90 day suspension of visas for certain countries

CMOTDibbler

murphaph wrote: »

And how many Muslims already legally in the US will now be radicalised because of it?

I think that's a stretch tbh. I wouldn't think there's much to fear there unless you're paranoid.

The real danger is the attitude that muslims in the US will encounter. It's another reason for distrust and xenophobia. I really hope I'm wrong here because we've seen exactly how that kind of margnalisation and criminlisation of minorities panned out in the past.

Not fun times at all.

Nody

fran17 wrote: »

My understanding is that all green card holders are immune from this order and that there is a certain level of discretion granted to border agents and authorities.Sure President Trump may have antagonised some but I see it as President Trump holding true to his campaign promise to the American people as a whole.He campaigned strongly,and was elected,on the promise of restricting immigration and has now acted accordingly.

Your understanding is wrong; green cards holders are included in the order as confirmed by the White house chief of staff Reince Priebus.

fran17

Nody wrote: »

Your understanding is wrong; green cards holders are included in the order as confirmed by the White house chief of staff Reince Priebus.

From the horses mouth,so to speak:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/priebus-green-card-holders-not-affected-by-executive-order-865264195736

Inquitus

fran17 wrote: »

From the horses mouth,so to speak:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/priebus-green-card-holders-not-affected-by-executive-order-865264195736

The White House backed up the truck on this one, they clearly stated Green Cards were included then did a U Turn today due to the pressure being mounted.

Inquitus

Joint statement from McCain and Graham

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released the following statement today on the President’s executive order on immigration:

“Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.

“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

“Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.

“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/statement-by-senators-mccain-graham-on-executive-order-on-immigration

Trumps response

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825822320128303110

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825823217025691648

Stheno

Inquitus wrote: »

Joint statement from McCain and Graham



http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/statement-by-senators-mccain-graham-on-executive-order-on-immigration

Trumps response

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825822320128303110

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825823217025691648

That response from Trump is actually disturbing did he even read the statement?

CMOTDibbler

Stheno wrote: »

That response from Trump is actually disturbing did he even read the statement?

He did. He read "President Trump... not properly... hasty... harmful..."

alastair

Stheno wrote: »

That response from Trump is actually disturbing did he even read the statement?

He just focussed on the alternative facts.

Rightwing

Inquitus wrote: »

Joint statement from McCain and Graham



http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/statement-by-senators-mccain-graham-on-executive-order-on-immigration

Trumps response

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825822320128303110

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825823217025691648

Maybe they could tell us what is exceptional, is it activities like dropping 500 bombs per week?

Obama banned Iraqis for 6 months back in 2011 and everything was kept nice and quiet.

dissed doc

Rightwing wrote: »

Maybe they could tell us what is exceptional, is it activities like dropping 500 bombs per week?

Obama banned Iraqis for 6 months back in 2011 and everything was kept nice and quiet.

Obama was **** material for liberals though. He and Hillary killed approx. 1 million Muslims. But Trump is the bad guy!

Wanderer78

dissed doc wrote:

Obama was **** material for liberals though. He and Hillary killed approx. 1 million Muslims. But Trump is the bad guy!

Oh give him a couple of years, I suspect he could be labelled worse than 'the bad guy'

pilly

I have a feeling the whole thing was for effect. The countries banned would already have very strict controls about coming into America so what was his point?

He stopped people who already had green cards? He was always going to have to back track on that.

So he's shown the strength of his force to all his retarded electorate, that's all he's done.

I honestly think he's lacking basic intelligence. It's all a reality show to him.

Scary thing is that he's winning this reality show.

fran17

Rightwing wrote: »

Maybe they could tell us what is exceptional, is it activities like dropping 500 bombs per week?

Obama banned Iraqis for 6 months back in 2011 and everything was kept nice and quiet.

Indeed,the hypocrisy among liberals and the MSM is breathtaking.When Obama was bombing wedding parties in same countries they were known as terrorist countries but when President Trump puts a temporary ban in place there known as Muslim majority countries.

Wanderer78

pilly wrote:

I honestly think he's lacking basic intelligence. It's all a reality show to him.

He most certainly is, I actually think there could be some form of autism there or something. His behaviour is deeply disturbing at times, lacks any sort of intelligence and even empathy. Very strange guy.

