Over 100,000 Visas Have Been Revoked by Immigration Ban, Justice Dept. Reveals | Hacker News Reader

Over 100,000 Visas Have Been Revoked by Immigration Ban, Justice Dept. Reveals

nbcnews.com

46 pointsbeedogs61 comments

"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."

I think they ran out room and couldn't put the last bit on - 'to hastily blow out the wick and nervously shut and bolt the door'

Brilliant. :)

Some random poet's words got put on a statue, so we're now forever bound to obey them?

People do say something similar about the constitution.

When the constitution doesn't quite suit us, we amend it. When we want heavier restrictions on immigration than some poem recommends, we elect Donald Trump.

Although of course more people voted for the other candidate, which we could take to indicate that more people didn't want (in as much as what people want is linked to their choice of candidate) these new heavier restrictions on immigration.

We don't decide what we collectively want to do with a simple popular vote.

Maybe, because it worked? I'm pro Trump, the liberals are the ones that broke it, but immigration is the core constitution of the USA.

What did liberals do that broke it?

I replied something similar in other reply. See above, please :)

I appreciate your comment and its sentiment that immigration has played a core role.

Would you mind commenting on why you included "the liberals are the ones that broke it"? Even if true m, it seems needlessly divisive.

I may not receive the same sympathy I had in the previous reply, but I do believe that the way the past administration (and their NGO and think tank satellites) "promoted" (enforced) an agenda of "liberal" values (LGBT, abortion, hollywoodian feminism, "democracy", etc...) and regime change to all countries that fail at least in one item of the checklist (and even some that comply with all of them, like Brazil).

I do think that the current situation is a huge backlash of the past (and recent) politics.

Right. I understand where you're coming from. What I'm trying to get at is why include that in your comment. Part of the problem in US politics right now is the intense polarization and division people feel. There's been a lot of people expressing that their voices haven't been heard. While it's of course important to look at the past to figure out what has and hasn't worked when looking at what we want to the future, I think focussing on the division rather than on what we want to do to improve the situation hurts, rather than helps. (And it's not like everything was perfect and peachy prior to 8 years ago either.)

I agree with you. But the mainstream narrative also don't talk about everything not been perfect the last 8 years, and bad stuff done by/during Obama administration are just now starting to be a problem to the media (and consequently, to a huge parcel of citizens that follow the trend). As someone said, where were the strikes and protests when Obama were conducting drones missions or the destruction of Libya, Syria, Somalia, etc? It is bad to keep deepen division, but it is a lot worse if one party takes over everything owning the narrative of "the good side" in a very illegitimate way, which is exactly what is developing in the USA right now. I feel very sorry about it, it is very similar to what happened here in Brazil and it got us to a coup d'etat.

Let's try to leave the mainstream narrative to the side, at least not have it front and center, while we're on HN. Likewise with the accusations of hypocrisy or disingenuity. If I thought it would be helpful, I'd include other examples from colors of the political spectrum, but that would just anger whoever feels that's unfair.

It's really difficult to move forward together on issues people share in common when everyone insists on bringing up everything anyone associated with some idea is brought up as a point of contention. We have to figure out a way forward together. We're not going to agree on everything, but I honestly believe many of us have common cause on a lot of fundamental issues.

Although I agree with you, this lecturing tone is part of the problem. You don't want to be divisive? It is important to be empathetic. Common ground is, you know, common ground. Not people moving heavily to one side.

Point taken. What improvements or changes would you recommend in my approach? What in particular comes across as lecturing? (Oh, and please don't blame or associate my lecturing with any particular side: that's really just me. The polarization of the current political environment has contributors from both "sides", and any solution has to come from people in general.) Any phrases or statements you find particularly ineffective? Anything that would be more effective? I don't think I've staked out any position other than not trying to be careful to refrain from using language that is needlessly divisive. I haven't intended to move anyone to any particular side, so I'm interested in knowing what came across as doing so. People are often unaware of how things they say may come across, and I'm no different.

Edited to add: This is tough stuff to talk about constructively. Thanks for sticking with me. I appreciate it.

>Maybe, because it worked?...immigration is the core constitution of the USA.

