MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Abruptly Bans All Refugees, Plus Even Legal Green-Card Holders Who Hail From 7 Majority-Muslim Countries (UPDATED)

Move could affect up to a half-million legal U.S. residents

Facts. ||| Pew ResearchPew ResearchLast night, at President Donald Trump's order, the United States stopped taking in any refugees, from any country in the world, for at least 120 days, in the name of "protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry." The far-reaching order, which marks a sharp reversal of decades' worth of American policy, also slashed the annual target for the number of refugees accepted to 50,000, down from the original 110,000 for fiscal 2017 set by Barack Obama, and from the 85,000 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016. (The Obama administration consistently admitted around 75,000 refugees per year; only George W. Bush was stingier over the past 40 years.)

Refugees from Syria—currently the world's largest producer of that unhappy category of humanity—are now banned indefinitely from the United States. (Last year Syria was the second-largest country of origin for U.S.-admitted refugees, at 12,500; this year the target had been 13,000.)

Meanwhile, every traveler from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, unless given special permission, is now barred from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days. (Parenthetical update 1: This now also includes dual nationals who were born in those countries and have since obtained citizenship in any non-U.S. country, such as France or Great Britain.) Amazingly, the travel ban also applies to legal permanent residents who hold green cards but not U.S. citizenship, the Trump administration confirmed today. It's an anguished day in Tehrangeles and other pockets of immigrants—many of them long since assimilated—from the seven disfavored countries.

What might this look like in numbers of humans affected? Pro Publica took a look last night and found:

About 25,000 citizens from the seven countries specified in Trump's ban have been issued student or employment visas in the past three years, according to Department of Homeland Security reports.

On top of that, almost 500,000 people from the seven countries have received green cards in the past decade, allowing them to live and work in the United States indefinitely. […]

Citizens of Iran and Iraq far outnumber those from the other five countries among green card and visa holders. In the past 10 years, Iranian and Iraqi citizens have received over 250,000 green cards.

According to the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration Handbook, these were the number of nonimmigrant admissions (minus diplomats/officials) to the U.S. in 2015 from the countries in question: Iran (34,915), Iraq (20,462), Syria (15,906), Yemen (5,226), Sudan (4,361), Libya (2,662), Somalia (318).

These sweeping changes were implemented so abruptly that refugees and other heretofore legal categories of traveler from the affected countries boarded their planes under one set of rules, only to find themselves detained upon landing. The New York Times and other outlets are filling up with anguished tales from bewildered passengers and their stranded families. Legal fights and executive-order interpretations are certain to follow.

The suspension of consular business as usual will hold until the Trump administration is satisfied that the countries of origin are fully cooperating with whatever "extreme vetting" procedures Washington ends up adopting.

Trump's attitude toward Syrian refugees is one instance where his political base pushed him toward a more harsh position than the one he originally took. On Sept. 8, 2015, he

told Bill O'Reilly that "I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, with what's happening, you have to." The next day, when asked about it by CNN, he sounded a more cautious note, saying "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart." On Sept. 15, he told Morning Joe that "the answer is possibly yes," and then on Sept. 22, Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski declared that a Trump White House would "take in zero" refugees.

Like many restrictionist conservatives, Trump has repeatedly conflated the Syrian refugees streaming through Europe with the far-less "military-aged male" cohort that makes it to the United States. He has mischaracterized the refugee-screening process as essentially not existing, and claimed falsely since the beginning of his campaign that Christian refugees from Syria were barred from entering the United States. To address that latter concern, his executive order seeks to "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." While the word "Christian" is nowhere to be found in the text of the order, Trump emphasized it in an interview last night with the Christian Broadcast Network:

"Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States?" Trump said. "If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair."

Facts. ||| Pew ResearchPew ResearchSince the onset of the Syrian civil war, around 96 percent of refugees taken in by the United States have been Muslim, and 2 percent Christian. This compares to a roughly 87/10 split in the population as a whole. (For one analysis of that disparity, see Christianity Today.) (Parenthetical update 2: Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has a fresher analysis of the numbers and the conditions behind them; please do read it.) Overall, the Muslim share of the U.S. refugee population topped the Christian share for the first time in a decade last year, at 46 percent to 44 percent. It is true, despite critical commentary to the contrary this past week, that the United States always takes religion (and religious persecution, especially of minorities) into account when processing refugee claims. It is also true that Trump campaigned specifically on banning Muslims entry into the U.S., so there is certainly no reason to extend the benefit of the doubt here. And it's hard to imagine that a sharp reduction in refugees from war-torn majority-Muslim countries will translate into a net refugee gain among their Christian minorities.

Trump's order further emphasizes negative characteristics it will screen for that overlap perfectly with the cultural/security argument against Muslim immigration:

[T]he United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation. […]

This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

Will this order make the homeland safer? Reason offers some prior coverage skeptical of the claim. Ron Bailey in November that year assessed the literature and public record of refugees and terrorism within the United States, and concluded:

The researchers at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) have found three cases where refugees admitted after 9/11 have been arrested on terrorism charges. In May 2011, the FBI arrested two Iraqis living in Bowling Green, Kentucky—Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi—for plotting to supply weapons and other material to Al Qaeda in Iraq. As the FBI noted, neither was "charged with plotting attacks within the United States." Both were convicted and are serving long prison terms. […]

[N]one of the ones who were refugees committed a terrorist act on American soil. Second, and more important: None of these people, be they refugees or anything else, were sleeper agents who intentionally remained inactive for a long period, established a secure position, and then struck. None, in other words, fit the scenario being bandied about to justify keeping the Syrians out.

Some related thoughts from Jacob Sullum and Shikha Dalmia, plus some historical refugee fears from Jesse Walker. Ronald Reagan, too, had sharply different ideas than Trump about refugees, which on his watch included plenty of Iranians and possible sleeper agents. Then there's this, from Reason TV:

Photo Credit: C-SPAN

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Illocust||

    The 90 day ban on legal resident green card holders flying in from those countries is an issue. Hopefully they'll let the ones detained go on about their business soon, but everything else seems fairly reasonable. Especially considering the time limits put in place.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    Agreed. The green card thing is quite concerning. The rest of it seems to check all the boxes (limited duration, limited scope). Now, I wouldn't be shocked if they happened to extend the duration a few times. If that's the case, I'll be soured on this program pretty quickly.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Agreed. The green card thing is quite concerning.

    Priebus says that green card holders will be allowed to enter after additional vetting.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Christ, what an asshole. My Iranian friend is getting married, and now her friends from Iran will not be able to attend her wedding.

  • Sam Haysom||

    The convenience of foreign nationals should take precedence over the security of citizens.

    Libertarians should put this in their party platform.

  • Sevo||

    You should fuck off.

  • Not a True MJG||

    It's Saturday; I'm surprised it took Tulpa this long to show up.

  • Lowen||

    With all due respect after that comment, President Trump has been telling the world how he would govern if elected President since about November 2015! Oh and low and behold the election happened and he won 3,084 out of 3,141 U.S. counties which put Billary (thats right Billary with a "B" ) Clinton at 57 counties won.

    Now that you have a President with a backbone that is going to do what he says he will do be careful because comments like the one you made probably puts you in a percentage of folks well enough said.......

  • jasno||

    Right, so it's not population that counts, it's land area?

    Unless we want to go through a Chinese-style cultural revolution, we're only going to keep concentrating in urban areas(the literate folk, anyway). Use whatever stats bring you comfort, but counties won doesn't mean shit to me.

  • Azathoth!!||

    it would if your candidate had won more.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Yikes I thought it was catchy and to the point too, but literally no response but spittle flecked rage- damn I'm good.

  • junyo||

    Oh, so close. But you forgot to add "For The Children" so your appeal to statistical lightning strike just looks stupid.

  • Johnniest Doe||

    It's my understanding that when lightning gets personal (i.e. you personally take the bolt), suddenly statistical improbability matters much, much less. And that's ultimately what this is about. It's not stupid to not want to increase the probability that one of your countrymen (or a crowd of them) is going to be killed by an immigrant who wouldn't have been here if not for the fact that we let them in.

  • Jickerson||

    It's my understanding that when lightning gets personal (i.e. you personally take the bolt), suddenly statistical improbability matters much, much less.

    So what? That has nothing to do with how people who haven't been struck by lightning should feel before they are struck by lightning. If you're going to live your life in fear, then keep it to yourself. You could use this logic to justify mass surveillance or just about any policy that seeks to combat a nearly nonexistent problem. The 'But if X really happened to you, then statistical probability wouldn't matter anymore!' argument is both irrelevant and irrational because it totally misses the point.

  • kbolino||

    Who knew Iranian travelers posed such a threat to U.S. citizens?

    Well, Sam Haysom knew.

    How did he know?

    Well, he just knows.

    But wouldn't travelers from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even Turkey pose a greater threat?

    Uh...

    And yet they weren't banned.

    Let's reframe the issue as being about "convenience" versus "security" where those words mean whatever Sam Haysom wants them to mean.

    Sure, why not.

  • Free Society||

    There's a ticking clock on those countries. Basically all countries that fall short of the basic information requirements for their citizens to migrate are given 60 days to improve their record keeping, after that they get banned or restricted too if they fall beneath the standard, whatever that may be. I expect it will be strict and have the effect of barring much of the third world. This was all in one of those executive orders that was prematurely "leaked".

  • Sam Haysom||

    Temper temper.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Sam Hayson: fuck off, fascist.

  • MarkLastname||

    Where's the security threat exactly?

  • BigT||

    My Iranian friend is getting married, and now her friends from Iran will not be able to attend her wedding.

    Damn! If Obama were still Prez he could bomb the wedding over there before we have to bomb it here!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    So? US immigrations has always been arbitrary and unpredictable, and not just for people from Iran. It seems weird to say the least that this is all of a sudden becoming an issue under Trump when it wasn't an issue under Clinton or Obama.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Relax. Welch is just worried he might have to sit next to a Christian on a bus or something.

  • CZmacure||

    The green card thing, in one word : abhorrent.

  • SomeGuy||

    Yea legal holders are good to go. That is total bullshit!

    Now banning all future refugees? Hell fucking yea! I fucking hate refugees. That video someone posted about mexico and why it is always a shit hole due to pressure release into the US is a prime reason why we need to stop taking in people from shit countries so they can fight out their own issues.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    The end is nigh. Without 100,000 more Syrian immigrants in 2017 this country will go to shit.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Then it was a foregone conclusion, because no one proposed accepting 100k Syrian refugees for this year.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    also slashed the annual target for the number of refugees accepted to 50,000, down from the original 110,000 for fiscal 2017 set by Barack Obama

  • Not a True MJG||

    Thanks for the confirmation.

    Keep reading. It's only a few more sentences.

  • BigT||

    Hey, the target should be a bit lower.. Try ZERO. Why in hell are we obligated to take any of these people? Let Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Muslim nations take them in - they'll blend in better there. We have enough trouble with people from Central America and SE Asia.

  • Lowen||

    Obama proposed accepting 100k Syrian refugees when be blindly opened the borders then had the gall to tell all states not to prevent the illegals from voting....HMMM!!!!!!!

  • Domestic Dissident||

    I know man. What in the world are we ever going to do without all the Muslims terrorists who are willing to cut the throats that Americans are no longer willing to cut?

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, unless given special permission, is now barred from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days

    That is where the all of the 9/11 hijackers and Tsnarnaev brothers came from, so it makes sense.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    If Obama had signed this order in 2008 after he took office, the Boston Marathon, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, and Orlando terrorist attacks wouldn't have happened.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Bravo, Crusty.

  • Trigger Warning||

    SHUT YOUR RACIST WHORE MOUTH. ALL IMMIGRATION IS GOOD IMMIGRATION. SHIKHA SAID.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Yes, the axis of logic revolves between Shikha and Welch!

  • SomeGuy||

    lol god i hate that woman

  • Chip Your Pets||

    If the Know Nothings had won the 1852 presidential election and banned all immigration, none of this would have happened, AND we would never have had to deal with Justin Bieber or Michael Dukakis.

  • Meerkatx||

    Or Trump.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If Obama had signed this order in 2008, the left would have cheered. If Trump renewed it, we are hearing exactly what the left would have said anyway.

  • PTSD||

    You're a dumb fuck. None of the attacks you mentioned would have been stopped, since none of the terrorists involved in any of them actually came from any of the seven nations listed in the executive order. Boston was carried out by Chechens; San Bernadino by Pakistanis; Fort Hood by an American-born citizen; and Orlando by an American-born citizen. The countries that are notably absent from this list are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but that's because it's a lot easier to pick on little ol' Yemen than the Saudis. Typical Trump bullshit.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    You're a dumb fuck. None of the attacks you mentioned would have been stopped, since none of the terrorists involved in any of them actually came from any of the seven nations listed in the executive order.

    That's the joke.

  • PTSD||

    Oh, Jesus, I hope you're right . . . but I'm not so sure that everybody in this comment section is being sarcastic. (Or are they? Maybe Trump is doing this for laughs, too?) A sure sign that one of the problems I'm going to have during the next four years will be trying to differentiate the halfwits from people just pretending to be halfwits. Such a fine line these days . . .

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    I'm not so sure that everybody in this comment section is being sarcastic

    You've not been around here very much, have you? Presume sarc tags on every comment until and unless you can be 100% certain there is no sarc.

  • ThomasD||

    Don't listen to him, he has no idea what he's talking about.

  • Johnniest Doe||

    So, you're saying Trump needs to add more countries to the ban?

    I could see that gaining traction in certain quarters.

  • MarkLastname||

    Aspie alert! Aspie alert!

  • Praveen R.||

    Careful, some people may not get your sarcasm.
    Yeah, isnt it funny how Saudis and Pakistanis are not banned in this order.

  • DesigNate||

    They never are.

  • GILMORE™||

    Weirder = afghanistan either

    i can understand that there is a lot of political sensitivity w/ Pakistanis and Saudis

    I don't really get it w/ the Afghans, who are basically a puppet state propped up by US aid

  • Trigger Warning||

    Afghanistan barely qualifies as a nation-state, and most of its inhabitants are stone-age peasants who don't even care. Clearly, its worth billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

  • ||

    Not finished reading the article yet, but:

    "On top of that, almost 500,000 people from the seven countries have received green cards in the past decade, allowing them to live and work in the United States indefinitely. […]"

    I wasn't aware of this indefinite green card. How does one obtain one of those? I was only aware of the 10 year variety, that has to be renewed.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    That's actually how I'd solve the illegal immigrant issue. Give the illegals an indefinite green card that bans them for applying for citizenship.

  • ||

    Can't agree with you. While I don't agree with all of the current immigration law, it should be enforced as is. I also don't want them 'fixing' it. Who in the hell trusts this government to fix anything. If fix means make worse, then ok. Illegals under current law can be deported and banned for years or even permanently from entering again. Why should they be rewarded for breaking the law?

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    Why should they be rewarded for breaking the law?

    I don't really think they should. I should mention that this "idea" is my pragmatic solution that would make the vote-whoring progs look like complete assholes. However, I don't think the problem gets solved without giving the illegals a way out of the shadows. It also doesn't get solved without a much less penetrable border fence.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Oh, no, progs would take it once you give something else up as a compromise.