BoJack Horseman

What has happened to the English language where a 90-day stay on an entry visa is called a "ban"?

Are all media lacking in dictionaries?

Mr.Micro

Wanderer78 wrote: »

He most certainly is, I actually think there could be some form of autism there or something. His behaviour is deeply disturbing at times, lacks any sort of intelligence and even empathy. Very strange guy.

A difficult childhood probably.... So still lacking maturity and empathy.

Rightwing

dissed doc wrote: »

Obama was **** material for liberals though. He and Hillary killed approx. 1 million Muslims. But Trump is the bad guy!

A disaster for the democrats. Gay rights etc took precedence over the economy. :rolleyes:

How they have paid the price.

Wanderer78

Rightwing wrote:

A disaster for the democrats. Gay rights etc took precedence over the economy.

Most western politics are flummoxed by our economic woes, we 're experiencing a failure of fundamental issues and virtually nobody knows what to do about it. It was good to see the liberation of things such as gay rights etc, a positive step for mankind

Nody

Rightwing wrote: »

A disaster for the democrats. Gay rights etc took precedence over the economy. :rolleyes:

How they have paid the price.

Yes, funny that how the economy has never done better under 8 years of Obama after floundering around under Bush who took over an excellent economy from Clinton with the economy expected to tank under Trump again. There almost appear to be some sort of correlation there esp. as for some odd reason the amount loaned by Republican presidents who're suppose to hate overspending and big governments always exceeds the amounts borrowed by Democrat presidents...

BoJack Horseman

Nody wrote: »

Yes, funny that how the economy has never done better under 8 years of Obama

One of those 'alternative facts' I presume?

Annual GDP growth in the US has been around 2% under St Obama's tenure....
Historically this is not great.... 4%+ would be seen as robust, but 2% is treating water because it doesn't beat the inflation rate or national debt increase rates.....

So.... as for "the economy has never done better", can you throw up some data backing that up?

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

There are three separate powers in a republic; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
In the USA, the President is the executive, therefore his administration is "the government" ... and so he governs. That is completely legit.

The judiciary can only intervene in this "government" if an executive order breaks an existing law. If that is the case, then the executive order would have to be be retracted and modified accordingly.

Oh man. That's so wrong that it's a bit annoying. The Government is outlined in the Constitution as being 3 branches. That's the whole separation of powers thing; the Constitution is specifically drafted inefficiently in order to prevent exactly what you describe.

Time to go back to school methinks.

Carlos Orange

alastair wrote: »

There is no 'open door policy' in place in the EU or the US. Freedom of movement is restricted to internal Schengen or EU states alone.

What is there on the EU border to stop hundreds of thousands of people just walking in?

Rightwing

Nody wrote: »

Yes, funny that how the economy has never done better under 8 years of Obama after floundering around under Bush who took over an excellent economy from Clinton with the economy expected to tank under Trump again. There almost appear to be some sort of correlation there esp. as for some odd reason the amount loaned by Republican presidents who're suppose to hate overspending and big governments always exceeds the amounts borrowed by Democrat presidents...

Pity he didn't tell that to the paupers in the rustbelt. Or maybe like yourself he did, but perhaps they just didn't believe him.

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

Not a great standard for a post. No explanation of how it does work, or actual examples, or citations?

You must enter and exit the US on your US passport and enter/exit the country of your other citizenship on that passport, however the US passport for non-birthright citizens has clear indication of "country of origin" on the main page of the passport and on the digital display.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) has said that the executive order is very poorly drafted in terms of dual citizens and green card holders.

Dual citizens (according to DHS) "...holding valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period." IATA has advised that they will also not be allowed to board flights. However, there is significant confusion still surrounding this.

Nody

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

One of those 'alternative facts' I presume?

Yes; because truth is the alternative facts these days for Republicans.

Over the last six decades or so, history has tended to favor Democratic presidents in terms of economic performance. The country's unemployment rate has been lower at the end of every Democrat's tenure since Kennedy took office in 1961. Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, is the only GOP president since Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953 who can say the same.

But sure, the Republicans are all about work growth and work for the little guy on the street.

TheQuietFella

PMBC wrote: »

Perhaps our governments should stop bombing them?

