The authorities can easily decide your "harmless" social media account is something doctored up to fool them
Correct. Admission of non-citizens into the US is a judgment call. A doctored-looking social media account may be even worse than no social media account at all. I'm not sure why you consider that a problem.
The traditional way of dealing with visas is to require solid, credible foreign government records (including police reports) and simply refuse admission to anybody who can't provide those. That means no admission from politically unstable countries at all and no admissions from countries whose governments we don't trust. Would you prefer that? Or would you prefer that US immigration officials give people more options for establishing that they might be admissible after all?
But I asked whether opposing slavery was wrong given laws that were in effect in a time when slaverery were not such a violation. You changed tenses on me.
No, I didn't change tenses on you. The question of whether something "was" morally wrong is still a question about a moral judgment we make today, not how the people at the time judged it to be. (If you were trying to ask the latter question, you were changing tenses on me, since I clearly had given my original justification in terms of a modern concept, namely that of human rights.) However, it turns out that the majority of Americans at the time probably also judged slavery to be morally wrong, and hence would have judged opposition to slavery to be morally justified; so it's not the case that views changed on this subject.
Unlike slavery, which was always widely considered immoral in the US, immigration restrictions have never been considered immoral except by a small minority. And there is no reason to believe that that is ever going to change. Immigration restrictions will only disappear when progressive nation states disappear.
Bullshit. It's a ban. People with visas and green cards are being refused entry.
People with green cards are subjected to additional scrutiny, but can enter if they pass those checks. People with visas are delayed for 90 days until new vetting procedures are in place.
That's why this is such a big deal.
Green card holders and visa holders have always gotten screwed by the US immigration system, under Democrats and Republicans alike. I've been stuck outside the US for days due to visa processing delays; friends were stuck for months. American voters don't give a f*ck, and any sane immigrant recognizes that American voters aren't obligated to give a f*ck.
This is only a "big deal" because the American left thinks they can turn it into a political issue, and they will pay attention to this for only as long as it serves their anti-Trump agenda, then they'll go right back to their own form of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It's pathetic.
On what evidence do you base the notion that slavery violated then established fundamental human rights?
I didn't say it "violated", I said it "violates". That is, according to today's understanding of human rights (e.g., UDHR), slavery violates human rights, and that is why most people today judge the actions of people who opposed slavery in the past to have been just and moral actions.
so it seems odd that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, country that have all produced terrorists, don't have the same restrictions that a bunch of people who have been bombed out of their homes by a civil war suddenly have thrown on them.
For visas, the question isn't only whether a country has produced terrorists, but how easy background checks are for people from that country.
But don't let rational arguments get in the way of your politics, which are obviously paranoid, irrational, hate-filled, and generally in some intense state of panic.
Well, it doesn't violate the US Constitution, it doesn't violate US law, and it doesn't violate human rights as recognized internationally. It's also been US immigration practice for more than a century, and it is widely practiced by other countries.
So, that raises the question: on what basis would you consider it "wrong"?
Are you saying that everyone who illegally helped escaped slaves were wrong?
Slavery violates established, fundamental human rights; hence opposing it is morally right even when it is legally wrong.
Denying a non-citizen entry to a country, even on the basis of country of origin or religion, does not violate established, fundamental human rights. On what basis do you justify opposition to such policies?
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
They don't need to "justify the ban". Trump ran on this and he has the authority to do it.
Moreover, it's not a "ban" anyway; he is delaying visas by 90 days for people from seven countries of concern, countries incidentally chosen by Obama, not Trump.
ere's a clue: if you accuse me of something, the onus is on you to provide evidence
What we're talking about here is your claim that at least some foreigners have a legal right to enter the USA, overriding the president's executive order. So far, you have provided zero support for your statement.
So I say again, you're a wretched liar.
The problem here is that you pull claims out of your ass, fail to come up with evidence, and then feign indignation when people call you on your b.s.
However, it should be painfully obvious that "unconditional right to enter the US" is not at all the same thing as, "has a right to enter the US"
Correct, it isn't the same. People obviously have a "conditional right to enter the US", namely under the conditions set by the executive branch; that's what the law says. Those conditions changed and now exclude a bunch of people. Yet the ACLU and others claim that non-citizens have some "right" that overrides these conditions. That is, they are postulating some kind of absolute right that overrides both the law and the rules of the executive branch. I think it is proper to refer to that as an "unconditional right", but you're welcome to come up with some other name for it. Whatever you call it, try to produce a legal basis for it.
It is true that border agents have wide immediate discretion but it is also true that legal residents of the United States have a right to re-enter.
Again, what's the legal basis for it? And what are the supposed conditions under which they have such a right?
Keep in mind, I was an immigrant in several countries for much of my life, and I never assumed that I had any right to reenter the country. As an immigrant, I recognized that my host country had no legal or moral obligations towards me and could send me packing any time they wanted, just like I could leave any time I wanted. What makes you think that things are suddenly different?
but in the rest of the civilized world the chances of being denied access to a country with a valid resident visa are the same chances of being hit by lightning. In a submarine
Well, you're welcome to try to substantiate that claim with some data. I have certainly gotten stuck outside the US for several days until the US got my paperwork in order.
