Trump’s immigration missteps cause pandemonium

UPDATE: More shenanigans from my CNN news feed, which comes in an email: “White House officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose websites and social media sites they visit, and to share cell phone contacts, sources tell CNN.”

_____________

Despite some grousing that I should spend more time criticizing Donald Trump than the Regressive Left, my feelings toward the Trumpster have always been clear (I despise his views), I’ve gone after him a number of times, and, most important, there are plenty of other bloggers out there engaged in taking him down. (Also, read the Roolz: I’m not to be told to write about X rather than Y.)

Nevertheless, I woke up this morning both dispirited and heartened by the news. As you know, on Friday Donald Trump signed an executive order on immigration, putting on hold for four months the entry of all refugees to the U.S., suspending refugees from Syria indefinitely, and, for 90 days, prohibiting citizens of seven countries that are predominantly Muslim from entering the U.S.:  Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (why not Saudi Arabia?).  He also promised “stringent vetting” of refugee applicants in the future—probably those from Muslim lands.

This caused pandemonium. Some refugees were sent back from the U.S., others weren’t allowed on planes to the U.S. (these included holders of green cards that allowed them to live and work here, as well as foreign students already attending American universities), and some holding valid visas were detained for hours at airports.

This is unconscionable, for not only does it prohibit legal residents from returning to the U.S., but also, despite Trump’s claims, constitutes a form of religious discrimination against refugees. It also tars the reputation of the U.S. as a historical home for refugees.  It is merely one of many actions Trump will take that are repugnant and contrary to the values of our country. And remember, he’s barely been in power for a week!

I’ve always thought that both demonstrations (including peaceful ones that constituted civil disobedience) and legal action were the best way to blunt Trump’s actions, and in this case they succeeded. Many of my countrymen showed up at airports, protesting the executive orders; these included Senator Elizabeth Warren, who showed up at Boston’s Logan Airport to protest. Peace be upon her! Note that she predicts that Trump’s orders will be overturned, and I suspect this video was taken before the judge’s decision (see below).

But more important, as has been widely reported, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn  (you can see her short court order here) temporarily blocked Trump’s order, or at least part of it:

The judge’s ruling blocked part of the president’s actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.

The high-stakes legal case played out on Saturday amid global turmoil, as the executive order signed by the president slammed shut the borders of the United States for an Iranian scientist headed to a lab in Massachusetts, a Syrian refugee family headed to a new life in Ohio and countless others across the world.

. . . Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, ruled just before 9 p.m. that implementing Mr. Trump’s order by sending the travelers home could cause them “irreparable harm.” She said the government was “enjoined and restrained from, in any manner and by any means, removing individuals” who had arrived in the United States with valid visas or refugee status.

The ruling does not appear to force the administration to let in people otherwise blocked by Mr. Trump’s order who have not yet traveled to the United States. [JAC: That’s bad, for many of those are legal residents]

The judge’s one-page ruling came swiftly after lawyers for the A.C.L.U. testified in her courtroom that one of the people detained at an airport was being put on a plane to be deported back to Syria at that very moment. A government lawyer, Gisela A. Westwater, who spoke to the court by phone from Washington, said she simply did not know.

This was followed by another ruling against Trump’s order:

Minutes after the judge’s ruling in New York City, another judge, Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court in Virginia, issued a temporary restraining order for a week to block the removal of any green card holders being detained at Dulles International Airport.

In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security has said it will continue to carry out Trump’s orders, excluding those that have been put on hold by the courts. Trump’s actions have created chaos, and I’m delighted to see some American protesting his actions, as well as the courts overturning them. But what will happen when the Supreme Court once again attains a solid conservative majority, as it undoubtedly will?

Protests and recourse to the law: these are the two weapons we liberals have against the actions of the Trump administration. Protests are fine, and I hope they change people’s minds, but for sheer effectiveness there’s nothing like a court order.

Here’s a photo of Donnelly donning her judicial robes in 2015, right after being sworn in as a federal judge:

125 Comments

  1. Rob
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    I detest the practice of detaining people and not allowing them access to a lawyer.

  2. Andrea Kenner
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    The New Colossus

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “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!”

    Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)

    (From https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/colossus.htm)

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      I wonder if possibly the French will be asking for a refund or maybe a return on a gift.

      • Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        The USA came to their rescue during WWII.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

          The US refused to help the French resistance. They had a problem with the fact that many held beliefs (e.g. communism) that they were opposed to, and they said things like they didn’t want their weapons etc. ending up in the hands of the wrong sort of people.

          Of course, they eventually joined the war and it was over much quicker because of them. Many lives were saved by them joining the war, and many USians suffered and died as a result.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

            Indeed, remember the US was trading with Germany when England and the former colonies were fighting and dying. Most notably, IBM was supplying machines Nazis used to keep track of those they would exterminate and IBM employees visited death camps to service said machines.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

          Of course the gift Andrea and I were referring to had nothing to do with WWII.

  3. Michael
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    The Coward in Chief is at his theatrical best when he is playing to his base supporters, as he is doing with these executive orders. These actions provide no new level of real security, and will do nothing to win the so-called “War on Terror”.

    • Veroxitatis
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      Correct. I understand from several articles that I have read that these orders were not perused in advance by the usual agencies. Such a level of legal incompetence in the content strongly suggests that the real purpose is to show Trump ‘s support that he is getting things done. Losing the cases by the actions of liberal lawyers and liberal judges (the enemies of the people) will help Trump ‘s case in the eyes of his supporters.

  4. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    A personal life lesson from me is relevant:

    When you feel protected or privileged or otherwise benefit from actions by an individual with power which you had nothing to do with, but feel are not fair to the target, remember this : that individual with power will do the same s#it to you.

    BTW, to get a better picture of the mind of Trump, consider the countries which are not on the ban list, and the countries that previous criminal acts are from.

  5. Kirbmarc
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    “Despite some criticism that I should spend more time criticizing Donald Trump than the Regressive Left, my feelings toward the Trumpster have always been clear (I despise his views), I’ve gone after him a number of times, and, most important, there are plenty of other bloggers out there engaged in taking him down. (Also, read the Roolz: I’m not to be told to write about X rather than Y.)”