    Then, 5-10 years later sob story after sob story about racism, poor chillruns, racism, unfairness, racism, sexism, racism, and somehow your compromise gets slightly amended with citizenship for everyone.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Why wait years when you can scroll up an read Welch's article right now?

  • ||

    Why would they want out of the shadows? They can run around totally incognito with 3 or more aliases and get away with stuff that would give you big problems. Back when Obama was asking them to come in and identify themselves, get documented and on the path to eventual residence, none of them wanted that, no one showed up.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Oh good Lord! Nobody is in any shadows now. Even with television lights on complaining about shadows, with big giant signs proclaiming illegal status.

    The running euphemisms jokes are not euphemisms on this topic. "Undocumented," "migrant," etc.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    Why would they want out of the shadows?

    My experience with illegals is that they really just want to get on with their lives and are willing to go to great lengths to "normalize" their status. Many of them live in fear (whether or not unfounded) that INS is gonna bust in their door and haul them away from their families.

    Interestingly, the most anti-illegal sentiment I've heard comes mostly from legal Hispanic immigrants, and 2nd and 3rd generation children of legal Hispanic immigrants. Many of them either want the illegals to sit in line like everybody else or to pay a massive fine to live here.

    I have very little sympathy for people who hopped the border and are playing the woe is me card. Generally, they have no qualms about fucking grandma out of her tax return by stealing her identity. If you want to get me ranting, get me started talking about my experience at a DACA clinic. They flat out lied when people had forged/stolen SS numbers.

    I have more sympathy for their children. They were dragged over the border by their parents at a young age, and by the time they reach an age when they can make their own decisions, they're either illegally in the only place they've known, or they immigrate back to a country they don't know.

    I'm a "secure the border first" person. However, there is the issue of handling the people already here. I think taking citizenship off the table should be the first step. It takes the political carrot away from the progs.

  • ThomasD||

    That was my experience when I lived in AZ. Those most recent to the country were the biggest sticklers for doing it by the book.

    They also had the most direct knowledge of just how many of those 'hard working; illegals were cutting every corner, and working every freebie angle imaginable.

  • Juice||

    I thought "Green Card" meant permanent resident.

  • ||

    It does. For 10 years.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Yes, after which, most become citizens.

  • Juice||

    It does. For 10 years.

    Uuuuuuh. Ok.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Orwell level euphemisms all the way down bro.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Or until you lose it in one of the many other ways in which you can lose "permanent" residency.

  • Raven Nation||

    Former green card holder here: it is permanent but has to be renewed every ten years. For the renewal you don't have to go through the entire application process again (medical exams, etc.). And, if you haven't left the country during that ten year period, it's pretty much a formality.

    Since you can qualify for citizenship after 5 year of holding a green card, I think the idea is to encourage citizenship rather than using it as a worry-free visa. I had a friend from the Dominican Republic whose mother I lost, or nearly lost, her green card because she continued to live in the DR and used her green card to visit family in the US for a couple of week each year.

  • ||

    "Former green card holder here: it is permanent but has to be renewed every ten years. For the renewal you don't have to go through the entire application process again (medical exams, etc.). And, if you haven't left the country during that ten year period, it's pretty much a formality."

    This is correct. The hitch is, is that it's pretty much like changing your driver's license and you won't typically be denied, UNLESS there's been issues with you during the past 10 years, like a criminal conviction, then it's far from being automagical. That's why I say it's not 'permanent'. It's permanent every 10 years. Also, you have to report to immigration every time you change address, so there's that hassle for anyone who moves around a lot.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Also, you have to report to immigration every time you change address, so there's that hassle for anyone who moves around a lot.

    You also have to report a change of address as long as you owe on a Federal student loan.

  • ||

    Well, at least the DOE have their own swat team now to track down the offenders. So we can sleep sounder at night.

  • But Enough About Me||

    . . . you have to report to immigration every time you change address, so there's that hassle for anyone who moves around a lot.

    Hassle? I s'pose. I don't think it's unreasonable, though.

    Hell, Canadian citizens who possess a firearms PAL have to report a change of address to the RCMP every time they move, regardless of whether or not they own any firearms. It's a teensy PITA, but it can actually be done online in a couple of minutes. I have no idea if the registration process for green card holders is as streamlined, but there's no reason it couldn't be.

  • ||

    I didn't say that it's unreasonable.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, Dutch buddy of mine had to self deport after a DUIs and couple a domestic disturbance meant he was not automatic anymore.

  • ||

    It's not necessarily 5 years. At least not with a marriage based green card. My wife hasn't been here 5 years from entry and she's already eligible. We're rushing to start the process before the Trumpocalypse goes into full swing and he adds green eyed Latin girls to the terrorist list.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's three years for a K-1/CR-1, etc. if I remember correctly.

  • ||

    I think that's right, so one year after completing the 2 year conditional period.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Correct.

  • Atanarjuat||

    green eyed Latin girls

    Congrats to you, sir.

  • Juice||

    it is permanent but has to be renewed every ten years

    Um, well, that's not permanent then, is it?

  • MWG||

    Having been through the process within my own family, it's permanent in the fact that GC renewals are almost never denied. Many GC holder don't even bother with citizenship, because of the minor inconvenience of the process. Having a GC for all intents and purposes is permanent residency.

  • Raven Nation||

    Technically you're correct (which is, of course, the best kind of correct).

    But permanent residency is distinguished from many other categories of work visas which have limited terms and cannot be renewed.

  • grrizzly||

    The status is permanent. The card itself is valid for 10 years, similar to a driver's license.

  • ||

    There's one very important difference in a green card and citizenship, and it's not voting. With a green card, they could deny you re-entry into the country for whatever crazy reason they want to pull out of their ass. With citizenship, they can't do that unless they prove you obtained your citizenship through fraud, and that almost never happens.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, my Dutch buddy could have become a citizen, but flatly refused. He liked his Dutch/EU status, along with the free healthcare. Until it meant he had to load up his family and move them to Europe.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The Netherlands don't have "free healthcare", not even in the socialist sense.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I wasn't aware of this indefinite green card. How does one obtain one of those? I was only aware of the 10 year variety, that has to be renewed.

    There you go messing up the Cosmotarian flow of this Publication of Record.

  • SupportYourRights||

    None of this was going to be easy or convenient for anyone but because of the lack of the past administrations actions it was overdue. We cannot be the world's police or the world's bank account. We have too many of our own problems that need fixing to do so.

    Bleeding hearts eventually bleed out and we're dry when it comes to that.

  • Praveen R.||

    If we are going to do this like this, yu might as well pick the worst countries and the idiots didn't do that. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

    On a serious note, I do think we have the right to profile refugees. But the way this administration is doing it seems for publicity than a serious analysis on who we need to bar.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    I don't pretend to have the answers for this, but I was under the impression that the whole kerfuffle was about bad people taking advantage of the humanitarian response to the "instability" in certain ME countries to sneak into Western countries and cause mayhem. To the extent that this is the goal, I think that banning Saudis and Pakis is outside the scope of the program.

    I'm a bit leery about this program (I don't think 90 days is going to stay at 90 days), but I think it would be worse if it were broadened to include nations that weren't currently destabilized by ISIS (I do see that Iran is on the list and doesn't make this criterion).

  • Johnniest Doe||

    Could it be that the current "idiots" paid attention when the bad guys over there told the world that they had operatives in the Syrian refugee stream? Or were you talking about "the idiots" in 2016 who named Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen as "countries of concern" in that immigration law?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The truth sometimes is inconvenient. I heard it from Al.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Meanwhile, every traveler from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, unless given special permission, is now barred from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.

    Who is in charge of the "special permission" and how hard is it to get?

    The details on this are really light. Is that because there isn't much available or because the press is scrambling to cover it?

    What does a restriction on green card holders signal from a military or diplomatic standpoint?

    That is pretty shitty to just flip a switch on people who have already gone through naturalization. Or is it because the order is vague and people at the lowest level are enforcing this specifically to create lawsuits and protests? I wouldn't put it past political opposition activists to do that in this climate.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Who is in charge of the "special permission" and how hard is it to get?

    One of the people detained was a translator for the 101st Airborne division for 10 years in Iraq and already had a valid visa. If that doesn't meet the "special permission" bar, then the term is essentially meaningless.

  • westernsloper||

    Ya, that is fucked up. Those guys should be at the front of the line. Hopefully that gets addressed and fixed.

  • But Enough About Me||

    Agreed. In fact, the whole green card inclusion seems a bit baffling to me. From everything I've heard and read about getting a green card (other than the lottery), the process seems quite onerous. Is it not considered sufficient "filtering" of a person?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why do you hate make-work for the DHS and allied organizations, BEAM?

  • But Enough About Me||

    'Cause I used to work for their Canadian analogues back when I was younger, more foolish, and desperate for a steady income.

    Hates 'em all, I tells ya! ;-)

  • MWG||

    The green card inclusion makes sense if you consider the fact that Trump is doing all this by the seat of his pants. I was reading today that Obama sent EOs through a series of lawyers be even being made public. Trump OTOH...

  • MWG||

    *even before being made public

  • ||

    Those same lawyers lost like 9 Supreme Court cases or something similar.

    More than any other Presidents is for sure.

    Regardless of the actual numbers I'm just saying Obama"s lawyer aren't the best.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    But he's a constitutional lawyer!

  • westernsloper||

    That is pretty shitty to just flip a switch on people who have already gone through naturalization.

    I don't think green card holders have gone through naturalization. That makes you a citizen. As far as I know, a green card is a work permit/visa.

    I have had work permits for numerous countries, and very well knew that said "permit" could be revoked at any time as I was not a citizen of that country.

    There are parts of this that I do not agree with, but the US is by far not the most assholy nation on the planet as far as letting people in. Even after this.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    I don't think green card holders have gone through naturalization.

    I'm under the impression that they're quite hard to get, particularly for those who don't speak English or have particularly compatible cultural values with America. I'm probably playing a little too loosely with that word at any rate.

    US is by far not the most assholy nation on the planet as far as letting people in

    Are there crickets in Saudi Arabia, because I seem to be hearing them from that direction. Refugees, you say? Wealthy nation that is an ally of America? *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Oh great. When Trump stopped funding abortions, PM Zoolander decided to posture, as is his custom.
    Who the fuck knows how he's gonna react to this, but I can predict I'll have his stupid gormless face preening everywhere for next week.

  • ||

    Government forced abortions? And if you're not pregnant, then you're forced to get pregnant so you can have an abortion. Lena Dunham most excited.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    No clue what you're talking about, but why not post some Eddie bait?

    Spain to extradite FARC abortion nurse

    Spain has agreed to extradite to Colombia a former Farc rebel accused of carrying out 300 forced abortions on women fighters, some of them underage.

    I thought all the abortions were underage?

  • ||

    I was trying to parody Zoolander. Maybe I failed, but at least I tried!

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Fuck, I'm gonna have to rewatch it, since he runs my country.

  • ||

    Kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia! That movie is hilarious. Merman.. MER MAN!

  • John Titor||

    "Yeah, Mugatu's a dick! He brainwashed Derek to kill the Claymation dude!"

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

  • Ted S.||

  • Charles Easterly||

    I had an idea that one of you referred to Ethel Merman.

    Chipper's link was to what seemed to be a disturbing movie, as is the scene I'll link to here.

    A bit of trivia: I understand that it was the actor's idea to (try to) sing in the idiom of Ethel Merman.

  • The Fusionist||

    "Forced abortions" - i.e., forced on the mother - violate the stated principles of the pro-choicers. Thus, choicers are in theory in favor of prosecuting forced abortion so long as it isn't done in such a way as to concede the personhood of the unborn child.

    I say "in theory" because when there are bills in this country requiring abortionists to check for signs that the mother is being forced into an abortion, choicers scream that this is an intolerable threat to reproductive freedom, etc.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I say "in theory" because when there are bills in this country requiring abortionists to check for signs that the mother is being forced into an abortion, choicers scream that this is an intolerable threat to reproductive freedom, etc.

    As they should. If Democrats posted a bill saying that gun dealers are required to check for signs that a purchaser is being forced into making a straw purchase, do you not think gun rights advocates wouldn't suspect it's primarily intended to inconvenience legitimate buyers?

  • The Fusionist||

    Ah, yes, the Second Amendment is just like the Abortion Clause - both are indisputably in the Constitution, and they stand or fall together.

    And there's just as much evidence of forced straw purchases as there is of forced abortions.

    /sarc

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And there's just as much evidence of forced straw purchases as there is of forced abortions.

    That was kind of my point.

  • ||

    Sometimes, Stormy, I mean just sometimes, you should actually do some fact checking on yourself before posting stuff.

  • The Fusionist||

    "When I was 17 I found out that I was pregnant and told my parents, who objected to me having a baby and said that I was having an abortion like it or not. After much mental anguish and threat of physical abuse, my parents said that I could keep the baby. Two weeks later, my mother woke me up and informed me that the decision had been made that I was getting an abortion. She told me to get up and take a bath. I sat in the bathtub with a razor in my hand with my mom yelling at me to hurry up, we had to go. After my bath, all hell broke lose because my dad saw me crying. He yelled, called me names, and said that if I didn't go get this taken care of, he would take care of it himself....

  • The Fusionist||

    "I did a lot of thinking in there. I was angry and still looking for a way out of this clinic without my mom killing me or me killing my baby, but they had not one time left me alone without my mother. I remember feeling like they knew I could/would not speak up with her right there. Then a nurse came and got me and took me to the room to "get this taken care of," as they put it. This was the first time that my mother was not by my side. I immediately told the nurse that I did not want to do this, that I was scared of going home not pregnant, explained past abuse and such, and asked her to help me.

    "She said "If you really don't want to do this then we can have someone take you to another clinic across town. They will do it against your will if you want." All of this was happening so fast, they were having me strip and put on a gown, and she was prepping to give me the IV. I had no idea was coming. I looked at the vacuum they used. I was scared. I just knew she was going to go tell my mom what I had said, then my dad would find out, so through my tears I said, "No, I have to. Do it.""

  • The Fusionist||

    "Abortion is often a woman's last choice but her abuser's first choice. Thirty to 60 percent of American women having abortions describe pressure from others as a key reason for having an abortion.(1,3,4) Many report that they submit to unwanted abortions only because of abuse.(4) Pregnancy increases the risk of abuse (5,6) and homicide is the leading cause of pregnancy associated deaths.(7) Also, among pregnant women, the focus of partner physical abuse shifts from the face to the abdomen.(8)"

  • The Fusionist||

    OK, your turn - provide your evidence of forced straw purchases.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    There aren't forced straw purchase. That was my whole point. Such a bill would be an attempt to use a non-existant problem as an excuse to hassle people voluntarily doing something the authors don't like. Same with the abortion bill. It's not actually about stopping forced abortions, it's just an excuse to hassle people getting voluntary abortions.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Thirty to 60 percent of American women having abortions describe pressure from others as a key reason for having an abortion.