I honestly can't believe you're arguing this visa cancellations are normal, nor that travelling "is risky".
I didn't argue that visa cancellations are "normal", nor that travel restrictions are "normal", but it's a fact of life that they do happen. And when they happen, you have little recourse as an immigrant.
I do argue that it is prudent to minimize travel outside your country of residence as an immigrant. I have lived by that rule, and it has served me well.
Sorry, that's bullshit. I've been (and am) an immigrant on a number of countries and never had any issues travelling, nor worried about being unable to return.
Your carefree nature doesn't change the legal reality.
I'd rather be a snowflake than a lemming or ostrich like you guys.
I didn't vote for either of these guys. But Trump seems to be doing what he promised and what the people who voted for him wanted him to do.
They're throwing a lot of toddler tantrums themselves - almost like they're little snowflakes themselves (worshiped by lemmings).
Well, the outrage on the right seems to have worked politically, while the outrage on the left hasn't just failed to bring Hillary into power, but also failed the Democrats in Congressional races.
WTF are you talking about? I am an immigrant and travel quite often, both for business and leisure.
I'm sorry, I should obviously have said "...that's why smart immigrants avoid...". It's because the US government can deny you reentry any time and you have little recourse. My recommendation: cut back on the international travel until you have a US passport.
This has always been a risk for green card holders in the US; saying the wrong thing, innocent mistakes, or even mistakes on the part of the system could get you to lose your green card and wreck your life. People put up with it because immigrating to the US is worth it.
the entire issue here is that it happened without any justifiable reason
So... business as usual. That's why, as an immigrant, you avoid international travel, and you most certainly avoid international travel into conflict areas.
Are you serious? We're talking about legal residents who where prohibited, overnight, to enter the country without any other justification than a whim from Trump.
It's not a "whim", it's what he ran on. It's also not a permanent ban but an additional review. In addition, take it from a former immigrant: you always run the risk of being denied entry upon returning to the country; that's nothing new whatsoever.
Citation: I have a friend in the foreign service. [...] Incorrect: that is not what the law says. Again, that's not what the law says.
Under international law and the UDHR, the only right you have is to move freely within your country of citizenship, not to be impeded from leaving a country, and return to your country of citizenship; there is no basic human right to enter any country other than you country of citizenship, and even the right to return to your country of citizenship can be restricted.
I'm not aware of any US law that grants foreigners an unconditional right to enter the US, but you are free to cite them; note that "I know someone" doesn't count. Of course, Trump's order isn't actually a ban, it's a temporary halt, and the executive branch has authority to do that. That is, the executive branch can move countries off the visa-free travel list and delay visa processing for months for people from those countries, as well as impose additional vetting on anybody returning from overseas.
Besides, given what a horrible place the US is according to you, why would this even concern you? You should be happy that people are spared the horrible fate of having to live in the US!
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Admission of non-citizens into the US is a judgment call. A doctored-looking social media account may be even worse than no social media account at all. I'm not sure why you consider that a problem.
The traditional way of dealing with visas is to require solid, credible foreign government records (including police reports) and simply refuse admission to anybody who can't provide those. That means no admission from politically unstable countries at all and no admissions from countries whose governments we don't trust. Would you prefer that? Or would you prefer that US immigration officials give people more options for establishing that they might be admissible after all?
No, I didn't change tenses on you. The question of whether something "was" morally wrong is still a question about a moral judgment we make today, not how the people at the time judged it to be. (If you were trying to ask the latter question, you were changing tenses on me, since I clearly had given my original justification in terms of a modern concept, namely that of human rights.) However, it turns out that the majority of Americans at the time probably also judged slavery to be morally wrong, and hence would have judged opposition to slavery to be morally justified; so it's not the case that views changed on this subject.
Unlike slavery, which was always widely considered immoral in the US, immigration restrictions have never been considered immoral except by a small minority. And there is no reason to believe that that is ever going to change. Immigration restrictions will only disappear when progressive nation states disappear.
Nothing makes slavery different. Under today's standards, slavery is morally wrong while immigration restrictions are not.
People with green cards are subjected to additional scrutiny, but can enter if they pass those checks. People with visas are delayed for 90 days until new vetting procedures are in place.
Green card holders and visa holders have always gotten screwed by the US immigration system, under Democrats and Republicans alike. I've been stuck outside the US for days due to visa processing delays; friends were stuck for months. American voters don't give a f*ck, and any sane immigrant recognizes that American voters aren't obligated to give a f*ck.
This is only a "big deal" because the American left thinks they can turn it into a political issue, and they will pay attention to this for only as long as it serves their anti-Trump agenda, then they'll go right back to their own form of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It's pathetic.
No.
Any other questions I can help you with?
