6 ms·

No one seems to be talking about that fact that Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. It seems as t

by jayess 10y ago

No one seems to be talking about that fact that Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion. And the list of countries is from Homeland Security's list of "countries of concern" compiled during the Obama administration. And signed into law by Obama himself. https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m... Of course some will blast me as supporting Trump or supporting this ban. Not true.

mhneu 10y ago
Criticism of Franzman who called Arendt a white supremacist: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ Also, Trump's order applies to green card holders. This is a major and worrying expansion beyond a refugee pause. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. And yes many wish Obama accepted even more refugees. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-today-is-a-syrian-girl.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-tod...
- FrancoDiaz 10y ago
  Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. That's disturbing, but not surprising. I guess unchecked power is ok with you as long as it's policies that you're OK with being implemented.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    It's a hypocritical, authoritarian, and dangerous belief that many people of every demographic share.
  - karlmdavis 10y ago
    Of course that's okay with most folks. Reality is messy, and large swaths of it are unamenable to formalization in laws; human discretion will always be required. Now, we can argue about where the balance is best struck, whether it's better to have the president making decisions vs. individual government workers, etc. Those discussions are fine. But we nerds have to stop pretending that a nation's laws are or could be or even should be as black and white and bug free (hah!) as most computer code.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I think this is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the argument. Following your logic, everyone criticising the Iraq war would be a hypocrite if they did not also oppose Congress' power to authorise wars. Others are arguing that this executive order violates constitutional rights because it's awfully close to a religious test. Within that line of reasoning, there's no contradiction between opposing this order and not opposing Obama's, assuming those do not violate constitutional rights.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. Actually, the problem is precisely the "amount of power". You can't grant someone the power to do something and then proceed to assume that no one could actually do it. If it's supposed to be impossible to implement, don't build the tools to do it.
markbnj 10y ago
They're not talking about that because it's not relevant here. People are reacting to the action he took. The basis for it and the underlying legal structures are a different, or at least tangential conversation. If the house is on fire that may not be the right time to discuss why someone was allowed to store flammable chemicals next to the furnace.
nerfhammer 10y ago
> And signed into law by Obama himself. In lieu of "blasting" you, can I ask how this is relevant? Does this change something? It doesn't seem the same to say a country is of concern vs. effectively suspending all visa entry including permanent residents with zero notice after campaigning on banning Muslims. Are these two things comparable?
- pitaj 10y ago
  The idea that a president should ever have this power is ridiculous. Only people who think that their president is a benevolent figure would dare support this ability. So yes, it is relevant, because people should start asking, "what if [insert evil politician] had this kind of power?" That would prevent these issues from being possible in the first place.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > The idea that a president should ever have this power is ridiculous. Only people who think that their president is a benevolent figure would dare support this ability. Precisely. Now, please someone pay attention to what the NSA has been set up to do.
closeparen 10y ago
>It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion. Yes. What's wrong here is the actual policy, not the details of how it came to be policy. Political views are not morally equivalent or something just because they're political views.
- pitaj 10y ago
  What's wrong here is allowing a single person to have the ability to do this in the first place. Giving a single person power over controlling who can enter the country should raise of huge red flag, regardless of political persuasion. Those who allowed this ability to be in the president's hands are at least at equal fault for allowing this to happen.
theGimp 10y ago
I'm an Iraqi Canadian with a Muslim name, so I know a little more than the average person about this issue. I can tell you that what Trump is doing is unequivocally worse than what Obama did. One of the things Obama did when he became president was make it easier for nationals of several Arab countries (including Iraq) to travel into the United States. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration required travellers from a number of Arab countries to disclose their travel plans at entry. It also placed limitations on their movement within the US. Obama and the Democrats waived that requirement. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of this law, and I couldn't find it now. If you can find it and comment with the name, I'd greatly appreciate it. (see update below) What Obama did in 2015 might have been negative for Arabs who come from the nations affected, but he still left the process better than he had received it. Also, he didn't campaign on banning Muslims from entering the US, didn't thoughtlessly keep out Green Card holders and dual citizens, didn't say "Islam doesn't like us". There is no comparison between Obama and Trump. Edit: it was NSEERS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_Registration_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_R... I should point out I'm not criticizing your opinion, which is entirely valid. Just pointing out how I see it myself.
- justthefacts 10y ago
  6 of the 7 countries facing a temporary ban, are happy to enforce a permanent ban on Israeli Jews from entering their lands.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    well thank goodness we don't penalize innocent individuals for the abhorrent laws of their nation's governments - especially when many of those people come from nations in which the people have no say and no control over their government and its actions.
  - EpicEng 10y ago
    Because we should strive to emulate countries like Iran when it comes to how we treat people, right?
  - 10y ago
aomurphy 10y ago
No, the point of the stay is that he cannot. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... See: 8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states See this analysis https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... Also, the ACLU's complaint is that permanent residence holders are being denied due process by being kicked out of the country without legal recourse, so it is not purely by the policy. See Judge Donelly's Stay Order: https://twitter.com/joshleitzel/status/825529124986900480/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/joshleitzel/status/825529124986900480/ph...
jandrewrogers 10y ago
The "No Fly List" unilaterally revoked the right of countless innocent American citizens to travel for many months without any notice or redress -- most found out when they tried to travel. The precedent has been around for a long time and is still winding its way through the courts 15 years later. (Americans have the right to travel freely by common conveyance per the Supreme Court from way back. The government has managed to avoid having this question adjudicated through a variety of procedural gimmicks, keeping the list in force.) Visa holders can explicitly have their entry privileges revoked without cause at any time; it may be a questionable practice but it is still entirely within the express letter of the law for such things. If American citizens don't have standing to travel freely even to return home, then visa holders certainly don't and the former abhorrent practice still has not been fully adjudicated. Visa holders are not going to have rights that have eluded American citizens in recent years.
- matwood 10y ago
  Border detainment and no fly lists have been an ongoing problem for the last 2 administrations. There was some outrage on sites like HN, but generally no one seemed to care. It's nice that people are getting mad, but it is bothersome that Trump had to get elected for people to finally notice.
grzm 10y ago
You're right that Congress has been slowly ceding a lot of its presidential oversight responsibilities. That's been going on a long time, not just during the Obama administration. It goes back at least as far as 9/11 and likely well before. While it would have been great to see more opposition to this earlier, I'm glad to see people making noise about it now. With the hyper-polarization we've got right now in the US it's hard for people to step back and realize there are actually things that we agree on, regardless of who we may have voted for. Knee-jerk reactions that rationalize why we can't work together is one of the things that's been keeping us from moving forward as a country.
Gibbon1 10y ago
> Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. Brighter liberals I know have complained that Obama and the Democrats in congress by passing these laws were handing the next Republican President the legal equivalent of a loaded gun.
village-idiot 10y ago
Largely unrestricted executive power is like leaving bear traps open and armed in your living room. 9 times out of 10 you're going to step around them, but one day your trip to make coffee is going to really suck.