    Isn't this the same argument that leads to the SJW's nearly everyone's been raped conclusion? Vaguely defined "pressure from others" isn't the same thing as force.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Uh...stormy, gun dealers are required to look for signs of straw purchases, forced or otherwise. One of the most common straw purchase scenarios involves a boyfriend pressuring his girlfriend with a clean record into buying the gun for him.

  • The Fusionist||

    Let's narrow it down:

    "Many [women] report that they submit to unwanted abortions only because of abuse. Pregnancy increases the risk of abuse and homicide is the leading cause of pregnancy associated deaths."

  • Jickerson||

    Surveys are entirely unconvincing and most people here would reject them in just about any other instance, so I see no reason to use them now. Anecdotes are similarly unconvincing. Is there any hard evidence that women being forced (not just socially pressured) into getting abortions is a significant problem? And even if there is such evidence, that still doesn't justify harassing people who want to get an abortion simply because it's possible that they could be coerced into getting one.

  • marshaul||

    Anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not "statistics". I do not find the presented anecdote compelling.

  • But Enough About Me||

    If Trump forces Canadians to watch Zoolander more, that in itself is sufficient reason to despise the Cheetos Messiah. AAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!

  • John Titor||

    In his book Trudeau goes on about how being against abortion is not a Canadian value, because the Canada that lives in Trudeau's head is the One True Canada. So at least he's being consistent in his stupidity. The fact that he later said that Canada has no set values or culture, not as consistent.

  • But Enough About Me||

    Shorter: "Trulander's a dope."

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    every traveler from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, unless given special permission, is now barred from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days

    How many of the countries on that list did we unilaterally murder-drone last year?

  • Zero Sum Game||

    That is a good question. Decades-long policy has fueled the terrorist recruitment machine and one might expect the greatest "gains" in angry jihadis would come from countries targeted the most by said policies.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    True, with the exception of the previous 1300 years, Islam was peaceful. Then bam! Drones were invented followed by Beirut and 911.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What does that have to do with the simple fact that if you kick an anthill, you risk ants crawling up your pant leg?

  • MWG||

    Nothing HM, absolutely nothing.

  • John Titor||

    Especially when they're bloody fire ants.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Isolationist!

  • ||

    Not sure about the last year, but I'm pretty sure all of them at one time or other. We should stop doing that. But it also doesn't mean that we should let them come here and kill us.

    Bomb them all and import the survivors. The Cytotoxic immigration solution in one sentence.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    But it also doesn't mean that we should let them come here and kill us.

    I didn't realize that had been happening.

  • ||

    So the guy who drove a truck into a crowd in Ohio was not a Somalian refugee? Just wondering, maybe it's all fake news now.

  • MarkLastname||

    So next time a guy from Michigan kills someone in Ohio the logical conclusion is to do background checks in everyone coming from Michigan?

    "This one guy from that one country did a bad thing" isn't a good argument. In any 100k people from any country, at least a couple are bound to be murderers.

  • John||

    If it isn't, then bombing doesn't cause blowback does it? Pick a fucking talking point and stick with it Crusty.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Pick a fucking talking point and stick with it Crusty.

    That is unfair, John. He's not asking questions in bad faith, and maybe he doesn't really know where he stands on everything. Questions are a good way to work that out.

  • John||

    His positions are inconsistent. They just change based on the circumstances with no regard to the larger picture.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    We helped create the refugee situation, and then we refuse to help those caught up in a situation we helped create, and I think that deplorable.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    We didn't create any refugee situation. To some extent, our idiot leaders did.

    If anything's deplorable, it's expecting the American people to "help those caught up in a situation" and letting GWB, Obama, and all the others actually responsible for it skate.

    I'd be totally on board with sending every official from the Bush and Obama administrations who had a part in this mess to Aleppo tomorrow. That would be taking responsibility for creating the situation.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    I ask questions from a devil's-advocate standpoint all the time. I sometimes say controversial things specifically to draw people out and make them examine their own beliefs (and see if my own stand up to scrutiny). It's healthy to experience challenge from time to time. I may not be very nice in my tactics when provoking an argument, but I try to be as fair as possible while in one. Wanna shit on me for it?

    If he were a trolly little bastard asking questions in bad faith just to piss people off and not actually interested in real debate, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But he's not.

  • paranoid android||

    If he were a trolly little bastard asking questions in bad faith just to piss people off and not actually interested in real debate

    Ironically, this is what John does all of the time, or at least what he claims to be doing when he gets called out for saying something monumentally stupid.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I may not be very nice in my tactics when provoking an argument, but I try to be as fair as possible while in one.

    Funny, you immediately started insulting me when I countered your argument below.

    If I didn't know better, I'd think you were one of those faux-sophisticates who claims to be detached and open-minded, but once seriously opposed lashes out like a child.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    That is how terror works, after all. Your neighbor might be a perfectly nice person or a sleeper agent awaiting activation or someone currently being radicalized. Since there's no way of knowing, some people are going to assume the best and some are going to assume the worst. A rational person is going to conclude that there are probably much greater legitimate threats in their lives, but people are not as rational as we would hope.

    America has obviously been experiencing fewer terror attacks than Europe, but we also hear about them and don't want to import those problems if we can help it.

    I don't know what the right policy is, but I sure don't think blocking green card holders is it. I am definitely against large Islamic enclaves forming in America simply because it is so evident how damaging that has been in Europe. Slow and steady path to naturalization is the prudent path. Not all believers in that faith are insane fundamentalists, but the faith itself does present naturalization challenges to the West in general, as Sharia is undeniably popular and absolutely incompatible with freedom.

  • ||

    Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle. But I think the correct way to assess the risk of Islam to Western culture is how many Muslims who are coming in are in favor of Sharia law? Sharia is completely incompatible with Western law and society. Just something I'm throwing out there. One doesn't have to run around preaching jihad and blowing stuff up to hold hostile views towards Western society. I'm guessing that the jihadists are a very small minority in the percentage of Muslims who would like to see Western society destroyed and replaced with Shariah.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    I prefer not to look at the immigrants themselves but the outcomes for their children as they adapt to American values. Do they learn English? Do they learn American civics? Do they express choice in the expression of their beliefs (i.e. wear a hijab because they want to, not because someone will hurt them if they don't)?

    I don't want enclaves because those encourage immigrant communities to refuse adaptation to our way of life and especially slow their children's adaptation to it. We don't have enclaves where Irish or Italian or German are exclusively spoken. We do with Mexican Spanish speakers, and it is doing them no favors. The test of compatibility is in whether children desire freedom in all things and achieve mobility in the economy.

    What are the inter-generational outcomes? That is what should drive policy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We don't have enclaves where Irish or Italian or German are exclusively spoken. We do with Mexican Spanish speakers, and it is doing them no favors.

    Back in the Ellis Island days, in pretty much every major Northeastern and Midwestern city I can think of, we certainly did. Ethnic enclaves are fueled by continuous immigration. Little Italy, Germantown, etc. were places where a non-English speaking immigrant could spend time getting on his or her feet before attempting to improve his or her lot in life. We don't have a lot of immigration from Europe anymore, so the utility of such neighborhoods have faded. But we still have plenty of Chinatowns, Koreatowns, Little Indias, Spanish Harlems, etc. Why? Because we still get plenty of Chinese, Korean, Indian, and Hispanic immigrants.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    places where a non-English speaking immigrant could spend time getting on his or her feet before attempting to improve his or her lot in life

    Yep, that really is the key though, isn't it? Do they attach to the teat of welfare and remain in their enclaves, or do they use small enclaves as a springboard to adaptation? People were afraid it would happen with immigrants from the various European countries, as is obvious from the recorded rhetoric employed at the time, but that didn't truly materialize.

    There are too many Mexican people who stay Mexican in all their ways for the entirety of their lives here. Plenty of such enclaves here aren't springboards out into the surrounding culture but rather mires to get trapped in, beholden to outside interests who want to keep them where they are and, more importantly to those interests, voting Democrat.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I would argue that Mexicans are a special case due to the proximity of the two countries. The pressure to assimilate isn't felt as much when you can visit the motherland on weekends.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Heh, and getting deported to your home country means putting a fucking ocean between you and your desire to return. It is a good point. Given that it is a special case, wouldn't that necessarily require a special solution for it?

    I would much rather Mexico makes itself into a country that people don't want to flee and America return to providing opportunity instead of welfare. It's better than an expensive wall at any rate. If those things are off the table, for whatever reason, does the wall become a legitimate solution?

    I'm opposed to it because the wall represents the growth of the state, and the better solution is grounded in shrinking it anyway.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    So, we just eat shit in the interim?

    Obviously not.

    What I mean is that the how much acceptance we should have for adults is contingent upon the outcomes with their children. What already happens? Do young girls raised by immigrants here face genital mutilation? If they take off their hijabs because they don't want them, will their fathers beat them? If they convert to another religion or become atheists, what is the response? Do the kids end up well-adjusted, free Americans, or do they yearn for Islamic totalitarianism?

  • PTSD||

    I'm not sure that most American-born citizens learn English, learn American civics, or express choice in their beliefs. Most are functionally illiterate, ignorant sheeple.

  • marshaul||

    I have quite a number of friends who are second-generation Muslim immigrants (I went to Virginia Tech, where they are numerous). I can't speak for their parents, but none of them have ever expressed any interest in installing Sharia law. In fact, most of them don't really follow it more than eating halal – some of them don't even go that far, and merely avoid eating the expressly haram. And the rest – the ones who eat bacon – are effectively not even practicing Muslims at all, at least within the context of this discussion.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    A rational assessment of risk isn't just what are my chances of dying. You could release every serial killer that ever lived and it would barely move the needle of your own chances of dying.

    Muslims have a tendency to jihad, therefore less muslims equals less jihad. Since we have absolutely no need for them the risk vs reward is only beneficial if you're looking for voters. I'm not.

  • ||

    Looking for voters is 100% of the reason why Democrats are so pro-open borders. So, good point.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    That is factually incorrect. Democrats want open borders for humanitarian reasons. Sure, there are some election operatives that see that as a benefit but most immigrants would not be voting for 10 years or so and I doubt most election operatives thing that far ahead.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we didn't have the example of how the Democrats used Tammany Hall from 1840 to 1960.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Since we have absolutely no need for them

    We don't have an absolute "need" for freedom of speech or the right to bear arms or a number of other freedoms we take for granted either. North Korea manages to eke out a living, even if it is a hellish one by our standards.

    Mind you, I'm don't subscribe to the SJW nonsense position that culture is somehow universally good and having more of it around is better for everyone. Cultures can be objectively inferior to one another, as you have pointed out.

    But I think your "need" criterion is ill-defined, practically to the point of meaninglessness. It wouldn't work in a realistic discussion of economics, and perhaps that's the best way to look at things: an economics of cultural value. What adds to humanity and what subtracts from it? On the balance, I agree with you that Islam makes the world worse off, even more so than other religions, but I also refuse to engage in the collectivism needed to look at people as a class in that way. Certainly they aren't entitled to a life here, and it is not unfair to question the motives of those who do seek it.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    But they're explicitly listed in the Constitution so your point is moot.

    Perhaps you missed the point.

    Humans are remarkably adaptable to even the shittiest environments. From terribly oppressive political regimes (North Korea, Cuba, etc.) to sanitation (the rivers of shit flowing outside some Afghani settlements) to survival of circumstances (whether you could bear to eat people if your plane crashed in the mountains) all the way up to deciding if you need a smart phone for your job. What "need" means can vary widely in definition, which makes it exceedingly difficult to use as a basis for a solid argument since what's in your head may not be what is in mine.

    I encourage taking the Socratic method to the idea and try to define "need" in a way that could be a universally acceptable concept for inclusion or exclusion of groups of people in a society based on whatever arbitrary criteria you choose. I think you'll find it a difficult exercise.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Holy shit, ZSG, you are a total sophist. You're going to tell us what words we are allowed to use now?

    The fact that a word's meaning varies depending on the context does not make it illegitimate to use. Nobody here is confused about what the original poster meant by "need".

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Holy shit, ZSG, you are a total sophist.

    Au contraire. I'm trying to avoid sophistry. Ironically, the eponymous sophists were Socrates' (and Plato's) ideological foes. He specifically dragged people into arguments using the ambiguity of their word choices in order to devastate their arguments with their arguments.

    Also, I didn't tell anyone what words to use. I merely pointed out a quagmire in that one.

    Crack open a book on philosophy before entangling yourself in an argument that you're clearly ill-equipped to participate in. If you can't tell the difference between sophistry and the Socratic method, which was devised specifically to defeat it, there's little to be said in your defense.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I wrote sophist, not Sophist. I'm not saying you are Thrasymachus or any other villain from Plato's fables, just a modern-day utilizer of dishonest rhetorical tactics playing with the meaning of words.

    Everybody here knows what the original poster meant -- but rather than engage his argument, you attacked the use of a word, the meaning of which everybody reading the comment understood. That is sophistry.

    Your continued spewing of insults marks you as the one who belongs in the philosophical kiddie pool, not I.

  • MWG||

    It's a particularly nasty form of collectivism. Taking the choice of "needs" of the individual and giving the power to the government to determine what "we need". Luckily Trump is really smart and he knows what "we need".

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Taking the choice of "needs" of the individual and giving the power to the government to determine what "we need".

    I have never heard of an individual US citizen claiming that they need more Syrian refugees to enter the US. So yeah, I think it's safe to say it's not an individual need.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    I guess you haven't paid attention to the shrieking of the left of late. Either that, or you're just really shitty at rational argument. I think I'll go with the latter. Quit while you're behind.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    You have a link to an individual leftist claiming an individual need for more refugees, I assume. Could you share it?

    Considering you responded to a rational argument with nothing more than an insult, it doesn't appear to be me who's lacking in the rational argument department.

  • MWG||

    Um, individuais who own businesses perhaps, or do you think the refugees have no specific skills to speak of?

    In this episode of PM a German business owner makes that exact case:

    http://www.npr.org/sections/mo.....ats-arrive

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I don't think refugees have specific skills as refugees, no. If they did have economically useful skills they could immigrate through normal means.

    Perhaps you could summarize the case made by the business owner, as I'm not watching a random flipping video.

  • MWG||

    "If they did have economically useful skills they could immigrate through normal means."

    You really don't know shit about how legal immigration works in the US, do you?

    "Perhaps you could summarize the case made by the business owner, as I'm not watching a random flipping video."

    The case he makes is irrelevant to your original point. The fact is, there ARE people making individual arguments for the needs for refugees, but feel free to move those goal posts.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    We don't have an absolute "need" for freedom of speech or the right to bear arms or a number of other freedoms we take for granted either.

    Yes, we do.

    And comparing not allowing refugees from shitty parts of the world into our country, to rescinding the bill of rights for citizens, is so intellectually dishonest it is nearly beyond comprehension.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Missing points left and right, I see. Willful ignorance isn't a virtue, sir.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    The un-self-awareness is strong with you, ZSG.

  • marshaul||

    Rights do not derive from the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution, enumerates, articulates, and legislatively preserves a small handful of obvious rights and freedoms. This is affirmed by Jeffersonian theory and the Declaration of Independence.