Who the fliuch are you determining as our governments?

My government isn't bombing any country, just pissing on it's own citizens perhaps!

languagenerd

dissed doc wrote: »

Fear of upsetting people cannot be a reason to not implement the law.

Fear is what drives this; the fear is based on the pretty high number of Islam-driven terrorist attacks in the US by people already there.

Does the Gardaí cracking down on crime in Ireland radicalise Irish criminals into committing more crime? I don't think so. The opposite is true. The opposite was true in NYC when they cracked down on crime there. The same in German when they crack down on far-right groups.

Please back up your assertion! You are making it about religion in the framework of what you think religion is, when in fact it is about an agile terrorism based on Islam as a background; Islam the way of life. To suggest that using police and force to stop crime, would mean we should also reduce Gardaí action on drug crime because if we attack drug criminals, they might commit more offences!

..

Arresting drug-dealers to stop drug dealing is not at all the same thing as trying to stop radicalisation and extremism - that analogy is completely wrong.

ISIS are essentially bound by a hatred of Western culture. They recruit disillusioned people, often young men, who feel the West has turned its back on them. The narrative is basically: "The West rejected you, the West hates you, the West is the reason for your problems - we're going to destroy the West and implement OUR society". If the US is now quite literally rejecting people from mainly Muslim countries, can you not see how that will fuel this rhetoric?

Refugees who are sent back to their war-torn destroyed homeland after years going through the stringent US vetting process - what are they going to do? They can't live in their country, they begged the West for help and were thrown right back into ISIS territory. It creates a disillusioned and desperate group - easy to see how some could join the extremists as they have no other options.

And as for people already in America or Europe who are being slowly radicalised (in person or online) - here's just another example of the West rejecting them and another reason to join. Creating an "us versus them" divide makes extremism look like a better option to the people you're isolating. You're playing right into the terrorists' hands.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What has happened to the English language where a 90-day stay on an entry visa is called a "ban"?

Are all media lacking in dictionaries?

By definition, a stay is a ban.

Nody

Rightwing wrote: »

Pity he didn't tell that to the paupers in the rustbelt. Or maybe like yourself he did, but perhaps they just didn't believe him.

You mean the same rustbelt which will lose healthcare and other benefits under the Republicans cuts while having to pay more on the debt Trump will borrow up? Sorry but you can only lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If they think Trump will help them they will be sorely disappointed in 4 years time when things have gone worse for them across the board because those manufacturing jobs for low skill people are not coming back; the factories that do come back will be automated and require higher education people to monitor and fix robots but you know that already.

Wanderer78

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Who the fliuch are you determining as our governments?

My government isn't bombing any country, just pissing on it's own citizens perhaps!

oh id argue that, we may not be bombing them directly, but we are involved!

FreudianSlippers

psinno wrote: »

What is there on the EU border to stop hundreds of thousands of people just walking in?

Border checks and the EBCGA at all entry points on external borders. I would have to take it you've either never been to the EU or never left the EU.

BoJack Horseman

Nody wrote: »

Yes; because truth is the alternative facts these days for Republicans.

Oh, no no no!

No.... you don't get to shift goalposts like that!

A moderator should know better!

You said (as you recall)

Nody wrote: »

the economy has never done better under 8 years of Obama

So, I asked you to back that up......

SO.... do so!

(though your own retort proved that the US economy wasn't "never better" St Obama, that seems to have been an error or perhaps a lie on your part?

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

By definition, a stay is a ban.

Not when it lapses after 90 days.....

a ban implies a degree of permanency, a finite 90-day stay on visas applications isn't permanent.

These people will still get into the USA.... it will just take 90 days longer than anticipated.

That isn't a ban.

Even for a lawyer like yourself it is a tough sell to turn 90 days into forever.

Rightwing

Nody wrote: »

You mean the same rustbelt which will lose healthcare and other benefits under the Republicans cuts while having to pay more on the debt Trump will borrow up? Sorry but you can only lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If they think Trump will help them they will be sorely disappointed in 4 years time when things have gone worse for them across the board because those manufacturing jobs for low skill people are not coming back; the factories that do come back will be automated and require higher education people to monitor and fix robots but you know that already.

