Trump's Executive Order Eliminates Privacy Act Protections For Foreigners (whitehouse.gov) 952
Long-time Slashdot reader Kernel Kurtz writes
: January 28 is supposed to be Data Privacy Day, so it seems fitting in an alternative sort of way that U.S. President Trump just signed an executive order that eliminates Privacy Act protections for foreigners. As a non-American, I find it curious that the person who says he wants to bring jobs to America is simply confirming the post-Snowden belief that America is not a safe place to do business.
The Privacy Act has been in place since 1974. But now section 14 of Trump's "Enhancing Public Safety" executive order directs federal agencies to "ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information" to the extent consistent with applicable law.
The Privacy Act has been in place since 1974. But now section 14 of Trump's "Enhancing Public Safety" executive order directs federal agencies to "ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information" to the extent consistent with applicable law.
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Who wants to visit a broken down piece of crap US run by a stupid cunt like Trump. Happy to stay in civillsation.
Re: Meh (Score:2)
You describe how I feel about Europe exactly.
Re: Meh (Score:5, Informative)
Neither place is broken down, but people in the EU certainly shouldn't throw stones from glass houses. The EU has for several years now been putting MANY self-described fascists into its parliament, and very recently, participating in it in an official manner:
http://www.euractiv.com/sectio... [euractiv.com]
As for Trump, I'm not sure what to make of him. I think his actions are boneheaded because they're going to create international retaliation against US IT firms, thus likely harming the domestic tech sector (Trump seems to like mercantilism as well, which will have a similar impact in other industries) however we can at least definitively say that Trump isn't a fascist, and anybody who says otherwise is either using hyperbole or has no idea what fascism is actually about. The most obvious difference is Trump still favors the individual (and individual liberties) whereas fascism is founded on the premise of a single national identity and almost no individual identity.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump still favors the individual (and individual liberties) whereas fascism is founded on the premise of a single national identity and almost no individual identity.
Do you have any proof of this? I think a few hundred million people have been following Trump's statements and actions pretty closely for the past year and there hasn't been many indications he has any concept other than his own identity...
Re: Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
The most obvious difference is Trump still favors the individual (and individual liberties) whereas fascism is founded on the premise of a single national identity and almost no individual identity.
Right. I nearly forgot his slogan. "Make American Individuals Great Again", right? And his wall is not separating Mexico from the US, but just Mexican individuals from US individuals. And he is creating not "American jobs", but jobs for individual Americans. Just as he is not applying a blanket ban on entry against people from certain nations, but carefully targets this to individuals.
If he is not a full-blown facist, it's not for lack of inclination, it's because he does not know history well enough to understand the pattern.
Re: Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Trump, I'm not sure what to make of him. I think his actions are boneheaded because they're going to create international retaliation against US IT firms, thus likely harming the domestic tech sector
Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.
Re: Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.
Furthermore, the core philosophy of America was that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, not just its own citizens. The US government can only ensure that those rights are protected for people living within its borders but even somebody living under a totalitarian regime is, according to to this philosophy, endowed with the same rights as the most privileged US citizens (it just happens that that poor schlub's government is preventing him from exercising those rights. US intervention is often based on the philosophy that we must remove these unlawful government so that the innate freedoms of those foreigners can be practiced).
Within the confine of the United States, however, the rights of all can be protected. Yes, in certain cases We-the-People might have to sacrifice some of those rights for the common welfare (so though I may have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded room, we've agreed - in the form of law - that this would be a bad idea and have laid that right aside). Certain privileges and responsibilities (voting, holding public office) are restricted to citizens, but these are quite limited. It is possible through criminal action for certain individuals to abrogate some of their rights, but these will only be lost through a decision of the courts, and made on a case-by-case basis.
Specifically targeting a group - whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation or citizenship - and saying "No rights for you!" is contrary to the basic concepts of America. It's why slavery was so wrong, it is why the incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in WW2 was wrong, it is why it is wrong to deny homosexuals marriage, and it is why it is wrong to specifically say that foreigners are not afforded the smae privacy protections as the USA's own citizens.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically targeting a group - whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation or citizenship - and saying "No rights for you!" is contrary to the basic concepts of America.
What if a group of people come in who'll start denying rights to people already living there ? Check out the no-go areas in Malmö where immigrants are now calling for Sharia law and have moral police patrolling the streets and harassing women who dare to walk around in jeans.
