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. 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 openly admit it was the culmination of a political clash between a civil servant with respect for political norms and a president who regards those norms as dispensable.

    That is the sort of politics I believe any office holder is right to engage in.

    I believe your argument took in the bare minimum of context and had limited regard to the importance of conventional rather than merely black letter constitutional restraints on presidential power.

    Departments report to the President. That is incontrovertible. However, that usually occurs in the context of mutual respect of due process and proper advice. Departments have their expertise consulted in making decisions and the President takes their advice into account.

    That tradition is important in legal affairs. It stops the President from making legal decisions which impact rights arbitrarily.

    All reporting indicates this was made with little consultation with anyone and none with the DoJ.

    This is also vital because the President, unlike a prime minister, answers to no superior. He must willingly take in the moderating advice of cabinet members and other officials. The preservation of constitutional convention is what keeps a democracy truly open and fair. In the US, the President must be the one to accept those conventional limitations. The begrudging observance of the constitution in its most literal, minimalist form is not enough for democracy to flourish. A level of good faith and restraint is necessary to keep government fair and reasonable.

    Disingenuous methods such as reporting what the President is doing and fact-checking?

    The bar is higher than criminality, come on mate.

    Sessions has an appalling record on racial discrimination and remarkably little policy vision. Questioning him on those grounds isn't an arbitrary blocking. Getting him to justify himself and outline a vision for the DoJ is a clear benefit for public discourse and accountability in a system where cabinet members don't regularly receive opposition scrutiny, about personal or policy matters, which they are obliged to respond to.

    That argument is also a ridiculous silencer, both in itself and if taken to its fullest extent.

    Why should appointments in a confirmation process be unquestioned beyond establishing constitutional fitness for office?

    If the logic is extended, should opposition parties not speak against bills or question executive decisions just because they can't block them or if they have the basic information at hand?
     
  2. YeahpIdk

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2015
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    East Coast
    This portion of the forum right here is for debating politics if they're brought up. If not, why are you talking about them??

    I feel bad for people that divide humans into left and right. Red and blue. Republican and democrat. Learn to see people as humans instead of grouping them. It's why we're in the problem we are right now.
     
  3. 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
    I believe it is mainly a forum for talking about LGBTQ-related news and issues, but regardless, it is definitely NOT a forum for engaging in ad hominem attacks against EC members and their points of view. IMO.
     
  4. 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
    Exactly, and Trump and his team are clueless about what they are going to replace ObamaCare with, Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, and his immigration ban is hurting the American economy. It is clear that Trump´s team is doing this on the fly and it´s all going to blow up really bady in their faces.
     
  5. YeahpIdk

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2015
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    East Coast
    Are you not participating in ad hominem fallacy yourself by classifying everyone arguing this ban, and being against the administration - which is the majority within this posting - by inadvertently referring to them as the left? A phrase that is clearly a dig at someone's intelligence and values from the views of "the right?" Adding insult to injury by calling those who oppose this having a "hysterical outcry," which may as well say temper tantrum. and my, what a simplistic way to look at an extremely complex situation. Then again, you did ask how this ban was actually a problem for Muslim Americans/Muslims in this country. That doesn't read as being terribly aware.

    You certainly didn't need to answer about the community support. I just care about the people in this country, have put some of my own efforts toward your state, and hoped you did the same. :slight_smile:
     
  6. 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

    No. It’s not. I served in the US Government (military) for over 20 years. I know from direct experience, not just military, that the obligation of a civil servant is to, first, try to convince their superiors that a viewpoint/position/decision is wrong either legally or morally. And only then to ‘fall on your sword’ for a legal or moral imperative. What Ms. Yates did appears to be simply a politically driven act intended to create negative Press headlines in a continued attempt to delegitimize President Trump.

    Mutual respect in earned. Ms. Yates was a placeholder. I don’t understand how this applies.

    The President answers to the Constitution of the United States, which ensures checks and balances. He can be countered by either the Legislature or the Courts. An American President is not a dictator, which is how you make the office sound. There are very clear limits on Presidential powers and nothing that President Trump has done in his first week is unConsititutional, regardless of how unpopular much of it is with the radical leftwing.

    It doesn’t matter, ultimately, what Sessions record is. As I said, I don’t like him as a choice for a Cabinet member, but he is the choice that President Trump presented and he is a qualified individual, despite the fact that he holds views that you and I consider unappetizing. He is not a criminal. And, frankly, regardless of whatever influence he tries to exert, he still answers to President Trump – just as Ms. Yates did – and can be fired (or, much more likely in his case, asked to resign). Please don’t forget that President Trump is a social moderate and that he is in the one in charge of the Executive Branch of the US Government.