    The Regressive Left was what gutted any candidate on the left who wasn’t pure enough on identity politics (including Bernie Sanders) and in general weakened the left through friendly fire.

    Trump took advantage of the weakness of the US left and of the support of Hillary Clinton for unpopular, stupid ideas of the Regressive Left to win.

    So the Regressive Left should take a moment to acknowledge their role in contributing to the election of the Orange Hamster.

    Keep up the good work, Jerry!

    • Cindy
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      I concur. I recall when Bernie was accused of being “racist” and “sexist” because he was not ideologically pure enough…

      Oh, and isn’t Amanda Marcotte blaming the “brocialists” for Trump’s win even though she told her followers, months ago , to build up Trump as he would surely lose?

      • BJ
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:35 am | Permalink

        Tons of them, including Marcotte, are blaming the “Bernie Bros,” a concept they made up in the first place to accuse all the people who were supporting Sanders in the primary of being misogynist harassers of women and Clinton supporters. It was a brilliant strategy to unite the base, I tells ya!

  6. bric
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    U K citizens: please sign this petition if you believe POTUS45 should not be invited to make a State Visit to the U K

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928

    • yiamcross
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:55 am | Permalink

      Vassal states should take care not to court disfavour from their rulers. If we piss America off, who are we going to trade with when Europe shuts the doors? The UK is now a beggar at the door and must behave with all due obsequiousness.

      • Dave
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        Europe will not “shut the door”. We will still do a huge volume of trade with them, in both directions, just under slightly different terms than previously. And even if the Euros are unwise enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces, I guess that only leaves the US, China, Japan, Brazil, Australia, and er…everyone else…for us to trade with. Doesn’t sound so bad to me.

        • Graham Head
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

          And in every case those countries will be looking to screw us. For instance we will be swamped by cheap polluted US food imports with no right to even know what shit we are eating.

          USA negotiating with Europe, Equal partners.
          USA negotiating with UK. Take what we offer or get stuffed.

    • Stephen Mynett
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:36 am | Permalink

      After signing I had a look at the map of signatures and was very pleased to see I had taken the number in my constituency of Stroud to 666.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted January 30, 2017 at 1:30 am | Permalink

      From The Times Online yesterday –

      “Donald Trump is engaged in an extraordinary diplomatic row with the Prince of Wales over climate change that threatens to disrupt his state visit to the UK.

      The new president is reluctant to meet the prince when he comes to Britain in June because of their violently divergent views on global warming.

      Members of Trump’s inner circle have warned officials and ministers that it would be counterproductive for Charles to “lecture” Trump on green issues and that he will “erupt” if pushed. They want the younger princes, William and Harry, to greet the president instead. Royal aides insist that he should meet Trump.

      Senior government officials now believe Charles is one of the most serious “risk factors” for the visit.” (I can’t read more without subscribing).

      Way to go, Charles!

      (I’ll willingly put up with a bit of homeopathy daffiness now and then for the sake of pissing off the Drumpf…)

      cr

  7. Rob
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    I think the bumbling White House’s plan includes overreach and chaos. Doesn’t matter. They’ll have to scale back, they’ll still achieve greater restriction on immigrants.

    The chaos is just collateral damage. The overreach is simply to see how far they can reach.

    No concern, zero concern, for the lives of those caught in this game.

    In the end, the White House wins. They get what they want.

  8. Flamadiddle
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    Jerry, is your update link correct?

    • Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      No, it went to a mail site, which happens if I paste in a link from my email directly without thinking. I’ve added the correct link now.

      • Flamadiddle
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:34 am | Permalink

        Cheers.

  9. Desnes Diev
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    “More shenanigans from my CNN news feed: “White House officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose websites and social media sites they visit, and to share cell phone contacts, sources tell CNN.”

    With the renewed creationnist fervor in some states, I am not sure I will declare to follow WET the next time I go to the US. WET will have to enter the Resistance 😉

  10. John
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    I’m a big fan of Elizabeth Warren but I hope she can make future addresses a lot less like a reverend leading the flock in a prayer chant…..this was unfortunate.

    • Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      Yeah, it could have been better. Still, at least she got out there and talked to the people at the airport.

    • Paul S
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      It seemed to me that the recitation was a replacement for the megaphone failure.

      • Sue Sommers
        Posted January 30, 2017 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        I agree it was because the group voice carried across the crowd.

    • rickflick
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

      I saw other clips without Warren where the crowd had already established the chant style. I think she simply felt she should keep the pattern up.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        Yes, I thought she looked a bit taken aback by it. The crowd wouldn’t be quiet to allow her to speak, and someone turned her speech into a chant. It looked to me like she had no choice in the matter.

      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted January 30, 2017 at 5:01 am | Permalink

        The effect was slightly spoiled for me by reminding me of the “Yes, we are all different!” chant from Life of Brian.

  11. BJ
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    I’m seeing Trump supporters I know already turn against him, as well as some Congressional Republicans. How long can he go on like this before the country is united against him, and what will a man who is all ego do when that happens?

    I hope the people unite against this madness soon.

    • Posted January 29, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      At that point, the Republicans will lead the impeachment process, Trump will resign before the process ends, and Pence at all will clean up around the edges of Trump’s destruction, claiming to save us, while the cronies snap up public lands at bargain prices and otherwise do what they want.

      • Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        Trump? Will resign? Ha! This is a man who is all about winning, and he’ll either believe that he “wins” this impeachment thing as well, or, if sufficiently threatened, would try to use military power to depose Congress.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted January 31, 2017 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      How long can he go on like this before the country is united against him, and what will a man who is all ego do when that happens?

      Not notice?

  12. Kevin
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Trump’s America is an insecure, ignorant and prejudicial nation. Should change their slogan: Make American Barbarian. Rousseau could never have imagined such a State of Nature.