Re: Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out the no-go areas in Malmà where immigrants are now calling for Sharia law and have moral police patrolling the streets and harassing women who dare to walk around in jeans.
Are those just like the non existent Muslim only areas of London?
Re: (Score:3)
As I've been informed many times by pro-choicers in debates, the Declaration of Independence, as a philosophical document, has zero force of law and no bearing on the laws of the United States after 1973.
We haven't protected individual rights in a very long time- all of your examples are special privileges based on identity groups.
Re: Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
No, really, the only ones saying this are those trying to trivialize the horrible things he's already done.
So, I wouldn't call you a doublenazi at all. Just a regular Nazi.
Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. If you want to criticize the American government's attitude towards privacy and individual liberty, you should first try moving to a country that didn't regard 1984 as a goddamn instruction manual. Our healthcare system may be a fucking joke, but privacy rights are still a hundred times better over here even if this order stands.
(if you live in AU or somewhere else, please let me know so I can adjust this rant accordingly.)
1. Granted, ours has frayed a bit recently.
Key Phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key Phrase (Score:5, Interesting)
"to the extent consistent with applicable law"
Once he exercises his free (AKA stolen) pick for the SCOTUS, "applicable law" will mean whatever #PresidentTweety wants it to mean. My prediction is that he will pick whichever candidate can convince him of the highest personal loyalty. It's a variation of how the Donald hires his accountants:
Trump: "How much is 2 + 2?"
Winning accountant: "How much do you want it to be?"
Trump: "Are my executive orders legal?"
Winning judge: "How legal do you want them to be?"
Welcome to the Donald's latest pseudo-reality program. The ratings are YUGE. It's on ALL the channels and in ALL the newspapers. Even international!
I actually see this as a market opportunity. Whereas CNN promises the most disaster porn, I'm looking for a news source that promises the least possible amount of Trump news. Only the stuff that REALLY can't be ignored.
Oh, wait. That's just what he wants, isn't it?
(Prior search for "funny" was disappointed. Ditto "insightful", but maybe it's just too early.)
Re:Key Phrase (Score:5, Funny)
Trump: "How much is 2 + 2?"
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would this be the same law that sees police shoot unarmed, cooperating people dead without fear of even loosing their jobs let alone be prosecuited or held accountable
You mean the law that routinely brings such cases before grand juries and then frequently sends them along to a trial? That law?
or would it be that law that allows for unrestricted disregard for the 4th Amendment and other "rights"?
Which law is that? You're being deliberately hand-wavy and vague in order to sound dramatic and righteous without troubling yourself to provide any actual examples. Why? Because you know you're being a drama queen. "Unrestricted" in which sense? Which law is completely unrestricted? Be specific.
Re: Key Phrase (Score:3, Informative)
Obama signed less executive orders than Bush Jr, Clinton or Reagan. You can see the counts here [ucsb.edu]. Of course, I don't expect Trumptards living in Alternative Fact Land to pay attention to reality.
Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigotry (Score:4, Informative)
Donald Trump's bigoted and idiotic executive orders are blocking legal visitors at airports, and spreading chaos at tech companies.
Seriously - when someone manages to escape a civil war and work his way into the tech industry - we shouldn't send him or his family back at the airport when he's traveling or living here on a valid visa.
These are our friends and colleagues. If we don't speak up for them, we have no honor.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
Key phrase.
When the Cato Institute is calling you out on racist policies you know you're up shit creek.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
From the SMH [smh.com.au] Key phrase.
When the Cato Institute is calling you out on racist policies you know you're up shit creek.
The real irony here is that Trump and his alt-right claque are banning travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and justifying it by citing 911 but the countries that the 911 terrorists came from are not on the list, especially Saudi Arabia and the UEA and keep in mind these are the same countries whose citizens are covertly funding ISIS. On top of that Trump set up a series of shell companies to handle a hotel deal in Saudi Arabia and he did it after his bid for president: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-... [thehill.com] at the same time as he was lambasting Clinton for taking donations from the Saudis.
My favourite parts:
"They [Saudis] buy apartments from me, ... They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”
"I would want to protect Saudi Arabia, ... But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us economically. They were making, before the oil went down ... they were making $1 billion a day.”
