16 ms·

These stories have been happening since the Bush administration. Why didn't Obama do anything about it? You think Trump is going to do something about it? Ma

These stories have been happening since the Bush administration. Why didn't Obama do anything about it? You think Trump is going to do something about it? Maybe it was none of their responsibilities. sarcasm Edit: added a sarcasm note

ctrl-j 10y ago
> Maybe it was none of their responsibilities. Pretty sure border security does fall under the executive branch. Obama, for all his good social policies, had a much harder stance on foreign policy than I think was needed. I don't believe the failing TSA is the reason we don't have many transit-related terrorist attacks in the USA. Not to mention, a large majority of the US population is xenophobic and/or racist. Giving the appearance of relaxing border security (even though it's been shown to be completely ineffective as-is), would be a poor political move. Considering one of Trump's campaign promises was to build a wall between the US and Mexico - I doubt he's going to make things better.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Obama, for all his good social policies, What were even his good social policies. I tried to remember a few and couldn't. ACA for healthcare perhaps? Can't think of others. Specifically the Black community voted for him and looking back I can't see if their lives improved a lot during his tenure. > Considering one of Trump's campaign promises was to build a wall between the US and Mexico - I doubt he's going to make things better. Yap doesn't seem hopeful. I think with Obama many thought he might be pro-privacy. I did somehow. I was wrong. Trump isn't and I don't know if we'll ever see someone campaigning and winning with that as a major part of their platform.
  - adventured 10y ago
    Obama had very few good social policies. One could argue he slightly stepped back the enforcement of drug laws when it comes to the states beginning to legalize. He did a horrible job when it comes to drug legalization, openly refusing to go to bat for it at the Federal level. The ACA was a disaster (of course it was, it was a zillion pages long, written by lobbyists, and few people read it before it was voted on), except for a few features such as coverage for pre-existing conditions. He didn't make almost any real progress on US problems with mass incarceration either, although he talked about it a few times. He was against gay marriage initially, then flipped when it was politically convenient; the Supreme Court was responsible for enacting that equality at the federal level however. He was also a massive civil liberties violator, when it came to privacy and was openly unapologetic about it (he was clearly an anti-privacy hawk in all regards). In short, yeah, he didn't do much of anything socially.
    - chowyuncat 10y ago
      There was far more than talk, although it's difficult to enact reform when the legislative branch is determined to do nothing. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/social-progress https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/social-progr... Scroll down to "The Work Ahead." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/07/21/president-obama-signs-new-executive-order-protect-lgbt-workers https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/07/21/preside... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/04/08/petition-response-conversion-therapy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/04/08/petitio... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-federal-benefits-and-non-discri https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memora... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/02/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-actions-promote-rehabilitation https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/1...
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        Yes, worth reminding people that the President's job is only to enforce and enact law. Whereas Congress is the only body allowed to create law, i.e. bills. And the Judiciary interprets the law. Obama could only enact laws that congress passed, and they pretty much only did that his first two years until Congress became a logjam and stopped doing anything. So Obama was left with the only tools he had, which were to enforce those laws he wanted to, and not the one he did not. And he did a lot of that, as pointed out.
      - antognini 10y ago
        The executive branch has the power to unilaterally change the scheduling of prohibited drugs. Obama could have moved marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 (or even 3) drug if he really wanted to. That would have made a huge difference.
        sumedh 10y ago
        Republicans would have crucified him by yelling the black guy wants to give weed to your kids.
- mjolk 10y ago
  > Not to mention, a large majority of the US population is xenophobic and/or racist. Prove it. I'm well-travelled (within and outside the US) and I disagree entirely. Stop spewing libel about the American pubic.
  - mgkimsal 10y ago
    > I'm well-travelled You're in the minority of US citizens. Doesn't necessarily prove the earlier point, but your rebuttal, qualifying yourself as "well-travelled", explicitly makes your perspective that of a minority's view. How is it "libel" to label a majority of a population something? If our regulations are a reflection of the population's positions (arguably, they are), then we're definitely afraid of people from other countries.
    - tombrossman 10y ago
      > Doesn't necessarily prove the earlier point, but your rebuttal, qualifying yourself as "well-travelled", explicitly makes your perspective that of a minority's view. Look at it this way: 'mjolk' could be well travelled within the United States and have a very good idea of Americans sentiments. Therefore (s)he could be confidently expressing a true statement. Also, being a minority voice is not an indicator of how truthful or accurate someone is. When people believed the Earth was flat, were the minority of thinkers who decided it was round any less credible? You are right about the word libel though, it's the wrong word in this instance. I can't think of a better substitute better than 'generalizing' though.
      - mjolk 10y ago
        I picked "libel" because I consider it damaging to the reputation of the US to be painted as categorically racist/xenophobic. For what it's worth, I wasn't in love with the word choice, but I've not had a recent exchange in which one side is shouting "racist" and something productive come about -- and I should be working :)
      - mgkimsal 10y ago
        > Look at it this way: 'mjolk' could be well travelled within the United States and have a very good idea of Americans sentiments. fair point - hadn't considered that angle. And yes, being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you right or wrong. Being "well-travelled" still strikes me as being tied in with a degree of wealth/power/autonomy that the average person doesn't have, and it may be harder to truly understand the 'average' citizen when you're in a position to travel (internally and internationally?), which most people aren't. Much like I think it's pretty hard for most multi-millionaires (especially 2nd and 3rd generational ones) to represent my interests or understand my real concerns in elected offices.