    Regarding the semantics, one does not "need" anything other than food, water, some exercise, maybe a little sunlight. Interestingly, one does not have a right to food, or water, though presumably exercise and sunlight are natural rights. One has a right to produce or collect or work to obtain food and water, certainly, but one does not "need" to do these things for their own sake (for instance, a person given all the food and water he could need would not "need" even these freedoms). From this we can conclude that "need" is entirely irrelevant to the determination of right, and by extension to the justification for government intrusion on personal freedom.

    So, for you to compare his refutation of a "'need' for freedom of speech or the right to bear arms" to "rescinding the bill of rights" is either demonstrative of such philosophical, historical, and legal ignorance as to summarily disqualify you from any serious debate, or is of such utter mendacity as to be " intellectually dishonest it is nearly beyond comprehension".

  • marshaul||

    ..."so intellectually dishonest it is nearly beyond comprehension."

  • MarkLastname||

    By that same logic we should ban blacks too since they commit more honicedes per capita than Muslim.

    Is this really what passes for an argument in your circle?

  • GILMORE™||

    All except Iran and Sudan(AFAIK)

    I think Iraq you might argue its not 'unilateral', or that its done at the behest of the locals. not so much elsewhere.

  • John||

    So it is your position that anytime the US bombs somewhere it causes blow back and terrorism? Right?

    And it is undeniable that the US has bombed those countries. Right?

    So, you would also agree that our bombing of them produces terrorism and blow black. Right? We did bomb them and that does cause terrorism.

    So now explain to me again why banning people from countries you admit are prone to terrorism against us is a bad idea.

    Thanks a lot Crusty. That might be the best score on one's own goal I have ever seen on here and certainly the most artful one.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Were you not there for the Chicago Serbian Reign of Terror? Do you think it's a coincidence the city with second largest Serb population in the world is the one in the grip of "horrible carnage"?!

  • John||

    Look Pan,. Muslims are sacred. They are even more sacred than the gays, though not as sacred as the transvestites. No Muslim ever did anything wrong or engaged in any violence that victim of which didn't have coming to them.

    Forget it Zagloba, its Reasontown.

  • John Titor||

    Look Pan,. Muslims are sacred. They are even more sacred than the gays, though not as sacred as the transvestites. No Muslim ever did anything wrong or engaged in any violence that victim of which didn't have coming to them.

    You know John, maybe you should actually argue with people's actual arguments, not post childish strawmen that just make you look like a cunt.

  • Ted S.||

    Look like?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    But he is kind of a cunt. John engages in continuous ad hominems against the people with whom he argues, and he makes it sound like he is doing them a favor by pointing out that their inability to reason or see things from his, the correct, point of view, makes them mentally deficient.

  • John Titor||

    I know, but I'm trying to point out that he'd probably be more successful at actually, say, discussing the issue if he came off as less of a raging cunt. Screaming "OH YOU JUST LOVE MUSLIMS HUH YOU WANNA KISS THEM AND HAVE THEM FUCK YOU" is the dumbest argument against blowback I've seen.

  • John Titor||

    And for the record, I'm a guy who wants to enforce immigration law, have restrictions to refugee populations from predominantly Muslim countries, prioritization of Christians, and think blowback is more of a secondary cause of Muslim radicalism than a primary. I'm closer to John on this issue than most libertarians and I think he's a bloody embarrassment.

  • John||

    I think you are a humorless prick John. Do I think Reasonites believe that Muslims are sacred? No. But the point of the insult is to show the double standard. The same people on here who shit their pants over "fundies" in this country will bend over backwards excusing and defending some of the most barbaric people on earth.

    If your limited imagination prevents you from understanding that, well it sucks to be stupid I guess.

  • John Titor||

    Yeah John, screaming the same idiotic statement every time is just hilarious, and you have to be humourless or stupid not to appreciate your wit. Thanks for that brilliant insight into comedy there Amy Schumer.

    No. But the point of the insult is to show the double standard. The same people on here who shit their pants over "fundies" in this country will bend over backwards excusing and defending some of the most barbaric people on earth.

    Hey look, another shitty, dishonest strawman. What a surprise.

  • John||

    How is it a strawman? Don't use a word unless you can explain what it means.

  • John Titor||

    Considering you've screamed your hilarious joke at people who you don't know the opinions of, or have opinions contrary to the idiotic tripe you're spewing, yeah, it's a strawman. You're fundamentally unwilling to listen to other people's arguments, and just make up your own imaginary positions to attack.

    "THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD BELIEVE BLOWBACK IS A THING IS IF YOU LOVE MUSLIMS."

    "Actually, no, there's a complex dynamic going on here that..."

    "SHUT UP, YOU'RE ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT FUNDIES."

    "...I didn't say anything about fundies, and you don't know my views on them..."

    "DOESN'T MATTER, YOU LOVE MUSLIMS."

    Yep, not a strawman at all John.

    Don't use a word unless you can explain what it means.

    Yes John, we get it, your favourite counterargument is "YUR STOOPID". Be more creative.

  • John||

    "Actually, no, there's a complex dynamic going on here that..

    What complex dynamic. Either it is real or it isn't. It doesn't have to account for all terrorism but it has to account for some or it is not true. You saying complex dynamic is just another way of saying that you can't explain what you are talking about.

    I didn't say anything about fundies, and you don't know my views on them...

    I am not talking about you. I am talking about the board in general. I was explaining what the exageration was pointing out. It was never about you personally.

    Again. go find me an article in reason critical of Muslims. I am still waiting. And you still don't know what strawman means. You jut use it as an all purpose "I don't like what you said but can't explain why".

  • John Titor||

    I am not talking about you. I am talking about the board in general. I was explaining what the exageration was pointing out.

    Yes, you collectivize everyone's opinions into an idiotic strawman that is not representative of what they're actually arguing. That's my bloody point, don't pull out how 'the board' believes this or that because it's bullshit. You make up an imaginary strawmen and then say that's what 'the board' believes. You spew bullshit about how noble you are for telling people what they should really think while being totally ignorant of what they're actually saying.

  • ||

    To quote Zero Sum Game above, John is "a trolly little bastard asking questions in bad faith just to piss people off and not actually interested in real debate". He's not interested in discussing the issue, just throwing shit and insults or having people mirror his opinions back at him.

  • John||

    I point out the unbelievable hypocrisy on this board. And it being the truth, it doesn't go over well. Casual bigotry and gross generalizations are expressed every day on this board about Christians. Those very same people then excuse and do everything they can to overlook the barbarity of Islam. Remember the rapes on New Year's Eve 2015 in Cologne? The same people on this board who shit their pants over the evil Fundies in this country spent weeks trying to deny that it was Muslims who were responsible despite enormous evidence to the contrary. When Muslims commit acts of terror and barbarity, it is always because of "blow back" for something we have done. It is never because of any moral defect of their own. But when Christians fail to change their beliefs to embrace groups who hate them, well that just shows how they are the problem in this world.

    The people on this board are infested with leftist culture and multicultural bullshit. And they will never get any better unless someone is willing to point it out.

  • John Titor||

    And they will never get any better unless someone is willing to point it out.

    Yeah, John, your Messiah complex is totally warranted, keep telling yourself that.

  • John||

    I am still waiting for that article critical of Islam John. Does one exist? And instead of throwing insults, how about you explain how anything I said was wrong? Do you not think there is a double standard on this board for how Islam is treated versus Christianity? If so, then try explaining why. I would be curious to hear.

  • John Titor||

    I'm not throwing insults John, I'm pointing out your justifications for your shitty behaviour.

    Do you not think there is a double standard on this board for how Islam is treated versus Christianity?

    Uh, given that I've seen a lot more comments about how Muslims are barbarians and backward as opposed to Christians on this board, no?

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Casual bigotry and gross generalizations are expressed every day on this board about Christians.

    Lol. Look at me, I'm persecuted!

    ♫ Come down. Get off your fuckin' cross. We need the fuckin' space to nail the next fool martyr. ♫

  • John||

    Zero Sum Game is there a double standard or not? If not, then explain why because it sure looks that way to me. Do you have a response to that? It doesn't appear you do.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Yeah, we all appreciate your self-martyrdom and understand what you sacrifice by coming here to put up with our obviously horrible, unenlightened, blasphemous masses. Which of your body parts shall we display when your sainthood is rightfully approved?

    Not a distraction from the fact that you're losing arguments left and right at all. If only you could have been named Job instead of John and filled with the faith he had to be able to endure this wickedness.

  • John||

    How am I losing the argument. Saying "you have a martyr complex" doesn't answer the question of whether the board has a double standard. Again go find me a place where Reason was ever critical of Islam. And compare its constant excuse making for murder and terrorism committed in the name of Islam with is condemnation of Christianity for having the nerve to not believe in Transgenderdom or want gay marriage. That is a double standard.

    If you don't think it is, explain why. Calling me a martyr doesn't answer the argument. And yelling "you are losing the argument" doesn't make it true, especially when it is obvious you can't make an argument yourself.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    answer the question of whether the board has a double standard

    Nobody gives a shit. Really. Not even germane to this discussion in any way whatsoever.

    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
  • John||

    Nobody gives a shit. Really. Not even germane to this discussion in any way whatsoever.

    So yes there is. Thanks for admitting the argument. Now tell me again how I am losing the argument? You know the argument you just conceded.

    Thanks for playing pal.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Saying "nobody is fooled by your distraction" isn't in any way a concession. You get plenty of support even from those nasty atheists in your favorite circlejerks 'round here.

    Will you arise three days after the spear pierces your side and float away into the sky, oh martyred one?

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    It's amazing what you an extrapolate from one observation.

  • John||

    Its called deductive reasoning. You should try it sometime. Meanwhile, are any of the affirmative statements I made untrue or not in concurrence with your views? If so, feel free to correct me. If not, then the logic leads where it leads.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Playing along with your theory, why are we just limiting refugees from those countries? Surely then refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, and even Saudi Arabia should be banned as well, so why weren't they included?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Shhh, Crusty. John is 100% consistent in all his views and it is the source of his pride. Do not assail that castle.

  • John||

    Yes. I am.

  • John||

    They should be as well. Where did I ever say they should not be?

  • ||

    It no doubt causes blow back. Is that the prime motivator of Jihad? Probably not, but it definitely causes more sympathy for the cause and increases potential recruits to jihad.

    So the NeoCon/Hillary side of the debate think the solution is bomb the shit out of them and bring the survivors here. AKA, the Cytotoxic rule.

    My opinion is stop bombing them and stop allowing them to immigrate until the dust clears and we can see what happens. I think this is pretty close to what Trump is saying.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    My opinion is stop bombing them and stop allowing them to immigrate until the dust clears and we can see what happens. I think this is pretty close to what Trump is saying.

    Trump is going to stop bombing those countries?

  • ||

    Let's see what happens. I'm not making predictions either way. But Trump is far more likely to do that than Hillary would have been.

  • Homple||

    We forget that crashing planes into high rise office towers full of people also causes blowback. If the Jihadis had started small, say with a San Bernardino and worked their way up through Fort Hood and the Florida night club shootup and then pulled off 9/11, we might have been inured to their stuff and been more inclined to put up with it.

    As it was, they succeeded with a really big one early on and got people seriously riled up.

  • John||

    Yes. But again. Muslims are sacred and the only ones who ever have justified anger around here.

  • ||

    I agree with you, shreek. Of course I'm being serious and you're trolling.

  • Praveen R.||

    So if you are an iranian kid and your dad went to iran for a visit, they will bar him for 90 days from reentering the country? What if he is on the plane today? And you are waiting to pick him up? Are the aiport customs officials educated on what to do with these cases? I have no issue with putting stricter controls on high risk demographics entering the country. But once they get a green card, is it reasonable to have those on trips be inconvenienced this way? I don't mind if they do an extra screening at airports and have their social media checked out.

    I have no problem for a brand new applicant put on hold for 90 days or further notice.

    Just as the DEmocrats were pandering to illegal immigrants(moreso Hillary than obama as there were a large number of deportations under the Obama administration, but for fear of angering some of his political base they did it in a low key manner), now we go in the other extreme.

  • ||

    I agree. If they already have a green card, they should have already been heavily vetted. Crikey, my wife and I had to reveal out entire life history with a stack of evidence 20 ft high and it took nearly a year. I'm pretty confident that if she would have been involved in terrorism or even suspected of having those sentiments they would know it. I mean, they surely know every other minute detail about us, so how could they miss that?

    Hopefully they straighten that out soon.

  • John||

    If you are an Iranian green card holder, you are not making many trips to Iran. If you do, getting our of Iran is going to be a bigger problem than getting back into the US.

  • MWG||

    This is most certainly not true. Knowing a few Iranians myself, they travel just fine between the two countries and they hate the regime in Iran.

  • John||

    Those Iranian hostages Obama just paid ransom for, were all American citizens born in Iran. Any American IPR or citizen who goes to Iran is just asking to be held hostage by that regime.

  • MWG||

    How many citizens or GC holders in the US go to Iran on any given year? Iran is not arresting people traveling there en masse. You don't know what you're talking about.

  • John||

    They are arresting all of them. But any American who goes there is taking an enormous risk.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    They are arresting all of them. But any American who goes there is taking an enormous risk.

    If only that were true.

  • MarkLastname||

    And everyone who gets on a plane is just asking to get flown into a building.

    Oh wait, just because it happened to some people who do it, doesn't meat it doesn't not happen to the vast majority of people who do it!

    Consider this your remedial lesson in logic for the day.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Refugees are instantly granted access to all social-welfare programs.

    The resettlement agencies that place the refugees are almost entirely funded by the Feds.

    Libertarian Moment!

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    There's no "might" about it.

  • MWG||

    Not to defend welfare, but you're an idiot if you think it's welfare that's bankrupting the US.

  • Christophe||

    That depends on how broadly you define "welfare". If you include the umbrella of middle-class entitlements, it's a big chunk of the problem.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If you mean explicitly Welfare spending probably not, if you mean all entitlement spending, it actually is a significant portion of all Govt. spending.

    Though, from what I have seen it isn't immigrants taking the largest portion of that.

  • MWG||

    This is true, but in the case os SS, for example, illegal immigrants support the program to the tune of... $14B a year, don't quote me on the number. I'll go find it. Be back in a sec.

  • MWG||

    Ok here it is: http://www.seattletimes.com/na.....t-benefit/

    "In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, employers reported wages of $72.8 billion for 7.7 million workers who could not be matched to legal Social Security numbers."

    Some of those workers are Americans who made mistakes, but SS officials believe the majority was paid by illegals.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I will attempt to be brutally honest here, I don't know what level of imbalance I would have to see there before I started blaming certain groups of people for Entitlement issues rather than it being a systemic issue. Something core to the idea of entitlements. Practically I can say that it's interesting if Illegals are paying in more than they are taking out, but even if it were the opposite, I would say that's a symptom of the problems with the entitlement system rather than a cause.

  • MWG||

    "Practically I can say that it's interesting if Illegals are paying in more than they are taking out, but even if it were the opposite, I would say that's a symptom of the problems with the entitlement system rather than a cause."

    I totally agree.

    I think the point I'm poorly trying to make is that using the welfare/entitlement state as an excuse for restricting immigration or refugees is, in my opinion, is generally used in a disingenuous way.

