote offices (I know Mozilla is remote-friendly, I'm talking in general).
Those are the optics that Trump cares about, job numbers. If tech can get the narrative that job growth will be outside the US w/o skilled immigrants, perhaps that will resonate?
Quit it.