Our Humanity

from the this-is-not-a-game dept

Over the last few months, we've had a very, very small, but still vocal group of folks in our comments who have gotten angry every time we've been critical of Donald Trump -- even when we were making nearly identical complaints about him as we did about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That group of people probably won't like this post very much, though I do hope they'll read it with open minds. We're not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that's included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don't see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We've even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.

But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you. Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920 -- most of them escaping religious persecution elsewhere. My great grandmother had to hide in the bottom of a boat to escape from where she lived. Many came through Ellis Island, and were welcomed into America. My grandfathers built up businesses here. One fought bravely against Nazis (literally) in World War II for the US in Europe and North Africa, and came back to the US and built a company that (among other things) was a huge supplier for the Boy Scouts of America. While they may have struggled at times, my family came to America and was embraced by America, thrived in America and has always loved America. My wife is an immigrant. Her family moved here when she was young to give her and her siblings a better life. And that's what they found. America embraced them and they embraced America back. They're all US citizens.

All weekend long, I've been reading all sorts of accounts about President Trump's executive order. Some of it has been thoughtful. Some of it has been hysterical. Some of it has been painful. Some of it has been ridiculous.

But it all comes back to one thing: this is about our humanity.

The "excuses" that some have been spewing for the executive order make no sense. They say this is about "safety," yet there is no evidence that the people being kept out were a risk to our safety. As many have noted, not a single terrorist attack has come from people from those countries. They say this is about "extreme vetting" but ignore that refugees already go through a ridiculously long and thorough "extreme vetting" process that can take years. They say that this is just an "inconvenience" to a "small group" of people, ignoring that they are basically upending the lives of entire families -- families including those with permanent resident status, who have been valuable, contributing members to our country for years and years and years.

This is madness.

They say that this is necessary to protect us at home, but even ignoring everything above, it's hard to see how this doesn't make us less safe. How can anyone read this essay by Kirk Johnson and not realize how much harm we're doing. Johnson has devoted a big part of his life to helping Iraqis who literally put their lives at risk to help Americans, and then were ignored by America. Read what he's written and ask yourself what foreigner will sign up to help America again in the future?

They say this is about "the rule of law," but then explain why Customs and Border Patrol are literally ignoring court orders and refusing to even speak to members of Congress? They say this is about stopping threats at home, but that doesn't explain at all why the White House failed to have the relevant experts review the executive order before it was put in place, or why multiple national security experts have noted this will clearly make us less safe. And, of course, nothing explains why the White House directly overruled Homeland Security saying this wouldn't apply to permanent residents (and then required DHS to later come out and try to clarify).

Again, this goes back to a story about basic humanity. And our country massively failing.

I know there are lots of people speculating on a variety of things around all of this. There are explanations that this is part of a "shock doctrine" move to sow chaos and confusion and deligitimize organizations before the really bad policy is put into place. And perhaps that's true. It's certainly something to watch for. But, as someone who tries to look at every policy proposal based on a "does this make sense" or "does this make the world a better place" metric -- and not on a "does this help my team" scale -- it must be stated that the executive order Donald Trump signed late last week, that was put into effect over the weekend is not just a disaster. It hasn't just created a constitutional crisis with parts of the executive branch ignoring the judiciary. It's not just a policy that is impacting millions of lives.

It's simply inhumane.

This is about humanity, and anyone who has any sense of humanity has a responsibility to speak up about it and to say that this is not right. If you get angry about this post, and think you need to insult us and attack me or this site, I would only recommend that you first take stock of your life, and think about what message you are sending out into the world when you do so.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Really....? Let's break it down:

Steve Bannon is this administration's Karl Rove. The chief strategist of the Trump campaign and administration. More than that, President* Trump just reshuffled the US National Security Council, downgrading the military chiefs of staff and giving a regular seat to Bannon.

Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, anti-Semitism...

Under Steve Bannon's leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi. Er, sorry, "Alt-right."

Wikipedia: Alt-right

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States. White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.

[...]

Trump's campaign chief executive Steve Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

President* Trump has been entirely consistent with Bannon's ideology. Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers." Declaring the US-born judge on his business fraud case biased because of Mexican ancestry. The whole Muslim ban thing, which he's following through on. His history of discriminating against blacks in his rental properties. False claims of millions of illegal immigrant votes. Etc. etc.

And just a reminder: Donald Trump's ex-wife said Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. In the article, Ivana Trump also told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At this point it's the extraordinary claim that Trump isn't running a white supremacist administration that requires extraordinary evidence.

—Roger Strong

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:45am

    "The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."
    - Tony Benn, British Minister of Parliament for 47 years

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Feb 2017 @ 2:41am

      Re:

      Benn is also one of the architects of Britain's welfare state, which includes our beloved — and essential — NHS. While I don't agree with a lot of his policies ("No competition" is a glaring example) I do appreciate that one because I've had to resort to it. So yeah, decent guy.

      This is why you shouldn't demonise even the most "confirmed" socialists; fundamentally, they're decent, well-meaning people, though they can be somewhat misguided at times.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:56am

    I've always been happy with the news from Techdirt because its pretty emotionally blank - arguments are presented with no meaningless heart tugging anecdotes.

    Lets keep Techdirt that way.

    No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:03am

      try reading the article next time

      this piece is more than an emotional ploy and cherry picking, though there are anecdotes offered to back up central argument.

      several times, Mike points out the absurdity and hollowness of the administration's talking points.

      try reading the whole thing next time before you comment based only on the pictures.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      Sorry, are you trying to equate morality with emotions?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

      Really? Because that seemed to be the basis of the entire platform of the President of the United States.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:45am

        Re: Re:

        The reason why HRC was winning in polls is because people wanting to appear "nice" and of course "love trumps hate" but in the voting booth the people of MI, WI, and PA all chose their own self-interest over individuals unknown to them and in their view hurt their livelihood.

        In other words, HRC (and all democrats) run a MUCH better emotional campaign then any opponent has ever.
        The day before the election people were EMOTIONALLY convinced Trump was literally Hitler and STILL voted for him. Emotions mean nothing - you have to attack with reason.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          This is not about Hillary.
          You keep harping on one talking point because it is the only thing you have.

          Do not wag your finger at others claiming your maturity when you are acting out and throwing tantrums.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're attacking the wrong person. Attack the guy who idolises Hitler.

          Or allow me to rephrase it another way:

          Trump[ is a clear and present danger to national security, and so are his 'advisors'. He is planning a coup right now, along with his friend Bannon.

          Every American should be trying to get rid of this person as a terrorist. Because he is almost in a position to terrorise the world, if he has not already done so.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I believe that the military has indicated they will not support trump torture, this might also imply their potential direction in the event of a trump coup attempt.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Mattis has strongly stated his opposition to torture last I heard. But I'm curious about this hypothetical Trump coup. How does a guy who's ALREADY president have a coup? Like, if there was/is/could be a coup, wouldn't it have already happened and he won? He's president, there's no higher office to seize.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Coups can be organized by those in the highest office. to gain more power, or to avoid leaving office when their term ends or the polls show they'll be voted out.

                Consider Prime Minister Erdoğan of Turkey. Whether or not the attempted coupe against him was real, he's used it as a pretext for a coup of his own. He didn't stop at arresting thousands of soldiers, from 103 generals and admirals to five bus loads of students from a Military High School:

                He's also removed 3000 judges, from the bottom to the very top of the judiciary. Plus prosecutors. 7,899 police officers, 614 gendarmerie officers, 47 district governors and 30 regional governors.

                Mayors were fired. And thousands of civil servants. 15,200 teachers were suspended. The licenses of 21,000 teachers in the private sector were also cancelled. All deans of state and private universities were fired. 626 educational institutions were shut down. A travel ban was placed on academics, preventing them from leaving the country.

