5 ms·

I know this will be unpopular, but I'm so sick of this topic already. Partly because there has been so much emotion and as a result, misinformation disseminate

I know this will be unpopular, but I'm so sick of this topic already. Partly because there has been so much emotion and as a result, misinformation disseminated as part of this action from the media to social media. First, it was alleged that Trump was only banning Muslims from countries he wasn't doing business in. Then, it turns out it's not even a Muslim ban at all, since ~80% of the world's Muslim population is unaffected, and the countries chosen were actually chosen by the Obama administration in 2011. Then, there were major protests that clogged up the airports this weekend, which turned out to be a Delta computer failure that stranded everyone. Then there is the usual parade of cries of fascism and comparison to Hitler, when no evidence can be offered to support those claims. The simple fact is that these 'refugees' have been spat upon by their own countries, neighboring countries and muslim brothers/sisters who have turned them away. They're desperate and someone should help them, but the US doesn't owe these people anything, so unless we are sending them straight to death camps or shooting them right off the boat/plane, the twitter-verse is making a lot of people act like fools by acting like everyone agrees that these people have all rights outlined in the constitution. That said, we should help these people as best we can, but a permanent home in the US for any people that have no love for our laws, our people or constitution doesn't do them or us any favors by letting them stay permanently. The question is, who wants to conform to our way of life and who doesn't? Can we keep inviting everyone in unconditionally before we pay a very serious price?

FireBeyond 10y ago
"but the US doesn't owe these people anything" except for those Green Card holders and citizens returning from these countries who have a not unreasonable expectation that we gave them that they have a home here (and mostly, already, have a life here), right?
- rayiner 10y ago
  I don't think any US citizens got caught up in this. But yes, dragging people with valid visas and green cards into this is what caused the shit storm.
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    Yes, the way it was communicated was pretty terrible. The Trump admin was contradicting each other which I think fueled 90% of this outrage.
    - mavelikara 10y ago
      None of which qualifies as "misinformation disseminated as part of this action from the media to social media" as your OP stated - rt?
rayiner 10y ago
It's undisputed that the rise as implemented was excluding green card holders. We don't owe random refugees anything, but permenant residency is a legal status that cannot be revoked without due process. It's clear cut unconstitutional.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  I agree with that, and after the initial confusion it turns out green card holders are being allowed in, at least if they don't have an extensive criminal record[0]. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-b...
- hermitdev 10y ago
  The words out of government's mouth don't make that so clear cut [1]. I don't see any mention of due-process being mentioned there. Generally speaking, rights outlined in the constitution are reserved for citizens, naturalized or natural born, not necessarily those here on visas or other temporary permits (green-card, even "permanent resident", is not truly so, and a green-card doesn't guarantee you re-entry if you leave). [1] https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-card/can-my-us-green-card-be-revoked/ https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Rights are based on the jurisdiction of the US. Permanent residents on US soil have almost the same rights as citizens. Even permanent residents who leave cannot be denied reentey without due process. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 US 21 (1982).
  - klipt 10y ago
    So you think there's nothing wrong with permanently deporting a green card holder, with a US citizen spouse and US citizen children, a job and a mortgage, just because they took a two week vacation while Trump was suffering Executive Order Diarrhea? Because that's not how America advertises itself. But maybe you don't want an America with rights, you want a fascist America that everyone else hates so you can start another "war on terror" and Trump and Bannon can grab even more emergency powers.
geofft 10y ago
