500k Legal Green Card Holders and Students Banned from the US

Under the current executive action.
this article gives the numbers: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-executiv…

Homeland Security confirms it applies to green card holders: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-…

If you're an Iranian/Iraqi/etc student or worker legally in the US, you will now not be allowed back in the country to continue your work or studies if you were already overseas or want to leave at any point during the executive action. Google said they had over 100 employees based in the US who are affected and had to get them emergency flights back in hopes they wouldn't get stranded. If this gets extended or becomes part of the forthcoming law, these people may have to choose between their careers here and ever seeing their families again.

I wonder, at what point does the Xenophobia give way to common sense. Or will it? It's also worth noting that any country that the US or Trump enterprises have significant business dealings with (Saudi Arabia) are not included in the ban, despite the fact that Saudi terrorists are, as we know, common.

 

And not a single Saudi or UAE citizen will be restricted, because no foreign terrorist ever came from those countries, right?

This, and the Wall, are just cheap tricks that Trump uses to appease his least thinking voters. The same type of voters that sincerely believe that Trump has done more positive things for US in his 8 days in offer, than what Obama did during his 8 years.

 

Oil bruh.

UAE has Dubai which is an international hub w/ business. This would cause a lot of uproar if you couldn't hop on a flight from Dubai ==> US. Saudis as well are powerful w/ oil/energy.

Most of the countries blocked (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.) are comparatively 3rd world. Somalia still has pirates for f*cks sake. Iran/Iraq you could MAYBE argue they are not 3rd world. Still surprised the US just didn't take Iran/Iraq as colonies.

At the minimum, they should let students back.

Saudis are also active in business in the US. For example Saudis own half of Motiva Enterprises which is a large refining operation. Doing that would cause international issues (Rev 24B).

As well Saudis provide quite a few jobs for American expats.

 
IlliniProgrammer:

To clarify, US citizens and permanent residents are exempt. If you have the legal, unconditional right to enter the country, that right is 100% safe from this order.

It doesn't need clarification. Citizens are exempt. Green card holders and student visas are not, as I clearly stated. These are hundreds of thousands of people who have lived and worked/attended school in the US for years who are now unable to enter the country. I worked with a brilliant MD who had Iranian citizenship and had a green card, he will no longer be allowed to travel internationally for his work as he won't be allowed back into the the country. And he hasnt been in the country long enough yet to apply for citizenship (it takes a good 7 years after having worked and lived here to get citizenship, at least, as you can apply at 5 but the process is extremely slow).

 

The green card ban was just lifted, so they're no longer affected. Still, before then, if you carried dual citizenship with one of those countries you were barred as well, so yes even citizens were denied re-entry.

 

Yay. Another thread for people who hate Trump to base his policies.

1) This should not have come to any surprise. Trump has been talking about this all during his campaign.

2) It is a temporary ban - 90 days. This is to give our intelligence agencies time to develop proper vetting.

3) If you are in the US with a green card or Visa you are fine. You just cannot leave and come back. This is similar to other annoying and unfortunate immigration rules we currently have regarding people having to leave the country for a specific period of time, etc.

Let's be clear, the counties effected, with the exception of Iran, are all major ISIS operating countries with failed governments. These governments cannot help the US in screening immigrants.

If you look at Europe and the rash of recent terror attacks, as well as the ones in this country, I don't think it is crazy to hit pause on immigration from war torn countries.

Also, sadly, these people are not citizens and as such, do not have the rights and privileges that Americans have. Throughout the history of this country we have restricted immigration, outright banned it and had other rules pertaining to it. All countries have. The primary

What makes the USA great is the constitution, rule of law and capitalism. Not allowing people from known terrorist nations into the US has nothing to do with greatness or not greatness. Furthermore, while I do find it unfortunate in many of these instances that good people are being caught up in a broad policy, such is life.

Does the left not brush away the countless preventable deaths of Americans by illegals when anti illegal immigration laws are advocated for? So in this instance, the statistically small number of people who are harmed don't matter, but in this instance, the statistically small number of people who are inconvenienced, matter?

And the argument that this will only make terrorists hate us more is laughable. Terrorists hate the US because we have boots on sacred soil and endlessly kill innocent people with drones. If not being allowed into the US for 90 days is what makes someone join ISIS to kill innocent people then I think they were pretty far along on that process.

Love him or hate him, Trump is doing basically exactly what he said during the campaign. I suppose people should have gotten out to vote more and we wouldn't be dealing with this right now. Lesson for 4 years from now.

EDIT

To provide some color on my statement, let me say this. I dated a girl wasn't a citizen and was on a student Visa. She couldn't get a lot of jobs because of this and there was talk of her going with family overseas so she could apply for a different Visa and re-enter. A very good friend of mine couldn't find a job in the US because he was international and had to leave to go to school overseas.