So rich countries that can make tribute payments to the Trump regime and whose citizens are financially benefitting Trumps companies are not destined for 'the list' even though these countries are financing terrorist organisations that attack and kill US citizens but others including some that are actually fighting ISIS in Syria make the list. I suppose Trump supporters have a hard time spelling 'hypocrisy'.
Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big (Score:2)
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak outâ" Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outâ" Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for meâ"and there was no one left to speak for me.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Funny)
Au contraire! I think president Trump is displaying great vision and great awareness of the US role in history! Its current role is to decline and eventually collapse. Trump has realized this and is doing his very best to ensure it is happening soonest, no matter the cost. I, for one, salute his efforts!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, starting with getting rid of the stupid orange babbon who is president.
Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big (Score:5, Insightful)
If the United States was a meritocracy, George W. Bush would be lucky to be the assistant manager of a Burger King, and you'd find 50% of investment bankers and dot com millionaires coming from a background of destitution because they studied hard in school.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it true that Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sadia Arabia the three countries you think would of been on the top of that list weren't included, three countries that Trump has strong business ties with?
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, terrorists in 9/11 weren't from any countries on Trump's list.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
The Washington Post has an article showing the list of Muslim countries whose people are banned from entering the U.S. The common trait is they have no Trump business ties. Welcome to Fascism in the old sense of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe...
Corporofascisolationism
Trump may actually be a good thing in the long run.
He might get Democrats and Republicans talking to each other again, maybe looking past their minor differences and finding compromise.\
Yeah, I'm a snowflake. I like being a snowflake though, when we get together we cover all, even the mighty Sahara Desert, we become the streams that nourish the rebirth of spring, bring the grow
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
The Washington Post has an article showing the list of Muslim countries whose people are banned from entering the U.S. The common trait is they have no Trump business ties. Welcome to Fascism in the old sense of the word.
That's technically true but still dishonest reporting by the Washington Post.
The claim "Trump's immigration moratorium is targeted at majority-Muslim countries" -- this claim is 21% accurate [i.e. basically false].
The claim "Trump's moratorium is targeted at Iran, plus those countries with civil unrest and poor-functioning central government" -- this claim is 98% accurate (only exception is Afghanistan)
The claim "Trump's moratorium is targeted at majority-Muslim countries save for those where he has business interests" -- this claim is 38% accurate (major exceptions include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Niger, Malaysa).
There are the news reports that Trump's 90-day immigration moratorium is aimed at majority-Muslim countries excepting those where he has/had business interests. And also calling it a "Muslim ban". But those narratives don't fit the facts. Here's the list of majority-Muslim countries in descending order of population, plus those with severe civil unrest, and those subject to the moratorium. I'm measuring accuracy by country count. I should really come up with a more sophisticated measure of accuracy, but can't be bothered...
Indonesia [trump business interests]
Pakistan
Nigeria [not majority-muslim, has civil unrest but well-functioning government]
Bangladesh
Mexico [not majority-muslim, but has civil unrest due to drug war but otherwise well-functioning government]
Iran [30day ban]
Turkey [trump business interests]
Egypt [trump business interests]
Algeria
Sudan [30day ban, civil unrest]
Morocco
Iraq [30day ban, severe civil unrest]
Afghanistan [severe civil unrest]
Uzbekistan
Saudi Arabia [trump business interests]
Yemen [30day ban, civil unrest]
Syria [30day ban, severe civil unrest]
Niger
Malaysia
Mali
Senegal
Burkina Faso
Tunisia
Somalia [30day ban, civil unrest]
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan [trump business interests]
Guinea
Chad
Tajikistan
Jordan
Libya [30day ban, civil unrest]
Kyrgyzstan
Turkmenistan
Mauritania
Siera Leone
United Arab Emirates [trump business interest]
Kuwait
Oman
Lebanon
Gambia
Kosovo
Qatar [trump business interests]
Bahrain
Comoros
Western Sahara
Maldives
Mayotte
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Note: I'm not a Trump supporter. I've written to my representative and senators to add my voice against him, and I marched with my family last Saturday. On the other hand, I think the media have been FAILING us liberals by giving incomplete or misleading journalism -- articles that are designed to inflame our passions and attract our clicks, but without having the solid factual basis needed for us to engage with our republican friends.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
There are the news reports that Trump's 90-day immigration moratorium is aimed at majority-Muslim countries excepting those where he has/had business interests. And also calling it a "Muslim ban". But those narratives don't fit the facts. Here's the list of majority-Muslim countries in descending order of population, plus those with severe civil unrest, and those subject to the moratorium. I'm measuring accuracy by country count. I should really come up with a more sophisticated measure of accuracy, but can't be bothered...