    The purpose of confirmation hearings for Cabinet members in the US Senate is to allow open, public debate and give the public an opportunity to weigh in against questionable or unqualified nominees. That certainly isn’t the case, as I explained, for Jeff Sessions. Democrats don’t have a debate against him, they are simply delaying his approval in order to disrupt the orderly process of government.
     
  7. YeahpIdk

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2015
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    East Coast
    Is this post LGBTQ related? I feel like it's talking about green card holders and the Muslim ban. So says the title, at least. it seems you're participating in a political debate right now, unless all of these Muslims that are banned happen to be being banned because they're LGBTQ. I don't see evidence of that, though.

    Listen, I'm very sorry if you felt attacked because I stated that I hoped if you did live in MI, you were helping your community and working on small scale political efforts as much as your bigger ones. I'm not exactly sure how that was a personal attack that is warranting the offense you're displaying, but I won't invalidate your feelings.

    I do appreciate getting to say ad hominem multiple times, though. It's a good phrase.
     
  8. 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
    How do you KNOW that?

    ---------- Post added 31st Jan 2017 at 01:20 AM ----------

    LOL! I take it that the definition of ad hominem didn't take with you. I'm sorry about that.

    ---------- Post added 31st Jan 2017 at 01:22 AM ----------

    Good points. Besides the fact that the "Muslim Ban" is a mainstream press fiction.

    Sounds like a good time to bow out of this thread, since it appears that a reasoned discussion is unlikely.:slight_smile:
     
  9. YeahpIdk

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2015
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    East Coast
    It didn't take with me? Lol. I don't know how to argue with that logic.

    Have a good one.
     
  10. 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
    1) A civil servant holding a cabinet position still has the responsibilities of that cabinet position, including an expectation of consultation and the capacity to make public statements.

    2) Without adequate, or indeed any, consultation, it was entirely appropriate to make a public decision after the fact, given the impossibility of raising pre-emptive concerns.

    3) The person who effectively acts as the guardian of the US legal system and chief advisor to the President on legal affairs has a different set of expectations from the average bureaucrat or soldier.

    This ignores the entirety of what I said about the institution of the AG's office. A placeholder doesn't mean the expectation of consultation is void.

    The Constitution is also informed by a set of political conventions that make government more accountable than it needs to be, but which it should be. Furthermore, the Department of Justice, through the Attorney General, is a major adviser on matters of the Constitution.

    The powers of the President are limited by the Congress and the courts. They are also limited by political convention by the consideration of advice from members of cabinet and the acceptance of legal advice from proper quarters.

    The President's actions are not unconstitutional. They neglect political traditions which make the President more accountable. That was my argument, which again wasn't responded to.

    To expand on that, it's important that the President be held further accountable than literal constitutional requirements because;

    a) The Constitution was written with the assumption of liberal-democratic behaviours and convention has been created to fill in gaps where the Constitution doesn't prescribe behaviour, even if they aren't black-letter elements of constitutional law; and

    b) The powers of the President have vastly expanded since the adoption of the Constitution and there are political norms, such as the open and independent advice of the Department of Justice, that exist to reflect that change.

    The Executive Order is precisely the sort of action the DoJ exists to advise against and should have been consulted.

    It is also a deplorable mischaracterisation of the President's opponents to dismiss them as the radical left. The EO is also opposed by churches, much of the legal profession, diplomats and security experts, both academic and in government.

    You should respond to my argument that preserving those traditions is important, not a non-existent argument that Trump has acted unconstitutionally.

    It really does matter what Sessions' record is. Confirmation proceedings aren't just a question of academic qualification and a criminal background, they are also an assessment of policies' worthiness, the suitability of candidates' values within American political life. They will confirm him eventually. They are allowed to continue that process of questioning and given the vital importance of the AG as an independent adviser in a volatile administration, I think that it is imperative that the right to question be exercised.

    And the 'answerable to Trump' bit is exactly what I'm arguing; that Trump needs to accept political norms about receiving advice and due process in order to govern fairly and sensibly. It is precisely because the Cabinet is responsible to the President that the President must accept the political norms I have identified as being ignored in Trump's EO and the process it was pursued by.

    I also cannot comprehend the notion that Trump is a 'social moderate' given what we're talking about in this very thread.

    Open, public debate about the merit of policies and a candidate's record and beliefs are precisely what the Democrats are engaging in. Unless you can demonstrate that a history of racism is not valid to debate in the confirmation of the AG, I'm just not going to buy what you've said.

    And if an independent voice isn't advocating appropriate legal processes, legal policy and security law, then that's an enormous concern any candidate would need to respond to.
     
    #50 Aussie792, Jan 30, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2017
  11. midwestgirl89

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Indiana
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    This ban is a Muslim ban and the evidence is found in Trump's own words and Guiliani's words.
     