So I absolutely empathize and sympathize with the people impacted by this. As someone who loves to travel I am also upset and afraid that this might cause issues for Americans traveling. I also would love to go to Iran and it sucks that Americans are now banned from traveling there.

All that being said, these are dangerous countries and it is essential that we make sure people entering this country and here with good intentions. ISIS has sadly figured out that you don't need bombs to cause terror or kill people. You just need a truck or a gun in a crowded space. I really don't want to see what is happening in Europe happen here and I directly attribute it to ISIS and the refuge crisis allowing people to enter into Europe more easily.

 
Best Response
TNA:

Yay. Another thread for people who hate Trump to base his policies.

1) This should not have come to any surprise. Trump has been talking about this all during his campaign.

2) It is a temporary ban - 90 days. This is to give our intelligence agencies time to develop proper vetting.

3) If you are in the US with a green card or Visa you are fine. You just cannot leave and come back. This is similar to other annoying and unfortunate immigration rules we currently have regarding people having to leave the country for a specific period of time, etc.

Let's be clear, the counties effected, with the exception of Iran, are all major ISIS operating countries with failed governments. These governments cannot help the US in screening immigrants.

If you look at Europe and the rash of recent terror attacks, as well as the ones in this country, I don't think it is crazy to hit pause on immigration from war torn countries.

Also, sadly, these people are not citizens and as such, do not have the rights and privileges that Americans have. Throughout the history of this country we have restricted immigration, outright banned it and had other rules pertaining to it. All countries have. The primary

What makes the USA great is the constitution, rule of law and capitalism. Not allowing people from known terrorist nations into the US has nothing to do with greatness or not greatness. Furthermore, while I do find it unfortunate in many of these instances that good people are being caught up in a broad policy, such is life.

Does the left not brush away the countless preventable deaths of Americans by illegals when anti illegal immigration laws are advocated for? So in this instance, the statistically small number of people who are harmed don't matter, but in this instance, the statistically small number of people who are inconvenienced, matter?

And the argument that this will only make terrorists hate us more is laughable. Terrorists hate the US because we have boots on sacred soil and endlessly kill innocent people with drones. If not being allowed into the US for 90 days is what makes someone join ISIS to kill innocent people then I think they were pretty far along on that process.

Love him or hate him, Trump is doing basically exactly what he said during the campaign. I suppose people should have gotten out to vote more and we wouldn't be dealing with this right now. Lesson for 4 years from now.

This isn't a thread for "people who hate trump" it's a thread for people who value humanity and decency. If you can't get away from your partisanship for long enough to realize that this is anything but anti humanity and immoral than you've lost your sense of right and wrong. People are being stranded away from their homes, jobs, and families. People who have done nothing but study, work, and pay taxes in the US. And yes, it's currently a 90 day ban, but with a high likelihood of it extending. If I stranded you away from your work or family for 3 months would you think, ah, only 90 days, no big deal? Also, what does it matter that he said that his would happen?

I was told by you and others he "wouldn't follow through with everything he's said so I shouldn't be so worried" and now that it's happening I'm being told I should just accept it because I should have expected it? How do you reconcile those arguments?

Sure, these people may not have the inalienable legal rights I do because I won the birthing lottery. But maybe we should attempt to be humane regardless, you think? This isn't protecting us from terror attacks, it's protecting Google from being able to use some of their 100.

You want to change immigration law to be more protectionist? Ok, I'm going to disagree and I'm going to tell you it's bad for the economy. But this isn't that, this is punishment for thousands of law abiding, smart, hard working people simply because of where they were born.

 

I said during the election that Trump wasn't going to literally do everything word for word. He wasn't going to ban all Muslims, he was going to target select countries. He wasn't going to deport 11MM people, he was going to get rid of criminals and stop the flow of people coming to this country.

1) I wish Trump would have messaged this better. Like given people time to change plans. Or give a 5-10 day window for people to finish what they are doing. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

2) This isn't about humanity and decency at all. This is a sovereign nation deciding that certain countries are very dangerous and we currently do not have the systems in place to ensure that people entering this country are with good intentions.

3) I agree this will inconvenience a lot of people. Agree. But I rank their inconvenience below people being killed. And that is what happens when you are not checking who you let into this country.

A small amount of people are being harmed by this. The people who were in transit or had weddings/funerals to go to, stuff like that. If you are from those countries and here on a Visa you can stay, you just can't leave and come back. You cannot come into this country for three months if you are from those countries. That's it.

Morality is subjective. Humanity is subjective. This is the USA and Trump is the President. His job is to serve citizens. If a person who isn't a citizen doesn't like it they are free to go right back home to where their country is and where their President looks out for them.

And during Obama my good friend had to leave and my ex-GF almost had to leave. I saw both of them struggle as they lost job opportunities. Laws regarding immigration are always difficult, but necessary for a country to function.

EDIT

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restri…-Visa-waiver-program

These 7 countries have been listed for heightened security since 2015. Also, no where in the text of the EO are these countries listed. It simply expands on what Obama passed a year or two ago.

