The only non-citizens who are protected by US law are those who are ALREADY in the US LEGALLY. Otherwise, someone living in Bangladesh could, after he's been thrown in jail in Dacca, try and file a case in a court in VT that his first amendment rights have been violated. Same thing applies to that person being prevented from coming to the US
The 9th Circuit Court has a history of being Leftist, and so did this Judge Ropert, despite being a Bush appointee. And no, it's not rule of Law: the 9th Circuit Court, for instance, once ruled that it was okay for a school in CA to teach its non-Muslim kids about living as a Muslim, including waging Jihad, and that was NOT ruled as violating separation of Church and State. That's just one example, among hundreds
The Green Card exemption was re-instated, and there is an argument for stating that they should not have been stopped. But the opposition is not to the ban on Green Cards, which is no longer there: it's an opposition to a ban on ANY RESTRICTIONS on the entry of people from the 7 countries in question. That's what the judge's orders, as well as the 9th Circus Court ruling was all about: it wasn't about Green Cards
What he did was very much constitutional. There is no constitutional right of people who are NOT citizens of the US to enter the US, and any president can put WHATEVER restrictions he wants on them. Including the color of their hair, shape of their eyes, length of their noses and even their religion. All those rights about not discriminating - IT ONLY APPLIES TO CITIZENS
I would have preferred it had those countries been included, but I'm not sure that the Leftist protesters would have endorsed it in that case. It's not that the Left wants a more thorough vetting of the real countries: they just want Muslims to be let in w/o limits, since Trump dared make statements in the past against them.
Leftists are the only ones pretending that Trump's attempts to ban people from certain countries from entering is unconstitutional, or oppose it on other pretexts. So let's not drag in a strawman about King George ## or the North Koreans. My point above was that Leftists are too happy to ignore the lack of respect that Arabs (and other Muslims) have for people's rights, even while they demand it of others.
al Bawaba - the site that this story was taken from - is a website that's Arab centric, and in terms of opinion, tends to be Arab supremacist. Just go to their cover page and you'll see that. If they got it wrong, it's certainly not out of any desire to vindicate Trump, as might have been the case had Breitbart or any other site come up w/ it
These are link-local automatic generated addresses: no ISPs ever assign those. ISPs, if they support IPv6, will assign you things like 2001::/64. If you have DHCPv6, you can assign anything for the lower half of the address
That was my first thought when I saw this - until I read and saw that they were referring to IPv4 addresses. But just imagine if there were as much cash globally as there were IPv6 addresses?
pFsense is actually a fork of m0n0wall, itself a fork of FreeBSD. iXsystems owns TrueOS (formerly PC-BSD) and somewhat implicitly, FreeBSD, but not pFsense.
Guest workers in that entire region have no rights. In fact, that's what Leftists in the West should realize: while the West gives Arabs all sorts of rights when they come here, people who go to countries in the Gulf, like the UAE, have to surrender their passports to their employers and are like bonded laborers. In the US, if an H1B holder gets sick of it, he can resign, pack up and return to his country. Out there, they don't even have that option.
But their citizens - who are entirely Arab Muslims - have all the rights and privileges, and yeah, a lot of them support Jihadist groups abroad. Like I said above, I'm all for Kuwaitis being banned from coming to the US as well. But the point I made is that they made the same 'discriminatory' decision about people from 5 Muslim countries, 3 of which are in the Trump list. Since they are not condemned, it just stands that the US would have to be an Islamic country to avoid criticism from the Left
Americans usually are not the ones pining to go to other countries. Even Left Wing Retards who promised to leave the US if Trump got elected haven't (yet) made good on their word. I'm fine w/ Americans being banned from travelling abroad, if it also means reciprocity - people from other countries, particularly the ones who hate us - being banned from coming
No irony. Kuwait is a Kingdom.
The USA isn't one yet even though Trump is going on about how it's terrible that a country cannot block immigrants as if he is the country personified and the legal system that gives him legitimacy as President in the first place is worthless.
Also add Halliburton to the list. They have a LOT of people working in Pakistan including a major geophysical software division.