                229 charities and foundations, 19 trade unions, 15 universities and 35 medical institutions were ordered closed. Large numbers of television channels, radio stations, daily newspapers, magazines and publishing houses were shut down.

                Those numbers have grown considerably in later purges. They're also going after CEOs, seizing their assets.

                It's a coup by the guy already holding the highest office.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Well, isn't that the solidification of power rather than the seizing of power?
                  Coup might not be the best word

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Roger Strong (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 1:15am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Not when the country's laws don't allow you to "solidify power" that way.

                    Erdoğan's mass arrests and mass firings by the thousands of anyone else with any form of competing power goes far beyond the law. Small wonder he started by arresting all the judges. It's the "solidification of power" of someone with no intention of giving up that power once their term ends or once in danger of being voted out. It's a coup by an elected official.

                    Fortunately it's harder for Trump to do that. A good example is Jeff Sessions asking AG nominee Sally Yates in 2015 if she'd resist 'improper' Presidential orders:

                    https://youtu.be/sXDt3WA07zc

                    Senator Sessions: "Do you think the U.S. Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that is improper?"

                    Sally Yates: "I believe they have an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution,”

                    She did, and was fired for it by Trump yesterday. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote on Sessions' nomination today to replace Yates.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Feb 2017 @ 5:29am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  And Our Tess is merrily sucking up to him for the sake of post-Brexit trade. Sickening!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 8:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Trump just fired his acting attorney general for defying him. He can do the same with military leaders.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Cowardly Lion, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The reason why HRC was winning in polls is because people wanting to appear "nice" and of course "love trumps hate""

          Rubbish. Clinton reflected the status quo, the low risk option versus the unknown. Bringing in concepts such as "nice", "love", and "hate" is childish. And your entire second paragraph is contradictory. You seem to be saying that emotions are vitally important...but not really.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mousee (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 1:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Are you trying to say that self-interest at any cost is somehow rational?

          And the "Trump is gonna be a better president for me" idea is demonstrably illogical for the vast majority of Trump's voters.

          No, the Trump voters voted emotionally. They voted against a woman who has made some mistakes and they just didn't quite like for some reason.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        wereisjessicahyde (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:42pm

        Re: Re:

        I think everyone can be "emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers" even if we try not to.

        The way I see it is that at least some people care - even if they don't have the energy or time to proactively care for everything, and everybody. Nobody can do that. I wish we could.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:35am

      Re:

      No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

      The only thing about this that harms society at large is this insanely selfish and ultimately fear filled executive order.

      Also, none of the articles on this site have ever been without emotion. They certainly use facts to back up their opinions, but that has never removed emotion from them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:42am

      Re:

      No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

      And yet you just used an emotional argument, and made a broad and unsupported statement about harm to "society at large".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:54am

        Re: Re:

        Saying a globalist policy of open borders and free movement is ultimately harmful to society is not an emotional argument. Its a statement.

        Its unsupported here because I'm not writing a book on the subject - I encourage you to read some.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I do not recall anyone calling for open borders, perhaps some detail would be enlightening?

          What about free movement? Do I now need a permit to go to the grocery? When did this happen and why.

          Again with your "everyone is ignorant but me" statement, do you ever get tired of being the only person who understands anything?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          killthelawyers (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "No one but children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers" is the emotional wing of the argument. First, you build a strawman by reducing an argument about whether it is necessary to consider the consequences of policy on third party suffering to whether we should build policy off of anecdote. Second, you argue that anyone who falls for your strawman is less than an adult and not worthy of consideration.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That statement is, and always has been, an entirely emotional argument.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:17am

      Re:

      Do you mean literally children or metaphorically people that act and think like children?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dirkmaster (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:49pm

      Re:

      "No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments"

      Really? Seems like religion has done pretty well over the centuries, using ONLY that to convince people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Trump Blowhart, 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:58am

    TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG

    Come on folks, he's just trying to save our country from the evil Jahadists.

    It doesn't matter that 99%ish of the folks coming from those countries just want to escape the mayhem.
    It doesn't matter that we caused most of the issues. That was Obama/Bush/The Liberal weenies, and not TRUMP.
    It doesn't matter that some of the people locked out were green card holders that have been living here.

    TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.... TAKE THAT MIKE!

    Ok, TRUMP can't help it if he has MORON syndrome.

    I'm hoping he ends up being better then the Clinton gangsters in the long run. he just needs to staple his mouth shut. IMHO, executive orders should be banned. Obozo's EO's were all crap also.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:36am

      Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG

      Having one's mouth stapled shut does not prevent one from tweeting new, unreviewed, US policy on the spur of the moment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:02am

      Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG

      Brawndo has eletrolytes

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Doug (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 5:36am

      Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG

      I'm hoping he ends up being better then the Clinton gangsters in the long run. he just needs to staple his mouth shut. IMHO, executive orders should be banned. Obozo's EO's were all crap also.

      Trump's in quite a hole already. There's zero practical hope that he can redeem himself even to the point of being the 2nd worst president ever. It's a fun fantasy to imagine the turnaround it would take for him to even be considered "not bad" after a start like this, but just a fantasy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    timmaguire42 (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:02am

    It's good that this is not a political blog because the politics are too often childish.

    One immigrant is the same as another?

    1817 = 1917 = 2017?

    You see that as nonsense? Then you think like a child.

    No non citizen has a right to enter a country and every government has a duty to control its own borders. And every country (not just Trump's America) does just that.

    I don't support this order either, but don't be absurd. It's not a radical departure from past behavior. It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:04am

      duty?

      The Executive's duty is to uphold the rule of law, not to ignore court orders.

      You can't have it both ways.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:12am

      Re:

      Nonsense.

      No-one is "revamping processes." The refugees he's turned back have been VERY thoroughly vetted. This is about a white supremacist administration trying to keep the illegal promises it made pandering to the alt-right.

      Accepting refugees - or tourists - or business travellers - does not in any way conflict with a nation's duty to control its own borders. All those turned back were entering through proper channels, fully subject to American immigration and visitor policies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        TZ, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:24am

        Re: Re:

        "This is about a white supremacist administration..."

        And instantly any point you are trying to make is discarded. In the past, responses to racism were met with denials and apologies. Now, the correct response is

        GFY - Look in the mirror - lefties are the racists.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          *And instantly any point you are trying to make is discarded.*

          Usually people who say this are just desperately looking for an excuse to avoid confronting an issue.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Really....? Let's break it down:

          Steve Bannon is this administration's Karl Rove. The chief strategist of the Trump campaign and administration. More than that, President* Trump just reshuffled the US National Security Council, downgrading the military chiefs of staff and giving a regular seat to Bannon.

          Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism

          Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, anti-Semitism...

          Under Steve Bannon's leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi. Er, sorry, "Alt-right."

          Wikipedia: Alt-right

          The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States. White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.

          [...]

          Trump's campaign chief executive Steve Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

          President* Trump has been entirely consistent with Bannon's ideology. Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers." Declaring the US-born judge on his business fraud case biased because of Mexican ancestry. The whole Muslim ban thing, which he's following through on. His history of discriminating against blacks in his rental properties. False claims of millions of illegal immigrant votes. Etc. etc.

          And just a reminder: Donald Trump's ex-wife said Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. In the article, Ivana Trump also told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office.

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At this point it's the extraordinary claim that Trump isn't running a white supremacist administration that requires extraordinary evidence.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            TZ, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:13am

            Again with the racism and hitler references

            You get called on your false charges of racism and you decide to double down and go full retard with the Nazi references?

            GFY

            "Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi"

            Well few would deny that Roger Strong has molested a young immigrant boy who is only 8 yrs old. Few would deny that there have been hush payments to keep Roger from being arrested. Few would deny that rumor mongering with slanderous accusations is a valid argument.