Then Trump will be classed as a failure and will be consigned to the thrash can similar to obama/democrats were.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Not when it lapses after 90 days.....

a ban implies a degree of permanency, a finite 90-day stay on visas applications isn't permanent.

These people will still get into the USA.... it will just take 90 days longer than anticipated.

That isn't a ban.

Even for a lawyer like yourself it is a tough sell to turn 90 days into forever.

I think you infer permanency from the word "ban", but as you said - check a dictionary. A ban is a legal or otherwise official prohibition and can be temporal in nature or permanent.

Likewise, a stay is potentially both temporal and permanent.

The difference, however, if we're being really pedantic (and contrary to my prior point about a stay being a ban admittedly) is that a stay imposes or freezes the status quo - i.e. not changing the situation; whereas a ban changes the situation. Therefore, by definition prohibiting people from doing something whether for temporal period or permanently cannot be said to be a stay as it deviates from the status quo.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A moderator should know better!

I don't believe Nody is a moderator here in fairness.

Nody

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Oh, no no no!

No.... you don't get to shift goalposts like that!

A moderator should know better!

First of all I'm a moderator on a completely different forum; hence here I'm a normal poster but nice try for a cheap shot.

You said (as you recall)


So, I asked you to back that up......

SO.... do so!

(though your own retort proved that the US economy wasn't "never better" St Obama, that seems to have been an error or perhaps a lie on your part?

Yes; because to date the Feds rate has never been at zero for this extend of time. Only under Obama has he managed to turn around the economy to the point Feds can actually go up on their interest rate again from basically zero.


Because the stock market has gone up to never seen heights reaching new records:


That is why the economy has never been better. Obama has turned around what was a disaster of Bush II economics into growth and this is reflected by both the stock market and in the fact the Feds can finally raise the interest rates again due to the strength of the economy coming back from a point Fed never had to go previously.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

Then Trump will be classed as a failure and will be consigned to the thrash can similar to obama/democrats were.

While the rust belters go back to fawning over the next snake oil salesman offering them manufacturing jobs that they (the politician) knows they will never deliver on, and could not ever deliver on even if they wanted to, I presume?

FreudianSlippers

The rustbelt and its people are the single biggest chain around the ankle of the United States in the 21st century. They simply blame the Mexicans for their own failures.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

however, if we're being pedantic.

I'm not.... I'm not a lawyer, no one gives a fook about pedantry.

You would agree that a visa applicant will still be able to enter the USA after the 90-day wait plus whatever time it takes to process a visa?

So after they enter the country after that period of time, what happened to the "ban"?

keane2097

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm not.... I'm not a lawyer, no one gives a fook about pedantry.

You would agree that a visa applicant will still be able to enter the USA after the 90-day wait plus whatever time it takes to process a visa?

So after they enter the country after that period of time, what happened to the "ban"?

It really seems like admitting you were wrong about what 'ban' means and moving on would be quicker and easier, it's not the end of the world.

Wanderer78

Nody wrote: »

That is why the economy has never been better. Obama has turned around what was a disaster of Bush II economics into growth and this is reflected by both the stock market and in the fact the Feds can finally raise the interest rates again due to the strength of the economy coming back from a point Fed never had to go previously.

or are we misinterpreting this data and possibly not looking at the data that truly represents our economies and societies?

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The rustbelt and its people are the single biggest chain around the ankle of the United States in the 21st century. They simply blame the Mexicans for their own failures.

Can you elaborate on that?

My brother in law has visited Mexico twice in 2016.
The reason was, the company he works for is (as of March) moving production from Wisconsin to Mexico.
He had to go to Mexico to train the people that would be doing the jobs moved from Wisco south of the border.

The guy works very very hard, he always has & he is no line worker, he has some sort of design role (motorcycle parts mostly) which he went to night college to do some sort of CAD qualification.

He has a wife and 5 children aged between 6 & 17 to support, one of which is disabled.

Can m'learned friend elaborate for me what is his failure?
It would be interesting to know.

Rightwing

Nody wrote: »

First of all I'm a moderator on a completely different forum; hence here I'm a normal poster but nice try for a cheap shot.

Yes; because to date the Feds rate has never been at zero for this extend of time. Only under Obama has he managed to turn around the economy to the point Feds can actually go up on their interest rate again from basically zero.