The overlap with his business interests may or may not be a coincidence, that's the problem with his business interests, you can't tell if he's making a decision for personal profit or not.
But this is intended as a Muslim ban, Giuliani is taking credit for the policy saying that Trump asked him for a legal way to do the Muslim ban and that's what they came up with [youtu.be].
The list of countries banned corresponds to a list of countries singled out for extra scrutiny in an omnibus spending bill [wikipedia.org] signed into law by Obama. But it's misleading to say it's Obama's list since the bill was primarily authored by congressional Republicans and if Obama didn't sign it when he did the US would have had another government shutdown.
From a safety concern this is entirely targeted at Muslims and not terrorists since it includes Iran which is the wrong religion.
Iran is a Shia majority country and Islamic terrorism is overwhelmingly confined to a few Sunni sects. It would be like banning immigration from London because you're afraid of the IRA. There is no rational reason to ban Persian immigrants from a safety perspective.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do the right thing - stand against Trump's big (Score:5, Insightful)
For this to work, you need people to respond in the planned kneejerk manner.
Step forward, Donald J Trump. Your executive order blanket-banning people from Muslim countries and plans to discriminate on the basis of religion are *exactly* what they planned for and wanted.
Well done. You played right into their hands. You are ISIS/Daesh's useful idiot. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, no.
There are a lot of things we should fix in America first before we try to help everyone else.
And how does allowing talented immigrants in not "fix" America? If we always did what Trump is doing, we'd be way behind the rest of the world technologically. Einstein was a refugee and so was Wernher von Braun (though he was a refugee for a much different reason.)
Speak of Wernher von Braun; he got to skip the gallows because of his knowledge, and if we didn't keep him we would have lost the space race for sure -- something to keep in mind if we're going to kick out immigrants from potentially hostile foreign nations, as that could cost us our next space race.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget all the immigrants who came over on the Mayflower and screwed things up.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
No idea? Ask Steve Job's dad?
Re: (Score:3)
And one of the things to fix is getting rid of America's xenophobia.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Insightful)
.
If it weren't for German immigrant scientists (many undocumented, some Nazis) in the US during WWII, you'd be writing that in Japanese and you wouldn't be writing it from your iPhone...
Thing about lending someone a hand? They do tend to reciprocate.
Thing about giving someone the back of your hand? They do tend to reciprocate.
Just sayin'.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Informative)
If it weren't for German immigrant scientists (many undocumented, some Nazis) in the US during WWII, you'd be writing that in Japanese
Um, no. Japan was losing anyhow.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of things we should fix in America first before we try to help everyone else.
Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The key part of this is "yearning to breath free"
People who move to a place to then try and impose the rules of the places they moved from are not the type of people who are wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Funny)
Now it reads "No Vacancy"
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot fix these things BEFORE. These things can onlty be fixed DURING helping someone else.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't hurt for us to keep our word, for starters. We already gave them the assurance of the US government that they could travel to/stay in the country--now they try to act on this, and we tell them, "HA-ha! We had our fingers crossed!"?
As a practical matter, if Trump keeps up such shenanigans, it might not be very long at all before Americans visiting or living overseas find their visas vanishing into thin air in retaliation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CA pays your bills, bitch. We hand over much more money than we receive from the feds. I hope we do succeed and pull the useless fucking bigoted morons in the middle of our country from our overflowing teats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CA pays your bills, bitch. We hand over much more money than we receive from the feds. I hope we do succeed and pull the useless fucking bigoted morons in the middle of our country from our overflowing teats.
I'd like to see how you guys end up rationing your energy when you can no longer connect to the grid of neighboring states. You know your state only provides about 60% of its own energy demands, right? Let me guess, you'll just cut the power to all of the poor people's houses so that the industry there can remain intact? May as well because there are so many homeless people (and multiple families crowded into one single family home) there that you may as well just make everybody who isn't making at least $2
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see how you guys end up rationing your energy when you can no longer connect to the grid of neighboring state
They're called rolling brownouts and it's nothing new for CA.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Interesting)
CA pays your bills, bitch. We hand over much more money than we receive from the feds. I hope we do succeed and pull the useless fucking bigoted morons in the middle of our country from our overflowing teats.