Immigration from where in particular? US immigration law is vastly different now compared to before 1965.

I may not be the right guy to articulate it, as I don't have a deep knowledge about Us history, but in the past, other ethnics that currently are considered Americans had a though time adapting, like the Irish, didn't they? I do think that this foster assimilation is what made USA great. But I'm not an American, I'm a Brazilian. And currently we are facing some similar immigration trend that I believe will be very good for us, I hope.

>I may not be the right guy to articulate it, as I don't have a deep knowledge about Us history, but in the past, other ethnics that currently are considered Americans had a though time adapting, like the Irish, didn't they?

Yes, indeed they did. The Irish have much much more in common, genetically, phenotypically, and culturally, with other north western European ethnic groups (the bulk of the US population at the time) than do Middle Eastern and North African ethnic groups, and it still took Irish immigrants generations to integrate into the existing population, during which time there was a great amount of friction. We came out better for it, but that is absolutely not guaranteed to happen for more distant ethnic groups. There is no reason to believe all ethnic groups are compatible enough to successfully integrate.

If they can all be said to have integrated at all. Irish folk often still have a strong "us vs them" attitude. Still a chip on their shoulder after all these generations.

You got it backwards: the poet put them on the statue to reflect what we believed.

The foreign creators of the statue put the words of a poet of questionable allegiance on there to reflect how they wanted America to act.

A former Secretary of State and Attorney General commissioned the poem from an American poet to raise funds for the American built pedestal, and it wasn't placed on there until years later when her American friend convinced Americans to do so.

So... I don't know what the fuck you think you're talking about.

I'm glad you actually looked up what happened. Now would you please revise your original statement to read:

>the poet's Washington and New York elite friends put them on the statue to make European immigrants feel warm and fuzzy inside.

And then explain to me what that's got to do with what the average American thought about immigration, and then after that explain to me what that's got to do with how we should feel about importing tens of millions of non-European immigrants and throwing billions of dollars of welfare at them today. Thanks in advance.

How about you delete what you said, which was completely false, and either reflected that you didn't even bother looking up what happened, or that you did know and lied about it.

How about you address the second part of my previous post?

I still see a heaping pile of bullshit with your name next to it. You might want get that taken care of before you start tossing out demands.

I readily admit that what I said was incorrect. Your turn.

Thats unbelievable. Even if thats an exaggeration and the actual number is closer to what the government claims (60,000) thats a jaw dropping number for an order that went into place a week ago.

I'm afraid that is likely an underestimated number of affected people/lives because it does not include the number of people with valid, legal visas who are refused boarding by airlines across the world. Those people never make it to the US to have their visas revoked.

Not to mention the people who are eligible for visas but will never get them now. That number is many times larger.

Here, we seem to have not a contradiction between what the government claims and another source, but what the government claims via two separate departments. Both are "the government", of course. :)

I simply can not understand how there can be a confusion on such a number. Can not one simply document this? The US does this as well. For example, "Stop-and-frisk" in NYC requires that when police officers make stops - they fill out the form explaining the situation and details of the stop [0]. The next step would be to analayze the nature of this stops and I won't find it surprising if there was/is racial profiling. Even the Stop-And-Frisk NYC policy discriminated against persons of Hispanics and African descent [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

[1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/01621450600000104...

Considering that they are violating a court order in continuing to enforce parts of the order, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are also neglecting to fill out the proper paperwork.

I dislike Trump. But more than seeing him lose, I want to see justice prevail. If it's within his power to do this, so be it. But if it isn't, I hope this binds the rest of us together to deliver a significant defeat to him. It's great to see our justice system work together to challenge this order.

Have you been asleep this past week?

The courts already ruled to put a stop to this executive order. Who do you think is supposed to enforce the ruling of the courts?

> The courts already ruled to put a stop to this executive order

The courts have partially stopped this EO.

> The judge’s ruling blocked part of the president’s actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-u...

Federal Government is defying court orders.

Executive branch defying the judicial is probably a bit more accurate. They're both the federal government.