- adventured 10y ago
  > Not to mention, a large majority of the US population is xenophobic and/or racist. There's no place on HN for such belligerent, vapid crap like this.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Since it is statistically true, I'd disagree.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Then why not provide statistics?
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/civil-rights-act-anniversary-racism-charts_n_5521104.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/civil-rights-act-an... First link I found off ddg. There are plenty more with a simple search
        Chris2048 10y ago
        You already posted that link, and objections were raised. > So, the effects of our decisions end up with racist results, yet we aren't racists? It seems like you use a different definition of the word "racist" to me. What exactly is a "racist result"? Likewise, you use a different definition of the word "statistics" to me also. Even you don't think it's a great example.
        CaptSpify 10y ago
        > You already posted that link, and objections were raised. And no matter what link I post, someone will have a problem with it. It's easy to find these stats, they aren't new. How about this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/17/stop-and-frisk-by-the-numbers/#59a65fe0fb47 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/17/stop... or this: https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-racial-discrimination https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-racial-d... or this: https://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troubling-statistic-shows-just-how-racist-america-s-police-brutality-problem-is https://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troubling-statistic-shows..., I could do this all day, but I wont. Those were just on the first page of results. There are stats everywhere about how bad we are. My definition would be that you are disproportionately less likely to have violent police actions taken against you, disproportionately less likely to be in poverty, disproportionately more likely to go to college, etc. if you are white. While I don't think the stats of these ever will be proportional (nor necessarily should they be), it's clear from everything I've seen that there is what I would define as an unofficial "class separation". Anecdotally: I have met seen people who "wouldn't hire blacks" or "didn't want no mexican working above any whites". These people are hard to gets statistics on, because they would never admit to being racist. These statistics reflect that hidden reality that nobody would openly admit to.
- tcbawo 10y ago
  I wonder how long before we start requesting visitors to this country begin wearing tracking devices.
Spooky23 10y ago
These stories have been around forever. Customs officials in all countries have broad latitude to inspect incoming passengers and baggage. Fucking around with them and refusing to answer or evading questions is franking a stupid strategy. What has changed is that there is more inspections and more theatre. They are more consistent(-ly awful) everywhere, including sleepy Canadian broader crossings.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  Are you saying doing everything they say is the better strategy. I worry that likely leads to a world with less liberty.
  - krastanov 10y ago
    There is a big difference between upholding your rights of privacy while being respectful to the border agents and while being a smart-Aleck. You do not have to do everything they say, but you can stand your ground without trying to antagonize them unnecessarily.
    - tacostakohashi 10y ago
      Not really. There is no right to privacy at the U.S. border, so any "upholding" or "stand your ground" is, actually, being a smart aleck / unnecessary antagonization.
      - krastanov 10y ago
        Do you not see the difference between being polite and being obnoxious when you decline the search of a device in your possession? Indeed, the border agents can refuse to let you enter the country either way, but the probability of that happening would probably differ in the two cases.
        tacostakohashi 10y ago
        No, I don't see the difference, because people crossing the U.S. border simply don't have any right to decline searches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
bigbugbag 10y ago
Sorry but first I started to hear about this kind of stories was under Clinton and people from the generation before mine told me it was the same when they were my age. Could date to even before AFAIK, maybe the cold war / WW2.
oliwarner 10y ago
Would you want to be the one who relaxed border controls and let the terrorists in? Yes, that's a stupid question but that's the political trade-off here. Mind blowing inconvenience and temporary invasion of freedoms versus dead children. If anything happened, you and everybody around you would be unelectable. Perhaps for that reason alone this should be put to a national vote. That's a much cleaner way to divest political responsibility. And while I think there's a lot of evidence that the direct effectiveness of Security Theatre is pretty weak. It's much harder to gauge what would actually happen if they dropped the visual deterrents. Would more people try their luck? Is it worth the risk?
- gizmo 10y ago
  After 9/11 Bush's popularity shot through the roof, so I dispute your claim that terrorism causes a politician to become unelectable. I'm sure you can think of many other events that should have ruined a politician's career but didn't. The "is removing theater worth the risk" rhetoric, along with "somebody please think of the children", can be used to dismantle ANY of the freedoms we currently enjoy. So I don't find that at all persuasive. If it's possible for politicians to introduce new invasive laws but impossible to remove them then it's pretty clear where the country ends up. So yes, it's totally 100% worth the risk. Because the alternative is accepting that all our freedoms will continue to erode, and that's far more depressing than any amount of terrorism.
  - oliwarner 10y ago
    Firstly, that wasn't my claim. I was talking about doing something that could be seen as a causative action (like lowering airport security). You seem fairly freedom-uber-alles —as many vocal people are— but it'd be genuinely interesting to get referendum results on issues like this to see just how much freedom people will willingly hand over for the mere hope of added safety for them and their family. I agree with you. Fear-mongering arguments are used to dismantle freedom all the time and it genuinely inconveniences a lot of people to suffer through things like TFA, but we're talking about a fraction of a percent of travellers. Would the whole agree with you or succumb to herd mentality and try to stay safe, whatever the cost?