by jayess 10y ago

mhneu 10y ago

Criticism of Franzman who called Arendt a white supremacist: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/7958/amp/ Also, Trump's order applies to green card holders. This is a major and worrying expansion beyond a refugee pause. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15C0R4 Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. And yes many wish Obama accepted even more refugees. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-today-is-a-syrian-girl.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/opinion/anne-frank-tod...

FrancoDiaz 10y ago
Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. That's disturbing, but not surprising. I guess unchecked power is ok with you as long as it's policies that you're OK with being implemented.
- pitaj 10y ago
  It's a hypocritical, authoritarian, and dangerous belief that many people of every demographic share.
- karlmdavis 10y ago
  Of course that's okay with most folks. Reality is messy, and large swaths of it are unamenable to formalization in laws; human discretion will always be required. Now, we can argue about where the balance is best struck, whether it's better to have the president making decisions vs. individual government workers, etc. Those discussions are fine. But we nerds have to stop pretending that a nation's laws are or could be or even should be as black and white and bug free (hah!) as most computer code.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I think this is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the argument. Following your logic, everyone criticising the Iraq war would be a hypocrite if they did not also oppose Congress' power to authorise wars. Others are arguing that this executive order violates constitutional rights because it's awfully close to a religious test. Within that line of reasoning, there's no contradiction between opposing this order and not opposing Obama's, assuming those do not violate constitutional rights.
geezerjay 10y ago
> Also the problem isn't the "amount of power", the problem is using that power badly. Actually, the problem is precisely the "amount of power". You can't grant someone the power to do something and then proceed to assume that no one could actually do it. If it's supposed to be impossible to implement, don't build the tools to do it.

markbnj 10y ago

They're not talking about that because it's not relevant here. People are reacting to the action he took. The basis for it and the underlying legal structures are a different, or at least tangential conversation. If the house is on fire that may not be the right time to discuss why someone was allowed to store flammable chemicals next to the furnace.

nerfhammer 10y ago

> And signed into law by Obama himself. In lieu of "blasting" you, can I ask how this is relevant? Does this change something? It doesn't seem the same to say a country is of concern vs. effectively suspending all visa entry including permanent residents with zero notice after campaigning on banning Muslims. Are these two things comparable?