  13. George
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    I won’t bother providing the link. If you really want to see the story, just go to Breitbart. But their headline for their story on this fiasco is:
    “Terror-Tied Group CAIR Causing Chaos, Promoting Protests & Lawsuits as Trump Protects Nation”

  14. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I don’t think any of the seven majority-Muslim countries subject to Trump’s immigration ban are countries in which he is known to have ongoing business interests (although, of course, it’s impossible to know for sure since Trump refuses to disclose his tax returns or a legitimate financial statement). And the ban doesn’t include countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from which much toxic jihadist ideology (and the money that promulgates it) flow.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      Just an addition to your comments – The GPS show this Sunday morning is worth an hour of our time on this presidential order or whatever they want to call it. The CATO institute, a conservative bunch, tracks the killing of Americans by people from other countries and since 1975, the number of Americans killed from any of the 7 Muslim countries on his list is zero. Further, additional experts on the show stated four or more places in the Constitution alone, that make this order unconstitutional, including the first amendment. It was also noted that no country with a Trump building was on the list.

      This order was thrown out there with no thought process or any prior warnings to our own customs and state department reviews. It is just like having your own 5 year old dictator running the country. This thing alone is better grounds for impeachment than anything Clinton ever did.

  15. GBJames
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    If the White House is coordinating the DHS refusal to follow the court order, I would think it to be a clear “high crime and misdemeanor”. No?

    • Posted January 29, 2017 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      I think the DHS is following the court order; they’r just enforcing the bits of Trump’s order that AREN’T illegal.

  16. FiveGreenLeafs
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Jerry, the US began collecting information on social media accounts for travelers to US already back in December.

    See,

    US government collecting social media information from foreign travelers

    But there are many more articles about this, Politico has one, from the 22/12 U.S. government begins asking foreign travelers about social media

    This was proposed by Obama last summer, and went into effect around Christmas.

    Travelers are (according to this information) for example asked to give their account names for Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube…

  17. jwthomas
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Reports I’m seeing say that customs agents in LA and NY are ignoring the court orders and still sending travelers back to where they came from. Those most interested will find the latest (but unverified) info on Twitter.

  18. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    I fear for the Iranians I’ve met over my working career. One has a brother who was thrown in jail under George W because he was a Canadian citizen but had emigrated to Canada as a child and had not registered with the American authorities. I fear this is now going to be a return to that thinking. After that incident, he refused to go back to the US.

  19. Karen Bartelt
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    What a great idea to want to “kick the crap out of ISIS”, and then slap a ban on Kurds and Sunni Muslims from Iraq whom, I presume you will want to do the heavy lifting. Priceless, Donald.

  20. Posted January 29, 2017 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    “Many of my countrymen showed up at airports, protesting the executive orders; these included Senator Elizabeth Warren, who showed up at Boston’s Logan Airport to protest.”

    The protesters at Kennedy airport were chanting “hey hey ho ho white supremacy has got to go”. I wonder how long it will take for “liberal” “anti-regressives” to label them SJWs, and turn people against them. I’ll be watching Gad Saad, and Dave Rubin, among others, to see.

  21. Posted January 29, 2017 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    I really really like Angela Merkel.

    “A spokesman for Angela Merkel said the German chancellor regretted Trump’s decision to ban citizens of certain countries from entering the US, adding that she had “explained” the obligations of the Geneva refugee convention to the new president in a phone call on Saturday.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/29/merkel-explains-geneva-refugee-convention-to-trump-in-phone-call

    • FiveGreenLeafs
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

      Merkel’s decision to open the borders for refugees 2015, might very well come to be seen as one of the most disastrous decision taken by any leader in Europe since the second world war.

      It has been instrumental in the shift of the political landscape now taking place all over Europe, where nationalist parties are again rising to become the single biggest political parties in countries like Holland, Sweden, France, not to mention the rise of AfD, that now polls in third place with 15-20% in many parts of Germany. A party that didn’t even exist 5y ago.

      There will be national elections in both Holland and Germany later this year, that will (if nothing truly seismic happens) see dramatic increases in representation for these parties.

      And, it strengthened an already strong nationalist trend in former Eastern European countries, like Poland and Hungary.

      Terrorist attacks will continue to drive this shift, but, it is the local effects, the corrosion of trust and social capital, that I think will be what really drives this in the coming years (Robert Putnam).

      The increase in everyday violence, uncertainty, feeling of personal insecurity, betrayal and the disconnect between the politicians and societal elite on one side, and the bottom tiers and blue collar workers on the others.

      The true danger point will happen (I think), in a few years time, when the middle classes, begins to really experience these consequences, very much like in Germany in the 1930s.

      David Frum has an interesting article about this in the Atlantic yesterday,
      The Roots of a Counterproductive Immigration Policy

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        TES. But was a poor decision. But that doesn’t mean the opposite extreme of taking no refugees is a good one either. Canada took 39000 refugees from these same areas but we vetted them and had a pick if the best. We have that luxury because oceans separate us. Not as easy in Europe where thousands stream in on foot daily.

        • FiveGreenLeafs
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

          Hans Rosling of Gapminder and TED talk fame, shocked the Swedish establishment, when he in a debate (held at the Swedish Publicists’ Association) in October 2015, stated, that Jimmie Åkesson, the leader for the Swedish Democrats, (the populist party in Sweden) was absolutely correct in his claim that we must rather help the majority of these refugees as close as possible to their countries of origin.

          I share that conviction, for both moral and scientific reasons. As Rosling points out, it costs 10 to 100 times as much per day, to help these in a country like Sweden, than in a bordering country. And, these extra funds are now taken from basic humanitarian aid that was originally destined for the worlds poorest and most destitute peoples, who also live in conditions of war, in mostly Africa.

          And, it also make it much more difficult (and costly) for these refugees to return home, when the situation allows for this.

          The amount of resources we are talking about is breathtaking, and just the direct cost for Sweden last year, was in the same order of magnitude as the whole UN budget for refuges worldwide. We took in more than 150 000 in 2015 alone, in a country of 9 million.

          As long as we don’t have resources to help everyone (which we don’t), we need to start to make some hard choices.

