The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It | Hacker News Reader

The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

medium.com

108 pointsjakefuentes26 comments

If the goal is to test the extent that checks and balances can be circumvented/authoritarianism implemented, then showing up in protest is absolutely effective, especially when it pressured CBP officials to follow the court order. At airport protests, the illegality of the order and executive coup when the courts were not complied with was a huge, huge focus.

It's important to remember that no part of the order has been deemed illegal yet. The NY court just granted a stay so that people affected would be able to proceed with the case on American soil.

Before November I would not have upvoted this story. But given that Steve Bannon is in WH to come up with ideas to 1) end international co-operation 2) destroy existing democratic institutions 3) create a nation state on the shared heritage identity (descendants from a specfic group of European countries practicing a specific religion), such theories do not seem out of place

If you have the time, you should look up the transcript of the 2014 speech Bannon gave regarding some of his views. I think Buzzfeed has a copy (I know Buzzfeed sucks but this is one of the rare times there's a gem on that site). To break it down, Bannon seriously believes the West has lost its way since the fall of the USSR. And that he wants to bring it back into balance for Christianity. That includes manipulating capital owners into conformance any way he can. Basically, Dominionism 2.0. It's weird how this flew under the radar but I suspect it's intentional because most people in the US aren't the kind of Christian that would sign up for any kind of Dominionism anymore since the generational split on this is firmly established. I think it's a question of whether or not Bannon and his ilk realize you can't engineer people to accept it. But then again this is the same guy who got violent on Biosphere 2 with researchers when things didn't go his way. When reality smacks him a few times in Congress I expect either he'll try to force Trump to be more draconian than even he's capable of being or misstepping big time and winding up getting fired (I can see Kellyanne Conway or Reince Preibus pulling this off against him).

> Second, pay journalists to watch for the head fake. That’s their job. Become a paying subscriber to news outlets, then actively ask them to more deeply cover moves like the NSC shakeup. We can no longer breathlessly focus media attention on easy stories like the immigration ban. The real story is much more nuanced and boring — until it’s not.

This finally convinced me to get an online subscription to the New York Times, after trying to avoid paying anything for news for years. It makes sense to me to think of a subscription not so much as product-purchase, but more like a patreon-like pledge of support.

I kinda wish I could get one to the WSJ too, but their prices seem too high :/

The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author not threatened to publish a book [1]? I think it's great you're willing to pay for news, but I urge you to find a source that's less cozy with those in power, such as The Intercept, of Snowden fame.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...

What would HN recommend for a news source that is worth paying for lately?

Wondering the same thing myself. In the U.K. I can attest to the quality of The Guardian although it does get a little emotionally charged - particularly its editorials - excellent paper otherwise. The Financial Times is another excellent paper and funnily enough regarded by Noam Chomsky as the most accurate.

As far as US papers go The NY Times has a pretty spotty history. It is still a very good paper, just gotta be aware of its short comings.

I hear The Wall Street Journal is also very good but never really read it personally - usually pickup The Economist instead (despite all its problems).

As far as free stuff goes Democracy Now is up there with any news I've seen on television and since it refuses corporate, advertising or government funding is entirely reliant on donations to remain as unbiased as possible. Very good indeed and worth supporting.

Democracy Now is certainly not an unbiased news source.

Who else, then?

Although I agree this is likely a setup for more to come, I disagree that this is a "headfake".

A "headfake" implies it achieves nothing if one's opponent ignores it. In this case, if there was no pushback, then he would have successfully banned green card holders from seven nations. Then it would receive even less coverage/reaction when he adds an eighth nation, a ninth, a tenth, and so on... Pretty soon, you'll only have legal immigration from nations Steve Bannon deems worthy.

I loathe Trump, and despise Bannon, and I wouldn't put it past them to have some dirty tricks, but this conspiracy theory doesn't pass muster

The political optics of having to 'roll back' are not beneficial for POTUS, because it would be an admission that he's 'wrong' - and he does not like to be wrong.

Second - if the ACLU can 'win' cases against the administration - this is hugely damaging for them, as it speaks to their lack of credibility to everyone except the hardcore followers - it gives momentum to their opponents - and a 'permanent record' of things to wail about for 4 years.

More importantly - it weakens them vis-a-vis the GOP controlled congress.