    I highly doubt the Trump supporters or Milo above, would be for more immigration sans teh welfarez.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    I wouldn't call himself a Trump supporter, but I would be all for "open borders" if it weren't for the welfare state.

  • MarkLastname||

    This is why some Republican lawmaker (come on Rand) should propose sweeping loosening of immigration restrictions coupled with sweeping cuts to entitlement eligibility.

    I think most illegals, having jobs, would take that deal. They get INS off their back in return for less welfare.

  • RAHeinlein||

    The illegals aren't paying - their employers are paying. Any illegal with sense is claiming full deductions/EIC-eligible so are paying ZERO.

  • marshaul||

    Nonsense. If a job is worth $15k, and the employer has to pay $1k in taxes, then the employee will only be payed $14k. An employer isn't suddenly gonna start a charity for illegals and the fedgov because the latter passed a law requiring them to pay a tax on employment.

    Employees absolutely do pay for the taxes assessed on their employment.

  • ThomasD||

    So now the goalpost has shifted to what is "bankrupting" us???

    How about, welfare is wrong because welfare is not remotely libertarian.

    Open borders or a welfare state. Choose one.

  • Henry Buttal||

    I've been told repeatedly the last four years that we have a safe and efficient immigration service with speedy processes that ensure no undesirables make it into the country among all these immigrants and refugees.
    /Sarc

  • ||

    Has anyone accused Putin's Russia of being a great bastion of freedom?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Glen Greenwald?

  • ||

    Well, why doesn't he trade places with Snowden? I bet Snowden would really like to be in Rio right now, instead of hanging out with Putin.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    a) Brazil has to offer Snowden refuge
    b) Snowden has to be sure he will be able to get from Moscow to Rio without getting collared on the way.

    b) is a huge sticking point - IIRC Snowden made a deal with Iceland(?) at some point, but didn't follow up on it, because he couldn't be sure plane wouldn't be diverted to a location where he would be arrested and extradited.

    Yes, Putin could put some pressure to get him on a Russian Army Tupolev and fly him to his preferred destination, but having Snowden in Moscow is much more in his interest.

  • ||

    DAMNIT, I KNOW THAT! I was just trying to be a smartass! *runs sobbing from room*

    *comes sulking back*

    If Trump was really smart he would pardon Snowden now, close Gitmo, and deschedule Cannabis. That would be the end of the left, they'd commit mass suicide. WIN/WIN.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Yeah, he's not that smart. He'd sooner denounce gold leaf decoration than treat Snowden as anything but a traitor.
    I'm not as concerned about his action as many are, but on WoD, police brutality and security state I expect him to be worse than Obama. Or Bush, for that matter.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    While that's the common leftist smear now and was the common smear from the right after Snowden, from what I see Greenwald has the rather sensible position of "Russia sucks but why the hell do we need to antagonize them over everything?"

  • John||

    Why isn't Russia experiencing terrorist blowback as a result of that? Could it be that fear deters terrorism and groveling encourages it? Who could have guessed that?

  • ||

    They've been experiencing it for decades.

  • MWG||

    Seriously?

  • John||

    they have had terrorism but it has been Chechens not Syrians. They have been bombing Syria for two years. Where is the blowback?

  • MWG||

    How many years after the US established a military presence in Saudi Arabia before 9/11? Oh right, you don't actually believe the reason Osama Bin Laden gave for attacking the US.

    Also, you really think Syrian SUICIDE terrorists aren't attacking Russia out of fear?

  • John||

    That and lack of ability. How many Syrian refugees has Russia accepted?

    None

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2016/0.....n-refugees

    But the US accepting them creates no risk of terrorism Right?

  • MWG||

    Brilliant move of the goal posts there John, but you forgot to delete your original comment:

    "Why isn't Russia experiencing terrorist blowback as a result of that? Could it be that FEAR DETERS TERRORISM and groveling encourages it? Who could have guessed that?"

  • John||

    I didn't move the goal posts. They are not experiencing blow back because there is no such thing. These people want to kill all of us. They either have the ability to do it and do it or they don't. Blow back has nothing to do with it. It is a fucking bullshit fantasy invented by self absorbed retarded Westerners.

  • Christophe||

    He didn't say whose fear. Clearly he meant that Russia's fear of Syrian terrorists led to lack of refugees, which led to lack of attacks by Syrians.

  • MWG||

    Oh, he meant the fear the Russians instill in the terrorist, but he was merely asking a question, not making a definitive statement.

  • ||

    The Russians have terrorists right on their border and have had serious problems with that in the recent past. So I'm guessing that killing lots of potential terrorists is not something causing a great degree of empathy from most Russians.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well, you see, No.

  • The Fusionist||

    Well, it seems Trump took a good idea and screwed it up.

    Certainly, we don't have to admit so many refugees. And it's perfectly understandable that Trump wants to prioritize the kinds of refugees who are less at risk for becoming security threats, especially in light of this:

    "Since the onset of the Syrian civil war, around 96 percent of refugees take in the United States have been Muslim, and 2 percent Christian. This compares to a roughly 87/10 split in the population as a whole."

    Yeah, because Muslims are more persecuted than Christians in Syria. Something's off here, and good on Trump for trying to correct it.

    Likewise delaying admissions from countries of concern - a good idea, like Trump said, until we figure out what's going on.

    Of course Trump then has to go and hassle green-card holders - these are not strangers to the country like those applying to come for the first time. Green-card holders have already gone through a preliminary vetting and probably have legitimately established connections to the U.S., including family, jobs and residences - all of which they should not be arbitrarily stripped of.

  • ||

    Well, it seems Trump took a good idea and screwed it up.

    The story of government.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know if I'd even give it that much credit. Most of Government was never a good idea, poorly executed.

  • Praveen R.||

    I dont think Trump intended it that way. But some idiot in his inner circle was delegated this since Trump is too busy tweeting.

    I personally have no problem scrutnizing refugees more to avoid recurrence of Europe's problems.

  • The Fusionist||

    "Like many restrictionist conservatives, Trump has repeatedly conflated the Syrian refugees streaming through Europe with the far-less "military-aged male" cohort that makes it to the United States."

    Wait, are you saying that Europe has some kind of migrant crisis? Because Reason recently did a post about how migrants were *not* a problem for Europe.

  • John Titor||

    For employment specifically, but tis down the Memory Hole Eddie. Just like that article (by Dalmia I think?) about how not letting refugees in radicalizes them towards the West, because entitlement.

  • Slammer||

    What's the Left's problem? Trump wants to ban bigots from coming in.

  • MarkLastname||

    They should've billed this as part of the Violence agai st Women act and then accused leftists who oppose it of misogyny

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Amazingly, that includes legal permanent residents who hold green cards but not U.S. citizenship, the Trump administration confirmed today."

    That was wrong.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Do you mean morally or factually? Because if you mean the latter, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security has stated on the record that the order applies to green card holders:

    www.reuters.com/article/us-usa.....SKBN15C0KX

    People holding so-called green cards, making them legal permanent U.S. residents, are included in President Donald Trump's executive action temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, a Department of Homeland security spokeswoman said on Saturday.

    "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    This is the moment I've been afraid of ever since I heard Trump on the campaign. He speaks in terms far too broad to recognize any nuance, even in cases where the particulars should matter. Now he's taken broad action that is just plain wrong in how broad it is.

    I have no issues with putting a moratorium on accepting refugees from Syria until you can do some internal reviews on federal departments and get a handle for what is happening. When you cite religion as a particular impetus, however, you're violating the very spirit of the first amendment. Now people are being punished for the simple crime of not having earned US citizenship, even though they've gone through the greencard process.

    If you're not going to give preferred status to people who have gone through the difficult process of being legal immigrants, you are GREATLY incentivizing illegal immigration. Might as well break the law, since following it doesn't yield you any benefits.

  • Homple||

    "When you cite religion as a particular impetus, however, you're violating the very spirit of the first amendment."

    When religion is a particular emphasis, then it's idiotic not to recognize the fact. As far as the First Amendment goes, we would be fully justified to limit the free exercise of a religion that performed human sacrifice so I can't see why we can't cast a dubious eye on one whose adherents have an above average propensity for blowing people up.

    And, no, I don't like indiscriminate bombing any more than you do,

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What if the person offers themselves up for human sacrifice?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    That's a bit of a straw man argument. I'm willing to recognize any religion that does not require violating the natural rights of others. There are 5 pillars of Islam (Islam as a broad faith), and they are all nonviolent and indiscreet.

    If you are willing to recognize the natural rights of others, regardless of faith, you're okay in my book.

  • Homple||

    Tell that five pillars stuff to ISIS. I'm sure they will listen to you, O Imam.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I support not bringing refugees here from places that are rife with anti-American terrorism--for that reason alone.

    But declaring people's green cards suddenly invalid sans a declaration of emergency powers is wrong in all sorts of ways.

    For one, setting the uniform rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress like declaring war. If those people achieved residency by way of Congress' rules, then the executive has no right to interfere with that.

    There are due process considerations, etc.

    Bad move, Trump. That's the way to screw up a good policy (restricting asylum seekers) with bad execution (banning people who already have green cards).

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Matt updated: Parenthetical update 1: This now also includes dual nationals who were born in those countries and have since obtained citizenship in any non-U.S. country, such as France or Great Britain.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Extending the restriction further does not seem to imply that Trump was just speaking too broadly to begin with and might massage the results.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Will this order make the homeland safer?"

    Where's the risk analysis in this cost/benefit equation?

    The security risk of rejecting an asylum seeker is zero.

    However small the risk is of accepting, it's higher than zero.

    There are thing we can do for refugees that don't involve bringing them to the United States.

    If we call an ambulance for a homeless guy that's bleeding to death, that doesn't mean we have to take him home when he gets out of the hospital and let him share a bedroom with our daughter.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Doesn't this apply to any civil rights violation?

    The security risk of arresting every libertarian is zero.

    However small, the risk of leaving them free is higher than zero.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We have may have a moral obligation to help people who would die without it, but that doesn't mean we're morally obligated to put ourselves at risk.

    Meanwhile, the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The legitimate function of foreign policy is to protect our rights from foreign threats, and our asylum policy should reflect that.

    Whether the government should protect the rights of convicted arsonists is a different question from whether the government should bring people who may be arsonists from foreign countries to come live in your neighborhood.

  • John||

    Sure it does. But the civil rights of Americans outweighs those of refugees. Our governments owes its citizens respecting their rights. It owes the refugees nothing.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You owe refugees the right, absent probably cause of wrongdoing, to go about their business peaceably, the same right you owe all people.

  • John||

    No it doesn't. They have absolutely no right to come here absent the permission of the people who live here as expressed by the government. End of story.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Oh cool. Do we get to vote on what rights we think you should have too?

  • John||

    The right to cross borders is not inalienable. No one but a few transnationalist nuts think it is. You can't explain why it is other than you like it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Do you think its inconsistent to have a natural or inalienable right tied explicitly to accident of birth?

    Because you seem to be describing inalienable rights in terms of how much people agree with it.

    For instance, "The right to cross borders is not inalienable. No one but a few transnationalist nuts think it is."

    In this you explicitly tie the idea of what is and is not an inalienable right to how many people hold an opinion. Which seems to contradict the idea that the right is inalienable.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    In this you explicitly tie the idea of what is and is not an inalienable right to how many people hold an opinion.

    No, he's making an appeal to popularity, it's different.

    Also, crossing a border is not an inalienable right. Free transit is not a right, it's a "positive right." For the same reason that I can't come chill on your couch without being invited, an immigrant can't come chill in a nation without being invited. Government isn't magic, and property rights don't magically disappear just because the government is the owner of the property. Government is an (deeply flawed) assembly of people (as in 1st Amendment free assembly), and just like a company, a family, or any other free assembly of people, government can exercise a right of exclusion on property it owns.

    The question of whether the current immigration policy is a good one is a completely different question, but open borders is a direct repudiation of the property rights of assemblies of people.

  • Homple||

    Getting tired of this "I want it, so it's a right" shit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The civil rights of Americans outweighs those of refugees."

    I don't see it that way.

    The refugees that Obama agreed to take off the Australians' hands after the Australians refused to let them into Australia, why do we owe them anything?

    Not bringing people here to the United States and resettling them within our borders is not like giving an arsonist a fair trial.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    (Parenthetical update 2: Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has a fresher analysis of the numbers and the conditions behind them; please do read it.)

    Yes, Matt. Everyone should read the "fact-check" as a fine example of moving goal posts, swapping hypothesis mid-article, comparing apples to oranges, and general unmitigated cuntery.

    He said that "if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States." Is this really the case?

    Tell me, WaPo Fact Man, is it?


    Christians, in other words, represent less than half of 1 percent of the refugees admitted, even though they make up about 5 percent of the Syrian population, according to the Pew Research Center.


    So, yes. End of article? Oh no, here he comes with a windup


    But this is a case where figures can be misleading. Let's look at the numbers for Iraq, whose refugees register at the exact same offices in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and other countries maintained by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.


    Why? Why for cock's sake are we fact-checking Trump's statement about Syrian Christians by looking at Iraq?

  • Pan Zagloba||


    In the case of Iraq, Christians represent nearly 8 percent of the Iraqi refugees, even though they only make up less than 1 percent of the Iraqi population.


    Because they are deliberately targeted for extermination? And watch the ball here - previous set of numbers is refugees addmitted to the US. The set of numbers here is refugees processed by UNHCR, before US even starts making decisions.
    Then there is paragraph after paragraph of "We don't know why, we swear we don't discriminate, maybe Syrian christians just don't like US".

    Verdict: Two Pinnochios, Trump lied.

    After Vox and HuffPo, can now WaPo be added to the O'Keefe Rule? It's a very sensible rule, don't treat activists as unbiased sources.

  • John Titor||

    "Even though Jews only make up one percent of Germany, they are applying for emigration at an accelerated rate compared to the general German population."

    -WaPo factchecks 1935.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    One more thing that is not clear is whether Iraq numbers include poor, foolish assholes who worked for the US forces or not. That might spike the number, since it's a source of applications Syria lacks.

  • John||

    And tell me again how Reason doesn't treat Muslims with a double standard compared to how they treat everyone else? Reason fucking loves Muslims the way Progs fucking love science.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    The fuck does reason have to do with Muslims in this instance? And for that matter, WaPo?
    They were a handy club to beat Trump with. If he said something about left-handed pipe fitters, or video game soundtrack composers, WaPo would crap out the same article.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yeah, it's strange how Reason seems upset no matter whose rights Trump is violating.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    "They" above refers to WaPo. Matt wrote a much better piece, and wasn't particularly emotional or looking to score short-term political points.

  • John Titor||

    Forget it Pan, he's rolling. The John 2017 comedy tour is starting today, his act is just two hours of him screaming about how everyone loves Muslims, and then he calls the audience stupid if they don't laugh.

