Trump Thread

[Viking]

Israel and these countries forbidding Israeli passports (UAE and Saudi Arabia among those not touched by the order) explicitly identify each other as enemy states. That's not quite the administration's current position.

That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.

So when I protest this ban, because it will affect me, me family, and many of my friends, I should take care to criticize the governments of those six dictatorships and semi-dictatorships first?

No, just the policies of your own country; since that is the state that benefits from you and that you benefit from, etc.

Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?

When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.

I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.

And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.

[Montmorency]

That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.

I see your point as not one of whether criticism against one exclusionary policy is negated by the fact that targeted parties employ categorically-similar policies, but of whether the targeted parties themselves have grounds to do so in that light.

I think they can along the same grounds as third parties can criticize the policy, insofar as they (affected Muslim states) can demonstrate a distinction between the logic of their policies and the logic of the US policy (and so a distinction in criticism of one as opposed to another). I think symmetry is more an outcome than a factor.


As an aside, the footnotes in the Wiki reference some kind of pretty cool passport/visa info site. I can't figure out how to navigate it other than to change elements of the url directly to get different results. Here is an example link. 'NA=<>' is where you put the country codeletters for nationality, 'DE=<>' for destination. I think the default passport setting is "normal passport".

From what I can manage, of the countries refusing Israeli passports

- Admission and transit refused to holders of Iraqi "S" series
passports.

These are apparently non-machine readable passports predating a recent Iraqi passport reform.

[Dâriûsh]

When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.

I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.

And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

[Pannonian]

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

[Montmorency]

If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal?

EU crush puny Britain!

[Pannonian]

EU crush puny Britain!

Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.

[Montmorency]

Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.

I mean in reference to unilateral action (re)implementing restrictive measures on the citizens of other countries.

[Dâriûsh]

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

Thank you for your comment.

However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.

I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).

But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.

Anyway…

You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”

Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.

Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.

[Pannonian]

Thank you for your comment.

However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.

I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).

But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.

Anyway…

You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”

Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.

Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

[Dâriûsh]

Which is right?

Oh, no you don’t.


Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?

Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.

[Pannonian]

Oh, no you don’t.


Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?

Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.

The first decision has already been made, and was made by the proposed League of Nations back in WWI even before the US actively joined the war (both sides were trying to woo her and other neutrals with this argument). 1 is the default. The US, backed by the UK, made the decision to ignore this in favour of argument 2. We can safely say that argument 2 is no longer fashionable. So we default back to argument 1.

Within argument 1 is the assumption, barring excessively inhuman practices as prosecuted post-WWII, that states have control of their own internal affairs. Self determination is based on the assumption that foreign states have no right to intervene in the affairs of other states, except where they impinge on the affairs of others. One of these internal affairs, implicit in the formation of cohesive nation states, is border control. Borders are inviolate, and controlled by the state whose borders they are. Borders involving multiple states are governed by interstate agreements. Where one side wishes to differ, this difference is governed by the principle of reciprocity. If one side wishes to make a different arrangement, other sides are entitled to reciprocate in the same manner. No outside agency is entitled to impose its decision on another.

If outside countries aren't allowed to bring their preferred brand of government to, say, Iran (as has been made clear in the Iraq fiasco), then we revert to argument 1, which has its own set of rules and assumptions. If you feel victimised by this, too bad. The US, like any other state, is entitled to do what it likes with its own borders. Other states may reciprocate in retaliation, and they may well be morally right to do so. But how you feel in relation to the US has little bearing on what the US is entitled to do.

[Husar]

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades.

I was not asserting that the theatrics were irrelevant -- else they would not be so oft repeated. All of our politicos engage in such because it sways public opinion (even if only briefly) and public opinion in your favor is part of the currency of power.

I'm not sure whether his approval ratings reflect that at this point.

And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.

I think you made some excellent contributions and voiced your concerns very well.

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

Right is obviously the conservative option.
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

[Pannonian]

I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades.

Right is obviously the conservative option.
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

There was little secret about the agenda of the neocons. I was aghast at the time that people were buying the WMD argument, when it was plain that they were based on ideology. Or as I called it at the time, idiocy. That liberal democracy could be spread like an ink spot on blotting paper. The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.

There is no butting and umming about times and circumstances. It's been clear since WWI that argument 1 is the default. There is no void of argument where you decide how much of each to apply. Argument 1 applies unless a sovereign nation agrees otherwise. If they agree otherwise, then the subsequent agreement applies. But in the absence of such an agreement, argument 1 applies.

I might accept ideological consistency from someone like Bush or Blair, who genuinely believed in argument 2. In such a case, I wouldn't call the hypocrites. I'd call them idiots instead, as I did in 2003 and subsequently as it turned out as badly as I'd expected. But anyone who criticised the US and UK for going into Iraq has no right to argue that they should not be held responsible for their governments. Argument 2 was a genuine attempt to establish a different paradigm from argument 1. If they don't want argument 2, then argument 1 is what they're stuck with.