            "Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers.""
            Oh, off spouting half truths again. You know this is a not true so I wont waste my time explaining it to you again. But I'll give the readers a hint: the FBI says that some people in the US are child molesters. Roger Strong is in the US. Therefore the FBI says that Roger Strong is a child molester. See anything wrong with that argument?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:21am

              Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

              You're missing the point: I'm not doubling down and going full retard with the Nazi references. Trump and chief strategist Bannon are doing that. I'm just the messenger.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                TZ, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:34am

                Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                So because you didn't provide documented proof of your innocence, you are admitting to molesting that child? Didn't think so.

                Trump and Bannon are not Nazis and have never claimed to be. Repeating your lie doesn't make any more true.

                You claim Neo-Nazism is "pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com". I claim that some people might say Mr. Strong has a thing for underage boys. The only difference here is that Breitbart's Jewish reporters have made some pretty convincing arguments otherwise (about the Breitbart thing)

                And if you are getting offended about the tiny handful of pedo comments, think about all of the conservatives that have been maligned as racists for the past year by your ilk.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                  So If I murder someone and proclain I'm not a murderer then it's a-ok?

                  He posed very good points. While Trump hasn't gone full white supremacy/fascism it won't take long if people don't protest. Read your history books.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Feb 2017 @ 5:37am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                    I'm conservative; I believe in upholding traditional community values; in the case of America that means "the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." Last time I looked it didn't mean "White exceptionalism," sexism, or the rule of church over state. I reject Trump for those reasons.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                  And if you are getting offended about the tiny handful of pedo comments

                  I assure you, nobody is "offended" by your continued insistence on making yourself look childish and foolish. Enlightened as to your true nature? Yes. Offended? Nah.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:18pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                  What does it matter if one claims to be a Nazi or not? Speech and behavior and how one wields their power are pretty damn good indicators.

                  No one went to war because someone said, "Hey we are Nazis and fascists." They finally did because the behaviors of those sorts began to repeatedly spill over their borders.

                  You wouldn't even have to know what a Nazi is to be the equivalent of one. Loudmouthed racist, jingoist, authoritarianism can come in different flavours.

                  But the most hilarious thing with Trump is that he apparently can do any old egregious thing but he can't be labeled with that thing because _he didn't claim to be that thing_. On the other hand, he can say all sorts of things with which he also cannot be labeled because _he was just saying that_. He didn't do it. Yet. Must be nice.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:13pm

                    Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                    But the most hilarious thing with Trump is that he apparently can do any old egregious thing but he can't be labeled with that thing because he didn't claim to be that thing. On the other hand, he can say all sorts of things with which he also cannot be labeled because he was just saying that. He didn't do it. Yet. Must be nice.

                    Just had to requote that last paragraph. 👍👍👍

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:29am

              Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

              Lesson learned: Point out the more disturbing aspects of the Trump administration, back it up with citations, and a Trump follower will be along momentarily to call you a child molester.

              While denying that Trump called Mexicans "rapists and murderers."

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                TZ, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:39am

                Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                "While denying that Trump called Mexicans "rapists and murderers.""

                A half truth is a full lie.

                You know you lied about this. Just admit it. If you believe that, then by your own logic, you must believe that the FBI has called you a child molester.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:42pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

                  Do you practice being that bad at arguement, or is it just a prodigious natural talent?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            More than that, President* Trump just reshuffled the US National Security Council, downgrading the military chiefs of staff and giving a regular seat to Bannon.

            Overheard at the National Security Council:

            "Mein Führer, I can walk!"

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The actual 'Mexicans are rapists and murderers' quote:

            When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              And you think that makes it better?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Some, I assume, are good people" is right up there with "but I have [minority group] friends!" on the list of Shit Racists Say.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There is nothing truthful (except number three) about anything in that statement.

              "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

              1) Mexico does not "sent its people" anywhere
              2) Those that attempt to immigrate are not filtered based upon ability/knowledge/whathaveyou
              3) No - they are not sending me
              4) Those who attempt to immigrate have the same distribution of "problems" seen in the general populations everywhere.
              5) wut ???
              5) The amount of drugs/crime has not increased, it has gone down
              6) They are not (all) rapists

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Honestly, I mostly agree with you, but lets try to be accurate here. #2 in your list (yours, not his, since you had the courtesy to give us numbered points) is quite wrong. ILLEGAL immigrants are biased towards the less educated. And yes, he was speaking about illegals. It's called context.

                Context applies to the whole thing. He was referring to illegal immigration in that whole quote. Illegal immigrants tend towards the less educated, and therefore the less able.

                #3 I can't disagree.

                #4 Wrong. Those who are motivated to emigrate don't just up and say "Gosh! My comfy middle-to-upper class is just so restricting!" They're almost always either poor or persecuted. And yes, that's an argument in favor of taking them, assuming they've been vetted.

                #5 Wut indeed.

                #5(2) Total crime levels changing has nothing to do with a given population being a disproportionate source of crime.

                #6 You're agreeing with Trump here. Literally. Context again.

                Frankly, Leigh had a better point on that one.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "They're not all rapists, just most of them! I assume that some of them might not be rapists."

              Oh yeah, so not racist... /s

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            *Sighs as you use the words alt-right*

            into the trash this opinion of yours goes*

            Techdirt has gone to shit in the past few years.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh the old I'm not racist, you are, gambit. Are you going to tell us next that's you have tons of black friends?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:33am

        Re: Re:

        This is about a white supremacist administration

        Please stop crying wolf. One of these days a real racist candidate is going to show up, and warning about him won't do any good because people like you have spent decades wasting the relevant terms and stripping them of any and all actual meaning.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, it just happened already, long ago, by the privileged sorts who have ignored the fucking wolves all this time because they are not in their living room.

          Of course people cry wolf. The wolves never left us.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Read my follow-up above. (Which someone has now made the First Word.) (And I can't believe I forgot to include Trump's birther claims years after Obama's birth certificate was released and authenticated.)

          It's not "crying wolf." The real racist candidate has arrived.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You really should read the article I linked to. The author (a journalist who endorsed Hillary, for the record) completely demolishes the racism-ist nonsense that far too many people are hysterically screaming about lately, specifically because he doesn't want it accusations of racism to be devalued into worthlessness for when an actual racist comes along.

            As is almost always the case these days, solid data demonstrates quite clearly that racism is simply not a factor here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The author points out for example that Trump said pro-Hispanic things while talking to Hispanics.

              But ALL candidates do that. Some even while quietly stoking fears among other crowds.

              On the other hand they DON'T make the blatent public anti-Mexican "rapists and murderers" claims. They DON'T hire a neo-Nazi as their chief strategist and then put him on the Security Council. They DON'T promise an anti-Muslim ban and follow it up with bans on refugees from Muslim nations (that they don't have investments in.) They DON'T declare judges hearing their cases to be biased against them because of the judge's ancestry. They DON'T have a long history of birther claims singling out the black guy.

              So no, I don't buy your apologetics. The wolf is here. Deal with it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Seriously?

                Did you completely miss the places in the article where he refutes almost every single point you just made?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Mason, we get it: you really like that one article.

                  Consider: the author of that article does not claim racism is not involved or that Trump doesn't have racist tendencies, in direct contradiction to your assertion that "racism is simply not a factor here". So you are already in disagreement with the article.

                  Consider furthermore: one semi-anonymous blogger is not the final word on what constitutes racism.

                  Consider in summation: stop harping on one goddamn article as though it proves you are the smartest person in the world and everyone who disagrees with you is tragically uninformed.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The concept of crying wolf loses its meaning when politics is a spectrum/sphere/etc. in which you can always find more extreme people. Trump was voted in as "not Clinton" more than anything. He was extremely reckless in his campaign rhetorics and most people would love for him to break several of them.

          Calling Trump anyting yet is a bit premature, since he has barely been seated yet. But so far "the wall"-gate and "refugee"-gate are as extreme proposals as you can get them without coming out the closet as a follower of an ultra-nationalist religion!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:16pm

            -Gate?