          The increased convenience for one family living in Sweden instead for in a UN run refugee camp, or the certain death of 100 children in Africa, due to malnutrition and lack of basic medical attention.

          I think we must urgently rethink our refugee conventions, because at the present time, we risk not only apply our resources in a very questionable ethical way, as well as destroy the stability of our own countries, and in continuation, their abilities to help others in the future.

          • Cindy
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

            There is also the issue of brain drain. We take their best and brightest then what hope do they have of ever rebuilding their nations?

            What we need to do is stop meddling in these countries and help them to rebuild. Stop starting and supporting proxy wars and stop screwing them over with shitty trade deals.

            And end the damn drug war. Many of the illegal immigrants from Mexico are in fact coming from El Salvador and other nations that have been turned into war zones thanks to the drug war.

            • Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

              I think it’s not very realistic to expect any of the Middle Eastern country to get rebuild into anything other than either a secular dictatorship or theocracy (a religious dictatorship) any time soon (say, in a generation).
              On the other hand, the best and brightest tend to perish first under a dictatorship…

              • FiveGreenLeafs
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 4:55 am | Permalink

                And, if the brightest always flee to other countries, they will (in all probability) never get rebuild… because, who will do that rebuilding?

                Trying to impose secular democratic institutions top down, through UN or western experts, has failed miserably over the last 70 years, and will in all probability fail as catastrophically in the future.

                Democracy has to build from the ground up, with changes in cultural and social norms and values, and changes in religious ideas, that make it possible to first build the amount of societal trust required, for democratic institutions to work.

                That is the (big) problem.

                And from past experience, this can easily take centuries…

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

            Yes i think some don’t realize the amount of cost for small countries (34 million is the population of Canada spread out over a large land mass). I often say it takes all of us working very hard to keep our high standard of living up. Canada and the US is mostly sheltered from the refugee crisis because they can take their pick seeing as their is an ocean in the way.

            • FiveGreenLeafs
              Posted January 30, 2017 at 5:26 am | Permalink

              Yes, and it is even worse in another way. Sweden is one of the most highly developed countries in the world, and we have almost completely done away with simple jobs, and basic requirement now are at least 12y of education within the Swedish school system.

              Approx 50% of these refugees have 9y or less, in their school system, and, 30% much less, and a significant amount are illiterates.

              And in the coming decade (with increase in automation) we will experience 100 000s of “simple” jobs simply disappear, like taxi drivers, buss drivers, truck drivers and store employees, that will drive the requirements even higher.

              Even jobs like logging and farm work is today done by highly skilled workers with extensive requirement for education and capabilities for reading and handling of computers and complex machines.

              If I remember correctly, a majority among the immigrants that came to Sweden in the early 2000, does still, after 10y, not have full time work, and most are living on social welfare.

              And this wave have an even lower level of education. A majority of them, will in all probability never find work, ever.

              I went back to recheck figures of direct cost, and, if I am correctly informed, Swedens cost last year for 150 000, was twice what UNHCR had for 65 million refugees worldwide.

              This is a significant moral issue.

          • somer
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

            and there is a social and cultural cost too
            How Sweden became an exporter of jihad
            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37578919

          • somer
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

            The refugee conventions were a response to the particular situation of WW2 where there had been very little in place previously to take refugees at all. Now some (and occasionally the UN) are calling on the West (of course) to take ALL the worlds refugees (almost 10% of the total 700 million population of the west) overwhelmingly from Muslim countries fleeing wars or unrest that overwhelmingly has a religious sectarian character.

      • CFM
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

        I agree with your description of the consequences of said decision.

        But I am not sure what the alternative would have looked like. These people were already on their way to Western Europe, but stuck in countries in eastern and southeastern Europe, countries unable to handle the mass influx and treating them badly. As many are now, living under awful conditions without any means or hope to go back or travel further.

        You speak about an increase in everyday violence and a feeling of insecurity. Please keep in mind that the AfD and its counterparts in other European countries do everything in their power to make people feel more and more insecure.

        Yes, there are problems. There were and are terrorists among the refugees, and there are many angry and frustrated young men without any hope of economic success among them. And yes, some refugees brought with them anti-pluralist, anti-liberal ideas.

        But tell me, why do people in Saxony, where very few refugees (or Muslims in general) live, feel so very insecure, while I, living in the direct neighbourhood of two “homes for refugees” – and in a part of Munich with a very high percentage of Muslims in general – do not?

        Yes, we have to “defend our borders”, as the article you linked put it – but at the same time we have, in my opinion, to make sure we let in those who are truly fleeing war or persecution.

        • FiveGreenLeafs
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

          “But tell me, why do people in Saxony, where very few refugees (or Muslims in general) live, feel so very insecure, while I, living in the direct neighbourhood of two “homes for refugees” – and in a part of Munich with a very high percentage of Muslims in general – do not?”

          I think it is very insecure to use personal anecdotes like this.

          But, if we assume for arguments sake that your experience is representative, (and without having any specific knowledge), is it not so that Saxony was part of former East Germany?

          This could be part of an answer since there seems to be a much stronger reaction in most of the other former East European countries.

          Are there any differences in economical terms, is Saxony as wealthy as Bavaria? What is the GDP per Capita for Saxony compared to Bavaria?

          Comparing with Sweden, the reaction is as yet strongest in low income brackets.

          Middle class people and people in higher income brackets does (in Sweden) not really experience any real effects yet. When immigrants move into an area, they simply move out.

          The ones who can’t, are the ones who experience all the negative aspects of all these culture conflicts, and they do in ever increasing degree, vote for the populist party.

          Even former immigrants themselves!

        • Posted January 29, 2017 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

          Yes–
          “Please keep in mind that the AfD and its counterparts in other European countries do everything in their power to make people feel more and more insecure.”

          It is self-defeating to assume that people will automatically be as stupid as those in the US were who voted for Trump, just because of a problematic policy.

          The issue for the election in Germany will be who is most capable of dealing with the existing problems. Trump is demonstrating that the far right is not even going to try to fix anything, but will simply try to dismantle civil society.