Kuwait may be a kingdom. But they do have an elected parliament w/ limited powers. And they know how to keep themselves safe, and nothing short of an Iraqi invasion could destabilize them.
Point is - they don't tolerate sanctimonius assholes who'd be more interested in the rights of terrorists over ordinary citizens. Incidentally, I happen to think Kuwait too should have been on the list - after all, the Chattanooga shooting was done by a Kuwaiti. But as far as their own country goes, they know how to apply common sense in keeping out their enemies, w/o worrying about whether anyone will dare call them Islamophobes
A provable lie, as can be verified by the Ohio state attacks, several stabbing attempts in Minneapolis by Somali 'refugees', an attack on Chappell Hill by an Iranian student, an aborted plot by the Iraqis to pull off something in Bowling Green....
He may have been born in America. But his heritage was Afghan - his father considered himself the president of Afghanistan, and he did the massacre that he did in the name of Islam
That screening hasn't been worth shit for the last 8 years, which is why there was this proposal in front of Obama to block people from these 7 countries. Just that it's Trump who chose to do something about it b'cos Obama can't stand the idea of ANY Muslims not coming to the US, no matter how Jihadesque
Silicon Valley has the highest ratio of single men to single women... (However, it's worth noting that the San Francisco metropolitan area also has the highest ratio of people who identify as LGBT in the U.S.)
The first statement said nothing about the sexual orientation of the single men and the single women in question. If most of the single men are gay but fewer enough of the women are, there may not at all be an issue.
Also, given the pressure on wages in the valley, they're probably better off not having sex, not procreating and ultimately letting the population out there go extinct, so that we are not stuck w/ more freaks than we have already
If that company makes routers or cable boxes, I would be interested in one that runs pFsense. Particularly the idea that it could be more secure than the Linux based ones, and that it would be somewhat mature in its IPv6 support
There ain't close to the number of forks of FreeBSD the way there are of Linux. Just a handful. OpenBSD has just 1 or 2 forks, NetBSD has just 1 - OpenBSD, and FreeBSD has a few, but which can be counted on 1 hand
Bush was a total pimp when it came to Fuckistan, and it's no wonder that it's one of his judges who struck down this order. Trump hopefully is more hostile to Pakistan and adds them to the list once this ban is appealed and struck down by a higher court
There have been attacks from people from these countries. The fact that the ultimate casuality was zero is purely incidental, and says NOTHING about them being benign. I'm all for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan being on the list, but that doesn't mean that these 7 countries should come off it
But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
I agree that more countries should have been tossed into the net - maybe that might happen at some future date. As I noted elsewhere in this page, Kuwait has applied a similar ban on 5 countries, 3 of which are in the US list, and then they've tossed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In reality, I support Trump's original Muslim ban, but given how nobody has the cajones to support it, we'll just have to tolerate more people getting slaughtered by them - be it terror acts, honor killings, vigilante murders due to apostasy, homophobic attacks (like the one in Orlando) and so on.
The reason Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others have not been included (a decision I actually disagree w/, despite this post) is that they do have governments that have tabs on their citizens (an anathema to/. posters) and inform Western governments about them. Like the attacker on the Louvre yesterday was from Egypt, and Cairo told the French about him when asked. That's not possible w/ countries that either have no real government - Somalia, Libya or Yemen or which have downright hostile governments, like Iran or Syria.
But the other statement that some Leftists have been making - that there have been no terror attacks from citizens of these 7 countries in the US - is patently false. There have been a lot of Somalis who've been involved in terror activity in Minneapolis, and the attack in Ohio State was done by a Somali. There were Yemenis involved in Ft Hood or Ft Dix (I forget, at the moment), there was an Iranian involved in an attack in Chappell Hill, NC some years ago, there was an Iraqi plot busted in Bowling Green, KY, and so on. So it's despicable that a judge thought it worth entertaining Jeff Bozo's plea to let in Yemenis, Somalians and the like into this country. The best thing to happen to him would be to deport him to Raqqa and let ISIS take care of him.
