7 ms·

It's quite telling that when Obama had summarily banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 we have heard nary a peep from the press.

Malician 10y ago
Did this apply to persons who had green cards or visas?
- intro-b 10y ago
  No, it specifically relates to increased security checks and verification for refugee visa-seeking applicants (a major discussion point of R governmental agenda, but since it was enacted by a Dem president he is still clearly soft/weak on terrorism).
themooingpig 10y ago
Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Not to mention dual citizens. Who the heck is downvoting factual information?
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    Someone with alternative factual information, it seems...
- coldtea 10y ago
  Yeah, but Obama also bombed their countries first, which is notably worse. As a foreigner, for me this looks like a hypocrisy theater of crocodile tears. But then again, this is par for the course for politics in general, and US politics in particular.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That bombing was extensively reported and widely criticized. This attempt to dismiss complaints as hypocrisy is really tiresome. Obama bombed some countries so who cares if Trump fucks over law-abiding American residents for no reason. Also, I'm fairly sure Obama didn't bomb Iran.
    - adventured 10y ago
      Please point out the vast protests that occurred in the US over the Syrian bombings. Surely that drew extremely large marches. Or perhaps link me to the Huffington Post's Syrian death counter that tracked how many people Obama's war on Syria killed.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Whataboutism is absolute poison. Are you actually arguing that we should ignore evil on the basis that prior evil wasn't sufficiently protested? Or are you just trying to score a point for your team? I don't get it.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        coldtea 10y ago
        >Whataboutism is absolute poison. Are you actually arguing that we should ignore evil on the basis that prior evil wasn't sufficiently protested? No, selective interest is absolute poison. Whataboutism is merely about prioritization. It allows people to have their pet causes and feel good about themselves while ignoring larger scale evil going on and affecting both their country and the lives of millions. And it's not like what's suggested is something like "do something about everything bad going on or do nothing" paralysis. It's like, major major evil affecting hundreds of thousands of lives is going on by your country and you don't give a damn, and suddenly you all jump for a much smaller offense. Prioritize damnit. You can't largely ignore 10x and cry wolf for 1x. Or you can, and you did, but you shouldn't. In the 60s they knew how to mass protest for both civil rights, women/gay rights, AND the Vietnam war for example, at the same level of engagement.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different. From a foreigner's standpoint, that isn't notable at all. In fact, it's nothing more than closing a loophole. When the US government specifically dictates that a kind of foreigners are banned from entering US soil, the exceptions to that rule doesn't change the rule or even the spirit of the rule. The US government wants those foreigners off their land, and that's it. I agree that it's a silly rule, but it wasn't implemented overnight.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > From a foreigner's standpoint, that isn't notable at all. It's a massive difference, and makes a massive difference in the lives of my foreign friends. There are people who have been living here for decades affected by this order. They have their entire lives here. There's a massive difference between preventing someone from establishing a new life here and destroying the life they've built here over years.
mistersquid 10y ago
This report (dated 13 July 2011) by the NYTimes with the title "Visa Delays Put Iraqis Who Aided U.S. in Fear" is the exact opposite of "nary a peep". [0] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad... EDIT: remove appositional identification of the NYTimes as "widely considered the US newspaper of record". Change from interrogative to declarative mood.
- adventured 10y ago
  Yep, hardly a peep at all. Where were the large scale protests? Where was the 24/7 media coverage across every possible outlet? Where was the widespread outrage? It didn't exist, which is why the story didn't continue to have legs and most forgot it ever happened.
  - danso 10y ago
    From the 2011 NYT story (which was on A1): > The Obama administration has required new background checks for visa applicants, reacting to a case in Kentucky in which two Iraqi immigrants were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group, according to American officials in Baghdad. You're surprised that there weren't nationwide protests for "required new background checks for visa applicants", versus an outright ban against green card holders? Maybe because most people don't know of a current visa applicant from Iraq, but many people know of green card holders -- i.e. people who have been living legally in the United States -- who are now banned from re-entry.
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    The "peep" is national media coverage. The insinuation of the GGP was that mainstream media did not cover this fact. Given the reputation of the NYTimes as the US newspaper of record, the article I cite is the journalistic equivalent of using a bullhorn. The fact that people did not protest the 2011 executive order which suspended the approval of visa applications from Iraq indicates people were not unduly alarmed. In the present case, however, many people believe that the indiscriminate ban on immigration from 7 majority-Muslim nations is immoral and possibly a violation of the US Constitution. The protests indicate that public opinion opposes this administration's executive action. In other words, the media were very "loud" about Obama's 2011 and Trump's 2017 executive actions halting immigration. The people, however, see these two things very differently, as well they should. EDIT: grammar, readability, clarification of subject in second paragraph, change metaphor from "shouting" to "using a bullhorn".
mdarens 10y ago
The State Department implemented new layers of bureaucracy at the start of 2011 which acted as a de facto impediment/delay to applicants in the Iraqi refugee program, and were rightly criticized at the time. [1] This differs substantially from an affirmative ban which stranded people at airports. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Malician 10y ago