So it isn't a ban on Muslims and it wasn't all Trump's idea.

 

But there are people with visas that recently got them or are traveling abroad ranging from Iranian-Swiss scientists, to Yazidi women fleeing prosecution, to Iraqi translators that risked their lives and their families to help US forces. The White House acted with extreme negligence.

 

Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of radical Islam and terrorism in the world, isn't banned. But at least we banned some green card holding scientists who wanted to leave their disgusting Islamic countries to live productive and free lives in the U.S.

@TNA" You are truly a morally bankrupt individual. There is a reasonable argument to be made for a temporary ban against refugees, but there is no excuse (in this specific context) for banning green card holders who have proven to be productive members of society.

 

1) These 7 countries were chosen by Obama. There were existing restrictions regarding travel for these countries

2) While Saudi Arabia is an exporter of terrorism, they are not a failed government and can help the US in the vetting process

3) The ban is for people traveling to and from these countries. People from these 7 counties who are currently green card holders in the USA are perfectly fine. They simply cannot travel to their home countries and then travel back.

I freely admit this will inconvenience some people and that is a shame.

Morality has nothing to do with this. I find your arguments to be bankrupt. These countries (with the exception of Iran, which IMO shouldn't be on that list) are failed states with ISIS operating there. The current refuge crisis in Europe has shown that unfettered immigration from these countries is the perfect cover for ISIS to infiltrate these nations. It is reasonable to assume that we need a better process of checking people.

And there have been plenty of instances where American citizens travel to these countries and come back radicalized. While Americans are not banned from traveling to these countries, you can be sure that you will be on a watch list and scrutinized if you go and come back.

 
TNA:

1) These 7 countries were chosen by Obama. There were existing restrictions regarding travel for these countries

2) While Saudi Arabia is an exporter of terrorism, they are not a failed government and can help the US in the vetting process

3) The ban is for people traveling to and from these countries. People from these 7 counties who are currently green card holders in the USA are perfectly fine. They simply cannot travel to their home countries and then travel back.

I freely admit this will inconvenience some people and that is a shame.

Morality has nothing to do with this. I find your arguments to be bankrupt. These countries (with the exception of Iran, which IMO shouldn't be on that list) are failed states with ISIS operating there. The current refuge crisis in Europe has shown that unfettered immigration from these countries is the perfect cover for ISIS to infiltrate these nations. It is reasonable to assume that we need a better process of checking people.

And there have been plenty of instances where American citizens travel to these countries and come back radicalized. While Americans are not banned from traveling to these countries, you can be sure that you will be on a watch list and scrutinized if you go and come back.

What the hell are you on about? Did you not read my post? I explicitly said that there is an argument to be made for a temporary ban against refugees -- we agree on that point. My post specifically argues against preventing the reentry of green card holders who have proven to be productive members of society. Scientists who may have been visiting family overseas or had work obligations (Google employees, for example) are being denied reentry into the U.S.

We have yet again witnessed the level of nuance the government uses in forming and implementing policies. And people like you want them to run the economy? This is pathetic.

 
TNA:

1) These 7 countries were chosen by Obama. There were existing restrictions regarding travel for these countries

2) While Saudi Arabia is an exporter of terrorism, they are not a failed government and can help the US in the vetting process

3) The ban is for people traveling to and from these countries. People from these 7 counties who are currently green card holders in the USA are perfectly fine. They simply cannot travel to their home countries and then travel back.

I freely admit this will inconvenience some people and that is a shame.

Morality has nothing to do with this. I find your arguments to be bankrupt. These countries (with the exception of Iran, which IMO shouldn't be on that list) are failed states with ISIS operating there. The current refuge crisis in Europe has shown that unfettered immigration from these countries is the perfect cover for ISIS to infiltrate these nations. It is reasonable to assume that we need a better process of checking people.

And there have been plenty of instances where American citizens travel to these countries and come back radicalized. While Americans are not banned from traveling to these countries, you can be sure that you will be on a watch list and scrutinized if you go and come back.

I've never seen someone post/talk as confidently about something they seem to be so uninformed about as you do regularly (and, I guess, Donald trump). It's not just traveling too and from, it's people with passports from these countries as well. That means my Sudanese friend with a start up educating underprivileged kids can't go even to London to see his brother, because he won't be allowed back into the country.

This is, plain and simply, xenophobia rearing it's ugly head.

 

What about the visas?

Visas and green cards are not the same thing!

He stopped those with visas. Ranging from Iranian-Swiss scientists, to Yazidi women fleeing prosecution, to Iraqi translators that risked their lives and their families to help US forces.

Was there not one person in the WH that considered the legality, morality, or logic of this?

 

Wow, a guy who writes books makes an outlandish and unprovable claim and gets a ton of press. Shocking.