Slashdot Mirror
The only non-citizens who are protected by US law are those who are ALREADY in the US LEGALLY. Otherwise, someone living in Bangladesh could, after he's been thrown in jail in Dacca, try and file a case in a court in VT that his first amendment rights have been violated. Same thing applies to that person being prevented from coming to the US
Again, the First Amendment does not apply to Foreign Nationals living abroad
The 9th Circuit Court has a history of being Leftist, and so did this Judge Ropert, despite being a Bush appointee. And no, it's not rule of Law: the 9th Circuit Court, for instance, once ruled that it was okay for a school in CA to teach its non-Muslim kids about living as a Muslim, including waging Jihad, and that was NOT ruled as violating separation of Church and State. That's just one example, among hundreds
I can take it w/o making you any offer. That address is the equivalent of Apt #1, which millions of houses worldwide have.
The Green Card exemption was re-instated, and there is an argument for stating that they should not have been stopped. But the opposition is not to the ban on Green Cards, which is no longer there: it's an opposition to a ban on ANY RESTRICTIONS on the entry of people from the 7 countries in question. That's what the judge's orders, as well as the 9th Circus Court ruling was all about: it wasn't about Green Cards
What he did was very much constitutional. There is no constitutional right of people who are NOT citizens of the US to enter the US, and any president can put WHATEVER restrictions he wants on them. Including the color of their hair, shape of their eyes, length of their noses and even their religion. All those rights about not discriminating - IT ONLY APPLIES TO CITIZENS
I would have preferred it had those countries been included, but I'm not sure that the Leftist protesters would have endorsed it in that case. It's not that the Left wants a more thorough vetting of the real countries: they just want Muslims to be let in w/o limits, since Trump dared make statements in the past against them.
Leftists are the only ones pretending that Trump's attempts to ban people from certain countries from entering is unconstitutional, or oppose it on other pretexts. So let's not drag in a strawman about King George ## or the North Koreans. My point above was that Leftists are too happy to ignore the lack of respect that Arabs (and other Muslims) have for people's rights, even while they demand it of others.
al Bawaba - the site that this story was taken from - is a website that's Arab centric, and in terms of opinion, tends to be Arab supremacist. Just go to their cover page and you'll see that. If they got it wrong, it's certainly not out of any desire to vindicate Trump, as might have been the case had Breitbart or any other site come up w/ it
Mr Tsarnaev, you're supposed to be dead
These are link-local automatic generated addresses: no ISPs ever assign those. ISPs, if they support IPv6, will assign you things like 2001::/64. If you have DHCPv6, you can assign anything for the lower half of the address
That was my first thought when I saw this - until I read and saw that they were referring to IPv4 addresses. But just imagine if there were as much cash globally as there were IPv6 addresses?
The exodus of the previous crop of moderators hasn't helped. The ones here these days just let anything go
pFsense is actually a fork of m0n0wall, itself a fork of FreeBSD. iXsystems owns TrueOS (formerly PC-BSD) and somewhat implicitly, FreeBSD, but not pFsense.
Guest workers in that entire region have no rights. In fact, that's what Leftists in the West should realize: while the West gives Arabs all sorts of rights when they come here, people who go to countries in the Gulf, like the UAE, have to surrender their passports to their employers and are like bonded laborers. In the US, if an H1B holder gets sick of it, he can resign, pack up and return to his country. Out there, they don't even have that option.
But their citizens - who are entirely Arab Muslims - have all the rights and privileges, and yeah, a lot of them support Jihadist groups abroad. Like I said above, I'm all for Kuwaitis being banned from coming to the US as well. But the point I made is that they made the same 'discriminatory' decision about people from 5 Muslim countries, 3 of which are in the Trump list. Since they are not condemned, it just stands that the US would have to be an Islamic country to avoid criticism from the Left
Americans usually are not the ones pining to go to other countries. Even Left Wing Retards who promised to leave the US if Trump got elected haven't (yet) made good on their word. I'm fine w/ Americans being banned from travelling abroad, if it also means reciprocity - people from other countries, particularly the ones who hate us - being banned from coming
No irony. Kuwait is a Kingdom. The USA isn't one yet even though Trump is going on about how it's terrible that a country cannot block immigrants as if he is the country personified and the legal system that gives him legitimacy as President in the first place is worthless. Also add Halliburton to the list. They have a LOT of people working in Pakistan including a major geophysical software division.