            "the wall"-gate?
            You mean like how Trump decided to start constructing the wall that was approved by Senators Biden, Obama and Clinton?

            "refugee"-gate?
            You mean like how Trump put a temporarily put in place a halt based on country (not religion), just like Obama and Carter?

            The wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth is hilarious, but utterly misguided.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:47pm

              Re: -Gate?

              So, any criticism of trump automatically makes that person a liberal ... got it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:30pm

              Re: -Gate?

              I am looking at it through international glasses, as liberal as they may be. The democrats approved a fence on a fourth/fifth of the borders lenght. That is not exactly what Trump has been going on about. Get your facts straight!

              The refugee-situation Trump is addressing is a scandal internationally because Europe and middle east is swamped because of the syrian war. Even refusing the small number of refugees US takes is very unfortunate since it sets a very problematic precedent for other nations to follow suit and ignore UNHCR.
              Also, his way of of framing the temporary ban is a "no-entry" and a complete temporary ban on refugees from a certain country which only Carters Iran-ban came close to and Carters ban had humanitarian exceptions as opposed to Trumps religious exceptions.

              Your framing is specious.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2017 @ 5:27pm

              Re: -Gate?

              Obama's 2011 ban targeted only one country and was in direct retaliation to a tangible confirmed threat.

              So no, not JUST like Obama and Carter.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          One of these days a real racist candidate is going to show up, and warning about him won't do any good because people like you have spent decades wasting the relevant terms and stripping them of any and all actual meaning.

          Tell me Mason, if we're just "crying wolf" right now, what kind of chucklefuck does it take to warrant the real thing?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Tell me Mason, if we're just "crying wolf" right now, what kind of chucklefuck does it take to warrant the real thing?

            Maybe someone who takes out a full-page ad calling for executions as part of a crusade against five innocent black young men?

            Or someone who leads a fact-free assault on the legitimacy of the nation's first black president?

            Or someone who instructs his property managers not to rent to black people?

            ....

            Oh, wait..

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Read the article I linked to, where the author looks at actual hard data and facts (as opposed to emotionally-charged rhetoric) that shows over and over again that there is no evidence of racism going on here.

            Based on the data available, he estimates that around 3% of voters have racist political leanings. After pointing out how suicidal it would be to throw away the support of voters that outnumber them by an order of magnitude, he follows up with this:

            But doesn’t this still mean there are some white supremacists? Isn’t this still really important?

            I mean, kind of. But remember that 4% of Americans believe that lizardmen control all major governments. And 5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The white supremacist vote is about the same as the lizardmen-control-everything vote, or the Obama-is-the-Antichrist-but-I-support-him-anyway vote.

            (and most of these people are in Solid South red states and don’t matter in the electoral calculus anyway.)

            Other interesting things that the data shows: compared to the voting demographics of the last two Republican candidates...

            Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

            So you kinda have to ask yourself, what do all those minorities know that you don't?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Comparing him to the last two candidates -- who LOST -- is bullshit. Trump has **the lowest minority support of any president in decades**

              http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-polarization-analysis-idUSKBN13I10B

              Slightly less of the black vote than GWB. Considerably less of the Hispanic vote than Bush Sr. or Reagan. Lowest portion of the Asian vote in the entire time that demographic has been tracked.

              Stop relying solely on one single interpretation of the numbers.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 7:07am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Comparing him to the last two candidates -- who LOST -- is bullshit.

                Pointing out that he made major gains among all ethnic groups except whites is not. It shows that what happened is exactly the opposite of what you would expect from a white supremacist.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Feb 2017 @ 5:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Oh, Mason...

                  Maybe someone who takes out a full-page ad calling for executions as part of a crusade against five innocent black young men?
                  Or someone who leads a fact-free assault on the legitimacy of the nation's first black president?
                  Or someone who instructs his property managers not to rent to black people?


                  If these are not the acts of a racist, what are they?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 6:59am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    1) The act of someone who leaps before he looks, going off the handle on an issue that he doesn't have all the facts on. (Like Donald Trump does all the time on all sorts of issues.) If those five had actually done what they were accused of, it would have been completely right to execute them.

                    2) The act of someone who will believe the worst about his political opponents. Remember that racism isn't treating people of other races badly, it's singling them out for bad treatment, treating them differently because you believe that they are inherently different. Remember this is the same guy who accused Ted Cruz's father of killing JFK, among (many!) other things. If Cruz had been black, and Obama white, people would call him racist for the JFK nonsense and just a weirdo for the birther conspiracism. But it appears he's simply an equal-opportunity offender.

                    3) The act of a businessman trying not to lose a massive amount of business, because when it happened (remember, this one is not recent) approximately 1/3 of his tenants would have moved out if a black family moved in nearby.

                    Next?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Roger Strong (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 3:29pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      1) NO. Just no. Racism had everything to do with it. The very same day a black woman was raped in Brooklyn by two men who then threw her from the roof of a four-story building. It received little media attention and no full-page ads from Trump.

                      Trump's four-newspaper offensive demanding their execution came BEFORE they (kids: 14, 15, 16) had any trial. If you believe that he would have made the same demands if the victims and er, other victims races were reversed, then you probably believe his inauguration crowd figures.

                      2) He stupidly smeared Ted Cruz, and then quickly dropped it. With Obama he was still repeating the same racist lie years after it was conclusively disproven. (Obama's birth certificate was released and authenticated by Vital Statistics in mid 2008. Birth announcements were found in two local papers in early 2008, placed there by Vital Statistics, not the family.) And Obama was not a political opponent at the time.

                      Obama met both common meanings (a US citizen at the moment of birth, born on US soil) of Natural Born Citizen. Meanwhile McCain met neither. (A US national but NOT a US citizen at birth, born in Panama.) (No, an overseas military base is not US soil.) And yet somehow Trump had no problem with McCain. Heck, even the case for Sarah Palin being born outside the US was better than it ever was for Obama.

                      Ted Cruz doesn't meet one of those Natural Born meanings, having been born in in another country. In other words the very thing Trump accuses Obama of. But Trump had no problem with that either.

                      The only thing setting Obama apart was skin color. Given Trump's record vs. blacks - let alone his later connection to white supremacist publisher Steve Bannon - it's not hard to make the connection.

                      3) A few might have moved out. And...? He'd gain an ever larger market as non-whites could move in. So it wasn't so much about their racism it was about his.

                      And here he is, 50 years later, still pandering to the racists over everyone else.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That guy's site is an interesting read, thanks!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're invoking "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

          Which is a good fable, or allegory when it fits.
          But so is:

          "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
          Because I was not a Socialist."

          The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.

          Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one. But are we?

          I see nothing in Trump's history, recent actions, or words to counter the accusation that is is a modern Nazi, and he absolutely fits the definition of a fascist.

          We'll only know for certain in the future, but I'm confident that this is a time to look to Martin Niemoller's poem and not Aesop fable for guidance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs."

            The problem is, he's not a Nazi. If you truly think we have ovens and death camps set up somewhere in the United States and are loading people into them, you need serious help.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Feb 2017 @ 5:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Is that what it takes to get oneself called a Nazi? Really?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 7:00am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yeah, I'd say actually doing the stuff the Nazis are infamous for having done is a pretty good standard for being correctly compared to them.

                There's a reason Godwin's Law is a thing.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Roger Strong (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 3:48pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Just to be clear:

                  Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism

                  Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, anti-Semitism...

                  Under Steve Bannon's leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny it, and the neo-Nazis make it clear they don't.

                  Wikipedia: Alt-right

                  The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States. White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism. [...] Trump's campaign chief executive Steve Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

                  So, are you

                  a) Denying the neo-Nazi more-than-influences in Trump's administration?

                  b) Saying that it's improper to trigger Godwin's Law even when talking about actual neo-Nazis?

                  c) Saying that it's improper to trigger Godwin's Law over neo-Nazis as opposed to traditional Nazis?

                  d) Saying that even neo-Nazi is too strong a term, and instead we should use Bannon-favored terms like "white nationalist?"