          • FiveGreenLeafs
            Posted January 30, 2017 at 6:25 am | Permalink

            Calling people stupid is seldom constructive, and it has the side effect of relieving the caller of an obligation to do the (hard) cognitive work to try and understand the underlying reasons for their actions and behaviors.

            That, if anything, is to my mind, self-defeating.

            The case in point, contrary to much common opinion, it seems to be the contact and interaction with different cultures that drives antipathies and reduction in societal trust, not the lack of such experiences.

            See for example Robert Putnam scientific work.

            But this also correlates what we see in reality in Sweden, it is in those areas and municipalities that have had longest and most intense experience of immigrants, that today show the greatest strains and also have the highest degree of voters for the populist Swedish Democrats.

            And, the fear is very real, and tangible, and not something conjured up by politicians, I can assure you. In late autumn last year, the police chief in Malmoe, Sweden’s third biggest city, announced, that the citizens could no longer expect the police to come on calls for thief’s, burglary, assaults and other minor crimes, because they simply didn’t have enough resources anymore to cope with the demands.

            Malmoe alone, today, has more shootings, killings and bombings then in the capitals of the other three Nordic countries, combined

            • somer
              Posted January 30, 2017 at 8:21 am | Permalink

              and of course this is not going to happen in the areas where the great majority of middle class liberals live

              • FiveGreenLeafs
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

                Yes that is the thing, people are living in worlds apart, and many middle class people seem to lack personal experiences and knowledge of these changes.

                But, it now seems certain that these changes will reach them in time, and, it is when that happens (that I think) we enter the real danger zone.

                At the moment, most middle class people can buy their way out of most of the negative effects, private or charter schools for their children, private health-care insurances, houses in ethnic homogeneous neighborhoods and so on.

                And, many also believe that if things start to get really bad, they could always emigrate themselves… oh the irony…

            • Posted January 30, 2017 at 8:40 am | Permalink

              I agree — “Calling people stupid is seldom constructive” — and I only do it here. And it is stupid to try to solve a problem by voting for people who have neither a clue nor an intention of solving it.

              • FiveGreenLeafs
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 9:55 am | Permalink

                The crux of the matter is, that the other side claim, that there is no problem that needs solving in the first place.

                So, from the perspective of this ever growing body of angry, disillusioned, scared and betrayed voters, they have to choose between someone who does claim that there really exist a very serious problem, and promise he will try to deal with it.

                And, another side, who claim that there exist no problems, and, that these proposed problems ‘are created by (evil ignorant) populist politicians’ (often routinely labeled fascist and nazis), and are really just figments of their imaginations, and that they are just privileged white people anyway, so, suck it up.

                They might not like the first one, but, in their eyes, he does not (at least) insult their persons and intelligence, or, their fear and angst. And a ray of hope, is much better than none at all.

                I often find, that when you really start to tease apart the context, learn about their situations and view life from their perspective, that people in light of the situation, (contrary to many peoples belief) often are very rational…

      • Posted January 29, 2017 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

        Everyone in the US should be feeling a sting of shame that their president doesn’t understand the Geneva Convention and needs to have it explained him by a foreign leader.

        I live in Germany. I know there are problems. But they haven’t destroyed civil society in the systematic way Trump has just started with in the US.

        And while it is a considerable disturbance and a challenge to suddenly deal with a massive refugee crisis, the bigger threat to society, and by far the greater cause of violent political crime is Trump’s mob — Neo-Nazis.

        Rather than blaming Merkel for what right wing fanatics will be making of German politics, people in the US should be trying to stop their president from meddling in European elections.

        • Cindy
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

          You are worried about neo Nazis yet Germany is bringing in people who hate Jews with a passion and would gladly bring about another genocide if they could.

          • Posted January 29, 2017 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

            You seem to think that being concerned about Neo-Nazis precludes being concerned about Islamic extremism.

            • Cindy
              Posted January 29, 2017 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

              For some people, namely anti-Semitic SJWs, yes, they are only concerned about neo-Nazis and think that criticising anti-semitic beliefs on the part of Islamists is racist.

          • somer
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

            +1

        • FiveGreenLeafs
          Posted January 30, 2017 at 5:47 am | Permalink

          Back in the autumn of 2015, there arrived 8000 refugees to Sweden, per week.

          At that point the government authorities began to warn, that the stability of the whole society was at risk.

          And in a dramatic 180 degree turn, the Swedish government suspended the Schengen agreement on free movement, and closed down the Swedish borders. There were even proposition to completely cut of the bridge connecting Sweden and Denmark and position military personal to secure the crossing.

          This is (in critical ways) an even bigger disrespect of the Geneva convention than what Trump has done now. But what should (or could) Sweden have done?

          The Geneva convention was written in a very different time, and in a different world, and we need to urgently begin to update it, (or think about its application) in regard to current realities.

  22. Edward
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    “I. Calling the Trump Executive Order a “Muslim Ban” is a lie. Nothing less.

    II. In 2011, President Obama ordered a halt to the acceptance of refugees from Iraq for six months (that’s twice the three months of the Trump order yesterday) with no adverse reaction from the news media whatsoever.

    III. The seven nations targeted in Trump’s order were not his administration’s collection, but Obama’s, with the addition of Iran.

    IV. All of this had to be included in any competent, fair and truthful report about yesterday’s order. As of yesterday, none of it was, at least in major news sources, or the information was buried deep in the reports under hysterical headlines.”

    “Read the order itself. Scroll past it if you want to my commentary, but as the professor says, “You should read the actual EO, because most of the media and leftist pundits either have not or are lying if they have.” It is long; I have formatted it for easier reading, but it is long. Nonetheless, the news media have proven beyond, not just a reasonable doubt but the shadow of a doubt that its journalists cannot be trusted to digest this kind of document and relay it truthfully.