I'd like to see how you guys end up rationing your energy when you can no longer connect to the grid of neighboring states. You know your state only provides about 60% of its own energy demands, right? Let me guess, you'll just cut the power to all of the poor people's houses so that the industry there can remain intact? May as well because there are so many homeless people (and multiple families crowded into one single family home) there that you may as well just make everybody who isn't making at least $200,000 a year go the rest of the way to destitution.
They don't get that energy for free. They pay for it you fool. The United States has interconnects and significant energy trade with both Canada and Mexico. Integrating North American Energy Markets - Department of Energy [energy.gov]
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Funny)
California's boycott of Arizona was successful and turned Arizona into a dystopian wasteland populated by shambling zombies.
Thing is, nobody noticed.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Informative)
And what do you suppose the odds of you being a victim of a terrorist attack? Seriously here. Stop and think for a minute. Are you making a rational assessment? In general terms, the biggest causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer, with accidental deaths being choking, automobile accidents and falls. Terrorist attacks are so far down the list that you might as well start worrying about lightning strikes taking you down. That's why you're a retard, because you're unable to assess risk with anything approaching rationality, are easily stirred up, and really are the most delicate of little snowflakes.
Seek out a psychiatrist, and in the meantime, take a fucking statistics course.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy is off by orders of a magnitude. Quit trying to justify irrational fear.
Deport All Toddlers (Score:3, Informative)
Your analogy is off by orders of a magnitude. Quit trying to justify irrational fear.
Here are some actual numbers:
In 2016 'islamic' terrorists were responsible for 0.3% of the all the murders in the US. [duke.edu]
Over the last 15 years they were responsible for 123 out of 240,000+ murders or just 0.051%.
In 2015 more people were killed by toddlers than were killed by 'islamic' terrorists. [snopes.com]
On average, toddlers kill 2x more americans than 'islamic' extremists do.
Re: (Score:3)
You're more likely to be killed by your living room furniture than by a "terrorist". No, I'm not kidding. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I have a bowl of 1000 chocolates for you to try. One of the chocolates is poisoned
If you double that figure you get the deaths from terrorism, ... WORLD WIDE. Yes, you're off by a factor of 2 and already taking into account shitholes run by terrorists. Now if you were a lovely little ignorant American you'd realise that 3100 Americans have died from terrorism in the past 15 years. 2.6million Americans die each year.
Now if you give me a bowl with 13500 chocolates and statistically one of them is poisoned, I'll eat far more than one.
Now where's my chocolate you retarded master of economics
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want my country flushed down the toilet by uneducated retards like yourself.
I work with Muslims, and even though they don't drink they are nice people and we are lucky to have them in the country, and I'm glad that they are my colleagues.
Hopefully one day you will realize that Muslims are hard working Americans.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Insightful)
Impressive is the person who has a Masters in economics and worries about terrorism. Mostly because I guess you can work formulas but can't do basic risk analysis.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:4, Insightful)
Fun fact - the World Trade Center terrorists did not hail from any of the 6 counties that our President has enacted a travel ban on, they hailed primarily from Saudi Arabia, our ally.
In the meanwhile you need to get out of your bubble and meet some Muslim people. You sound like you don't have a very diverse upbringing, well guess what there's a lot of diversity in America if you live and work in urban areas or technical fields. I have a colleague who is Muslim. She has a PhD in a technical field and wants to stay in the USA. She's the kind of person America should want to hang onto and not drive away. Yet now her parents in her home country likely won't be able to get a visa to visit her here, and she has no idea if the greencard she is in the application process for is still a possibly in this new scaremongering era of Trump.
Re:Do the right thing - stand against Trump's bigo (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot the words "bigoted", "misogynist", and "Hitler".
Laugh it up, but Trump just ordered a weekly publication of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Hitler did the same back in the 40's. Google up "The Criminal Jew".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If it was a Muslim ban, how are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia not on that list - along w/ a mechanism in US consulates in India to deny Muslims any visas?