  • Gartner acknowledges that he has not personally examined Trump

  • His comments run afoul of the so-called Goldwater Rule, the informal term for part of the ethics code of the American Psychiatric Association saying it is wrong to provide a professional opinion of a public figure without examining that person and gaining consent to discuss the evaluation.

Man, people on the left better get a grasp on the fact that this guy is going to be President for 4 years. The level of absolute mental collapse that is going on is truly shocking.

 

This sort of long distance analysis is worthless and likely just designed to be self promotion.

This sort of crap discredits the legitimate criticisms of Trump.

The Goldwater rule is for psychiatrists, not psychoanalysts. Largely because psychiatrists are professionals with ethics and their professional organisations have a sense of professional dignity and integrity, while a lot of psychoanalysts are hacks and are more like chiropractors ie unscientific jokes.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 
SSits:

This sort of long distance analysis is worthless and likely just designed to be self promotion.

This sort of crap discredits the legitimate criticisms of Trump.

The Goldwater rule is for psychiatrists, not psychoanalysts. Largely because psychiatrists are professionals with ethics and their professional organisations have a sense of professional dignity and integrity, while a lot of psychoanalysts are hacks and are more like chiropractors ie unscientific jokes.

I agree with SSits. Although the analysis was humorous, it detracts from, as SSits said, the legitimate criticisms of Trump.

 

A president that is off his rocker is not New news.

"Depression: James Madison (4th), John Quincy Adams (6th), Franklin Pierce (14th). Abraham Lincoln (16th) suffered a depression so severe that friends feared he’d commit suicide. Calvin Coolidge (30th) fell into a bout of depression after the loss of his teenage son, who died suddenly of sepsis, a fatal condition caused by a staph infection. Social Phobia: Thomas Jefferson (3rd), Grant and Calvin Coolidge (30th). Grant also retreated into alcohol. Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Woodrow Wilson (28th) Mania: Theodore Roosevelt (26th) and Lyndon B. Johnson (36th) displayed manic energy, an indicator of bipolar disorder."

https://www.addiction.com/6154/even-u-s-presidents-suffer-mental-illnes…

Only two sources I trust, Glenn Beck and singing woodland creatures.
 

I want them to spend the great American dollar and boost my earnings, so, this is very bad. I'm against all policies that make my dollar harder to be passed around and come back to me greater than when it left my pocket. We need more McDonald's in other countries, more Apple stores, and more Starbucks (I would say Chipotle, but they must first be bought out in the great American LBO). I don't like this Muslim ban. Right now, thousands of people in this country are at their local Airports holding up signs that only cost about $2 at the dollar store for a marker and the paper it's written on. Instead, they could've ballooned some movie at the box office this Saturday evening, and paid $10 for a $2 bucket of popcorn. Not feeling this, at all. This is bad for growth and I'm trying to get out of this 1.7%-ish inflation environment, and lack-luster growth. Profits want to set record breaking highs for this decade. Should profits not be allowed to soar? Free the American profit. Spread the American dollar around the world. Uplift the American Dream!

 

Lmao. They get 18-24 months of vetting already but he's going to improve on that in 90 days...Oh and alienate millions.

Good trade? Oh and it, like the wall, isn't going to do shit. We have a term for that in trading: "throwing good money after bad." But in trading you generally at some point expected to get something in return.

 

Glad we have national security experts like you in the forum. We are so fortunate. Thank you for serving your country.

But on a serious note, and to be clear - it is your opinion that this policy "won't do shit". It is your opinion that building a wall "won't do shit".

These are literally the policies that Trump ran on. Noting he has done yet is that absurd. If you think so, it is because you think the way he drinks water or the way he inhales air is out-of-line. You are a sheep to confirmation bias and you are completely incapable of independent thought.

We have no moral or legal obligation to take immigrants from war-torn nations. Is it nice of us? Sure. Is it necessary? No. The country has taken a wrong turn left for the past 4 years (at least) and needs to get woken the fuck up. If I am the new head of sate and I want a buffer period to understand our current policies on vetting immigrants from war-torn countries, I am enacting the exact same policy - it's not the big of a deal, it only is if you are one of the mouth-breathing liberals that are complaining about anything and everything the Trump admin. is doing.

 
Arbitraging:

Glad we have national security experts like you in the forum. We are so fortunate. Thank you for serving your country.

But on a serious note, and to be clear - it is your opinion that this policy "won't do shit". It is your opinion that building a wall "won't do shit".

These are literally the policies that Trump ran on. Noting he has done yet is that absurd. If you think so, it is because you think the way he drinks water or the way he inhales air is out-of-line. You are a sheep to confirmation bias and you are completely incapable of independent thought.

We have no moral or legal obligation to take immigrants from war-torn nations. Is it nice of us? Sure. Is it necessary? No. The country has taken a wrong turn left for the past 4 years (at least) and needs to get woken the fuck up. If I am the new head of sate and I want a buffer period to understand our current policies on vetting immigrants from war-torn countries, I am enacting the exact same policy - it's not the big of a deal, it only is if you are one of the mouth-breathing liberals that are complaining about anything and everything the Trump admin. is doing.