    There's currently a debate going on as to whether it constitutes a form of psychological torture.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    The John 2017 comedy tour is starting today

    I'd like to scalp my ticket, which I somehow managed to receive by mistake. Any takers?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    God help me, I usually like John, but when he gets a bone in his jaws, there's no stopping him.
    His comedy tour, though, sounds just like a reverse Rick Mercer act. Maybe we should double bill them?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Parenthetically, I also went into comments on WaPo article. John's most deranged post would be in top 5% by quality there. God fucking dammit, that was painful.

  • John Titor||

    God help me, I usually like John, but when he gets a bone in his jaws, there's no stopping him.

    It's like Berserkergang, but for Keyboard Warriors.

  • Ted S.||

    I figured he has a bone through his nose.

  • MWG||

    John's shtick began before Trump had even sealed the nomination. 90% of his appearances here are so he can bitch about Reason and why libertarians don't agree with him even though he's not a libertarian.

    I can't remember where i heard it, but didn't John first appear around these parts to extol the virtues of Bush and his genius plan for going to war in Iraq?

    It's amazing the shame has never led him to pull a Tulpa and change his screen name.

  • John||

    I was in the war in Iraq when Bush had his genius plan. And I was here before that. And go fuck yourself MWG. You have never been right about anything.

  • MWG||

    Fuck you John. You are the red Tony of the commentariat. Many people here knew it before this election cycle, but the way you've held Trumps dick in your mouth the last 6 months should confirm it to anyone who doubted it before then.

  • John Titor||

    "IT'S JUST A STUPID JOKE GUYS, YEAH, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE JUST HUMOURLESS PRICKS."

    *Constantly screams how Reason loves Muslims at every chance he gets, even with stuff that has nothing to do with bloody Reason*

  • John||

    John, go fine me one article reason has ever published that is critical is Islam or Muslims. I would like to see it. Here we have the most oppressive and barbaric religion on earth and as far as I know reason doesn't bother to directly criticize it.

    Am I wrong? Have I missed one? If so, show me the link. If not, explain why reason criticizes every religion on earth except Islam.

  • John Titor||

    Yes, as long as Reason isn't sufficiently hyperbolic about the horrible Muslims John, I know you'll throw a temper tantrum. In fact, you will forever throw a temper tantrum unless everyone all agrees with you.

    Hey look, Reason recently gave a conservative writer an open platform to pimp his book about how ISIS is true Islam. Must be because they all suck Muslim cock right?

    If not, explain why reason criticizes every religion on earth except Islam.

    I was unaware of Reason publishing screeds against dozens of major world religions, or even theological criticisms of Christianity? Perhaps you'd like to point them out John? I'm really interested in their libertarian criticism of Taoism.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm really interested in their libertarian criticism of Taoism.


    Have you ever read César Guarde-Paz?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's interesting. I will give that a read. My minor readings of Lao Tzu actually gave me a very libertarian feeling at points, and then some older writing I saw discussing the freewheeling nature of Taoism versus the responsibility emphasized by Confucianism was pretty interesting.

    One thing that really pushed me towards libertarianism was how these kinds of debates and discussions about how one can live, can happen much more freely and naturally without a Government force attempting to sweep people in a specific direction.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    Hey look, Reason recently gave a conservative writer an open platform to pimp his book about how ISIS is true Islam.

    I'm avoiding jumping into this particular moshpit, but the only reason Reason invited Brad Thor to do an interview is because he speculated about assassinating Trump and there was a whole thing about it.

    *Sprints away*

  • John Titor||

    And that's fair point, but if Reason furiously masturbated to the idea of how wonderful and pure all Muslims are, as John 'jokingly' says, why would they give an anti-Islamic critic an open platform? It's almost like they disagree with John's assessment of the situation, and maybe there's some discussion to be had about it. Nope, screaming about how they all love Muslims until they unquestioningly accept John's viewpoint, that's the talk of the one sane man.

  • John||

    And that's fair point, but if Reason furiously masturbated to the idea of how wonderful and pure all Muslims are, as John 'jokingly' says, why would they give an anti-Islamic critic an open platform?

    They gave him an interview. And it was mostly about his status in the Never Trump movement. That is why they gave him a platform. It was right before the election

    They gave an interview to a guy who hated Trump who also happened to say a few bad things about Islam. Big fucking deal. And Islam is kind of a big deal. How come they can't seem to criticize Islam after a terrorist incident?

  • John Titor||

    So John, if a Christian anti-abortion group murders a doctor or blows up a clinic or what-not, you will be totally fine with Reason writing a long rant about how this totally indicates how monstrous and backward Christianity is and how Christians are barbarians?

    (Calm down Eddie, I'm not saying this seriously)

  • John||

    What did Reason have to say after Islamic maniacs murdered the staff of Charlie Hebdo? Lets see

    t is this moral sheepishness, not Muslims, which Charlie Hebdo blames for Brussels. Where its editorial talks about the "veiled woman" in our local town or the baker who refuses to serve ham, it isn't blaming these ordinary Muslims for terror; it's simply asking if we should be allowed to have open, critical debate about their cultural habits, about the veil and other things. Where the editorial says that something like Brussels cannot happen "without everyone's contribution," it is talking about Europe itself, not Muslims. It is talking about "the dread" of open debate, "the dread of being treated as an Islamophobe or being called racist," which, it says, makes public life in Europe less open, less honest, and more prickly. It's right.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....s-to-blame

    It wan's Islam that murdered those people. The real problem is PC culture. Islam is forever blameless in Reason land.

  • John||

    Waiting for another shot here John.

  • John Titor||

    I'm still waiting for you to post all those articles critical of all religions except Islam John.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    why would they give an anti-Islamic critic an open platform?

    Trump assassination. Enemy of your enemy and all that.

    Anyway, FTR, I don't think there's some massive bias towards Muslims and against Christians. But a few less-extreme points could probably be made.

    I'm sure Shikha probably does exhibit that particular form of bigotry, as she comes close to just straight-up "Fuck whitey" at times.

    And Reason has been relatively quiet on the forced-association issue for gay weddings and freedom of religion for abortion providers. I'm not saying there has been zero coverage. But the impression that there is some bias can be forgiven.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    I should add that the purpose of the wedding cake example was that it could be construed as one of anti-Christian bias.

  • John||

    Compare the tone of this article about Muslims not being able to immigrate to the constant throat clearing and equivocation of Shackford's articles about the gay public accommodation cases. Muslims not allowed to immigrate is a massive threat to all civil rights. Christians being sued out of business for not making a wedding cake is a bad thing that Gosh darn it reason wished hadn't happened but what can you do?

  • John Titor||

    Shikha's just plain scummy, and I offer up no excuses for her.

    But if John thinks the comments are more anti-Christian than anti-Muslim he's bloody nuts. There's at least weekly discussions about how "hey, look at this scummy thing happening the Muslim world" followed by plenty of comments negative or critical of Islam. I've never seen an open "kill the Christians"-type comment, but plenty for Muslims. Christianity gets off extremely light in Reason comments, and more often than not gets a positive review. Unless you count Hihn, and you're an idiot if you do so.

    But nope, the board all secretly loves Muslims.

  • John Titor||

    Hey look, an actual argument with merit. Pay close attention, John.

  • John||

    That is not an article John. That is an interview. That is not the same as publishing an article. Interviewing someone is not the same as having a staffer write something. An interview never implies endorsement.

    Try again. Find me an article where reason criticized Islam.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Am I wrong? Have I missed one?


    Yes.

    Though, we all might have had better things to do than read reason in 1989.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Holy fuck, Daniel Pipes?!

    Damn, that's like...I dunno, having Pamela Geller or Mark Steyn article today.
    Though they also had a Bruce Bawer thing for Draw Mo day, didn't they?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Although, playing with the tool WaPo linked, "Catholic" is for some reason separate category, which makes the number of Iraqis Christians even higher. Kinda weird to keep Christian, Catholic and Greek Orthodox separate categories, but, bureaucracy has its reasons, I guess.

  • Episteme||

    Don't the official categories still basically stem from the 1952 list, when Catholicism was still a social other and there remained fears about the relationship of Orthodox Christians and the Soviets (following Stalin's allowance of the Russian Orthodox Church and its satellites to return to open practice under state influence)?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Possibly, given the spelling of "Moslem" in the same tool. I wonder if Shia/Sunni categorization was added later, or someone at the time actually cared enough to research it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Damn, you beat me, I wish I had seen this post before I added an addendum to my already late first post.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wonder if those are internal categories that Iraqi government keeps itself. I think its actually kind of recent, even in the US to conflate all these different religions as "Christian."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And, by kind of recent, I mean post-WW2 recent. So, recent on a geological scale.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I still hate these fucking systems that rate truth on a non-binary scale. If you have to break a statement up into smaller truth statements, rate each of those as true or false. Don't summarize. That's not how truth works. Disagreeing with someone over non-objective criteria doesn't make their statement more or less factual. That's just outside the realms of pure objective true/false statements.

    It puts forth this ridiculous idea that anything can be reduced to a true/false statement, and thus proved from some first principles. Someone tell WaPo about Russell's Paradox and then tell them to fuck off.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    And now rethinking it, why Iraq for comparison? It's a place where applications have been going for years (so more relatives and sponsors), demographics are different, and US has far closer connection than with Syria (above mentioned poor fuckers who helped the US and are now fucked because of it). And if you have to compare, do, I dunno, Somalia or Sudan as well, to see if you can find ways to reduce noise?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And of course, now we also see the real problem with the melodramatic virtue signalling of the last three months. Now that there's something concrete that needs to be fought, there's no way to really turn up the public outcry.

  • John Titor||

    Perhaps if they scream fascist a bit more, this time it will work.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Yep. And all the people taking their "We Welcome Refugees!" signs for another spin aren't going to help. Even if you're yugely in favor of the refugee program, that is not the angle you want to take here.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    They could easily get support from the other side by focusing on the ridiculousness of including green cards or the fact that the countries who have actually exported successful terrorists to the United States are conveniently left off in favor of the countries we bombed to hell under Obama and Bush

    But nope. Refugees and the picture of the dead kid are the most likely approach

  • John||

    The country voted for Trump because they didn't want any more Middle Eastern immigrants. This is nothing but Trump gaslighting his opponents into taking an unpopular position.

    You really think Trump is worried about the Democrats running against him in 2020 on the position "Trump didn't let enough Syrians in the country"?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I mean...no, that's the exact opposite of what I was saying, but I guess you chose the easier argument to beat up on

  • ||

    The leftists don't give a shit about that. Their agitation is a time-proven strategy for gaining power. That is all they care about.

    Like a child that holds his breath to get what he wants they will keep it up until they get what they want or pass out. I am hoping people have had enough of their shit and let them go back to the fringes where they belong.

  • John||

    Live sucks like that. Trump is the luckiest man with his enemies in a very long time. Beyond that, it doens't matter. No one who voted for him will not because of this. This is what they voted for.

  • MarkLastname||

    It's like inflation in the 70s. The fed thought it could fix the economy by turning up inflation, but everyone got use to it and expected it, and adjusted prices accordingly.

    We are living in the age of outrage hyperinflation

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Update: the detainees are also being denied access to legal counsel

    Iraqi man, a former U.S. Army translator, released as another national remains detained at JFK Airport

    Attorneys for Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, speaking in the arrivals hall of Terminal 4, said they were blocked from meeting with their clients.

    President Trump signs executive order targeting refugees
    Relatives of the pair, who were traveling with valid visas, "are extremely emotional and saddened by what this country has done to them," said attorney Julie Kornfeld.

    "We are going for over 12 hours now," she continued. "We have not been able to see our clients. (Authorities) are aware we're here."
  • John||

    He could always get on the plane and go back to Iraq. He is an Iraqi after all. He as a VISA. That remains valid until the government says it is not. They don't owe him anything.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    We get it John. You think only white Christians are real people.

  • John||

    No. I don't think the country owes the right of entry to anyone. If he were a Canadian my response would be the same. Go the fuck back home. You think the country does, but you don't have any real reason for believing that other than you like.

    Besides which, who are you kidding? If the guy were an Amish you would be buying his plane ticket. You are just fucking virtue signaling the rest of the people on this board. We get it, you love Muslims. You are so fucking tolerant. It is every American's duty to risk death so that Muslims may roam free!!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If the guy were an Amish you would be buying his plane ticket.

    Okay, I'm just going to sit here and ponder the levels of irony in this sentence. It's like the verbal equivalent of an M. C. Escher print.

  • John||

    No you are going to ponder how much the truth fucking hurts. You love all people, so long as doing so allows you to virtue signal to other Progs.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    This is a problem why? Even a US citizen doesn't have the right to an attorney when being detained upon entering the country.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Well, Franco v. Holder ruled the exact opposite, but hey, thanks for playing "Making Shit Up with Trumptards".

  • Chip Your Pets||

    What the courts say and what the Constitution says are often unrelated.

  • MWG||

    I think it's funny that Reason and the lamestream media are shitting there pants about what a fiasco this is becoming. They're playing right into Trumps manly hands. He's executing this EO with the precision of the political savant he is and the media and Reason are falling right into into his brilliant trap.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Not sure if serious*.

    So, if not, mission accomplished!

    *fact that you could post it on any EO article without editing is confusing

  • MWG||

    Not serious. Just reference to a previous article this week where the regular Trump apologist were claiming what a brilliant strategist Trump is because he's intentially able to get his enemies in the media to focus their attention on less important things like, you know? how he governs.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Well crafted. I recommend pasting it into every EO article. Damn, change the name as needed and you have an evergreen.

  • MWG||

    Thanks, although isn't it sad that the commentariat has been so overrun with Trump apologists, that you're no longer sure what's snark and what isn't? Fucking hell, last night commentariat was debating whether free trade is good or not. Many of those who were opposed to free trade are regulars here.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Hopefully I'm not counted among the "Trump apologists" crowd. I just believe that we should give credit where due and especially avoid the proggy predilection towards crying wolf and pants-shitting.

    Shikha Dalmia, for example, is the perfect example of how not to be. Jumping at one's own shadow constantly will result in not being quick enough to dodge when the shadow behind you isn't yours.

  • MWG||

    I honestly haven't been around enough since the trumpistas took over the commentariat. I know there are people here who will deflect any and all criticism of Trump. "Hillary would have been worse!" or "Obama was worse!".

    They're doing the same thing that shriek and Tony do when they would defend Obama when they said, "but BOOOOOSH!"

  • MarkLastname||

    Unfortunately, I worry that what good causes there are in the Trump admin (e.g. Deregulation, school choice) may be discredited by the bad when the backlash comes. Ironically, lefties will accuse us of being Trmpkins for supporting free trade, and if his reign is a disaster, it will get blamed in free markets, despite him being a mercantilist and a populist.

    Most progs don't Reason beyond 'Trump=right wing, capitalism=right wing, ergo Trump=capitalism, meaning bad=capitalism bad.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fucking hell, last night commentariat was debating whether free trade is good or not. Many of those who were opposed to free trade are regulars here.

    Jesus Christ! Don't you know that libertarianism is football, big tits, and Southern rock?

    What are you, some cosmo niggerspicjewfag?

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Gosh, can we get a trigger warning if you're going to end a comment like that, HM?

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

  • MWG||

    I'm a little bit of all the above.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So what you're saying is that you have big tits?

