3 ms·

Anti-trump stories? This is not an anti-trump story. This is a discussion of a likely illegal, unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and ill-considered executive or

Anti-trump stories? This is not an anti-trump story. This is a discussion of a likely illegal, unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and ill-considered executive order that affects the lives of many people on HN and related to them. Everyone wants to ignore problems that don't affect them, which is how the US ended up with its current leadership. While I can sympathise with the desire for peace, now is not the time, and I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to put up with it. The time for silence is over.

adventured 10y ago
It's a story that is overwhelmingly of political and media convenience. There was hardly peep about it being illegal, unconstitutional, dehumanizing, or ill-considered when Obama banned Iraqis for six months in 2011. Gee, I wonder why.
- binarycrusader 10y ago
  The president at that time didn't write an executive order preventing the entry of holders of legally approved visas or green cards from entering the country. What they did do was pause the refugee program, which is wildly different than what you're attempting to imply: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration... And even if what you did imply happened and I've somehow missed that, you don't get to use past wrongs to justify present wrongs.
  - adventured 10y ago
    You're very confused. I'm not justifying present wrongs. I'm proclaiming that the dumbest thing a human rights supporting people can do, is not protest their own President out of partisan loyalty / blindness. Scenario: you believe Obama was overwhelmingly a decent person. You trust him with various questionable policies, so you don't protest his bad actions, whether related to his vast violations of civil liberties around spying, or the 2011 ban on Iraqi refugees, or his vicious and persistent attacks on press freedom. It is thus, that by not protesting your own President (who is dramatically more likely to listen to his own voters), you risk allowing his bad expansion of power to be handed down to following Presidents who may be dangerous or tyrannical in any number of ways and may abuse the new powers in question. If one is a liberal, this is why it's critical to protest as loud as possible about any civil liberty abuses committed by a liberal President. By the time you're protesting Trump's abuse of Obama's (or Bush's) increased NSA powers, it's far, far, far too late.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - binarycrusader 10y ago
      I'm proclaiming that the dumbest thing a human rights supporting people can do, is not protest their own President out of partisan loyalty / blindness. Well, since we only have one president currently, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Also, some of us did protest the unreasonable expansion of power by previous administrations. I don't see what anything you're saying has to do with my original comments.
      - adventured 10y ago
        The point is extremely obvious. The left waited until Trump to protest things that Obama had either already done, or has helped to make possible. It's the exact same thing they did in turning a blind eye to Clinton's various abuses, but the instant Bush was President, they rediscovered civil liberties. Partisan hypocrisy, leading to dangerous increases in executive power, handed down to future Presidents whose behavior you can't predict. The left was very quiet while Obama was violating the civil liberties of hundreds of millions of people by massively increasing the scale of spying, not to mention using his DOJ to constantly fend off challenges to such rights abuses. The left was very quiet as Obama prosecuted the most aggressive campaign against freedom of the press in US history. The left was very quiet as Obama murdered tens of thousands of civilians in Syria with his bombing campaign, not to mention arming terrorists within Syria to help escalate the destruction on the ground. Obama supports the Secure Fence Act or a refugee ban, the left remains very quiet. Trump becomes President. The left widely rediscovers civil liberties again. Waiting until that point, means you waited too long.
        grzm 10y ago
        You've been making many comments to this effect. Do you agree with the Executive Order? If you disagree with the Executive Order do you think it's worth protesting? If you think it's worth protesting, will you allow others to protest with you even if they didn't protest to your satisfaction for similar issues in the past? If you agree with the order, please say so explicitly. If you disagree but don't think it's worth protesting, what's the point of your comment? If it's worth protesting, can you forgive others their past mistakes and let them join you now? Or are you content to just repeatedly point out what you perceive as hypocrisy? If that's all it is, at this point it's no longer civil or substantive, and please stop. If I'm misunderstanding your goal, please do elaborate and correct me.
- mhneu 10y ago
  The reason people are upset is because banning Muslims from many countries, when a chief political advisor and propagandist [1] Bannon has called for a white-only US, is what authoritarians do. Hannah Arendt in her work on 1930s Germany described how well meaning people would fact check the government, but the government's statements were not about what was was true, but what would need to be true to justify their actions. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CykynrCXEAAJOSE.jpg:large http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CykynrCXEAAJOSE.jpg:large [1] Breitbart.
- ckarmann 10y ago
  Because it has nothing to do with what Obama did. Any country has the right to decide who they accept on their soil or not. But only authoritarians remove that right at the stroke of a pen without due process to those who have obtained it legally and have never committed a crime. Essentially, what the administration is saying now is that it doesn't matter if a person has a certain right granted to them in accordance to the law, this right can be removed unilaterally by the President. If you don't care about that, wait until they come for you or your family.
finid 10y ago
The time for silence is over. Hope it's not too late.
geezerjay 10y ago
> This is a discussion of a likely illegal, unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and ill-considered executive order that affects the lives of many people on HN and related to them. It is also a policy which was specifically supported by a significant portion of the US electorate to the point that a presidential candidate managed to win the US presidential elections by promising just that. Additionally, it appears that the same policy was already implemented by former US presidents, except with some nuances regarding current visa holders. As a non-US citizen whose career may quite possibly involve emigrating to the US, I can tell you that regarding these immigration issues the only thing that actually changed with Trump is this newfound sentiment against the US's immigration policy, which quite frankly appears to be motivated solely by an unwillingness to accept the outcome of the US presidential elections.
zeroer 10y ago
I've seen multiple people write that it's illegal or unconstitutional, but I don't understand how. Can you help me connect the dots to see which law or part of the constitution it violates?

