3 ms·

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.

by skuhn 10y ago

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.

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.

by 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.