It's your choice, and you'll have to deal with the consequences.
I didn't say it "violated", I said it "violates". That is, according to today's understanding of human rights (e.g., UDHR), slavery violates human rights, and that is why most people today judge the actions of people who opposed slavery in the past to have been just and moral actions.
Give it a try; poor spelling might be a reason for excluding you.
And that's different from Obama... how? Or from what Hillary was threatening us with?
Geez, where was all that concern when past presidents kept screwing up the lives of legal immigrants, foremost Democrats?
For visas, the question isn't only whether a country has produced terrorists, but how easy background checks are for people from that country.
But don't let rational arguments get in the way of your politics, which are obviously paranoid, irrational, hate-filled, and generally in some intense state of panic.
Well, it doesn't violate the US Constitution, it doesn't violate US law, and it doesn't violate human rights as recognized internationally. It's also been US immigration practice for more than a century, and it is widely practiced by other countries.
So, that raises the question: on what basis would you consider it "wrong"?
Slavery violates established, fundamental human rights; hence opposing it is morally right even when it is legally wrong.
Denying a non-citizen entry to a country, even on the basis of country of origin or religion, does not violate established, fundamental human rights. On what basis do you justify opposition to such policies?
They don't need to "justify the ban". Trump ran on this and he has the authority to do it.
Moreover, it's not a "ban" anyway; he is delaying visas by 90 days for people from seven countries of concern, countries incidentally chosen by Obama, not Trump.
A social media account can be used to help you establish that you are harmless; if you don't have one, you simply go back into the "unknown" category.
And, in any case, he isn't "going after people with green cards":
http://legalinsurrection.com/2...
What we're talking about here is your claim that at least some foreigners have a legal right to enter the USA, overriding the president's executive order. So far, you have provided zero support for your statement.
The problem here is that you pull claims out of your ass, fail to come up with evidence, and then feign indignation when people call you on your b.s.
Correct, it isn't the same. People obviously have a "conditional right to enter the US", namely under the conditions set by the executive branch; that's what the law says. Those conditions changed and now exclude a bunch of people. Yet the ACLU and others claim that non-citizens have some "right" that overrides these conditions. That is, they are postulating some kind of absolute right that overrides both the law and the rules of the executive branch. I think it is proper to refer to that as an "unconditional right", but you're welcome to come up with some other name for it. Whatever you call it, try to produce a legal basis for it.
Again, what's the legal basis for it? And what are the supposed conditions under which they have such a right?
Keep in mind, I was an immigrant in several countries for much of my life, and I never assumed that I had any right to reenter the country. As an immigrant, I recognized that my host country had no legal or moral obligations towards me and could send me packing any time they wanted, just like I could leave any time I wanted. What makes you think that things are suddenly different?
Well, you're welcome to try to substantiate that claim with some data. I have certainly gotten stuck outside the US for several days until the US got my paperwork in order.
I didn't argue that visa cancellations are "normal", nor that travel restrictions are "normal", but it's a fact of life that they do happen. And when they happen, you have little recourse as an immigrant.
I do argue that it is prudent to minimize travel outside your country of residence as an immigrant. I have lived by that rule, and it has served me well.
Your carefree nature doesn't change the legal reality.
I didn't vote for either of these guys. But Trump seems to be doing what he promised and what the people who voted for him wanted him to do.
Well, the outrage on the right seems to have worked politically, while the outrage on the left hasn't just failed to bring Hillary into power, but also failed the Democrats in Congressional races.
I notice a complete absence of actual facts or citations in your response.
I'm sorry, I should obviously have said "...that's why smart immigrants avoid...". It's because the US government can deny you reentry any time and you have little recourse. My recommendation: cut back on the international travel until you have a US passport.
This has always been a risk for green card holders in the US; saying the wrong thing, innocent mistakes, or even mistakes on the part of the system could get you to lose your green card and wreck your life. People put up with it because immigrating to the US is worth it.
So... business as usual. That's why, as an immigrant, you avoid international travel, and you most certainly avoid international travel into conflict areas.
It's not a "whim", it's what he ran on. It's also not a permanent ban but an additional review. In addition, take it from a former immigrant: you always run the risk of being denied entry upon returning to the country; that's nothing new whatsoever.
Under international law and the UDHR, the only right you have is to move freely within your country of citizenship, not to be impeded from leaving a country, and return to your country of citizenship; there is no basic human right to enter any country other than you country of citizenship, and even the right to return to your country of citizenship can be restricted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm not aware of any US law that grants foreigners an unconditional right to enter the US, but you are free to cite them; note that "I know someone" doesn't count. Of course, Trump's order isn't actually a ban, it's a temporary halt, and the executive branch has authority to do that. That is, the executive branch can move countries off the visa-free travel list and delay visa processing for months for people from those countries, as well as impose additional vetting on anybody returning from overseas.
Besides, given what a horrible place the US is according to you, why would this even concern you? You should be happy that people are spared the horrible fate of having to live in the US!