Actually kind of! Been traveling a lot this last week and working odd hours. But what's probably a bigger factor is that I don't know how these things work. You make it sound simple, which confuses me because the issue isn't resolved yet.

And I don't know the answer to your question.

Would be funny if his first major act as president was the one that got him impeached...but then we'd have to deal w/ Pence...I'd rather grab popcorn and watch it all burn to the ground than have Bush era republicans...at least this is funner to watch.

As someone who has to live with the consequences, I'd rather not watch it all burn to the ground, thanks.

If the choice is Pence or Trump, well, I know little about Pence. But I know enough about Trump that I'd take Pence...

Come to New Zealand. Our tech ecosystem is strong, lifestyle unbeatable and political system sound.

You're not wrong but its just SO FAR

Right now that's a plus.

Isn't it also pretty tough to get citizenship in NZ? I looked into it years ago, and while both my wife and I are skilled professionals (Physical Therapist and Programmer, respectively), we weren't eligible. Though part/most of that was being overweight.

I wonder, if I were trying to put my family the furthest from a Trump-initiated nuclear war, is New Zealand basically the best place to be? Or would somewhere like Chile be a better idea? I suppose I need to also factor in the quality of life difference vs. the probability that one is safer, and how the local economies would handle a world-wide collapse. It's a plus that New Zealand exports so much food, I imagine.

If you're avoiding nuclear war, anywhere in the southern hemisphere will do due to equatorial winds.

So come to Uruguay. First software exporter per capita in latin america [1], green energy [2,3] (each year less dependence to hydrocarburs), one of the safestcouuntries in latin america [4] .. and last but not less important: a country born from inmigrants [5].

You all are more than welcome in my country!

[1] http://marcapaisuruguay.gub.uy/en/uruguayan-software-enterin... [2] http://marcapaisuruguay.gub.uy/en/uruguay-a-pillar-of-renewa... [3] http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/03/how-uru... [4] http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/032216... [5] http://ethnologist.info/section/world-resorts/latin-america/...

> You all are more than welcome in my country!

Mostly... I recently looked into Uruguay and although not particularly problematic for me they do have vetting requirements:

1. Must meet minimum continuous income requirement

2. Have no criminal record

3. Have acceptable health

4. Naturalisation officials apply subjective criteria for granting citizenship even after meeting the in-country residency requirements.

Your list contains the bare-minimum requirements for immigrating into any country, unless you're buying the "Let me in, I'm rich" visa (also available in most countries).

> 1. Must meet minimum continuous income requirement

As I understand, you can be a "temporary" resident until you get a job and then apply for the permanent residence, presenting in that moment the evidence of incoming (minimum wage will be enough)

> 2. Have no criminal record

I didn't know about it, but probably yes. Unless you ask for a political refugee. This is probably to (try to) avoid human and drugs trafficking.

> 3. Have acceptable health

This is a 30 minutes check for less than 5 american dollars. Everybody pass the test. (bureaucracy)

> 4. Naturalisation officials apply subjective criteria for granting citizenship even after meeting the in-country residency requirements.

Sounds strange... I know lot of Spanish, Venezuelans, Cubans, and others nationalities, living and working legally here. Some of them agree and others disagree with political parties that are 'friends' of the current Uruguayan government. There are also some Iranians doctors working in the public health and Indians working in IT.

If you are in IT, you'll get a job in a week.

Here's some official information about the topic (sadly just in spanish): http://www.impo.com.uy/migracion/

The country that sold Peter Thiel a citizenship?[1] Scam corporate hideout?[2]

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/business/peter-thiel-new-...

2. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/dodgy-new-zealand-com...

Kiwis are a lovely bunch, but your population is 4.5 million. I'd be careful what you wish for, if enough people pull a Peter Thiel, you'll be overrun by Americans in no time :P As if 3.4 million tourists a year wasn't already heaps.

too many hobbits

I'll be proud of my country again when the perpetrators if these abuses of power are in jail.

Unlikely in the short term, and in the long term this is just the beginning.

I'm really curious how this revocation of visas works in combination with the 90-day limit on the executive order. If the executive order is not extended, can they be un-revoked?

Why was this flagged? WTF is going on at HN?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com