Because the stock market has gone up to never seen heights reaching new records:


That is why the economy has never been better. Obama has turned around what was a disaster of Bush II economics into growth and this is reflected by both the stock market and in the fact the Feds can finally raise the interest rates again due to the strength of the economy coming back from a point Fed never had to go previously.

2 things to consider:
Business cycle....peaks and troughs.
Zero interest rates + massive QE stimulus. This has to drive the asset prices higher as investors need a return. On a forward price earnings, asset prices are historically well overvalued. Future consumption will be impacted, charts never reflect this.

Billy86 wrote: »

While the rust belters go back to fawning over the next snake oil salesman offering them manufacturing jobs that they (the politician) knows they will never deliver on, and could not ever deliver on even if they wanted to, I presume?

I've no sympathy for these losers. But losers have a vote, and a very important one as it happens.

Nody

Wanderer78 wrote: »

or are we misinterpreting this data and possibly not looking at the data that truly represents our economies and societies?

You asked me to justify my answer with data to back up my opinion; I've given you the data I used to justify my reply. Now you may not like or agree with my selection of data used or my conclusions from it; and that's fully in your right to do so but your question was answered which was do you have any data to back that up.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm not.... I'm not a lawyer, no one gives a fook about pedantry.

You would agree that a visa applicant will still be able to enter the USA after the 90-day wait plus whatever time it takes to process a visa?

So after they enter the country after that period of time, what happened to the "ban"?

In fairness, you're the one who started the pedantry. Remember?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What has happened to the English language where a 90-day stay on an entry visa is called a "ban"?

Are all media lacking in dictionaries?

Furthermore, the order contains wording to make the ban permanent after 60 days at the discretion of the President by way of "Presidential proclamation" on advice from the DHS and Secretary of State; however there is nothing that says that the President has to follow this advice or can't permanently ban people from countries not recommended by them. See section 3 of the executive order.

Wanderer78

Nody wrote: »

You asked me to justify my answer with data to back up my opinion; I've given you the data I used to justify my reply. Now you may not like or agree with my selection of data used or my conclusions from it; and that's fully in your right to do so but your question was answered which was do you have any data to back that up.

id argue that the data you showed represents the economy of the minority, some would call 'the rentier class'. theres a massive disparity between this minorities economy and that of the majority. we are being lead to beleive that 'the market' represents the economy of virtually all, minorities and majorities, but i beleive it doesnt for the reasons ive outlined.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that?

My brother in law has visited Mexico twice in 2016.
The reason was, the company he works for is (as of March) moving production from Wisconsin to Mexico.
He had to go to Mexico to train the people that would be doing the jobs moved from Wisco south of the border.

The guy works very very hard, he always has & he is no line worker, he has some sort of design role (motorcycle parts mostly) which he went to night college to do some sort of CAD qualification.

He has a wife and 5 children aged between 6 & 17 to support, one of which is disabled.

Can m'learned friend elaborate for me what is his failure?
It would be interesting to know.

Ugh, I knew immediately after posting that someone would pick up on this. I obviously didn't mean every single person; I meant more the attitude of the area as a whole in failing to adapt to changing economic realities - I mean you do know why it's called the rust belt right?

Nody

Wanderer78 wrote: »

id argue that the data you showed represents the economy of the minority, some would call 'the rentier class'. theres a massive disparity between this minorities economy and that of the majority. we are being lead to beleive that 'the market' represents the economy of virtually all, minorities and majorities, but i beleive it doesnt for the reasons ive outlined.

And then we'd need to start talking about Bush Senior policies on salaries and deregulation of profits, unions etc. and the effect on the economy and the richest 1%. Want to guess who benefits most under a Republican government in the last 20 years?



The simple fact is the American economy, policies and regulations would need a ground up overhaul to change the above and let's be honest the vested interests (all parties) will never allow that to happen.

FreudianSlippers

Rightwing wrote: »

2 things to consider:
Business cycle....peaks and troughs.
Zero interest rates + massive QE stimulus. This has to drive the asset prices higher as investors need a return. On a forward price earnings, asset prices are historically well overvalued. Future consumption will be impacted, charts never reflect this.

That's actual fluff, a mish-mash of words without any coherent answer.