    Res ipsa loquitur: CNN, from which I obtained the text, headlines the order,

    Full text of Trump’s executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension

    But there is no ban! That headline is fake news. If you don’t read the order yourself, and yet start ranting on Facebook about the suspension of freedom of religion or some other non-factual nonsense, then you are irresponsible, and you are spreading disinformation. Read it yourself, ascertain what it means if you are uncertain, or shut up about it.

    And welcome the era of biased, untrustworthy, partisan journalism.”

    From:

    https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/01/29/the-medias-unethical-reporting-on-trumps-refugee-pause-order-does-telling-the-whole-story-fairly-and-accurately-even-matter-to-these-hacks-any-more-does-their-trump-hating-audience-even-care/

    • Cindy
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that he three month ban is to develop a new vetting process.

      Oh, and liberal-as-getout Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the USA from time to time.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        The difference is he didn’t stop landed immigrants and people with green cards entering. This is what the justice has put an emergency stop to AFAIK. So if you are Iranian and live legally in the US, you’d better not travel or you won’t be let back in despite your legal status.

        • Cindy
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

          I was listening to the CBC this morning and I believe that this was an oversight and is being fixed.

          Furthermore, there is already an important exception: “Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”

    • somer
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      Trumps ban is arbitrary and cancels rights and residence previously granted if the person is travelling. This is appalling and No it is not comparable to Australia for anyone wanting to bring that up. By the way Australia with 1/17th US population takes 19,000 refugees annually through a UN refugee camp and overseas embassy application system, though we should I think take some more this way. We also have an excellent language and resettlement programs for migrants but particularly for those accepted as refugees.
      Obama merely temporarily suspended visa free access to the countries that Trump is banning access from. Trumps visa ban is blanket and bizarrely doesnt include Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt, migrants from whom have killed Americans on American soil whilst those from the countries Trump have banned have killed None.
      https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons
      Moreover Trmp has got business interests in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt Turkey and Azerbajan – none of them on the list of course.
      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/

      • somer
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

        Australia has visa conditions on various countries that we get boat intake from – they know they can’t get a visa to fly here unannounced and claim asylum that takes ages to process whilst they disappear – otherwise we’d have at least 100,000 a year. But Australian doesn’t do Trumps sending back people on transit who are already residents/students etc or who have been accepted as full refugees by the previous administration etc. America takes a medium intake of ME refugees negotiated in advance – not like the Merkel situation. America is flanked by the pacific and the atlantic and will never get tens of thousands of boat people from cultures that hate us and have unique resistance to humanist integration, but more to the point we have to take because they die at sea short of removing visa controls that brought them here or being so tough on people smugglers that the whole evil trade stops. And, frankly it has stopped. No it is not our fault that their religion is cannibalising them. We should take some – rather more than we do – by a controllable process in advance like we now have created.

    • Zetopan
      Posted February 1, 2017 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

      ““I. Calling the Trump Executive Order a “Muslim Ban” is a lie. Nothing less.”

      So why would a member of the Trump administration (Giuliani) lie about what Trump told him to do? Alt-Right claims are alarmingly consistent about being based on “alternative facts”.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally

  23. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    The Trump administration is shaping up to be a roiling cauldron of potential constitutional crises. The question will be whether we’re in for constant brinkmanship by Trump, as seems to be his wont, or if he actually pushes the nation over the edge into a full-blown crisis.

    If Trump and his minions think they can defy court orders, they will run into a brick wall of judicial resistance, by judges from across the political spectrum. If there’s one thing our federal courts are protective of, it’s their own authority. They will show no weakness in the face of executive-branch contumaciousness, since if it were to come to a drawn-out battle of wills, the judicial branch has no enforcement arm of its own — no armed forces, no police department or other law-enforcement agency — to call upon to enforce its rulings.

    • Claudia Baker
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      I almost always have to look up at least one word, for the definition, in your posts. 🙂

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

        I’ll endeavor to eschew the sesquipedalian from here on out, Claudia. 🙂

        • HaggisForBrains
          Posted January 30, 2017 at 5:35 am | Permalink

          🙂 Always good to learn new words. For this website I keep my free download of WordWeb on my desktop. Definition is just a right click away.

  24. Andrei
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, it kind of makes me wonder, where was all that moral outrage when Obama did practically the same thing? It looks like when dem.neocons do it, it’s all in the best interests of the American People, but when Trump does the same, it’s all Nazism, Fascism and Hitler.

    People are quick to forget that Trump inherited a whole “dictatorial toolkit” from Obama. The anti-Trump protests should have started in 2009, not in 2017, then we would not have to deal with Trump.

    • Cindy
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      It looks like when dem.neocons do it

      Neocons and neolibs = the same thing.

      Identity politics is a gift from d*g to the DNC. Any criticism of Obama’s policies can be written off as racism. The DNC wanted to repeat the same thing with Hillary – any criticism of her Bush-era policies = misogyny.

      Both parties are owned by corporations. Social issues – abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms, racism etc are just political footballs to be bandied back and forth in order to keep us, the plebs, divided while they (neocons) rob the bank.

      Both the DNC and the RNC are the property of corporations and they both use identity politics to manipulate the population while they pursue the unjust killing of people in foreign lands (yeah, stop killing people in the Middle East kthx) and inequality here at home.

      Before anyone accuses *me* of being a literal Nazi because I am not praising the DNC, I am hardcore leftist, proud supporter of Canada’s socialist party, the NDP, for many years.

      • Andrei
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

        It’s not just you. 🙂 Many people voted for Trump not because they like him. In fact, they hate him, just look at his abysmal approval ratings. The thing is, they hate clintonian neocons even more, so they voted for the lesser of two evils, which wasn’t Hillary.

        Another thing in re: to the OP — why not Saudi Arabia? Because the “countries of particular concern” mentioned in Trump’s order was not picked by Trump. They were picked by Obama in 2015, and Saudi Arabia wasn’t there. Only thye countries we bomb. Apparently bombing Muslim countries is a-ok according to the media, but banning the immigration is Nazism.

        Here is Seth Frantzman on the issue: https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/
        And here is Jimmy Dore’s comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls
        Neither one of them is Trump’s supporter, as far as I know.

