4 ms·

While many Trump stories should be flagged, some are important for society and for HN to discuss. This is one of those important stories. Americans can not st

by mhneu 10y ago

While many Trump stories should be flagged, some are important for society and for HN to discuss. This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. Please do not delete this story. The American and global tech community needs to discuss this. Trump and his advisors win when HN deletes stories like this.

fixxer 10y ago
"We did it HN! We solved politics!"
geezerjay 10y ago
> This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. The thing is, Trump was elected mainly because a large percentage of americans explicitly asked for these anti-muslim actions to be implemented. It would be disingenuous to assume that these actions, no matter how much ill-advised they are, aren't sought by a significant number of US citizens. In a related issue, tech forums are typically packed with discussions regarding immigration, where US citizens complain about foreign workers, including legal workers and the visa programs that enabled them to work in the US. Now that Trump was democratically elected, US citizens shouldn't just pretend that the US has some unresolved issues regarding immigration, protectionism, and even issues regarding race, religious, and cultural differences.
zeroer 10y ago
I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still got roughly half the votes.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Two issues: Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me? Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it. That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".
  - zeroer 10y ago
    I agree with you. I wonder if Trump did this in the most inflammatory way he could manage on purpose.
- village-idiot 10y ago
  Beyond moral rules, the President's power is constrained both by the Constitution and Congress. He is not within his right to issue executive orders that violate the previous.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    Does this executive order violate the constitution?
    - village-idiot 10y ago
      IANAL: The constitutionality of this EO is a bit beyond by expertise, but it does appear to me to violate at least one federal law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

by mhneu 10y ago

fixxer 10y ago

"We did it HN! We solved politics!"

geezerjay 10y ago

> This is one of those important stories. Americans can not stick their heads in the sand about these anti-muslim actions. The thing is, Trump was elected mainly because a large percentage of americans explicitly asked for these anti-muslim actions to be implemented. It would be disingenuous to assume that these actions, no matter how much ill-advised they are, aren't sought by a significant number of US citizens. In a related issue, tech forums are typically packed with discussions regarding immigration, where US citizens complain about foreign workers, including legal workers and the visa programs that enabled them to work in the US. Now that Trump was democratically elected, US citizens shouldn't just pretend that the US has some unresolved issues regarding immigration, protectionism, and even issues regarding race, religious, and cultural differences.

zeroer 10y ago

I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still got roughly half the votes.

matt4077 10y ago
Two issues: Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me? Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it. That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".
- zeroer 10y ago
  I agree with you. I wonder if Trump did this in the most inflammatory way he could manage on purpose.
village-idiot 10y ago
Beyond moral rules, the President's power is constrained both by the Constitution and Congress. He is not within his right to issue executive orders that violate the previous.
- zeroer 10y ago
  Does this executive order violate the constitution?
  - village-idiot 10y ago
    IANAL: The constitutionality of this EO is a bit beyond by expertise, but it does appear to me to violate at least one federal law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...