ctrl-j 10y ago

> Maybe it was none of their responsibilities. Pretty sure border security does fall under the executive branch. Obama, for all his good social policies, had a much harder stance on foreign policy than I think was needed. I don't believe the failing TSA is the reason we don't have many transit-related terrorist attacks in the USA. Not to mention, a large majority of the US population is xenophobic and/or racist. Giving the appearance of relaxing border security (even though it's been shown to be completely ineffective as-is), would be a poor political move. Considering one of Trump's campaign promises was to build a wall between the US and Mexico - I doubt he's going to make things better.

rdtsc 10y ago
> Obama, for all his good social policies, What were even his good social policies. I tried to remember a few and couldn't. ACA for healthcare perhaps? Can't think of others. Specifically the Black community voted for him and looking back I can't see if their lives improved a lot during his tenure. > Considering one of Trump's campaign promises was to build a wall between the US and Mexico - I doubt he's going to make things better. Yap doesn't seem hopeful. I think with Obama many thought he might be pro-privacy. I did somehow. I was wrong. Trump isn't and I don't know if we'll ever see someone campaigning and winning with that as a major part of their platform.
- adventured 10y ago
  Obama had very few good social policies. One could argue he slightly stepped back the enforcement of drug laws when it comes to the states beginning to legalize. He did a horrible job when it comes to drug legalization, openly refusing to go to bat for it at the Federal level. The ACA was a disaster (of course it was, it was a zillion pages long, written by lobbyists, and few people read it before it was voted on), except for a few features such as coverage for pre-existing conditions. He didn't make almost any real progress on US problems with mass incarceration either, although he talked about it a few times. He was against gay marriage initially, then flipped when it was politically convenient; the Supreme Court was responsible for enacting that equality at the federal level however. He was also a massive civil liberties violator, when it came to privacy and was openly unapologetic about it (he was clearly an anti-privacy hawk in all regards). In short, yeah, he didn't do much of anything socially.
  - chowyuncat 10y ago
    There was far more than talk, although it's difficult to enact reform when the legislative branch is determined to do nothing. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/social-progress https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/social-progr... Scroll down to "The Work Ahead." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/07/21/president-obama-signs-new-executive-order-protect-lgbt-workers https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/07/21/preside... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/04/08/petition-response-conversion-therapy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/04/08/petitio... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-federal-benefits-and-non-discri https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memora... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/02/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-actions-promote-rehabilitation https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/1...
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      Yes, worth reminding people that the President's job is only to enforce and enact law. Whereas Congress is the only body allowed to create law, i.e. bills. And the Judiciary interprets the law. Obama could only enact laws that congress passed, and they pretty much only did that his first two years until Congress became a logjam and stopped doing anything. So Obama was left with the only tools he had, which were to enforce those laws he wanted to, and not the one he did not. And he did a lot of that, as pointed out.
    - antognini 10y ago
      The executive branch has the power to unilaterally change the scheduling of prohibited drugs. Obama could have moved marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 (or even 3) drug if he really wanted to. That would have made a huge difference.
      - sumedh 10y ago
        Republicans would have crucified him by yelling the black guy wants to give weed to your kids.
mjolk 10y ago
> Not to mention, a large majority of the US population is xenophobic and/or racist. Prove it. I'm well-travelled (within and outside the US) and I disagree entirely. Stop spewing libel about the American pubic.