It's a start but Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Turkey shouldn't have been left out of the list. San Bernardino - after which Trump first made his Muslim ban announcement - was done by a Paki, whose wife was indoctrinated in Mecca. Orlando by an Afghan. 9/11 by Saudis. Turkey has been undergoing a re-Islamization w/ ISIS rig
Re: (Score:3)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... [yahoo.com]
Amazing how much he fucked up in just 10 days (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, ban legal, visa-holder residents for 90 days? Was he expecting that not to turn into a shitshow?
This is what happens when you let Bannon write foreign policy.
Re: Amazing how much he fucked up in just 10 days (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy Act Exemptions (Score:2)
The Privacy Act does not protect non-US persons, which is problematic for the exchange of Passenger Name Record information between the US and the European Union.
The privacy act already doesn't apply to non-US persons.
Re:Privacy Act Exemptions (Score:4, Informative)
Trump seems to think Executive Orders... (Score:5, Insightful)
let him unilaterally decide whatever he wants.
I don't remember the United States being a monarchy.
At what point does Congress tell him he's not a king?
Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump has to follow either the US Constitution, or whatever Congress decides he's allowed to do.
What happens if he doesn't adhere to the above? I get the feeling we're about to find out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, in the short term, I'm assuming Federal Courts will step in, which is what has happened with those who were in transit who had visas. So while that's not a perfect solution, it demonstrates that the checks and balances mean that the President isn't an absolute monarch whose executive orders carry the weight of some sort of royal proclamation.
Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doe
Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in the short term, I'm assuming Federal Courts will step in, ...
And... Trump and Fox News will label them "activist" judges, denigrate their heritage or gender, etc... and the shit-show will continue.
Re: (Score:3)
Well of course they will. That's what those brave Congressmen and women do, they sit on their hands and let judges do the heavy lifting and take the flack.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's about strong restrictions on refugees, then why exactly go after people with green cards?
Close but I have a nit to pick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, as to Congress, well I'm assuming here that these executive orders are based on powers bequeathed to the President by Congress, in which case if Congress doesn't like how Trump is using the powers that have been been granted to him by legislation, then they can amend or repeal any said legislation,...
Close. But let me pick a small, but inprotant, nitl
The Presiden't powers don't come from the Congress. The President's powers come from the Constitution. Some of them do amount to some component of "implementing the laws as passed by Congress". But not all of them are of that form; The others aren't generally subject to congress adding a "Do it this way / don't do it that way" prescription, and even their ability to specify HOW he executes that laws that they DID pass is limited.
The President is head of the Executive branch of the government - one of three co-equal branches. Rule of thumb: If ONE of the branches gets out of hand, it takes BOTH of the other two to override it - and it's a major boat-rocker to do so. When two branches disagree and the third sits it out, the first two each get to run their branches' things their own way.
Having said that: Much of the current over-power of the President and the Executive Branch IS the result of Congress shirking their own hard decisions by handing some of their OWN legislative power off to the Executive, in such forms as rule-making and war-powers preauthorizations. Those do act much as you describe. And they've been used to create the monumental overweening bureaucracy and set of "administrative rules" that Trump is now trying to dismantle, using the same mechanisms as were used to create it.
Trump inherited Obama's "Pen and Phone". The executive order is the writing of the pen. Presidents before him created a set of juggernauts. Trump gets to disassemble them (much to the joy of his supporters) to his heart's content - at least until the Congress takes its own delegated power back. As you point out that's not likely to happen any time soon (and his party has the majority in both houses for the next two years).
Meanwhile, the courts alone are limited in what they can do to counter him, both by the Constitution and their own rules of deferring to the executive unless there's good reason not to, avoiding an override of a law or executive action if a case can be decided on some other basis, limiting the scope of the laws or actions overridden to the minimum needed to decide a case, and not accepting a case for a ruing unless the prayug party is suffering real harm from the law or action being complained about. Further, the top court is tied 4 conservative 4 liberal, and Trump gets to appoint the ninth.
So I would expect Trump to rapidly and selectively smash away. (There's so MANY of these structures to smash, and so little time in no more than two Presidential terms.) And if Congress DOES try to take its power back before he leaves office, tweet about being thrown into briar patches and ROTFLMAO.
Re:Close but I have a nit to pick. (Score:4, Insightful)
My understanding is that Executive Orders can only be made for powers either bequeathed to the President via the Constitution, or where Congress has granted the Executive branch those powers via legislation.
