Elon Musk seeks “specific amendments” to recommend to Trump on immigration order
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This claim is factually incorrect, and moreover it is an attempt to set up an "other" group (Muslims) as an enemy. Keep in mind Trumps unapologetic claim on the campaign trail:
Donal J Trump is calling for a
total and complete shutdown
of Muslims entering the United States
-- Donald J Trump, Dec 2015
Musk and other SV commentators should know better than this, and not lend their credibility to un-American actions by the administration.
Donald J. Trump is calling for a
total and complete shutdown
of Muslims entering the United States
until our country's representatives
can figure out what is going on. [1]
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and... - first hit in Google search.
Trump had no idea what he was doing when he made that quote, has no idea now. What better idea in 90 days? Cancel this order? Meanwhile his actions are increasing the risks to the US. This is all about posturing and victimising a minority that's easy to demonize and nothing to do with security.
Why is that claim factually incorrect?
If you had said "eliminate" terrorism I would agree it's incorrect. But not allowing foreigners into the US is certainly a way to combat terrorism. Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners. Not allowing them to enter the US would help combat terrorism.
NOTE: I'm not arguing this is actually a good idea. I'm just stating that I disagree with you claim that it's factually incorrect.
" Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners"And if it would make you feel better, I could just slightly tweak my comment to say "most terror attacks [by number of Americans killed] have been by foreigners".
This is not a ban on refugees from Muslim countries. It's neither a ban, nor targeting refugees, nor limited to Muslim countries.
It's a 90 day suspension of immigration from countries described by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), specifically:
* Iraq and Syria
* Governments which have repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism
* Countries or areas of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
Rudy Giuliani has now claimed on Fox News that he helped design the restrictions as a legally valid form of Trump's "Muslim ban":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
And it should be noted that the list of countries of concern to which Trump's order applies came from the Obama administration.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
That's not what the order states, and I SEVERELY doubt you have read it.
http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj so we are all on the same page here. There is literally one country mentioned in the document - that country is Syria. The other references are to other documents that group countries that I can't find.
I think if you read the executive order, you'll have much better framing for what it actually says, and why.
The narrative is that America is under siege, and that we are in grave danger of terrorist attack. The only way to stop is to take extreme executive action, and to frame our national security policy around fighting ISIS.
Consider, as an example, the hasty nature of this executive order. It went into effect immediately, and refugees previously approved for entry had that approval revoked. Was there really something so urgent that happened on Thurs Jan 23rd that required immediate action? This is a similar strategy used by the Bush Administration, where the government uses the spectre of terrorism to justify actions completely disproportionate to the threat.
The question I would ask apologists of the travel ban is this: what was the real, imminent threat that required such a hasty executive order to be made on Jan 23rd? Is it a real threat, or is it political theatre for another purpose?
An activist can tune-out and entrepreneur has to adapt.
These are basic life skills people.
Edit: s/work/engage
For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning.
As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately.
> If you cannot remove that president ...
If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now.
> You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same.
Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
> I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level
Another example for your stupidity:
> Presidents can be removed.
So, DO IT! Oh, you can't? What I said.
It is what YOU can do, not what somebody else and/or the universe can do (but doesn't!!).
Amazing that people with such a lack of thinking-skills complain so much about Trump. I have the feeling what really irks you about that guy is that you are looking in a mirror, he's just like yourself!
Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings?
Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun.
You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest.
No negotiations. This is playing for keeps.
So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees?
http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-pr...
Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet.
Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
It's so hard to find the actual facts amid the rhetoric.
From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through.
But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.
That covers legal permanent residents -- green card holders -- and visa-holders from those seven countries who are out of the United States after Friday, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the temporary ban. They cannot return to the U.S. for 90 days. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/29/federal-judge-grants-st...
Googling "Green cards visa blocked" gives plenty more results.
> White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus: "We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn't affect them"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/priebus-immigr...
I'm wondering if this was a reversal or a misunderstanding.
In case you don't trust The Independent Here's a solidly right wing source to back it up: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444372/trumps-executive...
The order was signed on Jan 27. On the morning of Jan 29, Priebus said that it did not affect green card holders.
If that's a reversal, it was remarkably quick.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-Homeland-Security-Gree...
Now, of course, one could argue that the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was making things up, but the overwhelming evidence, from ideologically and geographically diverse news sources all says the same thing: the ban included green cards, before being reversed.
A senior White House official later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening.
Additional screening, not barring green card holders.
They were making it up as they went, and different parts of the government got different messages.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-trav...
Not that surprising given their lack of experience in government.
One key question for many is how the order will affect US green card holders and people who hold dual citizenship with a Trump approved country and one of the seven banned nations.
Adding to the confusion, Trump administration officials seemed to at times contradict themselves during appearances on Sunday news shows. In mere minutes during an interview with NBC, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then later said "of course" it affects green card holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- the seven countries Trump has temporarily stop immigration from for 90 days.[1]
and then:
Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders. The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.[2]
Trump fans will hate it of course, but it seems CNN have the best source of leaks.
It's worth noting that Priebus isn't part of the Miller/Bannon circle, so his statements may have been a powerplay to try to moderate the policy.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-trav...
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-trav...
1. Trump has made islamaphobic rhetoric a cornerstone of his campaign, giving this racist undertones
2. That was a quiet secret at the time, this was an extremely public executive order. Both are wrong, but that doesn't somehow detract from or excuse this massive escalation. There wasn't this outrage at the time because nobody heard about it
3. The political situation at the time wasn't as life-or-death for refugees. Sending political refugees back now is a death sentence. That said, the US has been pretty terrible at accepting refugees in general this past decade, which is very shameful
4. This order detained cleared refugees while in transit, and, originally blocked green card holders from returning to the US after exiting for any reason
5. Remember that Trump has a neo-nazi in his cabinet with bannon, who reportedly wrote this order. That alone should be reason for heightened suspicion
"Here's a list of the similarities - and a much longer list of differences between the controls Obama used in 2011 and Carter used in 1979."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/no-barack-obama-jimm...
1) As I know Tesla does hire foreign engineers
2) He, himself is an immigrant to the US, and he was - if not an actual illegal alien, at least in a gray area immigration wise - at some point while building x.com
I get the feeling Musk is trying to do what he can, the best he can, but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it. I think he's in a very difficult spot either way he goes.
That's, unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] at play.
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular."
[0] - https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/early-wins-against-tru...
Which under Carter have been proven totally illegitimate and useless.
Well, segregation in the USA based on religion (Feynman barred from a PhD in Princeton for being jew) or colour of skin (until 1969), or birth (slavery-native americans) is part of the dark side of its history. Nothing new under the sun.
Question, is this a new cause of secession between rural and urban america growing up? I mean, if history repeats itself ...