I think Trump is getting rid of all the national security experts:

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/trump-removes-dni-and-chairman-of…

That is, unless you think being CEO of Breitbart qualifies you as a national security expert.

 

The premise of his policy is "vetting" not some existential question about taking in immigrants as I country founded by immigrants.

That entire vetting process is publicly available if you ever felt so inclined to know what the fuck you were talking about.

But in the interests of National Security, or more accurately in the name of, he has alienated millions. That's going to hurt security not help it, and had you again decided to give a fuck about the efficacy of policies you'd listen to actual national security experts saying the exact same thing.

Ultimately, you don't care about his policies, they are all shit. You're motivated by partisanship and whatever brand of seething hatred fuels your experience. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

Lol are we really defending banning (temporary or otherwise) people who HAVE LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY from re-entry? Really? Sure, Obama put out the list but is that relevant? This means these people were ALREADY under extra scrutiny and the list didn't stop them from doing their jobs/ re-entry prior to this order. This is a major abuse of power by Trump and a badly executed one at that, reshaping entire immigration policy without the approval of Congress. Had Obama done something so sweeping the right would be rabid about his supposed authoritarianism. No issue with reevaluating the vetting process and temporarily banning refugees (although they're already heavily vetted) but banning green card holders who jumped through all the legal hoops to become residents of this country? (full disclosure: I used to be a green card holder) That is a major fuck up and I doubt it'll hold up in court. Those defending this are the usual, can't step away from blind support and partisanship and examine why this is a terrible idea. It also doesn't help that since 9/11 (mostly Saudis, cple from UAE, 1 from Egypt and Lebanon) most terrorism (approximately 80%) are from legal residents and citizens of this country. None of the major terrorist attacks in the past 15 years have been perpetrated by an individual from one of those 7 countries. If we continue to demonize Muslims the way Trump currently is rather than assimilating them in our communities, you can be sure we'll get more Omar Mateens and a refugee ban/ re-entry ban will do nothing to stop that.

Array
 

Putting the logic (or lack of it) in the ban to one side, let's just consider the theatrics of the executive order.

Rather than providing a few days warning so travel plans could be cancelled etc, the administration announced this with overnight effect, knowing it would cause inconvenience, DHS confusion, likely court challenges, etc.

Why? What messages is the administration trying to send through these theatrics?

Can a pro-Trumpafarian (@TNA?) give me their read on what the logic was in making this change in this particular manner?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 

I disagree with the timing. Should have given extra time. This could just be trump showing that he's working at a breakneck pace.

I really don't think this hurts him with his voter base and the endless protests just draw a wedge between people. Just wait until the sanctuary cities get cut off and a national voter ID law is passed. Tectonic shifts are occurring.

 
TNA:

I disagree with the timing. Should have given extra time. This could just be trump showing that he's working at a breakneck pace.

I really don't think this hurts him with his voter base and the endless protests just draw a wedge between people. Just wait until the sanctuary cities get cut off and a national voter ID law is passed. Tectonic shifts are occurring.

Yes, it's the protests sticking up for human rights that are driving wedges between people, not the policies that dehumanize most of the world's population.

 
TNA:

I disagree with the timing. Should have given extra time. This could just be trump showing that he's working at a breakneck pace.

I really don't think this hurts him with his voter base and the endless protests just draw a wedge between people. Just wait until the sanctuary cities get cut off and a national voter ID law is passed. Tectonic shifts are occurring.

Where were you during the TEA Party protests telling them they were driving a wedge between people? Oh I'm sorry I forgot only Republicans are allowed to dissent against the government. When liberals do it it's divisive.
 

My problems with it are...

  1. The seven countries he banned people from produced 0 terrorists.
  2. He didn't ban people from countries that produced terrorists like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
  3. He appears to have not banned countries which he has business dealings in like UAE.
  4. He stopped those with green cards and visas. Ranging from Iranian-Swiss scientists, to Yazidi women fleeing prosecution, to Iraqi translators that risked their lives and their families to help US forces.

Was there not one person in the WH that considered the legality, morality, or logic of this?

 

You literally just posted the same thing multiple times on this thread. It was pretty shit the first time. It didn't get better posting it multiple times.

1) There is no way your first statement is accurate. 2&3) His administration didn't arbitrarily choose "Muslim-Majority Countries". The list is of 7 countries that are already listed as subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or the UAE are not currently on this list, which was created during the Obama Administration. The point of that argument is that a fairly liberal administration determined that individuals traveling from these countries require additional scrutiny in the vetting process. Once you concede to that, which you have to...it is a fact, then it harder to make the argument that the Trump administration is targeting Muslim-Majority countries b/c of some xenophobia bullshit. See below -

"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas)."