We are in total agreement there - that this is the theory,
In practice the President orders as he will, limited only by his conscience (if any), the courts, and (in extremis) behavior so egregious that his underlings would mutiny or Congress would impeach. Essentially that means the courts, which have explicit rules and policies in place to minimize such interference.
LBJ called politics "The Art of the Possible". I've always read that to mean "Everything I Can Get Away With".
In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law.
I note that the "immigration problems" we are currently having stem from various Presidents' choices to NOT enforce immigration law (and Obama's choice to write Executive Orders purporting to grant non-Congressionally-authorized extra immigration waivers and handle incoming illegal immigrants in a way that destroys the paper trail necessary to find and deport them). Trump can keep most of his immigration promises just by switching to vigorously enforcing the laws as written and building the (already Congressionally Mandated and partially funded) wall.
For the rest, Congress, post 9/11, wrote the President a number of anti-terrorism blank checks. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one that could be read to authorize his actions. If he can't find or stretch one to fit, THEN he can try to justify it from his Constitutional Powers.
Of course, if it ever DOES come to court, Trump's attorneys can throw ALL the claims at the bench simultaneously. Only one needs to stick.
Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... (Score:5, Informative)
What happens if he doesn't adhere to the above? I get the feeling we're about to find out.
It's already become clear that the White House explicitly overrode a DHS determination that contended the ban didn't apply to Green Card holders and other valid, vetted residents. The ACLU is reporting that some officials are not abiding by a number of stay order issued at courts in at least three locations.
As a legal instrument, at least one scholar sees these particular orders as so incredibly flawed that they won't stand up [lawfareblog.com] to a sustained legal attack by the ACLU, CAIR and others.
Most worrying though are the reports circulating that the drafting process bypassed the normal interdepartmental and legal review stages, and that DHS was only briefed on the content of the Executive Orders as they were being signed. This doesn't sound like an administration that's particularly worried about adhering to the letter of the law, or bringing a lot of people into the conversation. Not sure how that will stand up over time. Politics is often petty and vengeful, and the White House is already leaking like a sieve. It might be that their incompetence is what does them in. It may be that their unwillingness to share power will do it.
My personal feeling is that neither one will stop them. I think people severely underestimate the lengths that this administration will go to to see this through. When Donald Trump promised the people of America that he would never back down, that he would do everything to advance the cause... I think he was speaking literally. When Steve Bannon says that we're at war with Islam, I think he believes it fervently. When Flynn and others portray their work as an existential fight, I think they're sincere in that.
Left-leaning people and other opponents have mobilised quickly, but they're expecting the administration to react the way they would react. They think that public shaming, legal action and political activism will drive Donald Trump's administration back. I fear they're wrong. They will be seen as traitors and subversives, and they'll be treated accordingly, through formal and informal means. They don't realise that their resistance will ultimately have to be physical. They should be reading up on their Thoreau right about now....
Re: (Score:2)
The resistance will have to be legal. The courts are the best shot, and the only one which can really hold the Administration to account, until Congress finally decides that Trump is going to do more damage than good. Already the Senate has made Trump and his bright lights back down on the Mexican 20% tariff over that stupid fucking wall, so I expect the muscle flexing to continue, but cautiously. But if Trump is still behaving this way in 18 months, he'll alienate a lot of members of Congress. This isn't j
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have forgotten that the so-called Republican Party stole a Supreme Court seat for the Donald to fill with whichever candidate is most successful in convincing the Donald of undying love and loyalty. The only problem #PresidentTweety has is that it's so hard to love and trust such a liar.
Not a problem with blaming the court system for slowing him up. It's often convenient to have someone to blame for your failings. Like the way the Chinese communists are about to start blaming Trump for their own
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because polls suggest that this is what Americans actually want. E.g.:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-... [thehill.com]
Now, you can argue that the majority of Americans are deluded fools, but that's the way the cookie crumbles in a democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Consular nonreviewability, end of story. Non-citizens at the border, have no legal standing, ie not even a right to sue.
Obama similar executive order in 2011 for Iraq for 6 months and then signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov] , which restricted Libya, Somalia, and Yemen 3 of the 7 countries .
Where was the up roar then? Same action, I guess Obama was Hitler too by the liberal left logic.
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't sound like an administration that's particularly worried about adhering to the letter of the law.