  12. GodlyArmadillo

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Madrid, España
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The worst part, where is Saudi Arabia in this ban?
     
  13. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Northern CA
    They're smart enough not to piss off our patron state.
     
  14. dreamcatcher

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    So because I believe in fair news, I've done more research on the topic. Apparently, Trump selected these countries from a list that the Obama administration made of countries that were on the terror watch list. The Obama Administration had already set restrictions for those traveling to those 7 countries but Trump made an official travel ban for those 7 nations. After much confusion, the Trump administration finally said they will allow green card holders back in the country but they will have to be re-screened. As of now, no green card holders who originally come from those 7 countries have been banned from re-entering.

    How the Trump administration chose the 7 countries in the immigration executive order - CNNPolitics.com

    Whether or not you are in support or against this ban, I think we can all agree how incompetent the Trump administration is to have caused all this confusion. The fact that people with legal visas and green cards were affected and separated from families due to a complete lack of clarity is really unacceptable. No Trump supporters have been able to explain to me if a law that supposedly protects our national security is morally justifiable when legal residents of our country were harmed by it. Additionally, this ban is already affecting the way other countries view us as a nation and we already have stringent vetting procedures for Syrian refugees. At what price does "national security" come, especially when there have been no threats on American soil from Islamic terrorists in those 7 nations?

    I would just like to add that while this may not exactly be a "Muslim ban", Trump has said he favors having Christian refugees over Muslim refugees. He says he welcomes Christian refugees because they have been persecuted even though Muslim refugees are often the most affected of all. It is no surprise that people would interpret it that way when he has said he favors Christian refugees. Also the fact that he favors one religious group over another in a position of power, is absolutely terrifying and really goes against separation of church and state.
     
    #54 dreamcatcher, Jan 31, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  15. 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
    There are many people currently in the US military, including some in SF, who are saying the same thing. :frowning2:
     
  16. 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
    By "keep", I mean attempting to keep, starting the process. A train doesn't automatically go from zero to ninety in ten seconds. I never meant to imply that he would be ultimately successful in delivering on any of the goals of his campaign promises. During the campaign he did propose a ban from certain counties, with the goal being to increase safety against terrorism. While it appears he's keeping his campaign promise of the ban, it obviously won't make America safer. In fact I think the reverse is true. All I'm saying with regard to Trump's action is that he is attempting to do what he said, not saying or implying any of it is a good thing. None of what he's trying to do should surprise anyone, other than the timing of it. Many of the people that voted for him did so precisely because they wanted him to do certain things, and he's attempting to do that. It's why I said elections have consequences, or at least they potentially do if the winner actually tries to do what they campaigned on.

    Some of my friends were hoping after the election that when Trump got in that he would basically not even try to do anything he said in the campaign, that he merely wanted the title just to stroke his ego, and that Obama's policies would continue. While this might've been a good thing, it's apparent now that's not happening.

    Anybody remember this parody from during the campaign? The main difference between this and the real news may end up being in the parody it was dated April 2017. At the rate we're going, it may arrive sooner than that. :frowning2:

    Although Trump hasn't sunk the markets yet, if he actually gets the US involved in trade wars, it would be a problem. In fact, college and universities have said to the news media they stand to potentially lose billions of dollars from foreign countries and tuition's for US students will rise thanks to Trumps anti immigration policies.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Northern CA
    People who say it's not a Muslim ban are the same people who think that Jim Crow wasn't racist.

     
  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
    “Muslim ban.”:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

    Top 10 Countries With the Largest Muslim Population, 2010
    Country 2010 Muslim Population % of World's Muslim Population in 2010
    1 Indonesia 209,120,000 13.1
    2 India 176,200,000 11
    3 Pakistan 167,410,000 10.5
    4 Bangladesh 134,430,000 8.4
    5 Nigeria 77,300,000 4.8
    6 Egypt 76,990,000 4.8
    7 Iran 73,570,000 4.6
    8 Turkey 71,330,000 4.5
    9 Algeria 34,730,000 2.2
    10 Morocco 31,930,000 2
    Subtotal 1,053,010,000 65.8
    Subtotal for Rest of World 546,700,000 34.2
    World Total 1,599,700,000 100

    http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables74/

    Countries named in President Trump’s Immigration Freeze:
    Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

    Overlap: Iran
     
    #58 Quantumreality, Feb 1, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2017
  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
    Stop with the alternative facts. 14% of India´s population is Muslim. Trump himself stated he wanted a Muslim ban and is in favor of prioritizing the entry of Christians.
     
    #59 KyleD, Feb 1, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2017
  20. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Northern CA
    No one is fooled by this nonsense, except those who want to be fooled so as not to expose themselves to the blackness of their own hearts.