Right now - Trump is strong, only because he has a very solid base support. The GOP do not like Trump, but right now they are afraid of his wrath - politically. And Trump will go a long with most of what they want so it's not so bad.

But - if Trump is weakened too much, then the GOP don't have to listen to him, and they'll start fighting him on agenda issues.

The reason Trump is rushing through this stuff is not for issues of power - it's popular politics: he has the power 'now' to do some things - and may not have it later. He's trying to appear as though 'he's done what he's said he's done'.

Also - the refugee ban is not even meaningful, other than in terms of perception. There will be some disruption for 90 days, and then things will be as they were. This is political theatre, not a conniving power grab.

A few more things like this from Trump and he will be weakened, he could feasibly be the biggest 'lame duck' president ever, though surely he will make a lot of noise during that period.

If the GOP abandons him, he can only scrawl together so many executive orders - granted, he'll wield his veto power like a drunk king ...

As the article points out, he doesn't have to admit to being wrong. By making the order overly broad, he is able to later claim that a future implementation is what he intended all along.

‪During the 20 years of Berlusconi in Italy, we called this tactic "weapons of mass-distraction". Indeed, they worked.‬

Trump did promise to make our country more secure. Whether he is testing power at the same time or not, it doesn't really matter. We have allowed the President too much power and it needs to be fixed.

This is always obvious to me. I think at this moment Trump's wet dream is that some frustrated person from these 7 nations might do something really stupid that will help him go even harder after Muslims and other minorities.

Asians, Mexicans etc. are next on the anvil.

This should be downvoted as horribly misleading. This idiot is FACTUALLY and PROVABLY wrong.

One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the President "removed a permanent military presence from the NSC".

The military is on the Council according to LAW. No president can change that.

SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021

Now stop repeating crap that isn't true. It takes away from real issues, and divides the country on YOUR Headfake.

HN readers deserve better. Much better.

"removed a permanent military presence from the NSC"

This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently in attendance: just occasionally.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...

My key point is that they are not removed. The NSC is huge. It has groups and subgroups galore. Every president moves people around between committees. The law allows for that, but still stipulates they are members of the committee.

Best breakdown I found is this page - see the tables for an easy visual): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

Then you're willfully misrepresenting the author's intent to show that they're wrong (and using all caps to emphasize how wrong it is). This makes it difficult to take on good faith the rest of what you say when you're not interpreting the author in the same vein.

If, on the other hand, you'd make a reasoned argument like, "It's likely the author means this, but here's why I don't believe that's a valid representation of the facts", I'd be more willing to consider the rest of what you have to say.

I think his use of the word permanent is valid: they're no longer permanent members. I can understand your point of view as well. I also don't see him making the argument that doing so is against the law, or even implies that it's illegal: just that it's a significant change from the past (or, in his words "a much bigger deal). Bringing this legal aspect up as to why he's being misleading is a bit of a straw man, in my opinion.

Anyway, I find arguments made calmly and reasonably, and in good faith (of which there sometimes seems to be an ever-dwindling supply) unless there's an abundance of evidence to believe otherwise to be much more persuasive.

While I am frustrated with the author, I don't believe that I'm willfully represnting my position. They are still permanent members, just on a different group within the committee.

The author is putting forward what is essentially a conspiracy theory and using distorted facts for fear mongering.

One other thought I meant to mention. His "recommends" list links to an article that Trump is trying to stage a coup. Seriously?? Now maybe he thought it was funny, but based on _his own writing_, I doubt it.

I welcome your thoughts. (And appreciate your civil tone, which has been commendable)

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Unfortunately, this exchange has exhausted what was left of my good will, at least for now. It's decidedly not effort-free yet for me. The past couple of days have been particularly taxing. The last three comments I've written I've immediately deleted because they weren't up-to-snuff. I'll keep at it, though, because I think it's a very important practice to keep.

If that's something you value, and would like to further cultivate in yourself, I've got some references I rely on in my profile. I encourage you to check them out.

Cheers.

Thanks for dropping those links, grzm. Between them and the content of your comments I have been reminded what civil disagreement is supposed to look like.

At least I don't feel so crazy now for thinking this...

How many sheep will read this, assume it's true, and not realize it's somebody's daydream?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com