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Wendy Cockcroft, 2 Feb 2017 @ 2:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'd include whatever defines a nazi, not "only the worst things."

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 7:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one.

            No, you can't. That's the whole point of the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People don't tend to always respond the same way to the same stimuli; they learn and adapt.

            In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that that's a big part of why Trump is President today. The hardest of the hard-line Democrats have been crying wolf over false racism for so long that everyone else is sick of it, and when Hillary made the ridiculously tone-deaf mistake of doubling down on it, essentially calling half the country racists and "a basket of deplorables" for disagreeing with her policies, it backfired tremendously.

            People who knew they weren't racists bristled at being lumped together with the KKK and the Nazis, and they turned "we are The Deplorables" into a rallying cry, to symbolically reject this nonsense once and for all by rejecting the person at the forefront of it. If she hadn't said that, a lot of people who ended up voting for Trump would have probably stayed home.

            It's kind of sad to see that Democrats still have not learned their lesson from that! They've wasted the last few months flailing uselessly, tilting at racist windmills instead of working to accomplish anything actually productive in this time when they need to be productive and effective more than ever!

            I've heard it said that every organization works to perpetuate the problem to which it is the solution. Might I suggest two corollaries to this observation?

            First, an organization that solves a real problem is (as a general rule of thumb at least) a good organization that is doing good in the world. So this observation applies to "the good ones" too.

            Second, civil rights groups are good organizations.

            Unfortunately, they're still run by people. People who have a great deal of their personal identity and social status bound up in being valiant crusaders who fight racism. They've become victims of their own success now, and the one thing they can't do, because it would make them redundant, is admit the simple truth that's obvious to almost everyone else: that they've won! They won decades ago!

            Racism in the USA is as dead as disco. Now, lest you misunderstand, remember that disco is not 100% extinct. There are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it's cool, but that doesn't mean it's not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with racism.

            Keep in mind that the guy you're accusing is 70 years old! Even if it's true, biologically speaking, he's on his way out, and most likely sooner rather than later. (I wonder if anyone has actuarial data on former Presidents, BTW; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the stress of the job takes several years off your lifespan.)

            Please stop obsessing over something that hasn't been a real problem in a long, long time, so we can focus on the issues of today and actually accomplish something in spite of all the headwinds. If we're going to prevent the Trump administration from wrecking what little prosperity we have left after the last two Presidents, we need to stop wasting our energy and focus!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mason Wheeler (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 7:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                A single incident that happened 20 years ago? That's your "evidence" that racism remains a serious problem in our culture today?

                (Please note that I'm not denying in any way that what happened to James Byrd was a serious tragedy. I do deny, though, that it has any relevance to this discussion. Please don't go derailing the conversation.)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              The Wanderer (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 8:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              >Racism in the USA is as dead as disco. Now, lest you misunderstand, remember that disco is not 100% extinct. There
              > are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it's cool, but that doesn't mean it's not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with
              > racism.

              That's only true for a very narrow and limited definition of racism.

              By my analysis, the core idea of racism is the idea that the ill-defined collection of characteristics which we label as "race" is an appropriate basis for categorization.

              _That_ idea is still going strong - and as long as we _think_ in terms of those categories, we will never be free of racism.

              Even if you think that definition is overly broad, there are plenty of other possible definitions in the range between that one and any definition by which racism is "something that everyone knows is a relic of the past".

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2017 @ 2:24am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The only way to measure racism is to define race. USA is one of the only countries identifying by race in statistics, just as Northern Ireland is one of the only ones caring about religion as a dominant force.

                As historic as it is, these types of shorthands usually describe a cultural and social context that is often neglected.

                Obama is not "black" culturally. Nor is he socially. Thus, he barely represents such a stereotype.

                What Bannon is doing is propaganda, showing very biased facts supporting only one side and pretending it is reality. Business conservative/regressive as he is, he seems more the classic dixiecrat.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      > It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.

      And it is an indefinite halt to others. You can tell this by reading [the actual executive order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-fore ign-terrorist-entry-united-states):

      > (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      No non citizen has a right to enter a country and every government has a duty to control its own borders. And every country (not just Trump's America) does just that.

      I don't support this order either, but don't be absurd. It's not a radical departure from past behavior. It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.

      You're correct, that no one has a right to enter a country -- but all of the people being turned away DID have that right, because they ALREADY HAD visas or green cards or other permanent resident status. And this is NOT about controlling the borders, because there was nothing in this order targeting "out of control" borders.

      And, sure, some other countries may have idiotic policies like this, but if that's your metric, you're really setting a low bar for the US.

      And, finally, yes, if you were even remotely familiar with the history of immigratin policy you would recognize that this is a massive and very radical departure from past behavior -- with every indication that it is not temporary, and no "processes" are being revamped.

      Don't be that guy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:39am

        Re: Re:

        Out of curiosity - when new systems are in place and immigration can proceed as normal (assuming that happens) will you be issuing a follow up about you may have been a little wrong to presume and take a stance so all-mighty you may as well call yourself captain america?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          I.T. Guy, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Engrish much?


          Funny that... will you come back and say you were wrong?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          bob, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually when TechDirt writers find they are wrong on the facts of something, they do a good job of posting an update and correcting themselves.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Aside from that fact that we don't need new systems, except reigning in the CBP or such and ending brutal, illegal detentions, what is the point of sudden massive disruption to people who are already perfectly fine to be here? And what about the people from countries he chose to leave off the list? You know, the ones that actually spawned terrorists who attacked The U.S. Unlike the countries on the list.

          Wonder how he chose those countries...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      No non citizen has a right to enter a country

      Back in World War II, when Sir Arthur "Yearnin' for a Burnin' German" Harris and the Allied air command was pulverizing (and incinerating) German cities (something that caused more civilian casualties than the two nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the common sentiment was that civilian casualties were okay. If they hadn't wanted to be targeted as part of the Axis war machine, they shouldn't have elected a fascist government. In short, they got what was coming to them, and they were responsible, as citizens, for the actions of their government.

      I can certainly see obvious arguments for such a conclusion. Not certain it's right, but I could make an argument in support or opposition without much mental gymnastics.

      There seems to be an equally obvious corollary though; No state is composed of 100% approval. No action gets unanimous consent, and some people are always on the losing side of an election.

      And therefore, if you believe that people vote with their citizenship (similar to voting with your dollar) and are responsible for the results, supporting the free movement of people is necessary. Otherwise citizens become hostages; "You have to support our state, our war, not because it is right or just or moral, but because you have no choice, and you might live if we win- but if we lose, you won't. Even if you don't like it, want it, or support it, you have nowhere else to go."

      I could make a bridge here by referencing some big names and pretentious (but significant) quotes, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Let's not and say I did.

      But it's simple self-interest. Don't put your enemy in death ground. It costs you more than you'll ever get out. Don't force them to defend their position to the death- it's much more profitable to make them your friend. They might be your enemy now, but you don't have to like them to make money selling to them hand over fist. And they might be your enemy now, but there always might be a worse one further down the line you could use a hand against.

      And to do that, you need to give the a way out. A way to stop being your enemy- while continuing to be, because most people consider that an unacceptable price.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:04am

    Two points

    1) I actually wish this site would cover *more* topics and have more variety.
    Personally, I skip over the ongoing articles about stingrays, FBI e-mails, and such.

    2) But more importantly: this is your site and you can write about whatever you want. If people don't like the articles, they can skip over them or go to another site.
    And if people want to argue politics, there are plenty of sites to do that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:41am

      Re: Two points

      In addition to skipping articles or going to another site, people can create their own site.

      The Internet has given a printing press to anyone who wants one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Paul Clark, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:06am

    Its To Be Expected

    Let me qualify my position.