  • MWG||

    Only my wife appreciate them.

  • Not a True MJG||

    So is there any way to justify including Iran on this list? Of course the US and Iranian governments are not on good terms, but have there been any threats from Iranian Muslims? There are a number of attacks from Muslims with Afghan or Palestinian roots, which are excluded from the ban. But I can't recall those gaudy Persians stabbing, shooting, or exploding Americans.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    So is there any way to justify including Iran on this list? Of course the US and Iranian governments are not on good terms, but have there been any threats from Iranian Muslims?

    Government is hostile to the US, and there are already restrictions on travel from both ends, so it's easy to throw in to look tough and pad the numbers?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    On her way to work one morning
    Down the path along side the lake
    A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
    His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew

    She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
    And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
    She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
    She found that pretty snake she'd taken to had been revived

    She clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful, " she cried
    "But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
    She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
    Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite

    "I saved you, " cried the woman
    "And you've bitten me, but why?
    You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
    "Oh shut up, silly woman, " said the reptile with a grin
    "You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Zero Sum Game||

  • Sevo||

    OK, now the pants-shitters have something to gripe about. But they can also thank Obo for Trump's 'pen and phone'.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Hopefully people are taking to Facederp acquaintances with a lead pipe on this one.

    Remember when you kept smugly quoting "elections have consequences" and cheering the "pen and phone" and we told you it was a terrible precedent and you laughed in our faces? Are you still laughing? Is the power still good, or do you simply have the juvenile belief that your Top Man will always be the one to wield it?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sadly, I am not seeing any of these realizations about the risks of associating large amounts of power with a single person. I am just seeing statements that the wrong person has that power.

  • John||

    He is picking on Muslims Sevo. It is the Trumpacolypse on reason. They should send him a thank you card for giving them a full opportunity to get their "I am so fucking tolerant because I love Muslims" on.

  • MWG||

    Speaking of pants shitters...

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Adult diapers aren't pants. They're meant to be shat in.

  • John||

    You seem to shit them a lot. So you would know. Now. Tell us more how outraged you are.

  • MWG||

    John, you might be the main pants shitter here.

    Fear of immigrants? Check.
    Fear of Muslims? Check.
    Fear of Iran? Check.
    A constant obsession with Reason not being hard enough on muslims and too mean to christians? Check.
    Should I keep going?

  • Ken Shultz||

    What are you going on about?

    You seem to be pants-shitting more over John than he is over anything.

    His approval must mean a lot to you!

  • Zero Sum Game||

    He engaged in some eye-rollingly ridiculous self-persecution up above about how Christians are treated on Reason to distract us from the fact that he hasn't done very well in his arguments this morning.

    I offered him some Bible verses and allegories but it seems not to have made him feel any better. I'd have thought that Bible verses would bring a measure of comfort to him.

  • MWG||

    Not really Ken. Just bored on a Saturday afternoon and trying to reconnect to H&R for the first time since the republican version of Hugo Chavez was inaugurated.

    Also, clearly a little annoyed that John is shitting his pants about Reason all over the thread like he's done many times, especially in the last 6 months, the way only he can.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    And c'mon, isn't it at least a little bit fun to poke John for being John? Also poked Chip Your Pets for being Tulpa.

    Spastic, bombastic, a little too drastic, brains no longer plastic, let's stick around and see if any facts stick.

    [Autistic screeching intensifies.]

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    the republican version of Hugo Chavez

    A phrase like that makes me reflexively reach for my progtears collection device.

  • grrizzly||

    According to some sources green card holders are not affected by this ban. From the WSJ:

    Qatar Airways on Saturday alerted passengers citing an Immigration Advisory Notice from CBP. It said nationals from the seven named countries traveling to the U.S. must have either a green card or one of a number of specific visas, including those related to government officials, the United Nations, international organizations or NATO.
  • Stormy Dragon||

    Green card holders included in Trump ban: Homeland Security

    People holding so-called green cards, making them legal permanent U.S. residents, are included in President Donald Trump's executive action temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, a Department of Homeland security spokeswoman said on Saturday.

    "It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email.

    I'm pretty sure DHS is more authoritative here than Qatar Airways, but then I'm not sure what the business relationship with Trump is, so I could be wrong.

  • grrizzly||

    The best spin on it so far.

    Could also make him look good when he walks back the most excessive parts of the order, leaving the rest in place.

    gab.ai-same name
    ‏@Grumpy_Hoosier


    @jamestaranto I wonder if DHS is over-interpreting the rules (esp for Green card holders) in order to make Trump look bad.
  • ThomasD||

    Reuters found someone at DHS to give the worst possible interpretation of a Trump EO?

    This is my shocked face.

  • jorglueke||

    The biggest problem with this is that it's illegal. Immigration is Congress' job and there is a 1965 law that this order violates. We are not (yet) a dictatorship run by executive fiat. Then there's the practical aspect. Why leave off Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? Why include green card holders? Why a blanket ban? Then there's the open society aspect that we are not supposed to be a closed of bastion of some arbitrary ethnicity but the champions of liberty for all the world.

  • Stormy Dragon||

  • John||

    Because he is stupid. Those countries should have been first on the list. This isn't a serious effort. He is just baiting his opponents into taking the position that America needs more Muslim immigrants.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Here president Carter lists chapter and verse of law to demonstrate why he can, among other things, stop the travel to and from Iran. So legal it seems to me.
    Stupid? Dickish? Yes. Evil? Yes.
    Why only these six countries, and with 120 day exit clause? So he can show his voters he kept his promise, while signalling to foreign governments this isn't a change in alignment (yet) and leave himself an exit.

  • Episteme||

    Although its been an on-off illegality on both sides.

    As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

    Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees [ABC News] (warning: autoplay video)

    I've seen a lot of good analysis about Twitterati on how these executive issuances play into Congress's slack on dealing with refugee issues (in both Obama and now Trump's cases, freely mixing up contrary 1952 and 1965 statutes as they best support their positions).

  • XM||

    Trump issued the executive order less than 2 weeks after inauguration day. It was almost certainly rushed. Obama didn't play around with EOs until his party was taken down from power and public opinion wasn't on his side.

    This is something that always concerned his more astute / reluctant supporters. He's not the first politician to be elected with no political experience, but he has a knack for not listening to (very sound) advice. He should have planned this out for weeks and wait until summer to make the announcement.

    Now this snafu will give democrats and the media plenty of fodder. This is the gold star family controversy all over again. He was doing some good things early on (Devos, getting an early start to dismantling the ACA) but he sabotaged his momentum with careless mistakes. He just put school choice and healthcare reform proponents into a corner alongside the GOP. "I did it my way" has a certain appeal, but it has to be executed properly.

  • John||

    So you think the Democrats are going to win by claiming that the country needs more Syrian immigrants?

  • XM||

    I think they already lost that argument. But they can win brownie points by parading around individuals who were denied entry despite having green cards, visas, etc. I have friends and relatives with green cards (not Muslims) and what happened to the Iraqi interpreter is not something I wish upon any of them.

    I know, the dems are the same people who had no issue with placing Americans on no fly list without due process. I know this, you know this. The media and low info voters don't. They'll happily push narrative that serve their agendas. Trump should not give them any encouragements.

  • MarkLastname||

    Images of injured children fleeing a war the US helped start being sent back to hell will not help Trump. They will be compared to Jewish refugees being turned away in the middle of WW2.

    See, this why if Trump loses reelection you will never see it coming. You honestly think your opponents believe the absurd straw men you make for them. No one ever argued the US needed more Syrian immigrants. No one ever put that forth as the reason for letting them in. You just made it up.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Executive orders can be amended quickly and on a whim. If there turns out to be something wrong with the wording, the president can issue an update.

    If you're going to blame someone for Trump rushing through EOs, blame the douche who issued a mountain of destructive EOs just before leaving office, that now have to be sorted out and rescinded as quickly as possible to prevent further damage.

  • MWG||

    Say what you want about Obumbles, but an EO of this type would have had way more vetting. He's had 3 months to plan this out? Didn't anybody raise concerns about GC holders or people who worked for the US military?

  • ||

    Libertarian tears are more delicious than proggie tears. Who knew?

  • Ken Shultz||

    We should be clear what people are crying about.

    Suspending refugees from hotbeds of anti-American terrorism makes sense on security grounds.

    I oppose the President unilaterally invalidating preexisting green cards.

  • XM||

    My thoughts exactly.

    Restricting refugees from hostile regions will be popular in the long term (if executed properly). But refugees who received green card / work permits / visas should be grandfathered in. Trump will learn - hopefully.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    The green cards are not invalidated, any more than your citizenship is invalidated because the Border Patrol won't let you through at the border checkpoint with lawn darts in your car.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress. The President can't suspend them (outside a state of emergency) any more than the President can declare war.

    If regulating lawn darts were an enumerated power of Congress, the President would have no power to suddenly decide to start regulating them himself--regardless of what Congress decided the law should be.

    Those people followed the rules of naturalization as passed by Congress, and the President has a constitutional duty to respect them--unless he wants to cite his emergency powers or somehow tie this to fighting Al Qaeda by way of the AUMF.

  • ThomasD||

    Pretty much this. Although Congress does have a nasty habit of writing laws that require all sorts of executive regulatory input in order to accomplish anything. Regulations that can, and have proven to be quite malleable.

    It certainly is enlightening to see just when certain whos decide it is suddenly necessary to start respecting the separation of powers. People even warned that under Trump this might happen.

    Not that I'm accusing you of any inconsistency. Only that your point makes many others look decidedly flexible on the topic.

    I mean I haven't seen the writers at Reason come this unglued since Obama proposed restricting gun ownership based upon secret government travel restriction lists.

    That was epic, wasn't it?

  • XM||

    But they were still detained despite posing no security threat. Trump's EO blocked a few people who were granted entry by the previous administration. They should have been grandfathered in.

    The fix should be simple enough.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Motion: I move that we modernize John's commentariat nickname from Red Tony to Red Hihn

    Any seconds?

  • John||

    I am already the number one fascist. And however you people want to concede arguments is your choice. The only time people start screaming Red Tony is when I tell a truth they don't want to hear. It is absolutely delicious to watch. Your tears and outrage really are a vice of mine. Some day I need to give them up. But not today.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    You're clearly not philosophically sophisticated enough to know that ad hominem attacks are the highest form of argument.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I am already the number one fascist

    What you need to do is surprise everyone by suddenly signing John-Hihn Non Aggression Treaty (with secret clauses) and jointly invade Robby's apartment.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd like to point out--one more time--that this doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with religion.

    The ban applies to people from regions where there is a significant risk of anti-American terrorism.

    If Trump gives Christians any kind of priority because of their religion, then I oppose that on First Amendment grounds.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Non-US citizens who are currently outside the US have no First Amendment rights whatsoever.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So rights are not inherent, but rather just privileges bestowed by the state, which it is free to revoke whenever it likes.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Legal rights are bestowed by the law and by contracts made under that law. The state can only revoke them by the process prescribed by law.

    "Inherent" or "natural" rights, well, those are angels dancing on pinheads. Looking at the swath of human history, you may as well say that pet unicorns are inherent to humanity.

    I believe that the rights found in the Bill of Rights are very good for everybody in society to have, but I don't pretend that they are inherent. If anything, this outlook encourages me to fight for the rights harder, as I understand how easily they can be lost.

  • ThomasD||

    Statist.

    And not that's not sarcasm.

  • BigT||

    Entering the US is not a right, it is a privilege. And can be limited or revoked at the President's whim.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Non-US citizens who are currently outside the US have no First Amendment rights whatsoever."

    The only rights they don't have is the right to vote, the right to hold office, and the right to be within our borders.

    As a matter of fact, the Constitution makes a point that our rights don't originate from the Constitution itself.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    And if that weren't enough, the First Amendment doesn't imbue any individual with anything. It's a prohibition against government by the U.S. government. As long as we're talking about the U.S. government, the government must not violate anyone's religious rights or discriminate against them because of their religion or favor someone else because of their religion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It's a prohibition against government [action] by the U.S. government."

    You know what I meant!

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Non-US citizens are not members of "the people" referenced in the BOR. Thus the 9th, 10th, 2nd, 4th, and the last two parts of the 1st do not apply to them.

    It's a prohibition against government by the U.S. government.

    A prohibition against (a) establishment of religion, and (b) interference with the free exercise of religion. You tell me how not admitting refugees falls under either of these categories.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're splitting hairs that have already been split a million times.

    Favoring one religion over the other is institutionalization.

    Disfavoring one religion over others is interfering with free exercise.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Favoring one religion over the other is institutionalization [establishment]."

    You know what I meant!

  • Chip Your Pets||

    No, they're not, certainly not in this case. Refusing to admit a refugee does not affect their ability to freely exercise their religion. They have presumably been exercising their religion all along outside the US, and this will not change that.

    Yeah, SCOTUS has smeared those distinctions like mad, but what SCOTUS says and the Constitution actually means ain't never been similar.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Refusing to admit a refugee does not affect their ability to freely exercise their religion."

    For the third time, the question isn't about what the refugees do.

    The question is whether the government is acting in such a way that violates the First Amendment.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    It only violates the first amendment if it prevents the refugees from doing something they otherwise would. So yeah, the question is about what the refugees do.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If Trump gives Christians any kind of priority because of their religion, then I oppose that on First Amendment grounds.

    He already did. From the executive order:

    (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
  • Chip Your Pets||

    That language is religion-neutral. It would apply just as much to a Muslim persecuted in Poland as a Christian persecuted in Syria.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Right, I'm sure he was thinking of Zoroastrians when he wrote that sections.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Just shut off your brain and close your eyes to reality, Stormy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It is religion neutral.

    This is like arguing that anything but equality of outcome is racist.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Got to disagree with you Ken. This doesn't occur in a vacuum. When most refugees come from a majority Muslim country, and you prioritize people based on a minority religious status, and you cap total refugee admission, so that the effect is to dramatically reduce Muslim refugees, and you talked about limiting Muslim refugees during the campaign, then it's not just rational to conclude that this is an end run around an explicit religious consideration, it's the only conclusion that makes sense.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    That effect is due to the fact that Christian-majority countries don't persecute Muslims, and Muslim-majority countries do persecute Christians.

    Reality has a well-known religiously bigoted bias.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Some Muslim majority countries also persecute other Muslims. More Muslims die in terrorist attacks than any other group. You are arguing that an EO that explicitly says that a refugee's religion relative to that of his countrymen's should be taken into consideration is religiously neutral. It's absurd on it's face.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Religious persecution is a legitimate claim to asylum under international and U.S. law.

    Does minority status speak to persecution?

    I think it may in some countries more than others. Christians have supported Assad in the past, and it looks like he's going to hang on and win. Those Christians may have less of a claim to religious persecution than, say, Libyan Christians.

    I suppose it's a good thing that these individuals are being assessed on an individual basis.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I don't give a damn what he was thinking.

    If the order is enforced as worded, it will be religion-neutral.

  • LynchPin1477||

    If they don't count atheists as belonging to a religion and thereby explicitly disadvantage atheist refugees, it's not religion neutral. Any idea how atheists will be handled?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Hmm, that's an interesting question. Depends on the wording of the EO.

