3 ms·

I don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting th

by 794CD01 10y ago

I don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to the point where we do nothing about problems - even if they are merely imaginary problems. As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.

mattnewton 10y ago
It sounds like we are almost entirely in agreement :D I just think this order should be the new textbook example on why move fast and break things should not be executive policy.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Interesting, I would have called it a good example of how moving fast and breaking things is OK even for government action. It's only been two days and it's already been amended to allow green card holders to enter again, and several courts have ordered it to not be enforced. Before this, I and most people I know would not have guessed that government could move to amend broken policy this quickly.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    But meanwhile 1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis. 2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order means is really worrysome and shows the checks aren't as strong as they should be. Real people are being harmed as a result of not at least explaining it in full to people who have to enforce it before it took effect. 3. The underlying motivations for the rule include discrimination against Muslims, as evidenced by Rudy Guilloani's statements that they were instructed to write a legal "Muslim ban". The word is out that the president, who is also a symbolic head of state and not just an acting office, is anti-Muslim in policy as well as rhetoric. No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. (Edit: wrt religious freedom. As a commentor points out this obviously does not make us equivalent to ISIS) This order will be mostly rescinded, leaving nothing but backlash.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      The fact that CBP has very wide powers and very little supervision has been talked about for ages. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. Refusing to execute a court order should be grounds for immediate dismissal, and possibly following contempt of court proceedings, but I suspect CBP has a union which would fight that tooth and nail and probably win. > No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. That's pretty grand claim. While Trump's order indeed caused a lot of trouble, I think trouble of being detained for a day or even sent back to the port of origin is not the same as trouble of being murdered, raped, sold to sexual slavery, having head cut off, burned alive, etc. which ISIS routinely does. The position of "is US government does something wrong they are the same of ISIS" is idiotic. Of course US government will do a lot of things wrong, they are as imperfect as huge bureaucracy composed of hundreds of thousands of imperfect people can be. It doesn't mean they are the same as terrorist death cult.
      - mattnewton 10y ago
        I edited my comment to clarify. I did not mean to imply that we are equivalent in all regards, or that this is the one thing that broke the camels back (guantanamo, predators bombing civilians in Pakistan, etc have been far worse for example). I just mean we lost something real and tangible there for no gain. This is not a good MO for the government.
        smsm42 10y ago
        Even with the edit it's not right. First of all, immigration EO has nothing to do with religious freedom. 7 countries are targeted not because Muslims live there (though of course they do, but Muslims live in a lot more countries than that) but because they are either failed states or states actively supporting terrorism (of course, that doesn't mean they are only failed states or only ones supporting terrorism). While a lot of people in US certainly think some aspects of current practices of some Muslims are problematic, there's no law in US that limits Muslim practices, exercise of their religion or any aspect of their life based on their religion. It's not even on the same planet with what ISIS does - where not only being a non-Muslim but even being a Muslim not devout enough by their standards means death sentence. You might compare it to Saudi Arabia maybe, which bans anybody who ever visited Israel from entering, it still would be way wrong and misguided, but at least it would be regular wrong, not insanely wrong. In fact, I think this overblown rhetoric is exactly why immigration debate is getting so insane in the US - each time somebody says "ok, let's discuss how risky is to import people from Yemen or Syria and what precautions we may want to take so that good people get in and bad people stay out" people are screaming "you bigot, you hate Muslims, damn you, filthy Nazi!". So people start thinking "sigh, we can't really discuss it anymore in any sane way, so let's just elect Trump who would ban it altogether without discussing anything - at least it's more safe that way". And the other side takes it as a confirmation that it's all plot to oppress Muslims. And so on. So the choice we get is between two insane extremums instead of a sensible policy in between. We need to get down from that tree and we need no more to see anti-Muslim bigot in each person that wants immigration to be more controlled than we need to see anti-Western terrorist in each Muslim. It just doesn't help anything.

by 794CD01 10y ago

mattnewton 10y ago

It sounds like we are almost entirely in agreement :D I just think this order should be the new textbook example on why move fast and break things should not be executive policy.

794CD01 10y ago
Interesting, I would have called it a good example of how moving fast and breaking things is OK even for government action. It's only been two days and it's already been amended to allow green card holders to enter again, and several courts have ordered it to not be enforced. Before this, I and most people I know would not have guessed that government could move to amend broken policy this quickly.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  But meanwhile 1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis. 2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order means is really worrysome and shows the checks aren't as strong as they should be. Real people are being harmed as a result of not at least explaining it in full to people who have to enforce it before it took effect. 3. The underlying motivations for the rule include discrimination against Muslims, as evidenced by Rudy Guilloani's statements that they were instructed to write a legal "Muslim ban". The word is out that the president, who is also a symbolic head of state and not just an acting office, is anti-Muslim in policy as well as rhetoric. No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. (Edit: wrt religious freedom. As a commentor points out this obviously does not make us equivalent to ISIS) This order will be mostly rescinded, leaving nothing but backlash.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    The fact that CBP has very wide powers and very little supervision has been talked about for ages. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. Refusing to execute a court order should be grounds for immediate dismissal, and possibly following contempt of court proceedings, but I suspect CBP has a union which would fight that tooth and nail and probably win. > No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. That's pretty grand claim. While Trump's order indeed caused a lot of trouble, I think trouble of being detained for a day or even sent back to the port of origin is not the same as trouble of being murdered, raped, sold to sexual slavery, having head cut off, burned alive, etc. which ISIS routinely does. The position of "is US government does something wrong they are the same of ISIS" is idiotic. Of course US government will do a lot of things wrong, they are as imperfect as huge bureaucracy composed of hundreds of thousands of imperfect people can be. It doesn't mean they are the same as terrorist death cult.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      I edited my comment to clarify. I did not mean to imply that we are equivalent in all regards, or that this is the one thing that broke the camels back (guantanamo, predators bombing civilians in Pakistan, etc have been far worse for example). I just mean we lost something real and tangible there for no gain. This is not a good MO for the government.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        Even with the edit it's not right. First of all, immigration EO has nothing to do with religious freedom. 7 countries are targeted not because Muslims live there (though of course they do, but Muslims live in a lot more countries than that) but because they are either failed states or states actively supporting terrorism (of course, that doesn't mean they are only failed states or only ones supporting terrorism). While a lot of people in US certainly think some aspects of current practices of some Muslims are problematic, there's no law in US that limits Muslim practices, exercise of their religion or any aspect of their life based on their religion. It's not even on the same planet with what ISIS does - where not only being a non-Muslim but even being a Muslim not devout enough by their standards means death sentence. You might compare it to Saudi Arabia maybe, which bans anybody who ever visited Israel from entering, it still would be way wrong and misguided, but at least it would be regular wrong, not insanely wrong. In fact, I think this overblown rhetoric is exactly why immigration debate is getting so insane in the US - each time somebody says "ok, let's discuss how risky is to import people from Yemen or Syria and what precautions we may want to take so that good people get in and bad people stay out" people are screaming "you bigot, you hate Muslims, damn you, filthy Nazi!". So people start thinking "sigh, we can't really discuss it anymore in any sane way, so let's just elect Trump who would ban it altogether without discussing anything - at least it's more safe that way". And the other side takes it as a confirmation that it's all plot to oppress Muslims. And so on. So the choice we get is between two insane extremums instead of a sensible policy in between. We need to get down from that tree and we need no more to see anti-Muslim bigot in each person that wants immigration to be more controlled than we need to see anti-Western terrorist in each Muslim. It just doesn't help anything.