4) Nice vivid examples. It looks like the administration has backed off of the applicability of the EO to green-card-holders, which is certainly a good thing - I don't think anyone in this thread has argued otherwise.

 
  1. My first statement was accurate, there are 0 deaths at the hands of immigrants or refugees from those seven countries. If you spent three minutes checking the facts you would also realize it. But considering you spent as much time considering the ramifications of the bill as Trump did, I see your confusion, here is a conservative think tank to help you. https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-im…

2/3. Obama is not the one who set up an hastily drawn up executive order to ban refugees/visa holders/green card holders. Trump did that, and he did it without consulting the DHS, FBI, or any other authority that might need to understand this legislation. Trump said explicitly that he wanted to make America safer, how does that work by banning additional countries that actually produced terrorism like UAE? Ahh right, I forgot, Trump has significant business dealings there.

  1. Green cards are not the same as visas you dimwit. There are many people with VISAS that were stopped in route, detained, or stranded in their home countries waiting in limbo and in danger. I agree that no one in this thread argued otherwise, unfortunately, the White House Administration doesn't have the critical thinking skills as a bunch of 20-30 year olds on this thread.

  2. Congratulations, you posted an excerpt from the ban. Just because it sounds more official doesn't make it any less stupid and ill-conceived.

Here is your best buddy Kellyane Conway when asked about chaos created by the action.

Get used to it. @POTUS is a man of action and impact. Promises made, promises kept. Shock to the system. And he's just getting started https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/825352875094138880

 

I think it's too convenient to write this off as ineptitude at this early stage.

From my personal experience this weekend - the wife of a couple who live in our building was born in Iran. She grew up in a Western country (not US), married a white-as-snow American, works with him as a medical research scientist. They have a teenage son. Her family lives in the Western country where she grew up. They are all from Iran originally and fled in the late 70's when the Shah fell.

As far as I can tell, the latest iteration of the restrictions doesn't seem to apply to her as she has full US citizenship. However, she's still at risk of being detained and "extremely vetted" due to her Iranian place of birth.

And she has no certainty the rules won't won't change again if she does leave the country to visit her family.

So we now have a smart, qualified research scientist who has worked here for decades, has married an Anglo-American, borne him a son, yet is left terrified to leave the US to visit her family. And her Iranian-borne family are terrified of visiting her in the US because they have no idea what may happen when they reach Immigration. They can't even work around the published rules, as Trump's executive order proved that he's willing to change the rules while people are in the air so it applies to them when they land.

Was the literal terror, uncertainty and dread induced by this overnight policy a product of ineptitude or a deliberate and intended result? It's too early to tell. It's too convenient to believe Trump and his gang are stupid.

Whatever the case, it's left a lot of people in a state of high uncertainty. Not just Muslims. Who could be next? #MexicanBan? If things hot up in the South China Sea, perhaps #ChineseBan?

Let's assume that Trump and his inner circle are not idiots and have some idea of this risk. Surely the impact on law abiding, productive tax payers resident in this country was foreseeable. What exactly was Trump's team trying to achieve?

My wife and I are both from another country, here on long terms visas. We're now starting to worry about what the f*ck is happening in this country as it may apply to us personally.

Is this what Trump's team was trying to achieve? Was anything I've outlined above not f*cking incredibly foreseeable as a result of the executive order and its implementation?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/finance/going-concern>Going Concern</a></span>:

Just wow. Never in a million years did I think a president would come along that would make George W. Bush look good

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/29/...

You fuckers just ignore the thread I made on this topic and post it in an unrelated thread.

Trump dismissed the DNI and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the security council and replaced them with Bannon. It's fucking insane.

 

"The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair)"

Bannon was elevated to the committee which includes non military individuals. The Joint Chiefs and DNI are always invited, but only required on meetings that require their expertise.

I wonder if the press covered every procedural tweak that Obama, Clinton and Bush did?

 

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170129/howard-beach/refugees-kennedy…

Between 10-18 people in JFK detained, with people being slowly released over the course of the day.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald-trump-1/2017/01/29/aclu-lawyers-w…

9 people detained, all released in Dallas

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/five_immigrants_bein…

5 people in Philadelphia

http://ktla.com/2017/01/28/at-least-7-detainees-held-at-lax-as-proteste…

7 people in LA

http://abc7chicago.com/news/18-released-after-being-detained-at-ohare-f…

18 people detained, all released in Chicago

So realistically this is impacting maybe 100 people. Most are being released as the DHS goes through their process. Meanwhile thousands protest an expansion of a policy that Obama put in place in 2015. Where were the protests when Cubans lost their right to stay in the US and had to be sent back?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/12/obama-ends-wet-foot…

Or when Obama did something similar (although different) to Iraqis?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-f…

"The arrests caused an uproar in Congress and the Obama administration pledged to re-examine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees. Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed visa approvals, even as the United States was preparing to end its involvement in the Iraq war."