1. Many of these people aren't refugees. They're regular visa holders, often green card holders. One of the people the ACLU and NILC are representing was previously employed by the US military as an interpreter. 2. When Anne Frank's parents tried to get to the US between 1939 and 1941, the US certainly did not send them straight to death camps. The Final Solution wasn't even decided until 1942. Anne Frank wasn't arrested until 1944. 3. If the standard for US residence is love for our laws and conformity to our way of life, we need to come up with a good explanation for the special case where people born in the US are allowed to stay without vetting upon adulthood.
not_debt 10y ago
Two counterpoints: 1. Rudy Giuliani is on record as saying that Trump asked how to 'legally' implement the Muslim ban he promised in the campaign trail, and that this executive order is the result. Even if the end result isn't a blanket ban on all Muslims, the intent remains. 2. International law, and treaties that the US have signed, oblige them to shoulder some of the collective responsibility for refugee resettlement in the international community. Banning refugees based on their country of origin works against that, and may well be illegal.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  What international laws, treaty or treaties are you referring to? I find your statement very hard to believe, but I'm no expert.
  - not_debt 10y ago
    The 1951 Refugee Convention, in particular Article 3. Legal issues are well beyond the area of my expertise, so I have no idea if Trump's recent actions contravene this per se, but the point is that we do have some obligation to help refugees under international law.
    - Dagwoodie 10y ago
      Interesting, thanks.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Curious. Did Trump promise a Muslim ban on the campaign trail? If so, how does he claim with a straight face that this isn't the Muslim ban he promised? I mean, what do people expect? He's doing basically what he promised to do, as racist as that sounds (because...it's meant to be).
  - 10y ago
matthewmcg 10y ago
"Then, there were major protests that clogged up the airports this weekend, which turned out to be a Delta computer failure that stranded everyone." You realize both of these can be true right? I flew out of BWI last night on Delta. There were hundreds of protesters at the airport, but they didn't delay us. We did have to wait 4 hours for the Delta computer systems in Atlanta to be restored to service.
wcarss 10y ago
edit: hn didn't show me all the responses that came in as I wrote this -- it may overlap with some others. Hi -- there's a very important piece of information missing from your take, and I think it might make a difference to you: not only are refugees being stopped from entering the United States. Regular people who already live here legally (many of whom aren't refugees) are being stopped too. All citizens of the countries listed, even those who have lived in the USA for years legally on visas, even those who are legal permanent residents, are not allowed to enter the USA. They are not even allowed to be routed through it in most cases. These people are detained on entry, handled as criminals, many questioned for hours, and several have been given forms that, when signed, revoke their residence permanently. Then they are sent back. This means professors, doctors, students, scientists, and lots of regular people who have lived legally in the USA for years, some for decades, many of whom think of themselves as American first. If they're inside the US, they're now effectively stuck inside. If they're outside, they're now stuck outside for 3 months minimum -- it could go longer, if their country doesn't introduce sufficient "vetting" in response, and provided nothing new stops them. Regular people who aren't trying to escape anything, who aren't trying to join the country, who ALREADY live here, are now homeless, forced to go to other nations, and dealt with as criminals if they try to come home to America. (also, while there were computer problems again, there were also many real protests at major airports)
mercer 10y ago
While I'm pretty sure I disagree with many of your viewpoints (not entirely; I'm very confused these days, intentionally so), I'd just like to commend you for your contributions. I hope you continue in the same vein even if you get downvoted or if your views are or turn out to be unpopular. If anything, HN benefits from diverse viewpoints as long as they're expressed thoughtfully and respectfully.