    1. I am not a Donald Trump supporter.
    2. I am not a US citizen.
    3. I probably agree with 50 to 60% of Donald Trump's positions. I listened to a speech he gave on Chinese trade and agreed with 4 of his 5 points (down to 3 now as one no longer applies). I agree with his position that the US has been allowing other NATO countries to not spend their required share.
    4. I do not agree with his position on immigration.

    The blaming of identifiable groups is an old political trick to make all of your problems someone else's fault. Its playing the victim to get sympathy and to give your supporter's someone to hate. Yes, it was used in Germany in the 20's through 40's.

    I think Donald Trump has boxed himself into a corner. He promised to make all of these changes in the first 100 days without understanding the complexities of implementing policy or running a country. His white house group is not experienced in governing. Despite what they say, running a country is not like running a business. Its a lot easier to criticize the zoo from the outside. Once you are in charge of it, you find out that a lot of things are the way they are for a good reason.

    It looks like the establishment GOP are very happy to let him fail so they can get rid of him.

    The evil side of me things that he wants civil unrest and chaos to justify making the US an authoritative state. Once he does this, the press will no longer be an issue for him.

    His immigration positions seem out of step. The last labour figures for the US that I saw had unemployment under 5%. That's basically full employment. The employment is not spread evenly across the country, and a lot of people need better jobs, but a least they have a job. Who is going to build the wall or harvest the crops or do manual labor or ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:26am

      Re: Its To Be Expected

      Despite what they say, running a country is not like running a business.

      Trump has had a lot of business failures across a lot of industries. When Trump's casino group went bankrupt (the 4th time) and the creditors took over, they kept Trump and his name involved. They recognized something important:

      While he's a lousy businessman, he's an excellent promoter.

      It's long been said that the qualifications needed to run a successful election are very different from the qualifications needed once elected. Trump is simply the ultimate expression of that principle.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:10am

    "Though, to be sure, the management is very bad. In fact, let us not mince words ... the management is terrible! We've had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact.
    But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate.
    You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous and unproven machines.
    All you had to say was "NO." You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company. I will however, be generous. You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it... You're fired.
    That will be all. You may return to your labors."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:22am

    "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses has become Get the fuck out of our lands"

    I don't remember where i heard that from unfortunately.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Haywood (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      That was when we "needed" people, the economy was stuck on growth, now another warm body is another mouth to feed. Pretty much the same argument I have to the pro-life movement folks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jay Lahto (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:23am

    Well...

    This is going to generate a lot of traffic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:28am

      Re: Well...

      This is going to generate a lot of traffic.

      I highly doubt that. I expect it will generate lots of people telling me to "stick with technology" or something of that nature. I didn't write this because of traffic.

      I wrote it because I'm human.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:36am

        Re: Re: Well...

        Implying that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints is by definition in-human is exactly why Trump won.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          I.T. Guy, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:49am

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          Read much?

          Trump won because:
          1. Hills was a crook.
          2. Nobody actually believed Trump would win.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          zboot (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          Saying that "My expression of X may seem out of place to you, but it is motivated by my humanity and forces me to discard appearances or decorum and complaints that I shouldn't say this here just show us where your priorities are" isn't the same as saying "disagreeing with me means your are in-human".

          Trying to silence someone speaking out about a humanitarian issue, because it will get in the way of your enjoyment of tech issues, at a blog which you were not forced to read and where you don't expend any effort to write - that is callous and perhaps inhuman.

          So, if what you are saying is "shut up Mike about this issue and get back to tech blogging", then yes, you might be in-human. And if you're saying that the reason Trump won is because in-human people were called out on it, then, while that sucks, it doesn't change anything.

          But, if you are saying that someone thinks disagreeing with Mike on this particular makes you in-human, that is different and I've not yet read anything that suggests other points of view may not have validity or come from a different view or priority of humanity. And if you are saying that Trump was elected because people ignored the very real, though different, expressions of humanity of their fellow citizens, then, you'd be right but confusing since that's a good thing - assuming Trump is what's required to improve how we interact with our fellow citizens.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          art guerrilla (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:06am

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          thank you, the many victims of TDS need to be reminded (apparently even it guy below, who is usually a little more perspicacious) of how they sat on their pussy hats for eight long years while choco jesu went much further than bush the lesser ever did, AND THERE WAS NOT A FUCKING PEEP OUT OF THEM...
          by that alone, they have PROVEN they have NO PRINCIPLES they will not sacrifice for useless optics...
          secondly, mikey's shakey-voiced polemic on his all-american immigrant family may explain why HE feels so strongly about thst, but it doesn't mean shit to the rest of us...
          depending on how pedantic one wants to get, we are ALL immigrants, so that factoid is meaningless...
          i am not going to bother with the research (bet i know what the answer is), but did techdirtia get all weepy and pearl clutchy and mobbing airports (wtf ?) when saint obama did the same for iranians for six months ? ? ?
          yeah, all t-rump has done is shown that a LOT of libtards have NO PRINCIPLES, AND are massive hypocrites...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            "AND THERE WAS NOT A FUCKING PEEP OUT OF THEM..."

            who?

            I recall plenty of peeps back in the day

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Derek Kerton (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            art-guerilla

            "NOT A FUCKING PEEP" in all caps, no less?

            Mike and Techdirt had pretty much an endless stream of criticisms of the Obama administration, particularly around the issues of:

            - transparency
            - intolerance of whistle-blowers
            - state-sanctioned espionage
            - intellectual property matters
            - asset forfeiture
            - The TPP

            Mike didn't rely on just his family history. He also did the normal Techdirt Cost/Benefit analysis, and found real costs, but no benefits to Trump's EO. Don't act like he was a victim of his emotion, he STILL provided the analysis and rational argument.

            And RE Obama and Iranians, that is a false equivalence. A specific case of a refugee in Kentucky was found who had been involved in IEDs on US soldiers. So Obama ordered a a re-screening on ALL the then-recent admissions. This slowed down the process for other applicants. No ban. No specific countries. No religions mentioned. Didn't apply to green carders. Again, false equivalence.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:06am

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          I do not care why you think he won, why do you keep bringing it up?

          He won - get over it -

          I would like to know why he is trying to start a civil war.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          exactly why Trump won.

          I guess I'd say that's debatable.

          Otherwise, why would he be calling for investigations into illegals voting? Even he's not sure.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Implying that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints is by definition in-human

          That’s a very, um, how shall I put it, chip-on-the-shoulder way of (mis)interpreting Mike’s comments, isn’t it?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:23pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          No, implying that

          "Implying that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints is by definition in-human"

          is exactly why Trump won.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: Well...

        There are many of us out there who voted for Trump and have no problem with pauses in immigration. There is no right to move to the US. None. 'Immigrant rights' is an oxymoron. Please keep your politics out of here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          The US was undeniably built on immigration. Compassion is pretty important too. This has been true from before the country's founding to Ronald Reagan's "Shining House on the Hill" speech about opening the borders to all.

          It's you who is trying to introduce your alt-right politics into it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            But hey it was built on invasion and genocide and slavery first. So. You know. Make America great again. Recapture that past.

            Or maybe the slightly earlier past where none of us had any damn business being here. Talk about terrorists and people having no right.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              wayout, 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

              you repeat an age old argument that has no basis in actual reality. There are NO native Americans (Indians). Research after research has determined that they migrated here from Asia (DNA backs that claim up). So to keep repeating a lie in hopes that others will accept it as truth..well So no, the colonist were not intruders, nor invaders, while the Indians were here first, they can make no more claim to this land than that. The data on the DNA evidence is out there, do a little research..