Kuwait may be a kingdom. But they do have an elected parliament w/ limited powers. And they know how to keep themselves safe, and nothing short of an Iraqi invasion could destabilize them.
Point is - they don't tolerate sanctimonius assholes who'd be more interested in the rights of terrorists over ordinary citizens. Incidentally, I happen to think Kuwait too should have been on the list - after all, the Chattanooga shooting was done by a Kuwaiti. But as far as their own country goes, they know how to apply common sense in keeping out their enemies, w/o worrying about whether anyone will dare call them Islamophobes
A provable lie, as can be verified by the Ohio state attacks, several stabbing attempts in Minneapolis by Somali 'refugees', an attack on Chappell Hill by an Iranian student, an aborted plot by the Iraqis to pull off something in Bowling Green....
He may have been born in America. But his heritage was Afghan - his father considered himself the president of Afghanistan, and he did the massacre that he did in the name of Islam
That screening hasn't been worth shit for the last 8 years, which is why there was this proposal in front of Obama to block people from these 7 countries. Just that it's Trump who chose to do something about it b'cos Obama can't stand the idea of ANY Muslims not coming to the US, no matter how Jihadesque
Silicon Valley has the highest ratio of single men to single women... (However, it's worth noting that the San Francisco metropolitan area also has the highest ratio of people who identify as LGBT in the U.S.)
The first statement said nothing about the sexual orientation of the single men and the single women in question. If most of the single men are gay but fewer enough of the women are, there may not at all be an issue.
Also, given the pressure on wages in the valley, they're probably better off not having sex, not procreating and ultimately letting the population out there go extinct, so that we are not stuck w/ more freaks than we have already
If that company makes routers or cable boxes, I would be interested in one that runs pFsense. Particularly the idea that it could be more secure than the Linux based ones, and that it would be somewhat mature in its IPv6 support
There ain't close to the number of forks of FreeBSD the way there are of Linux. Just a handful. OpenBSD has just 1 or 2 forks, NetBSD has just 1 - OpenBSD, and FreeBSD has a few, but which can be counted on 1 hand
Bush was a total pimp when it came to Fuckistan, and it's no wonder that it's one of his judges who struck down this order. Trump hopefully is more hostile to Pakistan and adds them to the list once this ban is appealed and struck down by a higher court
There have been attacks from people from these countries. The fact that the ultimate casuality was zero is purely incidental, and says NOTHING about them being benign. I'm all for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan being on the list, but that doesn't mean that these 7 countries should come off it
But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
I agree that more countries should have been tossed into the net - maybe that might happen at some future date. As I noted elsewhere in this page, Kuwait has applied a similar ban on 5 countries, 3 of which are in the US list, and then they've tossed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In reality, I support Trump's original Muslim ban, but given how nobody has the cajones to support it, we'll just have to tolerate more people getting slaughtered by them - be it terror acts, honor killings, vigilante murders due to apostasy, homophobic attacks (like the one in Orlando) and so on.
The reason Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others have not been included (a decision I actually disagree w/, despite this post) is that they do have governments that have tabs on their citizens (an anathema to /. posters) and inform Western governments about them. Like the attacker on the Louvre yesterday was from Egypt, and Cairo told the French about him when asked. That's not possible w/ countries that either have no real government - Somalia, Libya or Yemen or which have downright hostile governments, like Iran or Syria.
But the other statement that some Leftists have been making - that there have been no terror attacks from citizens of these 7 countries in the US - is patently false. There have been a lot of Somalis who've been involved in terror activity in Minneapolis, and the attack in Ohio State was done by a Somali. There were Yemenis involved in Ft Hood or Ft Dix (I forget, at the moment), there was an Iranian involved in an attack in Chappell Hill, NC some years ago, there was an Iraqi plot busted in Bowling Green, KY, and so on. So it's despicable that a judge thought it worth entertaining Jeff Bozo's plea to let in Yemenis, Somalians and the like into this country. The best thing to happen to him would be to deport him to Raqqa and let ISIS take care of him.