FireBeyond 10y ago

"but the US doesn't owe these people anything" except for those Green Card holders and citizens returning from these countries who have a not unreasonable expectation that we gave them that they have a home here (and mostly, already, have a life here), right?

rayiner 10y ago
I don't think any US citizens got caught up in this. But yes, dragging people with valid visas and green cards into this is what caused the shit storm.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  Yes, the way it was communicated was pretty terrible. The Trump admin was contradicting each other which I think fueled 90% of this outrage.
  - mavelikara 10y ago
    None of which qualifies as "misinformation disseminated as part of this action from the media to social media" as your OP stated - rt?

rayiner 10y ago

It's undisputed that the rise as implemented was excluding green card holders. We don't owe random refugees anything, but permenant residency is a legal status that cannot be revoked without due process. It's clear cut unconstitutional.

Dagwoodie 10y ago
I agree with that, and after the initial confusion it turns out green card holders are being allowed in, at least if they don't have an extensive criminal record[0]. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-b...
hermitdev 10y ago
The words out of government's mouth don't make that so clear cut [1]. I don't see any mention of due-process being mentioned there. Generally speaking, rights outlined in the constitution are reserved for citizens, naturalized or natural born, not necessarily those here on visas or other temporary permits (green-card, even "permanent resident", is not truly so, and a green-card doesn't guarantee you re-entry if you leave). [1] https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-card/can-my-us-green-card-be-revoked/ https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-...
- rayiner 10y ago
  Rights are based on the jurisdiction of the US. Permanent residents on US soil have almost the same rights as citizens. Even permanent residents who leave cannot be denied reentey without due process. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 US 21 (1982).
- klipt 10y ago
  So you think there's nothing wrong with permanently deporting a green card holder, with a US citizen spouse and US citizen children, a job and a mortgage, just because they took a two week vacation while Trump was suffering Executive Order Diarrhea? Because that's not how America advertises itself. But maybe you don't want an America with rights, you want a fascist America that everyone else hates so you can start another "war on terror" and Trump and Bannon can grab even more emergency powers.

geofft 10y ago

1. Many of these people aren't refugees. They're regular visa holders, often green card holders. One of the people the ACLU and NILC are representing was previously employed by the US military as an interpreter. 2. When Anne Frank's parents tried to get to the US between 1939 and 1941, the US certainly did not send them straight to death camps. The Final Solution wasn't even decided until 1942. Anne Frank wasn't arrested until 1944. 3. If the standard for US residence is love for our laws and conformity to our way of life, we need to come up with a good explanation for the special case where people born in the US are allowed to stay without vetting upon adulthood.

not_debt 10y ago

Two counterpoints: 1. Rudy Giuliani is on record as saying that Trump asked how to 'legally' implement the Muslim ban he promised in the campaign trail, and that this executive order is the result. Even if the end result isn't a blanket ban on all Muslims, the intent remains. 2. International law, and treaties that the US have signed, oblige them to shoulder some of the collective responsibility for refugee resettlement in the international community. Banning refugees based on their country of origin works against that, and may well be illegal.

Dagwoodie 10y ago
What international laws, treaty or treaties are you referring to? I find your statement very hard to believe, but I'm no expert.
- not_debt 10y ago
  The 1951 Refugee Convention, in particular Article 3. Legal issues are well beyond the area of my expertise, so I have no idea if Trump's recent actions contravene this per se, but the point is that we do have some obligation to help refugees under international law.
  - Dagwoodie 10y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Curious. Did Trump promise a Muslim ban on the campaign trail? If so, how does he claim with a straight face that this isn't the Muslim ban he promised? I mean, what do people expect? He's doing basically what he promised to do, as racist as that sounds (because...it's meant to be).
- 10y ago

matthewmcg 10y ago

"Then, there were major protests that clogged up the airports this weekend, which turned out to be a Delta computer failure that stranded everyone." You realize both of these can be true right? I flew out of BWI last night on Delta. There were hundreds of protesters at the airport, but they didn't delay us. We did have to wait 4 hours for the Delta computer systems in Atlanta to be restored to service.

wcarss 10y ago

edit: hn didn't show me all the responses that came in as I wrote this -- it may overlap with some others. Hi -- there's a very important piece of information missing from your take, and I think it might make a difference to you: not only are refugees being stopped from entering the United States. Regular people who already live here legally (many of whom aren't refugees) are being stopped too. All citizens of the countries listed, even those who have lived in the USA for years legally on visas, even those who are legal permanent residents, are not allowed to enter the USA. They are not even allowed to be routed through it in most cases. These people are detained on entry, handled as criminals, many questioned for hours, and several have been given forms that, when signed, revoke their residence permanently. Then they are sent back. This means professors, doctors, students, scientists, and lots of regular people who have lived legally in the USA for years, some for decades, many of whom think of themselves as American first. If they're inside the US, they're now effectively stuck inside. If they're outside, they're now stuck outside for 3 months minimum -- it could go longer, if their country doesn't introduce sufficient "vetting" in response, and provided nothing new stops them. Regular people who aren't trying to escape anything, who aren't trying to join the country, who ALREADY live here, are now homeless, forced to go to other nations, and dealt with as criminals if they try to come home to America. (also, while there were computer problems again, there were also many real protests at major airports)

mercer 10y ago

While I'm pretty sure I disagree with many of your viewpoints (not entirely; I'm very confused these days, intentionally so), I'd just like to commend you for your contributions. I hope you continue in the same vein even if you get downvoted or if your views are or turn out to be unpopular. If anything, HN benefits from diverse viewpoints as long as they're expressed thoughtfully and respectfully.