[Kagemusha]

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.

In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

[Pannonian]

Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.

In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

I strongly disagree with the UK's choice of government and the decision it made in June last year. But I have to live with it, and deal with it in whatever small way I can within the UK, as an individual. Whatever the UK ends up with as a result of Brexit, even though I strongly disagree with it, I don't expect the EU to ameliorate it in any way.

[Sarmatian]

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

The question isn't which is right but who decides.

[Idaho]

It's very interesting the contrast between the Trump launch and the bush launch. With Bush, 90% of the American orgahs were fairly fiercely pro Bush. Very hawkish and nationalistic. Even hanging on to support through the Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophes.

With Trump it seems that the best the American orgahs can do is a few sheepish "let's wait and see" or "actions aren't as bad as his words".

I predict that he either starts ww3 or doesn't last 2017.

[Pannonian]

The question isn't which is right but who decides.

So who has the right to decide, in your view?

[Viking]

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.

The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.

[Montmorency]

Next act is to draw all of the attention away from the temporary travel ban and related theatrics by nominating a Scalia-esque jurist to take the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Each new uproar is distracting from each preceding "protest" or concern -- and these are still being worked on when the media spotlight has passed on by.

But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...

Exploiting, as you notate it, "temporal bias" is what the political theatre stuff is all about. Most folks won't dig into the more substantive elements of policy or the implications, preferring the theater. Trumps refugee hiatus isn't, when spelled out, nearly the "Neolithic" policy it is made out to be. Arguably, there are a number of "threat" countries that are NOT listed that are as worrisome as the ones he has listed. I am far more concerned with getting a useful vetting policy in place then I am with the temporary travel bans. His "wall" order is likely to be more costly to the US taxpayer than his campaign wall promise -- and this is no longer being addressed well at all. Heck, his comments on NAFTA are more profound long term impact as well.

[Strike For The South]

So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.

[Montmorency]

So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.

What is that about?

[Dâriûsh]

The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.

The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.

My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.


Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.


And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.

[Viking]

My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.

By the same logic, because of much worse things going on in the world, people from seven countries being denied entry to the US is not much to care about.

I think it can be a good idea to point out things that are 'wrong', even if they are far down on the priority list. Some things may be more connected than they first seem, for example.

Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.

I am not telling people to stand up to their authoritarian governments; but to the extent that they do not, it may alter the, shall we say, moral equation. But it is a debate that is probably best for a separate topic, as a travel ban is normally not something very serious.

[Idaho]

It seems that we have fully moved away from politics being a rational argument, to it being like one of those arguments with people who are incoherent and inconsistent. So there is no agreed framework or reference. Anyone can blurt out any old shit and any objections or thoughtful responses are just drowned out by a tidal wave of such blurting.

[Dâriûsh]

By the same logic, because of much worse things going on in the world, people from seven countries being denied entry to the US is not much to care about.

I think it can be a good idea to point out things that are 'wrong', even if they are far down on the priority list. Some things may be more connected than they first seem, for example.



I am not telling people to stand up to their authoritarian governments; but to the extent that they do not, it may alter the, shall we say, moral equation. But it is a debate that is probably best for a separate topic, as a travel ban is normally not something very serious.

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

[Pannonian]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

Note on your sig, Dariush. I think you mean Fatehi and not the actress in your second quotation -- but some might miss that without the surname.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

Not legislation, but an executive order. Such orders spell out the process by which the executive branch will execute the law promulgated by Congress. Were Congress to oppose the measures taken in the Executive Order, they could modify the law by which the President is empowered placing whatever limitations they preferred on the books. This change would require a 2/3 majority so as to be veto-proof, but that is the system under which we operate.

The executive order was NOT aimed at you personally, of course, though any refugee or would-be immigrant from Iran -- obviously including you -- will be barred from entry for the next 114 days or so. The sloppy execution of the order (e.g. holding up the entry of current legal residents) makes it clear that too many are aware of the media version without reading the blinking thing, including Customs officers apparently.

The only indefinite ban (at least so far) is on those from Syria.

The order will, from the look of things, probably be extended to other nations of concern after about 60 days -- based in part on their willingness/ability or lack of willingness/ability to provide the additional information envisaged in the new and more robust vetting procedures referenced in the order.

The whole point is to resume immigration and the refugee program after this hiatus, with the hiatus having been used to establish and place assets to conduct the more rigorous screening. The more rigorous screening is not, apparently, going to be applied to all and sundry (though I expect that it will be, bowing to political pressure for fairness, once the new procedures are in place). Customs and immigration is about to become a good deal more costly to the taxpayer.

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on