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

AllDay_028's picture
AllDay_028 - Certified Professional
Rank: Almost Human | banana points 6,561

Under the current executive action.
this article gives the numbers: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-executive...
Homeland Security confirms it applies to green card holders: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-i...
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.

Financial Modeling Course

  • Get An Edge For Your Interviews & Finance Career
  • The Best (and Most Affordable) Financial Modeling Self-study Courses.
  • WSO Members receive a 15% discount

Comments (119)

Jan 28, 2017

Yup, former classmate is stuck in Libya.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017
DeepLearning:

Yup, former classmate is stuck in Libya.

Iranian classmate of mine had to cancel going home for his sisters wedding, as well.

Jan 28, 2017

Can't wait to hear the justification of this.

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017
DeepLearning:

Can't wait to hear the justification of this.

There is none. At least not one that is anything other than a laughable farce.

    • 3
Jan 28, 2017

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.

    • 8
    • 3
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017

To clarify, US citizens are exempt.

    • 5
    • 6
Jan 28, 2017

This is not true. People with green cards are NOT exempt. This comes straight from homeland security.

    • 5
    • 2
Jan 28, 2017
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).

    • 5
Jan 29, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017

Make america great again? I don't think Trump understands what great means

    • 10
    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

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
Jan 28, 2017
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.

    • 33
    • 7
Jan 28, 2017

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-...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.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

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.

<

p>

Stranding people from their homes, families, and jobs isn't an "inconvenience". That's a laughably absurd downplaying of what's happening here. And the "morality and humanity is subjective" argument is a common refrain from those who support the mistreatment of others and act like being born on third base is the same as hitting a triple.

    • 10
    • 4
Jan 29, 2017

You mention it as a "minor inconvenience", when in reality it's about as much of a "simple inconvenience" as NYC stop-and-frisk. But hey, gotta give in to that fear mongering and keep the country safe, right?

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

Stop and Frisk has been upheld by the SCOTUS. It also actually benefits inner city areas. Personally, I can see the negatives with it. There are 4th Amendment issues. Personally, I am more against no knock warrants and other aggressive police tactics more than this.

As for increase scrutiny for people coming from failed states where ISIS is operating, sorry, but not the same as stop and frisk.

And it isn't fear mongering. The USA doesn't have to let anyone into this country. We've historically reduced and eliminated immigration numerous times. Many of the nations currently on the temporary ban do not allow Israeli citizens to enter their country. I wonder what LGBT rights are in these 7 nations as well.

Sorry, but false equivalence. Feel bad for these people. I personally think Iran is a beautiful nation and one that isn't a breeder of the rabid kind of Islamic terrorism going on right now, but they still fund terrorist groups and their rhetoric with Israel is an issue. I do not think they've been honest regarding the nuclear treaty either.

Jan 28, 2017

It takes 18 months to bring a refugee in to the US lol. But sure 90 days and alienating huge swaths of our population is worth it.

Jan 29, 2017

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.

    • 3
Jan 28, 2017

I mean, is it a surprise to these people that he actually did what he said he was going to do? Complacency or stupidity has stranded some folks.

Jan 28, 2017

Not quite the shining city upon a hill that Reagan had in mind.

    • 3
Jan 28, 2017

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.

    • 7
    • 3
Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017
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.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

Yawn. People like me want the government to run the economy? Get real. People like me want less government intervention in many instances, but I do not think it is optimal for American citizens to let businesses do whatever they want.

Furthermore, there is language in the EO that talks about specific allowances and petitioning the government. People have traveled to these types of counties to become radicalized and then come back. Hence the rationale of not allowing travel to these places if you aren't a citizen. And if you are a citizen you will be watched and questioned for going to these places as it has been in the past.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

Yawn. People like me want the government to run the economy? Get real. People like me want less government intervention in many instances, but I do not think it is optimal for American citizens to let businesses do whatever they want.

Furthermore, there is language in the EO that talks about specific allowances and petitioning the government. People have traveled to these types of counties to become radicalized and then come back. Hence the rationale of not allowing travel to these places if you aren't a citizen. And if you are a citizen you will be watched and questioned for going to these places as it has been in the past.

We don't form policy based on what some individual did in the past; otherwise, you could find justification for almost anything.

What is the probability that a green card holder that has proven themselves to be a productive member of U.S. society goes to one of the 7 banned countries and returns radicalised? I assume that it is significantly lower than if we used the same rational for considering a refugee ban.

Weren't the last 2 individuals who returned radicalised returning from Saudi Arabia? Well, at least the government was smart enough to put Saudi Arabia on the banned list. ...right?

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

Take it up with Obama, he created the list and expanded it. Personally, I agree that the Saudi's are not our friends.

And I hope going forward green card holders choose not to travel to these counties. They won't be let back in.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

Take it up with Obama, he created the list and expanded it. Personally, I agree that the Saudi's are not our friends.

And I hope going forward green card holders choose not to travel to these counties. They won't be let back in.

Sorry but Obama is not the POTUS -- Trump is. This was a policy formed and implemented by Trump and he will have to take responsibility for it. Are you already going to start making excuses for Trump's presidency by blaming the last president? This is comical.

Trump had and has the political power to form his policies in a way that is nuanced and reasonable. Whether he has the intellectual power is a separate matter.

    • 5
Jan 28, 2017

Zero excuses. I am sure the people who voted for Trump care about a handful of unfortunate situations. He clearly messaged this ban throughout the election and has been following through with promises.

I do feel bad for the few people who got caught in transit and the recent judicial ruling pertaining to the people who are stuck at the airport is fair.

Jan 29, 2017

Yeah, why on Earth would people would want to visit their families? That is unheard of man!

Jan 29, 2017
TNA:

Take it up with Obama, he created the list and expanded it. Personally, I agree that the Saudi's are not our friends.

And I hope going forward green card holders choose not to travel to these counties. They won't be let back in.

Dude, you routinely bring up "semi-related-but-not-really" policies of prior presidents as some sort of weird justification for what Trump does.

Democrat or Republican, you don't have to agree with everything your party enforces or chooses to enact.

In any event, the policies of prior presidents were very different from what is going on now.

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017

No, not at all. This was a list of terror nations that DHS and the Obama administration wanted to focus additional attention and scrutiny on. Frankly, I think it is genius that Trump used it.

Lets be real. If Trump included Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, people wouldn't be any less pissed. If he gave a 5 day notice, people would still protest. Nothing he was going to do short of not issuing a temporary ban would have made people happy (or at least not rabid mad).

We have a shitty and faulty vetting process. DHS said this. Others in Obama's administration said this. Trump talked about it during the debate. Now if you want to debate the quality of the vetting process and whether it is good enough or not, fine, but you have people openly saying they cannot ensure the people they let in are not affiliated with terrorist groups. We have a San Bernadino with the wife of that guy posting ISIS messages on her Facebook. I personally think we should work to have the best, most efficient process out there to make sure only good people get into the US.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

We have a San Bernadino with the wife of that guy posting ISIS messages on her Facebook. I personally think we should work to have the best, most efficient process out there to make sure only good people get into the US.

You mean the couple that were radicalised in Saudi Arabia before returning to the U.S.? Well, It's a good thing Trump's ingenious proposal bans immigration from Saudi Arabia, right?

Right?

The attempts at justifying this idiotic EO have been nothing short of comical.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

Yes, it has been talked about ad nauseum that Saudi Arabia is a source of radicalized islamic terror. Yes, I realize this. Would I have wanted more focus on them? Yes. Are they the only place? No.

Is Saudi Arabia a failed state? No

Is ISIS operating in Saudi Arabia? no

The issue is proper vetting. The 7 countries include are failed states (with the exception of Iran - they shouldn't be on the list). Failed states cannot help us in verifying these individuals. Also, this list could be expanded.

I find it funny how the counter is "where is SA". As if including Qatar and SA on the list would have stopped the protests or made everyone happy. People would be saying "Oh, my friend is from SA and is now stuck at the airpot" or "my classmate is Qatari and can't fly here for finals". Lets not pretend that people are pissed that Trump didn't go far enough.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-cli...
And here is Trump taking shots at Saudi Arabia

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/11/16/no...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547759/Ve...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-talks-with...
So let me see. We fault Trump for being a moron and acting without thinking ahead, yet we want Trump to nail Saudi Arabia, the major power player in the Middle East. I am sure everyone would sing Trumps praises as oil prices fluctuated and as we lose a major ME influencer.

Jan 28, 2017
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.

    • 11
    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

People from these countries cannot leave the US and come back. Correct.

It's an inconvenience. I agree. It's 90 days and these countries have been labeled a serious risk.

I'm fully aware of the policy.

Jan 29, 2017

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?

    • 1
Jan 29, 2017

I saw that they let a couple in last night on the news. It is supposed to be a case by case basis.

Jan 29, 2017

I think it is a fairly terrible process when you need two cabinet members to confirm each individual that can get through. These people were screened for years before they were issued visas, nothing has changed.

Jan 29, 2017

Yep! We had terps that basically worked with us specifically to come to the US. They were mainly Kurds that were Muslim, Atheist and Christian. I do not think that one has made it over. These are guys that worked with US forces for the majority of the Iraq war part B. They would cover their faces in fear that the Iraqi army (that we were training) would essentially ID them to the insurgents.
That being said we did have one that left (not a Kurd) that ended up getting detained for joining the insurgency. So yes some are bad apples, but by the time they have made it through the vetting process to earn their green card, they are probably good.

    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 28, 2017

One of the nation's leading psychotherapists just came out and diagnosed Trump as mentally ill

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/201...

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017
Going Concern:

One of the nation's leading psychotherapists just came out and diagnosed Trump as mentally illhttp://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/201...

Trump, Gartner says, has "malignant narcissism," which is different from narcissistic personality disorder and which is incurable.

I exploded with laughter when I read this.

Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017

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.

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017
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.

Jan 29, 2017

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...

    • 1
Jan 29, 2017

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!

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 29, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017
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-remove...
That is, unless you think being CEO of Breitbart qualifies you as a national security expert.

Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017
ArcherVice:

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.

A conservative British M.P. is banned from entering the U.S. because he was born in Iraq. The man is clearly a risk to national security.

Jan 29, 2017

Oh fuck an Iraqi red coat!

Jan 28, 2017

I'm hearing that the ban also includes people born in the banned countries, regardless of citizenship?

Jan 29, 2017

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.

    • 2
Jan 29, 2017

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jan 28, 2017

The fact of the matter is that Trump is a linear thinker, painting everything in black-and-white terms, and a believer of bluntly using brute force without considering secondary and tertiary consequences. He lacks a nuanced view of the world, and his ego insecurities and retaliatory nature certainly don't help.

    • 2
Jan 29, 2017

In Canada, we call guys like Trump "morons"

    • 3
Jan 28, 2017

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?

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017
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.

    • 5
Jan 29, 2017
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.

    • 4
Jan 28, 2017

What a joke. Didn't remember the Tea Party shutting down major airports or protesting Obama's inauguration. Didn't remember Tea Party members showing up to Obama's rallies and assaulting his voters.

The reality is the left is the new fascists in this country. They use violence and intimidation to silence people. That is what is divisive.

These protests make people who hate Trump feel good, but the people in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indian, most likely see this as exactly what Trump said he was going to do.

It is going to be interesting when sanctuary cities get funding cut off. Trumps building a deportation force as well. More protests are coming.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-enlist-l...

Jan 29, 2017
TNA:

What a joke. Didn't remember the Tea Party shutting down major airports or protesting Obama's inauguration. Didn't remember Tea Party members showing up to Obama's rallies and assaulting his voters.

The reality is the left is the new fascists in this country. They use violence and intimidation to silence people. That is what is divisive.

These protests make people who hate Trump feel good, but the people in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indian, most likely see this as exactly what Trump said he was going to do.

It is going to be interesting when sanctuary cities get funding cut off. Trumps building a deportation force as well. More protests are coming.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-enlist-l...

Don't let facts interfere with your partisan derangement:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential...
It's exactly as I said: you want the opposition to be silent. Keep toeing the party line, cupcake.

    • 3
Jan 28, 2017

Hmmm. So did the Tea Party shut down airports around the country? Has the Tea Party protested effectively continually since Trump was elected? Trump supporters have been attacked, property damaged, on a consistent basis. And while Obama sure saw some racial attack, it hasn't been consistently across the board that Trump has scene.

And I am sure people wearing Obama gear across the country saw the same level of animosity or attack Trump supports saw.

And did the press and media paint all Obama supporters as racist bigots and nazi's.

No. So your analogy was shit and is shit.

Jan 29, 2017
TNA:

What a joke. Didn't remember the Tea Party shutting down major airports or protesting Obama's inauguration. Didn't remember Tea Party members showing up to Obama's rallies and assaulting his voters.

The reality is the left is the new fascists in this country. They use violence and intimidation to silence people. That is what is divisive.

These protests make people who hate Trump feel good, but the people in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indian, most likely see this as exactly what Trump said he was going to do.

It is going to be interesting when sanctuary cities get funding cut off. Trumps building a deportation force as well. More protests are coming.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-enlist-l...

The more you post the more I am bewildered at how you have not only an undergraduate degree, but judging from your signature, a graduate degree as well, and yet, are this out of touch with reality.

Please quantify and elaborate how you reached your conclusion that you claim it is solely the "left" who are using violence and intimidation to "silence people." I'm guessing you saw a couple videos on Fox News, and decided for yourself after doing all the proper research that it's the "left" that is causing so many problems in this country?

How is making unsubstantiated blanket claims against an entire political party (calling the left violent, intimidating, and divisive) without any evidence supporting your claims going to further your point or lead us to believe anything you say has merit?

Again, you go on these tirades about "fake news" and how everyone is pushing lies now, then you make a claim that is entirely one-sided and based off no credible sources and lacks any merit whatsoever? You're a caricature.

I can cherry pick videos too, for what it's worth:

Trump Supporter:

Go cook my burrito bitch. Go make my tortilla. Build that wall, for me. I love Trump. Fuck you, I will fuck at least 10 of you up. You're lucky all these cops are here.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

Be as bewildered as you want. Trump supporters are not getting people fired for supporting Hillary/Obama. Trump supporters are not keying Hillary supporters cars. Hillary supporters are not called racist and misogynist.

I get you don't support Trump, but it is frankly shocking that you cannot see the difference right now. The left controls the media, the press, the college campus. This is absolutely apparent. Being Republican or Conservative was never popular I suppose, but it hasn't reached the level of absolute hatred as in this election.

Basket of deplorable's. Condemning anyone who votes Republican as something lesser than. Look at Chicago. Look at the airports being shut down. Look at the reaction against that Milo clown on college campuses. Any opinion that isn't in line with liberal/left policy is shouted down or branded as bigoted, an effort to silence people.

I don't think you are paying attention of simply biased. I freely admit there are some racists or morons in the Trump camp. No doubt I am sure there has been instances of Trump supporters acting violently. But you didn't see massive amounts of Pro Trump people disrupting Hillary campaigns. There were active efforts to stop Trump supporters from attending his speeches. Just look at the amount of protestors that had to be thrown out during every speech.

I could include a ton of links, but you'll just tit for tat link some one off instances of violence to counter my links. But we all know that Hillary events never had to be shut down because of anarchists. Tea Party people never shut down cities or airports. And Romney supporters never had to hide their support or frankly fear being attacked for wearing Romney gear (or McCain or Bush).

I blame it on the press, but still, the atmosphere in this election was something completely different.

EDIT

Typical tactics. Call into question my education. Talk about Fox News.

1) College education has nothing to do with this.
2) I hate Fox News as much as I hate CNN. All junk.

I've lived through quite a few elections in my life and this one takes the cake. The right didn't like Obama and you saw the Koch brothers really organize big dollar money to oppose him (might like you have Soros money fueling this revolt on the left), but you never saw Tea Party action like this, especially not this soon.

Jan 29, 2017
TNA:

Be as bewildered as you want. Trump supporters are not getting people fired for supporting Hillary/Obama. Trump supporters are not keying Hillary supporters cars. Hillary supporters are not called racist and misogynist.

I get you don't support Trump, but it is frankly shocking that you cannot see the difference right now. The left controls the media, the press, the college campus. This is absolutely apparent. Being Republican or Conservative was never popular I suppose, but it hasn't reached the level of absolute hatred as in this election.

Basket of deplorable's. Condemning anyone who votes Republican as something lesser than. Look at Chicago. Look at the airports being shut down. Look at the reaction against that Milo clown on college campuses. Any opinion that isn't in line with liberal/left policy is shouted down or branded as bigoted, an effort to silence people.

I don't think you are paying attention of simply biased. I freely admit there are some racists or morons in the Trump camp. No doubt I am sure there has been instances of Trump supporters acting violently. But you didn't see massive amounts of Pro Trump people disrupting Hillary campaigns. There were active efforts to stop Trump supporters from attending his speeches. Just look at the amount of protestors that had to be thrown out during every speech.

I could include a ton of links, but you'll just tit for tat link some one off instances of violence to counter my links. But we all know that Hillary events never had to be shut down because of anarchists. Tea Party people never shut down cities or airports. And Romney supporters never had to hide their support or frankly fear being attacked for wearing Romney gear (or McCain or Bush).

I blame it on the press, but still, the atmosphere in this election was something completely different.

So what you're saying is:

1) The left is violent, intimidating, and divisive
2) The right is not any of those things
3) Trump supporters who act in such an offensive manner are the exception, whereas the left who acts in such a manner is the norm
4) The left controls the media, the press, and higher education, thus there is no way to verify or substantiate the above claims

This is fascinating. Please tell me where you get your news because I'd love to get involved and help out - I never realized it was this bad. The facts you've put in front of me have truly swayed my opinion and I'm surprised you didn't just mention this in your first post.

Jan 28, 2017

Don't be facetious.

1) Currently, the left is far more reactionary and prone to violence than the right.
2) See above
3) I reiterate. Did Hillary have a campaign event violently shut down like in Chicago? Did Hillary have her events repeatedly protested with her supporters targeted with violence? No to both.
4)The media is absolutely biased towards conservatives, but even more so towards Trump.

Higher education is far more left than right. The media is 100% left leaning. I mean c'mon.

I am done talking with you since you want to be all sarcastic. Go walk around any major city with a Hillary hat on and tell me how it is. Go do the same with Trump gear and see what happens. This animosity is fueled by the press and the media which calls Trump "Hitler" and brands all of his supporters as bigots.

I suggest you check out the antifa movement in Europe. This is what is developing in the USA. Don't tell me that the left isn't enjoying the use of the jackboot now. I suppose it is fair play considering the past, but it doesn't make it right and it also causes extremism since even moderates are caught in the middle.

Jan 29, 2017
TNA:

Don't be facetious.

1) Currently, the left is far more reactionary and prone to violence than the right.2) See above3) I reiterate. Did Hillary have a campaign event violently shut down like in Chicago? Did Hillary have her events repeatedly protested with her supporters targeted with violence? No to both.4)The media is absolutely biased towards conservatives, but even more so towards Trump.

Higher education is far more left than right. The media is 100% left leaning. I mean c'mon.

I am done talking with you since you want to be all sarcastic. Go walk around any major city with a Hillary hat on and tell me how it is. Go do the same with Trump gear and see what happens. This animosity is fueled by the press and the media which calls Trump "Hitler" and brands all of his supporters as bigots.

I suggest you check out the antifa movement in Europe. This is what is developing in the USA. Don't tell me that the left isn't enjoying the use of the jackboot now. I suppose it is fair play considering the past, but it doesn't make it right and it also causes extremism since even moderates are caught in the middle.

You're arguing in favor of anecdotal evidence being used in favor of anything we can quantify on the basis that your claims can't be validated and they need to be made on "the street." You're being facetious.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

What a joke. Didn't remember the Tea Party shutting down major airports or protesting Obama's inauguration. Didn't remember Tea Party members showing up to Obama's rallies and assaulting his voters.

The reality is the left is the new fascists in this country. They use violence and intimidation to silence people. That is what is divisive.

These protests make people who hate Trump feel good, but the people in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indian, most likely see this as exactly what Trump said he was going to do.

It is going to be interesting when sanctuary cities get funding cut off. Trumps building a deportation force as well. More protests are coming.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-enlist-l...

This is an absolutely ludicrous post. Trying to paint people as fascists when they are literally protesting against fascism is almost as dishonest as Kelly Anne Conway's use of "alternative facts". Get off r/the_Donald and get informed. I honestly cant believe this isnt trolling. I literally never voted for a Democrat until this election. This isnt a left issue, its a Donald Trump is awful issue.

    • 4
    • 2
Jan 29, 2017

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?

    • 2
Jan 29, 2017

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.

Jan 29, 2017
  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-sh...

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

...

Jan 29, 2017

To be fair, you did say they produced zero terrorists. I'm not saying that a lack of deaths isn't relevant, but it doesn't imply lack of production or potential risks.

Likewise, this point that Trump has structured the list based around his commercial interests in pretty thin. The US has always had a very hypocritical view of who the terrorists are. I won't pretend to have a in depth understanding of the complexities of the middle eastern political environment, but I think even a casual observer will note that there is a clear proxy war between the US and Russia throughout the region. Propensity towards terrorism is easily overlooked if there is a lot of other strategic value presented by a given country/"ally".

Just to clarify my position, I'm not arguing for or against here, but I've seen your exact points mentioned on social media and a lot of other places, despite seeming inherently flawed.

Jan 29, 2017

This is stupid for literally EVERY reason. Logically, ethically and morally retarded. Statistically speaking you're more likely to die driving to work tomorrow or by being struck by lightning than you are to be killed by a foreigner from one of the aforementioned countries.

I'm generally pretty conservative but this is just sad and makes us look uncultured as hell. One of my favorite parts about going to a great undergrad school is having so many internationals in all of my business courses. It adds so much culture and prestige to the experience knowing that people from all over the world are here to share an experience. And now some of those dudes who chose to come here, above any place in the world to study, don't even know if they'll be able to stay. It's really ignorant and makes Americans look horrible.

Even if you're a racist you have to admit this is strategically stupid. Protestors and detractors of the US used to have little merit and were easily brushed aside. Now every radical liberal with an agenda has a million times more validity.

Jan 28, 2017

Looks like Trump's people are changing their tune on the interpretation of this order, probably due to the courts and all the protesting. What a complete fiasco, total shitshow

    • 4
Jan 28, 2017
Going Concern:

Looks like Trump's people are changing their tune on the interpretation of this order, probably due to the courts and all the protesting. What a complete fiasco, total shitshow

As the WSJ put it last week, "this is amateur hour".

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

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?

    • 5
Jan 28, 2017

Let me see if I can summarize your post. You're saying Trump may not be stupid because he's actually engaging in non-violent domestic terrorism. Thanks for the clarity holmes

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

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/...

    • 2
Jan 28, 2017
Going Concern:

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.

Jan 28, 2017

"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?

Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017

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.

    • 3
Jan 28, 2017
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 Dallashttp://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01...

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

7 people in LAhttp://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.

    • 6
Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

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.

It's not a "clarification" because the order was changed. The intense backlash and protests made president trump change his order, not clarify it. They won, he lost. There are no alternative facts here despite, the fact you are doing your best white house spin. Protests will continue to happen now that he has shown he'll back down when pushed hard enough.

Secondly, your discounting of the effect this has on hundreds of thousands of people and continuing red herrings just tell me one thing (not to mention your laughable and dishonest use of "inconvenience" when talking about the infringement on civil liberties), you don't give a fuck about people, only about your politics. I get it, you would die for your partisanship, so there is no real argument to be had with radicals like you. Like I said before, this isn't a partisan issue for many. No one ever said I was part of the left (and my voting record shows that) until you brushed everyone who stands against Trump's brand of hatred as your democratic opposition because it's too hard to think that maybe most people, outside of just political ideologies, think he might be a scumbag and his policies may be based in fear and hate.

His opposition will only grow stronger if he continues to push extreme xenophobia and protectionism. Especially since it's proven he can be pushed back. When the Koch brothers, who basically own the Republican party, are talking out against you, your time is coming to an end quickly. Trump is already alienating the open minded Republicans in the party (see McCain speaking out). Soon the only supporters he'll have left will be people like you, who don't care about policy, only standing your ground.

    • 6
Jan 28, 2017

The protests did nothing. At best the judges order impacted this. Either way it was a quick modification which was nice.

We have a different opinion. Cool. I simply think immigrating to this country is a privilege, not a right.

And you can give it all the names you want, but restrictions on travel from governments where isis operates and are failed government is hardly xenophobic.

Let the koch Brothers go to town. Perfect opportunity for trump to get Democrats helping him. The people elected trump to break down this Democrat and Republican order. He's doing that with policies that straddle both sides.

This discussion has reached its theoretical limit. I'm sure more threads will follow this with.

Out.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

The protests did nothing. At best the judges order impacted this. Either way it was a quick modification which was nice.

We have a different opinion. Cool. I simply think immigrating to this country is a privilege, not a right.

And you can give it all the names you want, but restrictions on travel from governments where isis operates and are failed government is hardly xenophobic.

Let the koch Brothers go to town. Perfect opportunity for trump to get Democrats helping him. The people elected trump to break down this Democrat and Republican order. He's doing that with policies that straddle both sides.

This discussion has reached its theoretical limit. I'm sure more threads will follow this with.

Out.

1.) Obtaining a Visa is a privilege, not a right.
2.) Being allowed back into the country to return to your home, your job, your stuff, your pet, given that you already have a Visa-- that's a right.

If we slam the door on new visas, that's ok, but don't slam it in anyone's face. People have been counting on their green cards, their work visas, etc to be able to re-enter the country. I don't think that's a privilege.

    • 4
Jan 28, 2017

On the campaign trail, Trump suggested ending birthright citizenship. Steve Bannon and his Breitbart website have suggested similar. This is just the bottom rung of the ladder.

Jan 29, 2017

Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. But, I love the speculation/extrapolation - the incredible hulk couldn't make that leap.

Jan 28, 2017
DeepLearning:

On the campaign trail, Trump suggested ending birthright citizenship. Steve Bannon and his Breitbart website have suggested similar. This is just the bottom rung of the ladder.

If he does that, the courts will rule against him. Then we will find out if he can follow a court order or not.

Jan 28, 2017

The fact remains that Trump suggested ending birthright citizenship on the campaign trail. There is no speculation in that statement. It is something he suggested.

Whether or not the courts rule against this is completely beside the point of what I'm trying to say. This is a man who lacks basic morals and respect for the constitution. That's all I'm saying.

Jan 28, 2017
DeepLearning:

The fact remains that Trump suggested ending birthright citizenship on the campaign trail. There is no speculation in that statement. It is something he suggested.

Whether or not the courts rule against this is completely beside the point of what I'm trying to say. This is a man who lacks basic morals and respect for the constitution. That's all I'm saying.

He lacks a basic understanding of the constitution, as well as a lot of other things that are important for a President to understand.

But I trust actions, not words.

1.) Will he listen to Jeff Sessions when he gets confirmed?
2.) Can he follow a court order?

    • 2
Jan 29, 2017

They did not re-write the order. So, it actually is more of a clarification than a "change". The Koch brothers have been against Trump the entire time, this is nothing new.

Jan 28, 2017
Arbitraging:

They did not re-write the order. So, it actually is more of a clarification than a "change". The Koch brothers have been against Trump the entire time, this is nothing new.

They originally told homeland security to apply it to green card holders. Then they told them to stop enforcing it on green card holders.

There is no intellectually honest way to interpret that as a "clarification".

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

people weren't whipped up into this anarchist frenzy like we have now

I went to the Battery Park rally and march yesterday. There was neither anarchy nor frenzy. It was very orderly and well-behaved. Lots of pleasantry to the police, including big cheers for them when de Blasio gave them a shout out.

I did see one lone counter-protester with signs saying we shouldn't let anyone from Syria in. As far as I could see, in its anarchic frenzy. the crowd ignored him.

    • 5
Jan 28, 2017

Not every protest is bad and i applaud those that are peaceful, but I've seen plenty of cars torched and property destroyed over this last week of protests.

Could be a few bad apples, but I think the press and media painting this Administration with such extreme statements gives those who appose it a "moral right" to use violence.

Like it isn't OK to attack a Romney supporter but some who supports "literally Hitler" is just smashing a fascist. This is just how they dehumanized people in the prison experiment.

Jan 28, 2017
TNA:

Not every protest is bad and i applaud those that are peaceful, but I've seen plenty of cars torched and property destroyed over this last week of protests.

Could be a few bad apples, but I think the press and media painting this Administration with such extreme statements gives those who appose it a "moral right" to use violence.

Like it isn't OK to attack a Romney supporter but some who supports "literally Hitler" is just smashing a fascist. This is just how they dehumanized people in the prison experiment.

This victim complex is outrageous. The isolated violence on Trump supporters is no more numerous than vice versa. People often behave badly, regardless of ideology. Trying to stem opposition to your viewpoints by acting as if that makes you are a victim is nothing more then another clear attempt manipulation. If you are actually at any of these rallies, 99.99% of all of them and the people that attend them are peaceful.

    • 5
Jan 28, 2017

Cool. Highlighting the violence towards Republican voters because of heightened rhetoric is now being a victim. Makes sense.

What level of violence would you like for it to be an actual issue? Trumps Chicago event was shut down and cops were attacked. Supporters cars were vandalized in Maine. A guy tried grabbing a cops gun to shoot trump in Nevada. Countless instances of people with trump gear being assaulted.

This is what happens when the media calls trump Hitler, misconstrues his words as saying all Mexicans are rapists, says a temporary ban on 7 countries is a "Muslim Ban", etc.

That's cool though. Just victims.

Jan 29, 2017
TNA:

Cool. Highlighting the violence towards Republican voters because of heightened rhetoric is now being a victim. Makes sense.

What level of violence would you like for it to be an actual issue? Trumps Chicago event was shut down and cops were attacked. Supporters cars were vandalized in Maine. A guy tried grabbing a cops gun to shoot trump in Nevada. Countless instances of people with trump gear being assaulted.

This is what happens when the media calls trump Hitler, misconstrues his words as saying all Mexicans are rapists, says a temporary ban on 7 countries is a "Muslim Ban", etc.

That's cool though. Just victims.

You're speaking nonsense, of which - due to the spin you put on it - can never be truly verified, thus, we are forced to take your word on it?

You claim, yet again, that:

1) Liberals are overwhelming violent, intimidating, divisive
2) Trump supporters are none of those things
3) The trump supporters who act in that manner are the exception, whereas liberals do it as the norm
4) Since all media lies, there's no way to verify this

Dude, having an actual, reasonable discussion is great, but when you're introducing claims that, by your own admission, seem impossible to verify and you just stick to them due to "what feels right", how can we even go any further at that point? Are we supposed to ignore all quantifiable measures?

Where are you getting the information to make these claims, if the media "always lies"? Who isn't lying that you trust in obtaining these statistics? I'm genuinely curious as to how you arrive at conclusions here.

Jan 30, 2017

Immigration to the U.S. is a privilege, not a right.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017
iggs99988:

Immigration to the U.S. is a privilege, not a right.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Nuance is your friend, this type of argument tactic is not.

    • 1
Jan 30, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017

I find it hilarious that the people who live in big cities (who are actually at risk of being attacked) are mostly welcoming refugees. Meanwhile, in middle america where nobody is in danger of being attacked by terrorists.....

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 28, 2017

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...

Jan 28, 2017
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.

Jan 28, 2017

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.

Jan 28, 2017

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/polit...
Roughly 60% support this new EO measure.

Hmmm.

Jan 28, 2017

Dualing polls (although not on that question):

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-tru...
That said, sample sizes of 500 (Rasmussen phone) and 1,500 (Gallup, Rasmussen phone + electronic) ain't particularly broad.

Jan 28, 2017
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.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2017

I agree. Just adding some color to the conversation. These polls all depend on how things are phrased (ex. Obamacare vs ACA).

Jan 29, 2017
Jan 28, 2017
Jan 28, 2017
    • 3
Jan 28, 2017
Feb 3, 2017
    • 1