No shit! From the order:
From the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Either Trump is completely ignorant of justice principles like not punishing a person without t
Re: (Score:2)
Trump issues executive orders for what Congress has authorized him to issue executive orders for. Border security is one of those areas.
Obama did the same thing, when he unilaterally decided to loosen requirements for refugees and immigrants, not to mention to reduce enforcement against illegal migrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he learned from the best: Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush...
Based on what I have seen over the past eight days, I'd say those men are paragons of statesmanship compared to Trump.
We live in interesting times...
Re: (Score:2)
Bush (either of them) is Winston Churchill compared to Trump.
Re:Trump seems to think Executive Orders... (Score:5, Informative)
let him unilaterally decide whatever he wants.
Me thinks he learned this whole executive order thing from the previous holder of the office...
As far as number of executive orders is concerned, Obama's record was far below average. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump learned that from the previous administration too, which ran off "half-cocked with thoughtless abandon" on numerous issues.
But, obviously, here, people are just referring to the fact that Obama and the Democrats normalized massive executive overreach and, in addition, reduced the ability of Congressional minorities to intervene.
Obama already did the same thing, no out cry (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama similar executive order in 2011 for Iraq for 6 months and then signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov] , which restricted Libya, Somalia, and Yemen 3 of the 7 countries .
Consular nonreviewability applies to this case. Legal Aliens at the border have virtually no constitutional rights, this settled case law. The judge is way out of line shooting down the other order.
Re:Whats the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. No changed jobs, expired visas, incorrect documentation or lack of vetoes were part of the equation.
The sad part is that the ban seems to be in place only because those 7 countries are mostly Muslim. None of them were involved on any kind of terrorist activity on US soil while other countries which were, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are inexplicably left out of the executive action signed last Friday.
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations, you walked right into the trap.
Syria is the only country named in the order. The other 6 were part of a law that Obama signed a year or two ago. But now the lefties are demanding that more majority-Muslim countries be added to the list, just like you did here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issuance of the executive order was careless, though politically, it may work out OK for Trump.
However, the simple fact is that as a non-citizen, travel is and always has been risky.
Re:Whats the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't be dense. Of course visas and permits can be revoked; the entire issue here is that it happened without any justifiable reason. "Hey, it can happen" is a poor argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Like most other nations people have a few options:
Change your citizenship, consider dual citizenship (some nations allow that) or opt to follow a visas and permits policy that can change.
Re: (Score:3)
The concept is simple, you're a guest in someone else's home. The host can of course decide who to invite, what they can do and how long they can stay. But it's pretty damn rude to tell someone they can crash on your couch and then on the day they're coming out of the blue go "sorry, don't want you on my couch because I don't trust you" without any clear reason. And everything else is sold out, leaving the guest with no other choice but to abort his trip and go home.
Re: (Score:2)
US citizenship is an option at the end of that green card process.
So until US citizenship is granted its like most other nations permits. Can work or just free to move around.
Like most permits, most govs do have the option to revoke what they grant to any other nations citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the Constitution. It is very clear on using the inclusive "people" most places, and reserve "citizens" for where the difference matters, like federal voting rights, rights to run for higher office, and obligation to serve in war.
There are quite a few permanent residents who have lived here for decades, but cannot become US citizens due to factors like needing to be able to visit their families, and their country of origin not allowing dual citizenship.
Also consider that many native Americans are citiz
It's not just here. It's EVERYWHERE. (Score:3)
This site does does seem to be getting more political and less technical in the choice of stories being put forward.
It's not just here. It's everywhere. For instance:
- I run into these arguments on a computer experts mailing list.
- I see them keep popping up on an alternative energy BBS - bringing the board operators out to repeatedly admonish the posters about the "no political discussions" rule.
- (I'd probably see them in more places but I've been sick as a dog this last week.)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to believe the existence in a grand conspiracy of leftists AND consider the entire process to be some sort of adversarial game. Eh whatever, my country has its own problems, but at least many of the people who voted for Trump are likely to get fucked by him, so it's kind of karmic justice I guess. The trouble is of course everyone else (except his very rich friends) will also get fucked.
Anyway after 4 (or 8!) years of disaster, I look forwards to you continuing to blame everyone else.
Re:Privacy is a joke (Score:5, Insightful)