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

                You realize that your argument cold be applied across the entire globe with the exception of one little place somewhere in africa .... so, we can invade everywhere except that one little place because the people who were there first move there from somewhere else ... do you see how stupid that is?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          Please look up "oxymoron." It doesn't mean what you think it means.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          It's not your forum homeboy. I could just as easily tell you to keep your disdain for human rights out of here. But look here you are.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:55pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            There is no such thing as the 'right' to immigrate here. But, wow, this thing really brings out all of the loony leftists out. I doubt one in a 100 cared about this stuff a week ago. The protests are simply because Trump is involved. Had Hillary or Obama issued the exact same order, they'd all be going on about the wisdom of it...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

              I think people are more concerned about what was done rather than who did it. That it will be ongoing is probably more an issue than who did it.

              Expect that when someone in government screws up, it is gonna get commented on, R or D, liberal or conservative, left or right. Label them all you want (to me that is like rain on a duck) it doesn't remove the action. Or my derision, when that action is bad or anti democratic or anti social or against some class, any class, of people.

              But you have a bicycle to ride, and it appears to be pretty wobbly, so...peddle harder...that way, maybe you can get out of the neighborhood.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

              Yup, anyone who opposes trump is a leftist - got it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:26am

    Asking

    I've been asking myself why the Russians were gleefully happy when Trump was elected. So far, the immigration ban and the alienation of the Mexican president are two things I'm sure the Russians love. I'm left to wonder if Trumps intentional divisiveness is a ploy to distract us from the new and improved fleecing of US citizens by the mega-wealthy.

    Let's hope Trump has a life changing moment that wakes him up to his humanity and ours.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:46am

      Re: Asking

      "o far, the immigration ban and the alienation of the Mexican president are two things I'm sure the Russians love."


      Why?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:38am

      Re: Asking

      So far, the immigration ban and the alienation of the Mexican president are two things I'm sure the Russians love.

      I doubt if they care much about either,

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:51am

      Re: Asking

      I've been asking myself why the Russians were gleefully happy when Trump was elected

      It was much simpler than your reasons - it was because Trump seemed likely to be more friendly towards Russia than Clinton.

      No need for complicated analysis

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sigalrm (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:08pm

        Re: Re: Asking

        "No need for complicated analysis"

        Yeah, and this is why the US is going to get our asses handed to us in the next 20-50 years: As a society we're functionally incapable of looking more than a couple years out, strategically speaking.

        China and Russia are playing long games with the US, and the US hasn't figured that out.

        Tactically, having a "friendly" US president is moderately useful.

        Strategically speaking, the US beginning taking action to withdraw from the international community and begin the voluntary process of alienating its Allies and Neighbors is absolutely priceless to Russia and China.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Asking

          China and Russia are playing long games

          Well the ambition of global communism is long dead for both - so what exactly are these "long games" supposed to be achieving.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sigalrm (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking

            Not being involved with either the US, Russian or Chinese governments, I can only speculate, but enhanced economic and military dominance jump to mind as obvious candidates. Enhanced long-term control over natural resources, globally speaking, is another candidate.

            All 3 of which become easier for them to accomplish if the US role in world affairs is diminished.

            Again, this is all speculative and opinion, and therefore easily shredded.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Kaden (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking

            Economic superiority? Empire building? Sole superpower status?

            Are you being willfully obtuse?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking

              The same things as always? No kidding.

              Actually i find it kind of funny that people think political and economic flavors are really the main thing driving governments. Communism, lol. They weren't even good socialists.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:30am

    Challenge Accepted

    Its fine for you to criticize Trump. The problem here is the scale and the genuineness of the criticism.

    Criticizing Trump's policy here is ok. It was a bit hamfisted and is being tweaked towards being less stringent. It is also temporary.

    However, many people acting like this is the Worst.Thing.Ever.

    Would hide their eyes from the google results of this query:

    "Libyan refugee boat capsizes"

    People actually died because of the policies and actions of one of our latest set of Presidential candidates. Yet many (nearly all) of her voters did not, or do not give a shit about that. But are screaming their heads off because literally dozens of people have been inconvenienced......

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:44am

      Re: Challenge Accepted

      Would hide their eyes from the google results of this query: "Libyan refugee boat capsizes"

      At the present time, there are exactly four pages returned by a search on "Libyan refugee boat capsizes", including this page.

      You might wish to explain your concerns more directly.

      literally dozens of people have been inconvenienced

      More people have been affected than that. My guess is that you are only counting those actually at airports. That ignores the people already in the US who can no longer leave and the people who were not yet at an airport when this came down. It also ignores the concerns regarding the executive branch ignoring the stays issued by the judicial branch, as is outlined in the post, and appears to be a point of bi-partisan concern (e.g., Evan McMullin's tweets).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:51pm

      Re: Challenge Accepted

      Hey Kellyanne don't you have some kittens you should be drowning instead of writing this garbage?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David Longfellow, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:31am

    Hypocrisy

    The ruler I use to determine if something is truly earthshaking is if there were any complaints from the media or the usual whiners when Obama was doing the exact same thing.
    In this case, as in many, there were only crickets chirping. Hypocrisy in its purest form.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      SteveMB (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:36am

      Re: Hypocrisy

      Alternative Fact: "Obama was doing the exact same thing"

      Real Fact: "In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee -policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:46am

      Re: Hypocrisy

      Obama never did this though.

      For all Obama's many many faults, he never got into a pissing contest about popularity at his inauguration. He may not have always been honest, but he didn't tell bold-faced lies as "alternate facts".

      Most importantly, he didn't ban people of certain religions from entering the country. Obama and Trump had very different faults- how can you compare when "Obama did the same thing" and how does that make it right anyway?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:33am

        Re: Re: Hypocrisy

        Trump has not banned people of a specific religion from entering the country. He has banned all people of any religion from seven specific countries from entering the country. He has not banned any members of any religion from outside those countries from entering this country.

        Countries which he has not banned people from include (In order of Islamic population percentage from wikipedia's list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country#Table) Maldives, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Tunisia, the Western Sahara, Morocco, Tajikistan, Mayotte, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Niger, Algeria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Senegal, Kosovo, Gambia, Mali, Jordan, Turkmenistan, and Egypt. These are all countries with 90%+ Muslim populations.

        If we go for a simple 50%+ add another 20 or so majority Muslim countries to the list.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

          Some interesting "Alternate facts" you list there GristleMissile for your 90% Muslim nations.

          What you really meant to say is: he only bans Arab muslims, except for those Arab Muslims with which his companies do direct business with. This is probably even worse.

          There is no reason to include Iran but not Saudi Arabia, for example. Not one terrorist or terrorist plot on our soil has originated from Iran; but Saudi Arabia is where most of the money, people and terrorism comes from.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

            KSA is one of our closest allies in the region. It was that way for decades before Trump was elected.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Feb 2017 @ 7:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

              Yeah, about that: our dysfunctional relationship with KSA means we look the other way while the Wahbabbist faction organises, arms, and funds terrorists because we buy oil from KSA and they buy weapons from us.

              If your client had an employee who behaved badly would you look the other way to keep the money flowing or would you challenge them? The shift to renewables is stemming the flow of money to KSA, and should eventually reduce the funding for terrorism. A girl can dream.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          SteveMB (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 7:48am

          Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

          "Countries which he has not banned people from include (In order of Islamic population percentage"

          Got that list sorted in order of number of Trump hotels in the country?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:51am

      Re: Hypocrisy

      So... what you are saying is that nobody here criticized Barry as much as Trump?

      Cool story brah... tell it again.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      kallethen, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:16am

      Re: Hypocrisy

      As people above noted: No, Obama didn't do the same thing.

      But more importantly, even if Obama did, that doesn't make Trump right for doing it. When I was growing up, it was never an acceptable excuse to say, "but Bobby did it, why isn't he in trouble!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:31pm

      Re: Hypocrisy

      Obama was doing the exact same thing

      Are you saying that we can expect Trump's policies to be in line with Obama's? And that's fine with you?