        • Cindy
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

          I really thought that it was low of HRC’s campaign to accuse Bernie + his supporters of being racists and misogynists.

          Yes, I think that Bernie would have been the better choice for women and racial minorities. Bernie actually cares about inequality. The fact that he is an ‘old white male’ is irrelevant. *Policies* matter, not the label that you have over your head.

        • Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

          This “shocking” revelation is about Visa Waiver Program, and it’s a program that allows travel to the US without a visa for citizens of certain Western countries. This Obama “ban” meant that, say, a French or UK citizen who had previously traveled to Iran would have to get a US visa.
          Making a visitor to obtain a visa to travel to the US is not the same as – not even close to – banning everyone from a certain country.
          Of course, the post’s author spent the entire post how Obama made Trump’s ban happen, and did not bother to include (or, most likely, intentionally omitted) an explanation of what VWP actually is.

          • Andrei
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

            First off, nobody has said that Obama issued a visa ban on those 7 countries. He just selected them as “countries of particular concern”. Trump just picked that list and went a step further (as opposed to what media reported that he selected the countries based on his own business interests).

            Second off, Obama DID issue a ban on immigration from Iraq for 6 months after they discovered 2 terrorists entered the US as immigrants: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 So, how is that second one is any different from what Trump did?

            • Posted January 29, 2017 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

              So if Obama selected 7 countries “countries of particular concern”, that means Trump can do whatever he wants with these countries (ban all arrivals, or deport everyone originally from these countries, or send them to concentration camps, or bomb these countries), and it will absolve Trump because Obama made the list?
              Does Obama’s ban on immigration from Iraq includes deporting Iraqi citizens with green cards when they try to enter the country from, say, a vacation in Mexico, and turning away those with tourist and student visas? If yes, it’s the same for one country out of 7.

              • Andrei
                Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

                What “absolves” Obama for bombing 7 countries? Financing and arming “moderate” rebel in Syria, who later turn out to be jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda?

                An entry visa is not right, it’s a privilege, which can be revoked due to a variety of reasons, such as concerns about terrorists infiltrating the country as refugees. It is not nice, but it is not “Nazism” either.

                Trump has an approval rating of what? 36% or something? What is the approval rating of the media reporting on Trump? Last time I checked, it was 6%. Don’t you think there is a good reason for this?

              • Cindy
                Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

                The media doesn’t appear to be too concerned about the fact that this refugee crisis was essentially manufactured by the US govt:

                “As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, ‘Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.’ I had no answer

                https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard-returns-syria-renewed-calls-end-regime-change-war

              • Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

                I have no idea what most of your comment has to do with Trump’s order or Obama’s list. Yes, a visa is not a right. However, revoking this right from everyone based on the country of origin, including those with a green card, and not based on whether a specific person presents a risk, maybe it’s not Nazism, but is a decisive step towards it.

              • Andrei
                Posted January 29, 2017 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

                Look, if you don’t like Trump, go ahead and sue him. You’ll have my total support. Calling him Nazi won’t do any good, it will only make him stronger. Whatever you might think of him, you must admit that he is making good on his promises, which does not happen very often. Usually we have politicians that consider politics to be like a sausage, and us normies better be ignorant of what it is made of.

              • Posted January 30, 2017 at 12:20 am | Permalink

                Oh yeah, I gotta give him the credit. I had been thinking he was just running his mouth just to get elected, but he really is serious about this becoming a totalitarian dictator thing.
                And I’m not calling him a Nazi. There were/are many variations of totalitarian dictatorships, such as the USSR, Cambodia, Haiti, Cuba, Myanmar, Iran, Chile, Franco’s Spain, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and so on, most of them very unpleasant and none of them were Nazist. The US can certainly take its own path and not be Nazist.

              • Andrei
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 7:20 am | Permalink

                Speaking about “decisive steps”…
                U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has been signed into law as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government.
                http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law
                Please tell me this is not about a “Ministry of Truth” established by Obama, and Trump did not inherit it, and he will never ever appoint Alex Jones to the “interagency center”…

              • Posted January 30, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

                Yes, we definitely need more foreign propaganda and disinformation in the US.

              • FiveGreenLeafs
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 11:43 am | Permalink

                You can (with varying measures of doubt) accuse Trump of being many different things, but totalitarian, is definitely (in my opinions) not among them.

                The New Totalitarians Are Here

              • Cindy
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 11:55 am | Permalink

                Trump spent most of his life as a NY Democrat

                He is socially liberal and economically conservative.

                I don’t believe that he is authoritarian and I am just going to wait and see. HRC, in my opinion, is more hawkish and authoritarian than Trump.

                It is true that Pence is an evangelical but honestly I do not think that the Trump administration will touch abortion. I think he just used abortion to pander to the evangelical base in order to get their support.

                This is my cynical take on things. I refuse to fall for the hype. Trump is not the next Hitler. I will wait and see and if I am wrong, I will freely admit it.

                As an addendum, if Trump *does* touch abortion, this will be the one issue that will probably rally the democratic base and ensure future victories, which is one reason why I don’t really think he will touch it.

                I’d love to see Trump 1) end the drug war 2) stop creating more refugees in the ME – no more proxy wars 3) stop f*cking over the economies of developing countries (which is one reason why these nation can’t seem to pull themselves out of poverty. International aid is just a band-aid, it doesn’t actually fix the sickness)

              • Posted January 30, 2017 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

                Considering that Trump doesn’t just want us to stay out of his way, but also to give him respect and admiration (the ostensible non-issues like the size of his hands, or of his inauguration, or his loss in the popular vote are good examples), there are some definite totalitarian traits in there.
                It’s just that the idea Donald Trump is serving is the ego of Donald Trump.

              • GBJames
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

                @Cindy: What do you mean by “touch abortion”?

                Does having his Vice President attend anti-abortion rallies count? Does nominating anti-abortion advocate judges count? (We’ll likely get that one later this week.)

              • Cindy
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

                I don’t think they are going to touch RvW at all. I really don’t. Bush didn’t either during his 8 years, even though he certainly could have.