pitaj 10y ago
The idea that a president should ever have this power is ridiculous. Only people who think that their president is a benevolent figure would dare support this ability. So yes, it is relevant, because people should start asking, "what if [insert evil politician] had this kind of power?" That would prevent these issues from being possible in the first place.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > The idea that a president should ever have this power is ridiculous. Only people who think that their president is a benevolent figure would dare support this ability. Precisely. Now, please someone pay attention to what the NSA has been set up to do.

closeparen 10y ago

>It seems as though a massive amount of power in one person's hands is OK is some situations but not in others, depending on one's political persuasion. Yes. What's wrong here is the actual policy, not the details of how it came to be policy. Political views are not morally equivalent or something just because they're political views.

pitaj 10y ago
What's wrong here is allowing a single person to have the ability to do this in the first place. Giving a single person power over controlling who can enter the country should raise of huge red flag, regardless of political persuasion. Those who allowed this ability to be in the president's hands are at least at equal fault for allowing this to happen.

theGimp 10y ago

I'm an Iraqi Canadian with a Muslim name, so I know a little more than the average person about this issue. I can tell you that what Trump is doing is unequivocally worse than what Obama did. One of the things Obama did when he became president was make it easier for nationals of several Arab countries (including Iraq) to travel into the United States. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration required travellers from a number of Arab countries to disclose their travel plans at entry. It also placed limitations on their movement within the US. Obama and the Democrats waived that requirement. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of this law, and I couldn't find it now. If you can find it and comment with the name, I'd greatly appreciate it. (see update below) What Obama did in 2015 might have been negative for Arabs who come from the nations affected, but he still left the process better than he had received it. Also, he didn't campaign on banning Muslims from entering the US, didn't thoughtlessly keep out Green Card holders and dual citizens, didn't say "Islam doesn't like us". There is no comparison between Obama and Trump. Edit: it was NSEERS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_Registration_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_R... I should point out I'm not criticizing your opinion, which is entirely valid. Just pointing out how I see it myself.

justthefacts 10y ago
6 of the 7 countries facing a temporary ban, are happy to enforce a permanent ban on Israeli Jews from entering their lands.
- vivekd 10y ago
  well thank goodness we don't penalize innocent individuals for the abhorrent laws of their nation's governments - especially when many of those people come from nations in which the people have no say and no control over their government and its actions.
- EpicEng 10y ago
  Because we should strive to emulate countries like Iran when it comes to how we treat people, right?
- 10y ago

aomurphy 10y ago

No, the point of the stay is that he cannot. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... See: 8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states See this analysis https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... Also, the ACLU's complaint is that permanent residence holders are being denied due process by being kicked out of the country without legal recourse, so it is not purely by the policy. See Judge Donelly's Stay Order: https://twitter.com/joshleitzel/status/825529124986900480/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/joshleitzel/status/825529124986900480/ph...

jandrewrogers 10y ago

The "No Fly List" unilaterally revoked the right of countless innocent American citizens to travel for many months without any notice or redress -- most found out when they tried to travel. The precedent has been around for a long time and is still winding its way through the courts 15 years later. (Americans have the right to travel freely by common conveyance per the Supreme Court from way back. The government has managed to avoid having this question adjudicated through a variety of procedural gimmicks, keeping the list in force.) Visa holders can explicitly have their entry privileges revoked without cause at any time; it may be a questionable practice but it is still entirely within the express letter of the law for such things. If American citizens don't have standing to travel freely even to return home, then visa holders certainly don't and the former abhorrent practice still has not been fully adjudicated. Visa holders are not going to have rights that have eluded American citizens in recent years.

matwood 10y ago
Border detainment and no fly lists have been an ongoing problem for the last 2 administrations. There was some outrage on sites like HN, but generally no one seemed to care. It's nice that people are getting mad, but it is bothersome that Trump had to get elected for people to finally notice.

grzm 10y ago

You're right that Congress has been slowly ceding a lot of its presidential oversight responsibilities. That's been going on a long time, not just during the Obama administration. It goes back at least as far as 9/11 and likely well before. While it would have been great to see more opposition to this earlier, I'm glad to see people making noise about it now. With the hyper-polarization we've got right now in the US it's hard for people to step back and realize there are actually things that we agree on, regardless of who we may have voted for. Knee-jerk reactions that rationalize why we can't work together is one of the things that's been keeping us from moving forward as a country.

Gibbon1 10y ago

> Trump can do these things because the Congress has specifically authorized the president to do so. Brighter liberals I know have complained that Obama and the Democrats in congress by passing these laws were handing the next Republican President the legal equivalent of a loaded gun.

village-idiot 10y ago

Largely unrestricted executive power is like leaving bear traps open and armed in your living room. 9 times out of 10 you're going to step around them, but one day your trip to make coffee is going to really suck.