    If a law were passed that said that anybody who buys space on a billboard has to put something on it, would that be a First Amendment violation?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I do think a reasonable case can be made that compelling any kind of speech when one would rather be silent is a violation of the 1A.

    It is more clearly a violation of property rights. Since property rights aren't explicitly called out in the Constitution and since the courts don't reliably protect unenumerated rights, one may have to resort to defending property rights in this case on 1A grounds. I

  • Ken Shultz||

    "To prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

    I should add, there are two open questions here:

    1) Is this legal?

    2) Is this the way it should be?

    Lots of things are legal but wrong, illegal but okay, etc.

    You can claim that Trump's order isn't religion neutral in outcome, but you can't say the text specifically discriminates against Muslims or favors Christians by name.

    Whether it's still wrong because of the outcome doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or should be considered a violation of the First Amendment.

    And I am very concerned about the First Amendment all by itself. If he specifically favored Christians by name, I would oppose it on First Amendment grounds--even if I had no other reason to oppose it.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Even completely independent of the first amendment and the potential legality, it's much more power than I want residing in an office with executive powers. That's not new, since Obama could and did wield the same power, but this is the first grand gesture Trump has made which is an obvious overreach. And it really didn't take long.

  • ThomasD||

    If it is problematic to prioritize Christians fleeing Islamist regions then it is problematic to prioritize any refugee based upon any notions of religious persecution.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Here's some blowback for ya:

    Iran says to ban U.S. visitors in retaliation to Trump move

    Cancel that spring break trip to Tehran, you silly infidels.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I know someone who this affects, who is a perfectly peaceful, liberal person getting an education. Fuck Trump for this and fuck collectivism.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    There were perfectly peaceful people killed in the air raids on Germany and Japan in WW2. The correct response is hardly to say fuck the Allies.

    If you want to blame someone, blame the douche who instituted the executive policies that Trump now has to rapidly unwind.

  • LynchPin1477||

    This is not a war against an existential threat. Not even close. And you can say "fuck the Allies" while still saying "fuck the Axis and fuck war in general even harder". I'm not getting into that debate because it's a massive false equivalence but, one could say that and be self-consistent.

    Blame isn't a finite resource. Plenty to lay on Trump for this.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    And you can say "fuck the Allies" while still saying "fuck the Axis and fuck war in general even harder".

    Yes, you can, but you didn't. You just said fuck the allies.

  • LynchPin1477||

    No, I said fuck Trump. I don't also have to say fuck ISIS and fuck Asad to make a valid point. But if you want me to, I will. Fuck ISIS, fuck Asad, fuck the dictators in Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are plenty of fucks to go around. But still, fuck Trump.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Chip Your Pets||

    You didn't say fuck Obama for opening the refugee spigots and flooding them into Republican districts like they were bathtub drains.

    That's why Trump is having to rush the EOs.

  • ThomasD||

    "This is not a war against an existential threat."

    Which certainly might explain why the action is limited to strictures at the border.

  • Tornado18||

    Lynch, (lurker here)

    What is this person under...green card, visa? etc Already here?

    Anyway i think we should argue instead that we should allow visa, greencards that have already been vetted. I think they have a bunch of stuff to go thru already so i would think they would be vetted.

    I do not think you should take this approach for the emotional argument here even though that sucks. This is what progressives do and how they use it to turn the ratchet.

    I think it needs to be a more logical argument vs appealing to emotion

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Thought of the moment: when Hihn shows up in six hours, this may become the most H&R thread of them all.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Can the Hihndenburg inflate itself and rise again after the catastrophic explosion? Stay tuned, kids!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My only fear is that he will forget to bold-font all of his text... Every night I lie awake and worry that Hihn will forget to Bold-font his text.

  • MWG||

    Wait, what did I miss?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, I am new to the game. But a few days ago Hihn posted an amazing rant where he listed his top 25 facists in the commentariat, with John and Crusty being #1 and #2. He started to breakdown more, hopefully someone can link to the specific post. I can't remember which article it happened it, but it was this week.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    He made a list of "fascists" and "many stalkers" (i.e. people who disagree with him and/or think he's a toolbag). His whole thread is filled with glorious explosions.

  • MWG||

    That's awesome. It's pretty cool that John, John T., and Frank D'a made the same list too.

  • Christophe||

    He's already turning the March for Life comment thread into a Superfund-level toxic pile of garbage, and somewhat accidentally uniting the two sides of the debate.

  • The Grinch||

    Hihn is a terrible human being and a literal lunatic. The way he talks down to people and then whines about bullying when they push back is just sad.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I went and looked.

    He's doing a far, far better job selling Ron Paul to me than Ron ever did. By a margin wider than Winston's mom.

  • JayU||

    What are the odds that Trump passes these temporary things then forgets about it when they expire and points back to how he did it for a few meaningless months as proof that he kept his promise so go fuck yourself you fake news mother fuckers?

  • ||

    Ten million to 1.

    He has people to remind him.

  • Tornado18||

    I dont think Saudia Arabia and Pakistan are included since we have a more diplomatic relationship with them (not that i agree with it). I sense this as the democrats who claim to be all about human rights are eerily silent when it comes to Saudi Arabia.

    It is like we have turned a blind eye to them due to business interests and i am guessing intelligence.

    All the countries on the list are in chaos (thanks in part to the previous regimes) are with a destabilized and not much of a centralized govt or a very repressive govt (Syria, Iran)

    Ironically, somalia (which is libertarian paradise per the progs) actually went thru the phases of marxism....like venezeula is doing now. The problem is utopia where everyone lives in equality and harmony never happens.

    Somalia --> relatively free enterprise went to socialism which went to dictatorship to collapse into anarchy with a bunch of smaller state warlords running show

  • Jgalt1975||

    I'm going to be very curious how the green cards thing plays out in various courts on Monday morning. I don't do immigration law, but I could swear that green card holders are entitled to due process in connection with the suspension/revocation of permanent residency. I'm presuming the Trump administration will claim that because of the limited duration, it's not a problem, but 90 days seems pretty damn prejudicial (in a legal burden sense).

  • grrizzly||

    I won't be surprised if the current interpretation of the ban forbidding green card holders from returning to the US becomes inoperative in a few days. The text of the executive order is not very clear but can be interpreted that it affects only foreign nationals entering the US on immigrant visas. Lawful permanent residents (green card holders) are not considered foreign nationals. I also don't believe that those who already obtained green cards can be classified as having an immigrant visa.

    The relevant part of the EO.

  • grrizzly||

    (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
  • XM||

    David French (NRO) says the ban should have only affected NEW immigrant and refugee applicants. So TSA and Homeland Security has no authority to detain these people - unless ordered by Trump to do so? Yikes.

  • ThomasD||

    Tip of the iceberg.

    Expect every Trump order to be interpreted in a manner intended to cause the most disruption and create the worst possible impression.

    If he ordered a momentary lights out in DC the first thing they'd reach for at the VA is the ventilator switches.

  • BigT||

    Hey. Trump's just giving a shoutout to the Chinese.

    t's the year of the cock, after all.

  • L. Awn Dart||

    This is clearly off-topic, (sorry!) but may I float an idea for sorting potential immigrants quickly into a "nice" pile and a "not nice" pile, so that the green card issue (and even the country-of-origin issue) might evaporate swiftly? I'm no expert on Islam, so not sure this would work: Just make them answer a question or two about their allegiance to Sharia Law. It seems to me that the rigidity of radical variants might work to expose them. We ask, "Is Sharia Law above US Law?" If they lie, and say "no" I suspect they instantly become apostate, no longer eligible for all those virgins, marked for excommunication and death. They'd be forced to say "yes" and therefore easy for us to cross off the list. Anybody here have any idea if that would be effective?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Couldn't happen to a nicer city.

    Following Detainment, 'Refugees Welcome' Protest Erupts at JFK Airport

    I don't think Trump is terribly smart, but what he's doing is flushing out the activist left as the crybabies they are, and the Dems are either unable or too stupid to control them. This kind of shit is actually hurting the Dems with unaffiliated voters.

    The New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) also joined the protest, drawing attention to the anti-Muslim violence suffered by their Sikh and non-Muslim brown drivers. Taxi drivers didn't pick up passengers from 6 p.m.-7p.m. at JFK in solidarity with protesters, the union tweeted.

    "Today, drivers are joining the protest at JFK Airport in support of all those who are currently being detained #NoBanNoWall," the nonprofit organization tweeted.

    Keep telling me how the taxi drivers are innocent victims of creative destruction.

  • GILMORE™||

    Was this mentioned in the post? I didn't see it

    The Obama Administration Stopped Processing Iraq Refugee Requests For 6 Months In 2011 after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

    See, when Obama does things like this, its because he loves everyone and wants the best for them. When Trump does it, its because Racism.

    Sure, i don't think Trump has any particular new information that suggests that there's been any influx of teh terrys and that i think he's only slapping these sorts of restrictions down because he wants to deliver on his rhetorical-campaign-promises ASAP ...

    ...but i think what's worth noting is that there was little outrage in 2011 over Obama's draconian response to what was (in retrospect) probably a nothingburger threat.

    Basically, my point is that the standards for outrage are always being modified to meet collective perceptions. What wasn't even noteworthy 6 years ago is literally Hitler today

  • Praveen R.||

    The difference is Obama did not hold up existing visa holders enroute to the US at the airports just because he felt like it. There is a middle ground between the extreme pandering by some of the DEmocrats and the outright blanket stupidity on the far right.

  • ThomasD||

    There are elements of this action I find problematic (mainly the green card aspect.)

    But when Welch turns to Pro Publica as a go-to source on the topic I kinda see the narrative on the wall.

  • SIV||

    Deport Matt Welch to France.

    MAGA

  • mickey456||

    there's no moral or even logical imperative for a libertarian to support opening the gates to america wide open or continuing to the types it already does in. in fact it's asinine. it leaves us trapped here without rights to immigrate to any place worth while because our political leaders have already given up the biggest chip in the game unilaterally with the stupid family relationship regime. this year we begin accepting entire extended families of anchor babies born in 1996 as u.s. citizens now (they turn 21, so everyone in their family is eligible, and there were 200,000 anchor babies born, the vast vast majority from mexico) instead of trading u.s. citizenship for the chance for indigenous Americans to move overseas.

    family reunification is a rip off for the American public and the mule rule that brings in 1 million migrants a year and makes them citizens with all the benefits afforded to every citizen out any regard for their ability to contribute one red cent and with nothing bargained for the rest of America. make an exception for marriage and children and be done with it. negotiate real immigration with nations most Americans would be interested in immigrating to. and you don't even want to know about the lottery. we have the most asinine immigration policy in the world.

    the refugee insanity of blowing them up then inviting them over to blow us up is but a tiny party.

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    Good--finally going after their filthy culture as well as illegality. And he may be too late
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y_lcEH5nVk&t=2s

  • Praveen R.||

    Even though I lean liberal more than conservative, there is a case to be extra careful in scrutinizing muslim immigrant backgrounds. But if you do, you do not make blanket statements stupidly and draw attention to yourselves. And then when you implement such a policy, avoid looking like an imbecile the way the government looks today with their broad based ban which clearly did not factor in existing visa holders who were away on valid trips.

  • croaker||

    Restraining order by the Eastern District of New York.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Honest question.

    Since the libertarian moment requires unlimited access to America by foreign terrorists and putting those terrorists and their children on the dole. Does this executive order effectively end the libertarian moment?

  • Sevo||

    That is NOT an honest question. Cut it out.

  • josh||

    the overreaction to trump on a daily basis has been...i'm not sure what the word is, actually, but it's been something.

    today it's gone into overdrive. was told yet again by a relative that any support for trump (and i don't support him 90% of the time, but there's always the rest of the time...) means he no longer considers me family, and has warned his son not to be too vocal because now that trump is in charge they may come for him if he says the wrong thing. another family member is done talking politics because he's convinced that every conservative is actually a composite of all the meme's he's seen come to life. luckily i do have a couple friends behaving like human beings even if they hate the guy.

    it occurs to me though that one of my deepest fears might be true. i might actually have too much faith in humanity. i'm not even much of an optimist, so i must admit i'm a little sad right now.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Here we go.

    Judge Blocks Part of Trump's Immigration Order

    Not sure how a mere district court judge can purport to issue a nationwide injunction, but whatever.

  • NorEastern||

    The judge sits on the federal bench which oversees NY airports where many of the travelers are being detained. That judge has probably 10 million citizens under his jurisdiction. However the stay only states that those affected cannot be deported, not detained.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Right, but how can a NY district judge issue an order for other districts that are outside her jurisdiction? Supposedly the injunction applies to all airports in the country.

  • NorEastern||

    That is just how the federal jurisdiction works. If it is appealed then the battle continues. Other federal district judges will generally not enter a contrary opinion. They will wait for the appeal process to run its course. Professional courtesy, as the old lawyer joke goes.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Ever heard of a circuit split?

  • NorEastern||

    There have been about five federal circuit splits in the last decade. And your point was?

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Why does John hate due process?

  • NorEastern||

    If Trump was in favor of due process he would allow citizens from the banned countries into the US. Do you realize that an Academy Award nominee cannot attend the Oscars because he is a citizen of Iran. How low of a threat is an internationally acclaimed director?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    How low of a threat is an internationally acclaimed director?

    Is that supposed to be a joke?

  • NorEastern||

    Just a question. You could actually answer it if you dared.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I think I did answer it. My mistake was to credit you with intentional humor, but it appears to be unintentional.

    Regardless, if an exception were made for a director, then you would be screeching about the rule of law being violated.

  • NorEastern||

    Whatever much of it has been put on hold by a federal judge. What a surprise. I bet you were not expecting that. Stay tuned for further updates.

  • NorEastern||

    Currently 78% of the Syrian refugees admitted into the US are women and children. That is not a demographic likely to commit a terrorist act.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/...../88446226/

    40% are actually under the age of 11. The current vetting process takes between 18 and 24 months to complete for most refugees. High profile persecuted individuals in politics, STEM fields, etc. can be expedited.

    The vast majority of the 9/11 attackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the men were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Yet somehow Saudi Arabia or any of the other nations of origin of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are not on the list of nations whose citizens are refused entry to the US. Does that make any sense?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    The current vetting process takes between 18 and 24 months to complete for most refugees.

    "It takes a long time, therefore it is done well." Typical government worker illogic.

    During which time they are given free run of the country, and if the vetting produces a bad result, then the feds have to find them in order to deport them.

    Funny, I remember the Dems claiming it was impossible to find and deport illegal immigrants. But their vaunted "vetting" system is pointless unless we can do so with supposed refugees.

  • NorEastern||

    It is a year before refugees are allowed to step foot into the US. All of the vetting has been done by then. For a first hand account:
    http://www.politico.com/magazi.....ing-214703

  • ThomasD||

    "That is not a demographic likely to commit a terrorist act."

    Tamerlan and Dzhokhar disagree.

  • NorEastern||

    All of this is moot. They are free to go. What a surprise right? An unconstitutional mandate shot down by a federal judge. Perfect.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/0.....across-us/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online