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  > I'm well-travelled You're in the minority of US citizens. Doesn't necessarily prove the earlier point, but your rebuttal, qualifying yourself as "well-travelled", explicitly makes your perspective that of a minority's view. How is it "libel" to label a majority of a population something? If our regulations are a reflection of the population's positions (arguably, they are), then we're definitely afraid of people from other countries.
  - tombrossman 10y ago
    > Doesn't necessarily prove the earlier point, but your rebuttal, qualifying yourself as "well-travelled", explicitly makes your perspective that of a minority's view. Look at it this way: 'mjolk' could be well travelled within the United States and have a very good idea of Americans sentiments. Therefore (s)he could be confidently expressing a true statement. Also, being a minority voice is not an indicator of how truthful or accurate someone is. When people believed the Earth was flat, were the minority of thinkers who decided it was round any less credible? You are right about the word libel though, it's the wrong word in this instance. I can't think of a better substitute better than 'generalizing' though.
    - mjolk 10y ago
      I picked "libel" because I consider it damaging to the reputation of the US to be painted as categorically racist/xenophobic. For what it's worth, I wasn't in love with the word choice, but I've not had a recent exchange in which one side is shouting "racist" and something productive come about -- and I should be working :)
    - mgkimsal 10y ago
      > Look at it this way: 'mjolk' could be well travelled within the United States and have a very good idea of Americans sentiments. fair point - hadn't considered that angle. And yes, being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you right or wrong. Being "well-travelled" still strikes me as being tied in with a degree of wealth/power/autonomy that the average person doesn't have, and it may be harder to truly understand the 'average' citizen when you're in a position to travel (internally and internationally?), which most people aren't. Much like I think it's pretty hard for most multi-millionaires (especially 2nd and 3rd generational ones) to represent my interests or understand my real concerns in elected offices.
adventured 10y ago
> Not to mention, a large majority of the US population is xenophobic and/or racist. There's no place on HN for such belligerent, vapid crap like this.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Since it is statistically true, I'd disagree.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Then why not provide statistics?
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/civil-rights-act-anniversary-racism-charts_n_5521104.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/civil-rights-act-an... First link I found off ddg. There are plenty more with a simple search
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        You already posted that link, and objections were raised. > So, the effects of our decisions end up with racist results, yet we aren't racists? It seems like you use a different definition of the word "racist" to me. What exactly is a "racist result"? Likewise, you use a different definition of the word "statistics" to me also. Even you don't think it's a great example.
        CaptSpify 10y ago
        > You already posted that link, and objections were raised. And no matter what link I post, someone will have a problem with it. It's easy to find these stats, they aren't new. How about this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/17/stop-and-frisk-by-the-numbers/#59a65fe0fb47 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/17/stop... or this: https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-racial-discrimination https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-racial-d... or this: https://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troubling-statistic-shows-just-how-racist-america-s-police-brutality-problem-is https://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troubling-statistic-shows..., I could do this all day, but I wont. Those were just on the first page of results. There are stats everywhere about how bad we are. My definition would be that you are disproportionately less likely to have violent police actions taken against you, disproportionately less likely to be in poverty, disproportionately more likely to go to college, etc. if you are white. While I don't think the stats of these ever will be proportional (nor necessarily should they be), it's clear from everything I've seen that there is what I would define as an unofficial "class separation". Anecdotally: I have met seen people who "wouldn't hire blacks" or "didn't want no mexican working above any whites". These people are hard to gets statistics on, because they would never admit to being racist. These statistics reflect that hidden reality that nobody would openly admit to.
tcbawo 10y ago
I wonder how long before we start requesting visitors to this country begin wearing tracking devices.