                Abortion is a political football that has worked too well for too long for *both* parties. If the Rs get what they want, they won’t have anything left to fight for. And if they *do* get what they want, the DNC will return, unstoppable, as Americans really won’t stand for a return to backalley abortions.

                Abortion is a cash cow (we need money now to save the babies) and rich in political capital (idiot R will rile up the base by trying to pass an idiotic bill such as ‘no abortions in the case of rape because criminal evidence).

                Again, I am NOT claiming certainty here. This is just my take on things from my little corner of the woods here in Canada.

              • Cindy
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

                It’s a shame that the constitutional right to abortion was not based on the 13th amendment:

                http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers

                Dawn Johnsen, as this is written the nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel wrote an amicus brief which argued in passing that restrictions on abortion “are
                disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth
                Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical
                service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest

                It amazes me how many people will argue that forced gestation cannot possibly be involuntary servitude because pregnancy is ‘natural’.

                The Naturalistic Fallacy is the most abused of all fallacies and it really grinds my gears, as they say!

            • somer
              Posted January 30, 2017 at 2:18 am | Permalink

              Re Cindy’s comments – the CIA on the turkish side of the border with syria has been blocking the Free Syrian Army from getting any heavy weapons in case it falls into the hands of ISIS or AlQaeda. They can’t let on about this publicly but various sources admit it. They back those who don’t have links to AlQaeda or the Brotherhood. The refugee crisis happened because Assad actually assissted extremists passing thru his country for training for years then let the ones that he had imprisoned for trouble in his own country out when the uprising started – and actually armed them with the intention they would fight each other and especially that they would destroy the democracy and moderate sunni movement. Russia provides the air muscle. Assad is an Alouite Shia – he is backed by Iran and Russia – he heads a state where the majority are sunni and they hate him and the Alouites. Iran is up to its neck in this also – divide and rule.

            • Posted January 30, 2017 at 8:44 am | Permalink

              Please explain how these countries are not of particular concern?

              I disagree with der Drumpfenführer’s travel ban. But these countries are of particular concern. (And so are Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were left off the list.)

              Identifying certain countries as sources/harbors of terrorists isn’t nothing like banning all travel from those countries.

              Do you advocate, “throw open the gates” to all comers, without vetting? Heck, why require entry permits of any sort; just throw open the borders to anyone who wants to cross, right?

              I think we do need to be careful about who we let into our country. I just thinkk der Drumpfenführer’s, whoops, sorry, President Bannon’s plan is the wrong way to do it. And maybe unconstitutional.

              • rickflick
                Posted January 30, 2017 at 11:07 am | Permalink

                From what I’ve read, the vetting is already very good. Multiple agency interviews, multiple database searches, and a long wait period, etc. Trump is probably opening a can with no worms in it just to excite and please his base.

    • Bent Backenforth
      Posted January 30, 2017 at 6:49 am | Permalink

      Someone on one of these threads a long time ago coined the term ‘turnkey totalitarianism’ for this, & predicted that we wouldn’t like it very much if a republican started using the same executive branch machinery. He or she was right.

      • darrelle
        Posted January 30, 2017 at 7:31 am | Permalink

        It was the Bush Jr. administration that created that toolkit. It was an executive branch power grab. Sure, the Obama administration should have dismantled it, but instead actually made use of some of the tools. But it didn’t create them.

        • Andrei
          Posted January 30, 2017 at 10:48 am | Permalink

          Some of the tools were indeed created by the Bush Admin, while Obama took advantage of them, and expanded them, like the mass surveillance program or the NDDA act of 2013 (bye-bye, habeas corpus). But the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” is a 100% final Obama’s gift to Trump.

  25. Ann German
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    I’m expecting the Christians to condemn the ban on the grounds of religious liberty. I am, however, not holding my breath.

    • Ann German
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

      AND I am sending money to the ACLU . . . as an attorney, I know that is a good investment!

  26. bric
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Trump is just the floor show, Bannon is the problem

    • somer
      Posted January 30, 2017 at 2:20 am | Permalink

      Trump has been saying he will do this sort of thing for ages

  27. Tony Eales
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    I’d be much less concerned about a conservative supreme court, Trump and co are no conservatives, they are quite radical. Conservatives argue that one should be very careful about overturning the wisdom of generations. See the Dover Intelligent Design case for just how scrupulously conservative a conservative judge can be. I fear Trump will appoint lunatics.

  28. @eightyc
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    lolz.

    Well the Left has brought this upon itself. So cry me a river.

    One thing is for sure. The Left still hasn’t learned its lesson.

  29. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    I understand that Donald Trump attended a White House screening today of Finding Dory, a flick about a child desperately trying to reunite with her parents.

    Goes to show that the man who spent the last month of his campaign attempting to de-legitimize an election that he now complains isn’t seen as legitimate — the man who spent years claiming the last president wasn’t even a legitimate US citizen — is totally tone-deaf to irony.

  30. Posted January 30, 2017 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    President Bannon has been a busy boy this week!

  31. Posted January 30, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    The idea that the West would be better off by paying the refugees to resettle in their own region strikes me as really odd.

    I am seeing this thrown around as some kind of golden forgotten solution. Wrong! These kind of programs have been tried and have almost never worked. Foreign aid programs are notorious for being wrought with fraud and corruption.

    Also, many refugees have to spend all they have to get to safer countries. If immigration was legal and fair, this money could be invested in the target country instead of being paid to human traffickers or immigration lawyers.

    In general, I am amazed that so many people think “open borders” means chaos. Quite the contrary, opening the borders for people to peacefully trade goods and labor with each other frees up the resources to deal with all other threats.

    Bastiat has put it more eloquently than I could ever explain:
    “When goods do not cross the borders, soldiers will”.

  32. Zetopan
    Posted February 1, 2017 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    ““I. Calling the Trump Executive Order a “Muslim Ban” is a lie. Nothing less.”

    So why would Giuliani lie about what Trump told him to do? Is your above claim just another “alternative fact”?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally

  33. Posted February 5, 2017 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: