1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News Green card holders from Trump-restricted countries may not be allowed into US

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by dreamcatcher, Jan 28, 2017.

  1. sldanlm

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Eastern U.S.A. commuter
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Well, this and other things he's done puts an end to the question prior to the inauguration about whether he would keep any of his campaign promises, and how soon. After all, what he's doing is what he ran on. I know people aren't used to politicians actually doing what they promised to do in the campaign, but he's not a career politician.

    ---------- Post added 29th Jan 2017 at 07:54 AM ----------

    What's that saying, "Elections have consequences", ?
     
  2. EdmontonGaymer

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton Alberta
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    This is sickening. I can't believe this has been allowed to happen. I can't imagine what it is like for all of those people being held out who are perminant residents. There are people who have been in the US for years, with homes, friends and family, and jobs, who just went oversees to visit family or travel, and are now being barred from entry to their home country. Now, people from these countries who have already immigrated to the US cannot travel internationally for fear of this too.

    The story of the man who returned home to attend a funeral who can no longer return to his home and job is heartbreaking. And the young Iranian scientist barred from resuming his studies, it turns my stomach. All of those people, all of their possessions, their friends and family.

    All of these people victimized for arbitrary reasons. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. What happened to freedom of association. This is what happens when you stop judging people as individuals and instead label them guilty as a group.

    Terrorism kills fewer people yearly than bees or allergic reactions, and yet in knee jerk panic we can use it to rationalize demonizing people based solely on where they were born.

    I never thought in my lifetime I would see something in real life so mimic "Papers Please". There's such a sick irony to it all.

    Well, here is one Canadian who will be voluntarily be applying the ban to himself. I've cancelled the flight and will be going elsewhere for my two week vacation in April. I can't help but think what it would be like if it happened to me. If I was from one of these countries, if I had my visa in order, the flights and hotels booked and too late to cancel without paying, friends and family waiting to meet me at the airport. And denied entry because of this.
     
  3. dreamcatcher

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    I've mentioned this earlier and I'll ask you to explain it to me. There have been no terrorists attacks from any citizens belonging to those countries where the ban took place. Therefore how is this ban protecting us from Islamic terrorists? Please justify that. If he really wanted to protect us from supposed Islamic terrorists, he should have banned those from countries such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. (I still would have thought that is reprehensible.)

    What was wrong with the vetting process? Elaborate.

    Next, what are your thoughts on those with green cards that were visiting their home country and are now unable to return to the US? These people have their lives, jobs, and families in the US. Do you think it is morally justifiable what Trump has done to those people? A lot of the green card holders from those 7 countries, who may have been living in the US for many years, are not able to go back to their home country to visit. What if one of their family members died and they were not able to go to their funeral because of this ban?

    Finally, you mention we should worry more about US citizens over those that are not US citizens. My question is why? Why is an American's life inherently more valuable than the life of a refugee? Why is an American citizen's life more valuable than a green card holder? There are American citizens who have maybe lived 2 years in the US and have spent most of their lives overseas. There are green card holders and refugees that have spent the majority of their life living in the US and that is all they know. Why should these green card holders and refugees be affected by a policy that again, has no justification? Especially when most terrorist attacks are from American citizens and Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes in their new home country.
     
  4. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    We have federal agencies refusing to comply with court orders.
     
  5. DoriaN

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Canada
    I think a lot of people's views and feelings may differ if everyone understood the doctrine of taqiya and the nature of it, for starters.
     
  6. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    In what precise ways was the current system of background checks and the implicit doctrine of regional profiling an 'unmanageable process'?

    Given no attacks on American soil have been made by people of refugee status from those nations (indeed, no terror events have been committed in the period since 2001 by any of the seven forbidden states' citizens), can you tie the EO to any practical outcomes?

    Green card holders go through extensive background checks as well as taking on a certain set of rights of rights and obligations to the United States. Without being able to prove a direct security threat, can you meaningfully justify why a person whose life is based or partially based in the United States should have those rights abrogated?

    And, especially noting the partial repeal of the EO to exempt permanent residents, is it fair on principled grounds to bar citizens of the named countries from entering the US even if they pass the extensive security requirements? And even if you did think it was fair on principle, is the image it sends to Muslims already ambivalent towards the West's global predominance going to quash or encourage radicalism?

    Is the United States in no way responsible for the vast body of international law and norms which require the communal shouldering of the burden of refugees? If that's the case, then what international norms can the US expect to encourage or enforce?

    If those questions haven't occurred to you, then I think it would be a good idea to rethink the consequences of the EO, including the revisions to moderate it, even if it instinctively makes you feel safer on an emotional level.

    ---------- Post added 30th Jan 2017 at 01:49 PM ----------

    Note that the Islamic jurisprudence behind Taquiya is normally as a measure to preserve Muslims' safety in foreign lands, designed in a time where mutual tolerance of religion between feudal states and cultures could be described as limited, to put it mildly.

    Also note the simple human reality of fleeing your country because of fear of death, persecution or the lack of basic infrastructure and social services, made irreparable by war. That pain, that suffering and that desire to feel safe again probably is more of a factor for the vast majority of refugees than wanting to form a fourth column in American society, if the latter applies to many at all.
     
  7. Assassin'sKat

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2016
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Your head, zombie.
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Yeah, I think this is ridiculous. If you are an American citizen, you should be allowed to come home. Green card holders should be allowed into the country.
     
  8. Runner5

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Kinda ironic though, considering that if most of us went to these countries we could be killed for being gay.
     
  9. AlamoCity

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    Even if one were to agree with parts of the order, one thing the order shows is the utter lack of forethought Trump and his inner circle had, except try to feed the machine that elected him. If he spent even one day debating and tweaking the issue with senior career government officials (i.e. Non political appointee "yes" men/enablers) he woulda made the order more nuanced and defensible.

    Not even the secretary of defense was consulted.
     
  10. EdmontonGaymer

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton Alberta
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    And maybe some of those people want to leave those places because they are gay.
     
  11. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Northern CA
    The next time we get involved militarily in a country, why would anyone living there trust the United States? For instance, We have people who worked with us in Iraq, risking their lives, who we are now going to turn away.

    Even if were it not so completely morally repellent, it's just so incredibly stupid that it should immediately disqualify someone for any position with more responsibility than a toilet cleaner.
     
  12. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Acting Attorney-General Sally Yates has been sacked over her refusal to instruct the Justice Department to defend the EO.

    At present, no person is authorised to carry out the functions of the AG's office. This includes the signing of surveillance warrants.
     
  13. Quantumreality

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    320
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Yeah, that looks like a cheap political shot. She was on her way out once the new Jeff Sessions is confirmed, but it is really sad that she decided to make a political statement instead of doing her job for a few more days.
     
  14. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Directing legal affairs was her job. The office of Attorney General has historically been more independent in the US than other cabinet offices in order to provide a greater check on presidential power. The office, regardless of the occupant's being a member of the President's party, is never supposed to be that of a lackey.

    What's more, not consulting the AG over a legally questionable decision is an incredibly poor procedural move, regardless of her party or the provisional nature of her continuance in office.
     
  15. Quantumreality

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    320
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    True, however, Ms. Yates is a public servant. The whole situation smacks of politics.

    Granted, as you say, she could actually be honest in her statement that she doesn't necessarily believe that President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration isn't completely Constitutional (it is, by the way), in view of the overall hysterial outcry by the left and continued attempts to delegitimize President Trump, her actions appear to be politically motivated.

    Oh, and in terms of consulting the AG, I'm certain that Jeff Sessions was consulted and had input on this Executive Order - as well as every Executive Order that President Trump has signed so far. While his confirmation is being cock-blocked by the Dems in the Senate, he is still President Trump's AG and there is no doubt that he will be confirmed. Ms. Yates was merely a placeholder until she chose to play the political card.
     
    #35 Quantumreality, Jan 30, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2017
  16. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I never said it wasn't political.

    I would rather wait for legal analyses to determine the constitutionality of the EO.

    But even so, the lack of legal or security justification and the complete shutting out the justice department from the decision hardly makes it surprising that she declined to support the EO.

    I find that reasoning insupportable.

    Jeff Sessions is not Trump's AG. Your system of government gives that power only to those the Senate has confirmed and authorised to perform the duties of office. The only person with such authority was Sally Yates. Until Sessions is confirmed, he is not the chief law officer of the land and he certainly doesn't represent the justice department as an institution. If Yates had been consulted she could have presented her views and the legal advice of the justice department, avoiding this mess by giving her an avenue to oppose it in due time.

    Circumventing that process is an unwise and unsound delegitimisation of your institutions of government. It was foolhardy, impatient, actively avoided the proper source of legal advice and resulted in the withholding of vital information from the relevant cabinet member.

    The Democrats have every right to hold Sessions up to scrutiny. Your system of government does not allow the ongoing legislative scrutiny of cabinet members in a regular forum - a long confirmation for a controversial figure is the only form of accountability the Democrats have and it would go against all tradition of responsible government were the opposition to neglect to do so.
     
  17. YeahpIdk

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2015
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    East Coast
    If you believe this "hysterical outcry" is solely from "the left," you're not paying too much attention.

    Do you actually live in MI?? I hope you put as much effort into helping your state get clean water to Flint as you do defending our dear leader. Small community effort is especially important at this time.
     
  18. Quantumreality

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    320
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    True, you didn't say that, but that is what it is. And you still don't deny that that is even a possibility, let alone the reality.


    Insupportable in what sense?

    Ms. Yates was an interim Administrator in a Department that reports to the President of the United States. The President is not required to consult with her (although there is no clear indication that he didn't) and since her position is supposed to support the President (yes, with honest legal advice), she absolutely should have consulted with the President BEFORE issuing such controversial guidance. She owed that to her boss - the President - if she had an honest, legal difference with him. I have seen no evidence that she did that. Hence, it was completely a political ploy, which plays into the media's attempt to portray President Trump as illegitimate, while using disingenuous methods. My point of view.

    I never said that the Democrats don't have a legal and procedural right to hold up Jeff Sessions' appointment. I simply said that they are blocking his appointment from going through the Senate - they can't stop it. Jeff Sessions was a member of the US Senate since 1996 and he has a track record from two years before that as the Alabama Attorney General that Senate Democrats have known full well for decades. There is no research to be done at this point on the Democrat side, only opposition and obstruction. Personally, I wouldn't have chosen him for ANY Cabinet position. However, he is President Trump's choice and he doesn't have any type of criminal background that might exclude him as a viable candidate for AG, so the Democratic opposition at this point is purely protest and only serves to disrupt the establishment of the team that President Trump has designated to support him.

    ---------- Post added 31st Jan 2017 at 12:05 AM ----------

    Actually, yes, I DO live in Michigan and I can guarantee that the clear majority of the people in my community believe exactly that. This is an hysterical outcry by the left who are upset that they can't dictate their ideology to America's heartland because their candidate lost the election.

    Also, yes, I do put a lot of effort into supporting my community, not that it's anyone's business here on EC, since this is a social help site, not a political debate forum.

    Have you ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy that you are engaging in?
     
  19. KyleD

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Spain
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Family only
    How has Trump kept any of his campaign promises? Where is Obamacare Replacement? When is Mexico going to pay for the Wall? How is the ban making America safe?

    Executive orders don´t mean anything if they don´t have a plan to back it up with and from the looks of it there is no plan.
     
  20. Quantumreality

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    320
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone