Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonjei | Hacker News Reader

What's scary is the new immigration ban affects legal, permanent residents. US legal, permanent residents that have firmly rooted their lives in the US, only to be told they can't come home.

View on HN

This. I am from Turkey, and i will be nervous every passing day from yesterday on, watching news to see if Turkey is added to the list. I am still years away from naturalization, and it saddens me to think about relocating, after having left where i was born for a better and productive life.

Nobody chooses their birthplace, but these are the people that decided to make a change, and in a way that historically benefited the us.

You're safe.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ba...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Towers_Istanbul

He's safe now. Who knows about next week?

You think Donald will sell his stake in projects in Turkey?

What happens when some terrorist group makes the extremely tactically-obvious decision to attack the Trump Towers there? It's not like there's any shortage of US-hostile terrorists with the ability to reach Istanbul.

(Honestly, what happens when any Trump property around the world gets attacked? They've got giant signs advertising that the president of the US cares about them, and they don't have anywhere near the protection that US soil does.)

Tbh I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet. All the countries that dislike him/US && have Trump property.... Seems like those are easy targets especially considering how sensitive he is to his brand image it would make the attacks all the more alluring.

Yeah, I wonder. Is the President allowed to send troops to protect his personal property or investments?

Would sovereign nations like Turkey accommodate such requests that hurt their sovereignty and open them to public outrage and probably civil unrest?

I don't think so.

It could be anything, right? The political environment in Turkey itself is not stable (hasn't been for quite some time now). There have also been multiple bombings in the country that citizens lost track of, and it became an ordinary part of life.

I don't want to speculate on how Trump might behave when it comes to his business now that he's the POTUS, but even without that, there are enough reasons for him to add Turkey to the list.

I think one of the few reasons it hasn't happened yet is probably because Incirlik base, but it's also been a long tension point between two countries.

Selfishly, I was hoping greencard holders would be exempt, and thinking we already go through thorough background check as part of the application, but it turned out futile.

He didn't seem to worry about his investments in Saudi Arabia when he made his ignorant comments about Muslims during his campaign.

It could happen, it's business after all. He might also be forced to sell by the turkish government. We don't have a stable political environment, and I wouldn't be super surprised if something happened there.

Tax laws come to mind, for example, when Turkish government wanted extra tax money, they started going after American companies.

Edit: Added last para.

Also, i feel like there is a chance where Trump can have his cake and eat it too - I am not entirely sure how a ban for Turkish nationals would immediately affect his business. The dynamics is very different in Turkey - i don't even try to understand.

Erdogan already said some stuff about removing Trump (just the name) from Istanbul in 2015 [1]. That said, Erdogan says a lot of things.

[1] http://presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/25/472171/erdogan-trump-to...

i didn't realize it was a licensing deal, instead of trump owning the business there.

What most people don't realize is that most things with Trump's name on them are just licensing deals.

What makes Donald Trump's action so sickenly selfish is that a better life is why his grandfather Friedrich Drumpf immigrated from Bavaria.

Though one could argue 3 generations later that act of immigration is not benefitting the US.

Let's just spell it out. They were white Christians and therefore are welcome. Statue of Liberty weeps with sorrow.

Actually, per a snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/donald-drumpf), the Drumpf to Trump transition may have occurred because the former was more German sounding, and there was a good bit of anti-german hatred at the time.

This is what all the anti-immigration people don't get. Chances are, when their ancestors came to this country they likely weren't wanted by the current residents. Basically every American racial/cultural slur you can think of arose during the time when that group was the majority immigrant group. Every group was discriminated against (Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese/Japanese).

So what? America's history is overwhelmingly white and Christian. The vast majority of immigration to the US has been from white, Christian nations, even more so at the time when the Statue of Liberty was erected. Is the US a nation of Yemeni immigrants? It's silly to simply treat all potential immigrants as if they are the same. Also, it's disingenuous to reference the Statue of Liberty as some kind of justification for unlimited immigration from all nations of the world. The USA is not a dumping ground for the world's poor.

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Sadly, this justifies what trump was/is doing.

You can make your immigration policy tighter for residency/naturalization, it's within country's right, but tying that to where people are born is pretty sad.

Eh if you look from a narrow angle, he is providing employment through his business. I think that's a benefit to the country.

It's too early to say what benefits the country will have after his presidency.

Are you kidding me? Benefits like regressing on clean energy, blocking PhD students and scientists, and in general violating laws? He's been awful just a week into his presidency. The next 4 years are not going to magically get better.

Going around and shooting people with jobs would be opening up employment for other people too, doesn't make it good policy.

Barring employment and immigration to an ethnic group is absolutely disastrous for the country.

At this rate naturalized citizens will be next. And just remember that the US govt can already lock forever on terrorism charges.

Yes thanks to Obama orders, citizens in time of war OR NOT, outside of US soil, OR ON IT!

The only recently new things is a guys in Washington recklessly driving car while DUI that is being officially called terrorist.

Next coming: jaywalking might be terrorism too.

That law predated Obama.

There is some light at the end of tunnel, but the news still requires some verification.

Greencard holders will require additional screening at an embassy/consulate before they are allowed entering to usa.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/id...

Overall, I don't see this as such a bad thing... But every major decision is going to have its outliers.

This is a temp 90-day ban on non-reciprocating countries (and countries of concern), which the FBI said they are not able to properly vet (because those countries will not provide background info on the applicant, and some other reasons). It only affects non-citizens such as visitors, students, or employment visas holders - from leaving the country and coming back, and there seems to be a waiver process to help them.

They already have something like a 7 month backlog of applicants to process. 90 days is going to give them a chance to catch up and look for ways to improve the situation... Such as getting the "Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs" part of the order up and running.

Not all permanent residents are citizens. Also, it looks like it'll be made permanent unless that country can guarantee that every single person isn't a terrorist. Which seems impossible.

Permanent residents are non-citizens. That's what it means.

> This is a temp 90-day ban on non-reciprocating countries (and countries of concern), which the FBI said they are not able to properly vet (because those countries will not provide background info on the applicant, and some other reasons). It only affects non-citizens.

The EO affects ALL legal immigrants from these countries like H1B visa holders and Green Card holders too.

Looks like it also affects dual citizens of those countries as well. per http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38783512

I doubt it will affect anyone with a US passport at the border, but it's about time for the USA to adopt the Japanese policy and simply ban all dual citizenship. If you hold a foreign passport or any kind of documents from a foreign country for its citizens, your US citizenship should be revoked and you should be deported.

Why?

You can be a loyal citizen to only one country. Maintaining two passports is an open declaration of disloyalty and lack of solidarity.

And immigrants shouldn't get special privileges that natural citizens cannot, especially special privileges conferred by foreign princes and potentates.

Are US natural citizens denied the ability to get a foreign citizenship?

There are many countries that don't require a pledge of allegiance for citizenship, so you can't really argue that being a citizen of those countries constitutes a conflict of interest with US citizenship.

Being a citizen of a country typically means that you have certain rights and privileges in that country that non-citizens don't. That's about it. "Loyalty" doesn't enter the picture unless one is a hardcore nationalist.

Choose who to love; Your father ... or your mother. Your father's uncle, but not your mum's brother

Nah, I don't buy the idea, Is plain BS.

Japan is not the only one, I believe China does it too. There is a merit to this, and even though i can see many people would be unhappy to give up their citizenship (basically, you'll be required to have a visa to visit your family, which is big inconvenience), if it's part of the deal, I think many people would still take it.

Most of these though, I feel, should not happen retroactively. In other words, if they are already naturalized citizens and now have two citizenships, they should remain so. US shouldn't go after all the generations who naturalized. It's fair if they require you renounce your former citizenship going forward.

China has a special visitors visa category for foreigners of Chinese ethnicity, which gives them multiple entries over some long time period (could by 1 year, I forget). It's not available to foreigners of Caucasian, African, etc ethnicity.

Obviously it doesn't affect citizens.

The problem is it affects legal, permanent residents. And innocent people.

Trump is already busy throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It affects citizens who want to get married to non-citizens.

It gives them an excellent opportunity to move to their new spouses' countries and settle down there.

Wow.

So your great-great-grandparents moved to America, killed most of the local population and now you think you own the place? The USA is made of immigrants.

The sad thing is, those with the most options, who pay the most taxes, will do just that. They'll take their expertise and productivity and contribute them somewhere else. And the racists will congratulate themselves on how smart they are while the country continues its crumbling slide into fascism.

And citizens who are already married to non-citizens.

I'm worried about this. My wife isn't from one of the banned countries, but who knows if that will remain the case in the future?

If these countries are not reciprocating as you seem to suggest, why did the US DoS issue them visas in the first place?

Don't tell me that they don't reject visa applications at their diplomatic missions and for reasons related to national security because that's what they do all the time in the ME.

> This is a temp 90-day ban

Is 90 days a hard limit, or could another order introduce a further 90 days?

It's an executive order, so outside a court challenge that rules this whole class of procedures on immigration unconstitutional, he can do this ad infinitum. But then of course he also frequently invokes Andrew Jackson, whom history remembers as the populist who told the Supreme Court to fuck off when he was behaving unconstitutionally and proceeded to commit genocide against Native Americans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com