"A U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad, speaking on condition he not be identified, acknowledged “unfortunate delays” in issuing special visas, the result of enhanced security clearance procedures, some instituted after the Kentucky arrests. "

So the reality is there has always been unfair or fluctuating immigration policies for certain countries in the ME and elsewhere (Americans were banned from going to Cuba, people with HIV we not allowed in this country). Many of the countries included on the TEMPORARY BAN also ban people from Israeli or those with an Israeli stamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel#Notable_tar…).

So while my heart does go out to the good people caught up in this inconvenience, there is a logic to reevaluating our approach to these 7 countries (and maybe more).

I'd also expect more of this. Look at what Sessions reported on when he was a Senator:

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/senator-lists-terrorists-who-were-granted-ent…

And here is the DHS under the Obama administration talking about their difficulty in vetting the Syrian Refuges.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/264268-ex-dhs-head-we-cant-…

"the former head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says the U.S. does not have the capabilities to vet Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the country."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-ob…

EDIT

Great Time article on Visa issues.

 

Your impact assessment doesn't seem to include those denied boarding in foreign countries, those whose travel plans now have to be changed and those already in the refugee process who are now on hold (by definition, people living in legitimate fear of violence), let alone people (eg my neighbour) who now can't travel outside the US lest Trump issue another snap executive order.

It's not just people from the 7 countries named who are impacted by the uncertainty, either. I have a dog park friend who is a Turkish green card holder and is now unable to leave the country lest Trump decide overnight to expand the list.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 
TNA:

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170129/howard-b...

Between 10-18 people in JFK detained, with people being slowly released over the course of the day.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald-trump-1/2017...

9 people detained, all released in Dallas
http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01...

5 people in Philadelphia
http://ktla.com/2017/01/28/at-least-7-detainees-he...

7 people in LA
http://abc7chicago.com/news/18-released-after-bein...

18 people detained, all released in Chicago

So realistically this is impacting maybe 100 people. Most are being released as the DHS goes through their process. Meanwhile thousands protest an expansion of a policy that Obama put in place in 2015. Where were the protests when Cubans lost their right to stay in the US and had to be sent back?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/1...

Or when Obama did something similar (although different) to Iraqis?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/w...

"The arrests caused an uproar in Congress and the Obama administration pledged to re-examine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees. Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed Visa approvals, even as the United States was preparing to end its involvement in the Iraq war."

"A U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad, speaking on condition he not be identified, acknowledged "unfortunate delays" in issuing special visas, the result of enhanced security clearance procedures, some instituted after the Kentucky arrests. "

So the reality is there has always been unfair or fluctuating immigration policies for certain countries in the ME and elsewhere (Americans were banned from going to Cuba, people with HIV we not allowed in this country). Many of the countries included on the TEMPORARY BAN also ban people from Israeli or those with an Israeli stamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_...).

So while my heart does go out to the good people caught up in this inconvenience, there is a logic to reevaluating our approach to these 7 countries (and maybe more).

I'd also expect more of this. Look at what Sessions reported on when he was a Senator:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/senator-lists-terrorists...

And here is the DHS under the Obama administration talking about their difficulty in vetting the Syrian Refuges.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/264268...

"the former head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says the U.S. does not have the capabilities to vet Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the country."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp...

EDIT

Great Time article on Visa issues.

This doesn't just impact 100 people, it impacts hundreds of thousands of people. Acting like the 100 people detained in American airports is the extent of those affected is, at best, Intellectually dishonest. First you ignore those stranded in non american airports. But more importantly there are several anecdotes in this thread alone of people being stranded in place due to uncertainty or fear to travel due to these policies, a pervasive sentiment that will seep into the Iives of every person with green cards, visas, middle eastern descent, etc. It impacts all of them because they now have to do a risk assessment every time they want to attend a family wedding or ask their parents to come to their college graduation.

Also, the fact that Trump is softening a little because of the mass outrage (those "divisive" protests, as you called them) and legal challenges doesn't award him a pat on the back.

 

109 was the official count I read based on this mornings news. How about we double it and consider ppl in other airports outside the US. I'll say those people were the most severely impacts. Others are being inconvenienced. I'm sure a number will have something truly important missed during this 90 day ban. All very sad, but I can think of a number of policies the US and other nations have in place that do the same thing.

Reality is these 6 counties (still don't think Iran should be on) are all failed states with limited to no ability for the government to aid in verification. Even the people allowed in previously were not vetted sufficiently. So this administration roles out a temporary ban to get things straightened out.

Do I support a permanent, unending ban? No. Do I think we have an obligation to accept anyone from anywhere? No.

As for the administration tweaking the executive order, I see it more of a clarification for a small number of effected people. Policy is written broadly. 109/325,000 isn't even half of 1%.

I've had two direct instances where this countries immigration policy resulted in people close to me being negatively impacted. Sucks. But you don't see me shitting down vital infrastructure because I'm trying to resist someone I don't like who was elected president.

It's been a week and it's been almost non stop protesting over policy that has either occurred before, partially or completely and received no outcry because people weren't whipped up into this anarchist frenzy like we have now.

Id be focusing on 2018 midterms because these resist protests aren't making the ppl who voted for him sympathetic for the other side. Just becoming more radical.

 

The reaction to this executive order is bordering on hysteria (ctrl+f "literally" in this thread lol). A lot people have said that a fundamental disconnect between regular Americans and "elites" is what put Trump is the White House.

The migrant ban kind of highlights this. A lot of Americans simply don't care that immigration from 7 terrorist-ridden countries is restricted for a whole 90-days. I think it was certainly implemented poorly, but let's get real: do regular people really care that an Iranian immigrant had to spend the night at JFK? Be honest now, and answering "no" doesn't make someone a terrible racist.

Calling this "facism" (think about the connotations of that word) almost makes things worse. So does calling it a "Muslim ban". People are wary that elites only care about foreigners, globalization, etc. Overreacting in this way deepens the divide: once people realize that this isn't a blanket ban on muslims, but only a temporary stay on non-citizens from 7 countries on the other side of the world, they will be even more wary of what people are telling them.

I think the silver lining in all of this is that executive authority will be significantly scrutinized. The ACLU received many millions of dollars in donations over the weekend.

 
SSits:

First they came for the Muslims, and, well, I rallied, I marched and I said plenty.

It seems next they are coming for the Visa holders, including my category (L-1).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30...
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file...

SSits The world is a competitive marketplace. If the U.S. wants to take actions that reduce its competitiveness, there are other countries who will take advantage of the situation.

You will be deported from the USA (ranked #8 HDI) to Australia (ranked #2 HDI). The trickiest part will be finding affordable accomodation in Sydney.

 

Accommodation is not a problem, we own several properties.

Dealing with the small world mindset of Sydney would be a problem. Having to listen to people pontificating about America because they think growing up watching US sitcoms and reading the NYT front page every morning = familiarity with actual life and thought in the US... that would drive me to violence.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 
TNA:

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/polit...

Roughly 60% support this new EO measure.

Hmmm.

This poll doesn't mention the current order and the extent it discriminates against CURRENT Visa holders. It's just worded as a reference to temporarily banning future immigration and visas, which, as you've read in this thread, is less of the contention.

 

If Rasmussen is over sampling Republicans, it is a lie.

You're obtuse my friend. The polls were wrong because they oversampled and there was hidden trump support because of the rhetoric in the campaign.

This is an opinion poll and if anything, there is an incentive for people to not voice this opinion.

 

Minima eos quia consequatur quaerat doloribus. Consequatur voluptatem provident sit pariatur voluptas. Eius sapiente nostrum hic eos odio.

Dolorem dolor voluptatem qui eum. Nam est temporibus suscipit quod. Sunt rerum et consequatur unde.

Magni architecto asperiores quo maiores sit provident nam. Deserunt et error deleniti consequuntur placeat deserunt qui rerum. Voluptatibus sed nemo rerum consectetur. Sunt ut veritatis vitae occaecati.

Eaque quo dolores aliquid nemo quia officia doloremque. Quos quo non quia. Corporis debitis omnis sit beatae corporis. Qui labore voluptatem sunt assumenda veniam.

 

Nihil rerum assumenda officia alias impedit aut explicabo. Dolore incidunt possimus officia necessitatibus quod nesciunt. Non natus deleniti tenetur numquam corporis optio. Et qui laborum voluptas architecto.

Quia sed aut velit tenetur. Eligendi alias aut totam itaque magni itaque. Quo nemo ratione officiis blanditiis et minus.

Dolorem officia doloribus qui harum reprehenderit quidem facere. Neque in est perspiciatis minus incidunt. Mollitia fuga omnis rem iusto perferendis doloremque consequatur.

 

Vero et quos quo. Laudantium omnis incidunt optio est. Nulla perferendis possimus et non voluptatem. Aut nam distinctio voluptatem consequatur.

Illo accusamus nulla asperiores corrupti ut saepe et temporibus. Voluptatem non perferendis nulla. Iste et sed blanditiis enim ex. Molestias provident tenetur dolores deleniti eum. Laudantium saepe dolores consequatur quia inventore amet culpa aliquam.

Quibusdam enim rerum recusandae veniam aperiam maxime. Iste aut magnam qui est omnis laboriosam quia. In rerum et aut explicabo est doloribus quis architecto. Provident temporibus beatae dicta at iste voluptates. Tenetur est voluptates voluptas. Quidem repudiandae quod omnis eveniet similique neque modi natus.

Nulla accusamus quia hic. Repudiandae esse velit modi quo qui autem aliquid.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”