Spooky23 10y ago

These stories have been around forever. Customs officials in all countries have broad latitude to inspect incoming passengers and baggage. Fucking around with them and refusing to answer or evading questions is franking a stupid strategy. What has changed is that there is more inspections and more theatre. They are more consistent(-ly awful) everywhere, including sleepy Canadian broader crossings.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
Are you saying doing everything they say is the better strategy. I worry that likely leads to a world with less liberty.
- krastanov 10y ago
  There is a big difference between upholding your rights of privacy while being respectful to the border agents and while being a smart-Aleck. You do not have to do everything they say, but you can stand your ground without trying to antagonize them unnecessarily.
  - tacostakohashi 10y ago
    Not really. There is no right to privacy at the U.S. border, so any "upholding" or "stand your ground" is, actually, being a smart aleck / unnecessary antagonization.
    - krastanov 10y ago
      Do you not see the difference between being polite and being obnoxious when you decline the search of a device in your possession? Indeed, the border agents can refuse to let you enter the country either way, but the probability of that happening would probably differ in the two cases.
      - tacostakohashi 10y ago
        No, I don't see the difference, because people crossing the U.S. border simply don't have any right to decline searches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

bigbugbag 10y ago

Sorry but first I started to hear about this kind of stories was under Clinton and people from the generation before mine told me it was the same when they were my age. Could date to even before AFAIK, maybe the cold war / WW2.

oliwarner 10y ago

Would you want to be the one who relaxed border controls and let the terrorists in? Yes, that's a stupid question but that's the political trade-off here. Mind blowing inconvenience and temporary invasion of freedoms versus dead children. If anything happened, you and everybody around you would be unelectable. Perhaps for that reason alone this should be put to a national vote. That's a much cleaner way to divest political responsibility. And while I think there's a lot of evidence that the direct effectiveness of Security Theatre is pretty weak. It's much harder to gauge what would actually happen if they dropped the visual deterrents. Would more people try their luck? Is it worth the risk?

gizmo 10y ago
After 9/11 Bush's popularity shot through the roof, so I dispute your claim that terrorism causes a politician to become unelectable. I'm sure you can think of many other events that should have ruined a politician's career but didn't. The "is removing theater worth the risk" rhetoric, along with "somebody please think of the children", can be used to dismantle ANY of the freedoms we currently enjoy. So I don't find that at all persuasive. If it's possible for politicians to introduce new invasive laws but impossible to remove them then it's pretty clear where the country ends up. So yes, it's totally 100% worth the risk. Because the alternative is accepting that all our freedoms will continue to erode, and that's far more depressing than any amount of terrorism.
- oliwarner 10y ago
  Firstly, that wasn't my claim. I was talking about doing something that could be seen as a causative action (like lowering airport security). You seem fairly freedom-uber-alles —as many vocal people are— but it'd be genuinely interesting to get referendum results on issues like this to see just how much freedom people will willingly hand over for the mere hope of added safety for them and their family. I agree with you. Fear-mongering arguments are used to dismantle freedom all the time and it genuinely inconveniences a lot of people to suffer through things like TFA, but we're talking about a fraction of a percent of travellers. Would the whole agree with you or succumb to herd mentality and try to stay safe, whatever the cost?