Did this apply to persons who had green cards or visas?

intro-b 10y ago
No, it specifically relates to increased security checks and verification for refugee visa-seeking applicants (a major discussion point of R governmental agenda, but since it was enacted by a Dem president he is still clearly soft/weak on terrorism).

themooingpig 10y ago

Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Not to mention dual citizens. Who the heck is downvoting factual information?
- rbanffy 10y ago
  Someone with alternative factual information, it seems...
coldtea 10y ago
Yeah, but Obama also bombed their countries first, which is notably worse. As a foreigner, for me this looks like a hypocrisy theater of crocodile tears. But then again, this is par for the course for politics in general, and US politics in particular.
- mikeash 10y ago
  That bombing was extensively reported and widely criticized. This attempt to dismiss complaints as hypocrisy is really tiresome. Obama bombed some countries so who cares if Trump fucks over law-abiding American residents for no reason. Also, I'm fairly sure Obama didn't bomb Iran.
  - adventured 10y ago
    Please point out the vast protests that occurred in the US over the Syrian bombings. Surely that drew extremely large marches. Or perhaps link me to the Huffington Post's Syrian death counter that tracked how many people Obama's war on Syria killed.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Whataboutism is absolute poison. Are you actually arguing that we should ignore evil on the basis that prior evil wasn't sufficiently protested? Or are you just trying to score a point for your team? I don't get it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >Whataboutism is absolute poison. Are you actually arguing that we should ignore evil on the basis that prior evil wasn't sufficiently protested? No, selective interest is absolute poison. Whataboutism is merely about prioritization. It allows people to have their pet causes and feel good about themselves while ignoring larger scale evil going on and affecting both their country and the lives of millions. And it's not like what's suggested is something like "do something about everything bad going on or do nothing" paralysis. It's like, major major evil affecting hundreds of thousands of lives is going on by your country and you don't give a damn, and suddenly you all jump for a much smaller offense. Prioritize damnit. You can't largely ignore 10x and cry wolf for 1x. Or you can, and you did, but you shouldn't. In the 60s they knew how to mass protest for both civil rights, women/gay rights, AND the Vietnam war for example, at the same level of engagement.
geezerjay 10y ago
> Trump is banning visa and Green Card holders from returning to the States. This is notably different. From a foreigner's standpoint, that isn't notable at all. In fact, it's nothing more than closing a loophole. When the US government specifically dictates that a kind of foreigners are banned from entering US soil, the exceptions to that rule doesn't change the rule or even the spirit of the rule. The US government wants those foreigners off their land, and that's it. I agree that it's a silly rule, but it wasn't implemented overnight.
- morgante 10y ago
  > From a foreigner's standpoint, that isn't notable at all. It's a massive difference, and makes a massive difference in the lives of my foreign friends. There are people who have been living here for decades affected by this order. They have their entire lives here. There's a massive difference between preventing someone from establishing a new life here and destroying the life they've built here over years.

mistersquid 10y ago

This report (dated 13 July 2011) by the NYTimes with the title "Visa Delays Put Iraqis Who Aided U.S. in Fear" is the exact opposite of "nary a peep". [0] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad... EDIT: remove appositional identification of the NYTimes as "widely considered the US newspaper of record". Change from interrogative to declarative mood.

adventured 10y ago
Yep, hardly a peep at all. Where were the large scale protests? Where was the 24/7 media coverage across every possible outlet? Where was the widespread outrage? It didn't exist, which is why the story didn't continue to have legs and most forgot it ever happened.
- danso 10y ago
  From the 2011 NYT story (which was on A1): > The Obama administration has required new background checks for visa applicants, reacting to a case in Kentucky in which two Iraqi immigrants were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group, according to American officials in Baghdad. You're surprised that there weren't nationwide protests for "required new background checks for visa applicants", versus an outright ban against green card holders? Maybe because most people don't know of a current visa applicant from Iraq, but many people know of green card holders -- i.e. people who have been living legally in the United States -- who are now banned from re-entry.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  The "peep" is national media coverage. The insinuation of the GGP was that mainstream media did not cover this fact. Given the reputation of the NYTimes as the US newspaper of record, the article I cite is the journalistic equivalent of using a bullhorn. The fact that people did not protest the 2011 executive order which suspended the approval of visa applications from Iraq indicates people were not unduly alarmed. In the present case, however, many people believe that the indiscriminate ban on immigration from 7 majority-Muslim nations is immoral and possibly a violation of the US Constitution. The protests indicate that public opinion opposes this administration's executive action. In other words, the media were very "loud" about Obama's 2011 and Trump's 2017 executive actions halting immigration. The people, however, see these two things very differently, as well they should. EDIT: grammar, readability, clarification of subject in second paragraph, change metaphor from "shouting" to "using a bullhorn".

mdarens 10y ago

The State Department implemented new layers of bureaucracy at the start of 2011 which acted as a de facto impediment/delay to applicants in the Iraqi refugee program, and were rightly criticized at the time. [1] This differs substantially from an affirmative ban which stranded people at airports. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]