adventured 10y ago

It's a story that is overwhelmingly of political and media convenience. There was hardly peep about it being illegal, unconstitutional, dehumanizing, or ill-considered when Obama banned Iraqis for six months in 2011. Gee, I wonder why.

binarycrusader 10y ago
The president at that time didn't write an executive order preventing the entry of holders of legally approved visas or green cards from entering the country. What they did do was pause the refugee program, which is wildly different than what you're attempting to imply: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration... And even if what you did imply happened and I've somehow missed that, you don't get to use past wrongs to justify present wrongs.
- adventured 10y ago
  You're very confused. I'm not justifying present wrongs. I'm proclaiming that the dumbest thing a human rights supporting people can do, is not protest their own President out of partisan loyalty / blindness. Scenario: you believe Obama was overwhelmingly a decent person. You trust him with various questionable policies, so you don't protest his bad actions, whether related to his vast violations of civil liberties around spying, or the 2011 ban on Iraqi refugees, or his vicious and persistent attacks on press freedom. It is thus, that by not protesting your own President (who is dramatically more likely to listen to his own voters), you risk allowing his bad expansion of power to be handed down to following Presidents who may be dangerous or tyrannical in any number of ways and may abuse the new powers in question. If one is a liberal, this is why it's critical to protest as loud as possible about any civil liberty abuses committed by a liberal President. By the time you're protesting Trump's abuse of Obama's (or Bush's) increased NSA powers, it's far, far, far too late.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - binarycrusader 10y ago
    I'm proclaiming that the dumbest thing a human rights supporting people can do, is not protest their own President out of partisan loyalty / blindness. Well, since we only have one president currently, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Also, some of us did protest the unreasonable expansion of power by previous administrations. I don't see what anything you're saying has to do with my original comments.
    - adventured 10y ago
      The point is extremely obvious. The left waited until Trump to protest things that Obama had either already done, or has helped to make possible. It's the exact same thing they did in turning a blind eye to Clinton's various abuses, but the instant Bush was President, they rediscovered civil liberties. Partisan hypocrisy, leading to dangerous increases in executive power, handed down to future Presidents whose behavior you can't predict. The left was very quiet while Obama was violating the civil liberties of hundreds of millions of people by massively increasing the scale of spying, not to mention using his DOJ to constantly fend off challenges to such rights abuses. The left was very quiet as Obama prosecuted the most aggressive campaign against freedom of the press in US history. The left was very quiet as Obama murdered tens of thousands of civilians in Syria with his bombing campaign, not to mention arming terrorists within Syria to help escalate the destruction on the ground. Obama supports the Secure Fence Act or a refugee ban, the left remains very quiet. Trump becomes President. The left widely rediscovers civil liberties again. Waiting until that point, means you waited too long.
      - grzm 10y ago
        You've been making many comments to this effect. Do you agree with the Executive Order? If you disagree with the Executive Order do you think it's worth protesting? If you think it's worth protesting, will you allow others to protest with you even if they didn't protest to your satisfaction for similar issues in the past? If you agree with the order, please say so explicitly. If you disagree but don't think it's worth protesting, what's the point of your comment? If it's worth protesting, can you forgive others their past mistakes and let them join you now? Or are you content to just repeatedly point out what you perceive as hypocrisy? If that's all it is, at this point it's no longer civil or substantive, and please stop. If I'm misunderstanding your goal, please do elaborate and correct me.
mhneu 10y ago
The reason people are upset is because banning Muslims from many countries, when a chief political advisor and propagandist [1] Bannon has called for a white-only US, is what authoritarians do. Hannah Arendt in her work on 1930s Germany described how well meaning people would fact check the government, but the government's statements were not about what was was true, but what would need to be true to justify their actions. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CykynrCXEAAJOSE.jpg:large http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CykynrCXEAAJOSE.jpg:large [1] Breitbart.
ckarmann 10y ago
Because it has nothing to do with what Obama did. Any country has the right to decide who they accept on their soil or not. But only authoritarians remove that right at the stroke of a pen without due process to those who have obtained it legally and have never committed a crime. Essentially, what the administration is saying now is that it doesn't matter if a person has a certain right granted to them in accordance to the law, this right can be removed unilaterally by the President. If you don't care about that, wait until they come for you or your family.

finid 10y ago

The time for silence is over. Hope it's not too late.

geezerjay 10y ago

> This is a discussion of a likely illegal, unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and ill-considered executive order that affects the lives of many people on HN and related to them. It is also a policy which was specifically supported by a significant portion of the US electorate to the point that a presidential candidate managed to win the US presidential elections by promising just that. Additionally, it appears that the same policy was already implemented by former US presidents, except with some nuances regarding current visa holders. As a non-US citizen whose career may quite possibly involve emigrating to the US, I can tell you that regarding these immigration issues the only thing that actually changed with Trump is this newfound sentiment against the US's immigration policy, which quite frankly appears to be motivated solely by an unwillingness to accept the outcome of the US presidential elections.

zeroer 10y ago

I've seen multiple people write that it's illegal or unconstitutional, but I don't understand how. Can you help me connect the dots to see which law or part of the constitution it violates?