5 ms·

Interesting that they finally gave a scope to the people impacted. 3200 people doesn't seem like chump change to me. And I guess deporting people is the most e

by skuhn 10y ago

Interesting that they finally gave a scope to the people impacted. 3200 people doesn't seem like chump change to me. And I guess deporting people is the most enhanced security measure of them all. If we could deport everyone that lives in the US, I bet security would be pretty tight.

smsm42 10y ago
Where 3200 people comes from?
- skuhn 10y ago
  An approximation of "less than one percent of the more than 325,000", which I would add is an extremely vague statement on their part.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    "less than" doesn't mean "approximately that number".
    - skuhn 10y ago
      The language is obviously chosen to minimize (and trivialize) the number of people. If it were 1600 people, don't you think they would say less than 0.5%? If it were 3 people, don't you think they would say that? Anyway, read it however you like. I choose to read it as the maximum number of people that could fit within their language, because I think it was written to be purposefully ambiguous.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > If it were 3 people, don't you think they would say that? If it were 3 people, they probably would, but it's not 3 people. But it's not likely they even know how many people are affected right now, given the situation changes all the time, so they used very vague description. It is not a description one can derive any specific number from, only upper bound.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        Real number seems to be somewhere around 100-200 - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-confusion-idUSKBN15D07S http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-conf... The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the stay, said it would help 100 to 200 people with visas or refugee status who found themselves detained in transit or at U.S. airports. ACLU has no reason to underplay the number of people affected while seeking emergency order to help them, so we can treat this as good approximation.
        skuhn 10y ago
        Agreed that the ACLU has no reason to downplay the number, so maybe it is more on that order of magnitude. My only point of confusion is whether the ACLU is committing to helping all people in this situation (100-200 total) or if they are saying they have the resources available for a limited number of people (100-200 of potentially more). Either way, it would be great if the US government -- which is the only entity able to factually calculate this number, and which could have determined the number before enforcing the EO by cross-referencing passenger manifests -- would act like responsible adults and admit what they have done.
kyledrake 10y ago
up to 3200 per day.
- skuhn 10y ago
  Only people this one day will get these "enhanced security measures" though, I guess. Since they won't let any of these people board flights from now on, their experiences will be differently enhanced tomorrow. Regardless of how many people are actually turned away or detained in the airports or elsewhere, every single person with citizenship of one of these countries and a valid green card or visa is impacted (hundreds of thousands of people). Those still in the US are prisoners here now. They can't risk leaving the country for any reason. Even if this executive order expires in 90 days and things go back to normal (which I doubt), they will still be afraid. The rule of law has been weakened.

by skuhn 10y ago

smsm42 10y ago

Where 3200 people comes from?

skuhn 10y ago
An approximation of "less than one percent of the more than 325,000", which I would add is an extremely vague statement on their part.
- smsm42 10y ago
  "less than" doesn't mean "approximately that number".
  - skuhn 10y ago
    The language is obviously chosen to minimize (and trivialize) the number of people. If it were 1600 people, don't you think they would say less than 0.5%? If it were 3 people, don't you think they would say that? Anyway, read it however you like. I choose to read it as the maximum number of people that could fit within their language, because I think it was written to be purposefully ambiguous.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > If it were 3 people, don't you think they would say that? If it were 3 people, they probably would, but it's not 3 people. But it's not likely they even know how many people are affected right now, given the situation changes all the time, so they used very vague description. It is not a description one can derive any specific number from, only upper bound.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Real number seems to be somewhere around 100-200 - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-confusion-idUSKBN15D07S http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-conf... The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the stay, said it would help 100 to 200 people with visas or refugee status who found themselves detained in transit or at U.S. airports. ACLU has no reason to underplay the number of people affected while seeking emergency order to help them, so we can treat this as good approximation.
      - skuhn 10y ago
        Agreed that the ACLU has no reason to downplay the number, so maybe it is more on that order of magnitude. My only point of confusion is whether the ACLU is committing to helping all people in this situation (100-200 total) or if they are saying they have the resources available for a limited number of people (100-200 of potentially more). Either way, it would be great if the US government -- which is the only entity able to factually calculate this number, and which could have determined the number before enforcing the EO by cross-referencing passenger manifests -- would act like responsible adults and admit what they have done.

kyledrake 10y ago

up to 3200 per day.

skuhn 10y ago
Only people this one day will get these "enhanced security measures" though, I guess. Since they won't let any of these people board flights from now on, their experiences will be differently enhanced tomorrow. Regardless of how many people are actually turned away or detained in the airports or elsewhere, every single person with citizenship of one of these countries and a valid green card or visa is impacted (hundreds of thousands of people). Those still in the US are prisoners here now. They can't risk leaving the country for any reason. Even if this executive order expires in 90 days and things go back to normal (which I doubt), they will still be afraid. The rule of law has been weakened.