      Then what in the fucking fuck were you stupid motherfuckers complaining about for 8 years then? Are you stupid or something?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    SteveMB (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:32am

    "As many have noted, not a single terrorist attack has come from people from those countries."

    No doubt the memos have already gone out to ISIS and al-Qaeda cells to select operatives from countries where Trump owns hotels, secure in the knowledge that no security measures which threaten to inconvenience his customers will be entertained.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:37am

    Isn't this the same executive order....

    that President Obama issued in 2011/13?(I'm asking in total sincerity) And where is the Constitutional precedent for such actions by any President? I feel if maybe you approached these topics by answering the Constitutionality of the issue clearly, calmer heads may prevail. But that's just a guess...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:42am

      Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

      I don't recall Obama's EO including a religious test, making it unconstitutional....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:36am

        Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:38am

        Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

        I don't recall Trump's EO including a religious test?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

          "I don't recall Trump's EO including a religious test?"

          Uh, then go read it again. Those seeking asylum can be exempted from the ban, but only if they are a member of a "minority religion", which means Christians and Jews but, oddly, not atheists....

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

            Uh, maybe you should go re-read it again-again. I'll copy paste the relevant section here.

            "(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization."

            "Upon resumption" means that AFTER the ban ends, minority religions will get prioritised in cases in which they claim asylum from religious persecution.

            There is no exemption from the ban based on religion.

            There is no religious test DENYING entry.

            (Atheists should certainly get to claim religious persecution)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

              Really.

              So I am a Muslim and I want to leave Iraq because I'm not considered Muslim enough by the leaders. Well, though luck man, just be quiet there and die will you?

              So I am a Christian and I want to leave Iraq because... COME IN BROTHER IN FAITH!


              Sure, nothing wrong here.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

              How does this conflict with what I said? Refugee status will be impacted by a religious test, per the text. If you're Christian, you're at the front of the line. If you're Muslim, or Atheist, get to the back.

              That's unconstitutional, plainly...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:35pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                You stated: Those seeking asylum can be exempted from the ban, but only if they are a member of a "minority religion"

                This is false.

                My comment conflicts with what you stated by not being false.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                  @GristleMissile

                  From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-t rump.html

                  (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:09pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                    Yes, that is indeed the section of the executive order which I already quoted. I'll quote from the proceeding comments which you seemingly didn't bother to read, with some extra bolding to help you out:

                    "Upon resumption" means that AFTER the ban ends, minority religions will get prioritised in cases in which they claim asylum from religious persecution.

                    There is no exemption from the ban based on religion.

                    There is no religious test DENYING entry.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Derek Kerton (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:55pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                      So...ah...you're providing evidence that the "religion question" exists for applicants, but you're just debating the TIMING of the religious test? And you agree that it exists, but debate how heavily the answer to the religion question will be weighted?

                      Can you see how that doesn't do a good job in refuting Dark Helmet's assertion that there is a religious test in Trump's EO?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:57pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                        I am refuting two things. First, that there is a religious test denying entry (lower priorities in a specific subset of cases are not the same as rejections), and second, that anyone is exempt from the ban. Anything further than that I am not refuting in the slightest, nor attempting to.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:58pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                        The phrase you're looking for is "moving the goalpost." After being called out for posting bullshit, he thinks that claiming he said something slightly different from what he did invalidates your refutation.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 6:30pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                          Sorry, but I think this applies far more strongly to Dark Helmut than it does to me.

                          I corrected a falsehood, and went no further.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:54pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

                to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality

                Found the problem Dark Helmet - he thinks Muslims are a minority religion.

                Be patient. They're simple minded, you know.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

            Which is amusing, I can just declare myself a persecuted christian while being full muslim inside. No seriously this is gold. I've seen people denying their religion for much less threatening stuff (like a street fight) so why wouldn't they lie en masse to escape from hell, no?

            These people are just pure comedy. Trump would be as well if he didn't have so much power in his hands.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Haywood (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:46am

    To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

    If there is one citizen who is unwillingly unemployed, the gates shut until there are openings. I don't give 2 shits what you're running from, only what you bring to the table. Are you a an asset or a liability. If you have no intention of melding, please stay where you are, and try to improve that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:54am

      Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

      I don't give 2 shits what you're running from, only what you bring to the table.

      Guess you missed the whole message about "humanity", huh?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Haywood (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

        Didn't miss it, don't find it relevant. Charity begins at home, we have plenty of homeless and disadvantaged right here, if you need a do-gooder fix. Did you miss the America First thing?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:04am

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          Yup, charity begins at home -- which for me means "on earth". Why? Humanity. That thing you apparently lack and don't want.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            art guerrilla (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

            oh, so it is all one new world order of an Empire ?
            countries dont exist any more ?
            there are no borders, no wars, no separate economies, all just one happy tribe ? ? ?
            gee, i must have missed that...
            you ARE delusional...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

              So, you're totally incapable of taking even one second to acknowledge the shared burden of human beings, and instead go straight to paranoid NWO nonsense.

              Looks like you rejected the whole message about humanity too.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:13am

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          "Charity begins at home"

          And when is this going to start?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

            "Charity begins at home"

            And when is this going to start

            Sometime after they've gotten rid of Medicaid, health care coverage, public education, assistance for first-time home buyers, etc etc etc?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          The system is rigged and charity all goes to the top. That's what the problem is.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:13am

      Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

      If there is one citizen who is unwillingly unemployed, the gates shut until there are openings

      Hmm. But what if the immigrant is coming here to open a business that will employ those citizens who are unemployed.

      It's not as if there is a limited number of jobs and giving one to an immigrant means more can't be made for Americans.

      I don't give 2 shits what you're running from,

      Well, that's kinda the point of my article. IF that's really true, I'd urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn't give 2 shits" about people in trouble?

      If you have no intention of melding, please stay where you are, and try to improve that.

      Melding, huh? You do realize that the culture here that people "meld" into is made almost entirely by immigrants, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Haywood (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

        I don't give 2 shits what you're running from,

        Well, that's kinda the point of my article. IF that's really true, I'd urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn't give 2 shits" about people in trouble?

        I think a realist, there is likely always going to be an abundance of folks who could use a helping hand. You do the world no favors drowning yourself trying to rescue others.
        "Ships don’t sink because of the water around them. They sink because of the water that gets in them." unknown.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:44am

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          Mike wrote:

          Well, that's kinda the point of my article. IF that's really true, I'd urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn't give 2 shits" about people in trouble?

          to which Haywood responded:

          I think a realist, there is likely always going to be an abundance of folks who could use a helping hand.

          A person who doesn't give two shits about people in trouble is not a "realist", but something else entirely. Don't blame pragmatism for your selfishness.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Trails (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:17pm

      Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

      "They took er jerbs!"

      This seems predicated on some bizarre zero-sum concept of the economy. Immigrants, by and large, are not penniless good for nothings who just line up for welfare as soon as they're in.

      They come to build a life for themselves and their families.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Haywood (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

        "Immigrants, by and large, are not penniless good for nothings who just line up for welfare as soon as they're in."

        But that that were so. Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          You're making that up.

          A more interesting look at the issue:

          Wall Street Journal: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

          ...including Google, SpaceX, Tesla, Uber, Cloudfare and more.

          And it doesn't even count second generation immigrants. For example Apple, founded by the son of a Syrian refugee and the son of Polish immigrants.

          Which isn't at all surprising. When I was in high school it was the immigrants - from Asia, Russia, the Philippines, etc. - who did their homework and got the highest marks. They got the work ethic from their parents. Later I've worked for immigrants who set up businesses here.

          We all know people with grand plans to improve their lives. They're going to move to the west coast. Or to Canada if the Republicans or Democrats win. They're going to save up, quit their jobs and go back to school. They're going to run for office and fix things. But most never do. They're stuck in the inertia of their own lives, unable to drop or stop making new commitments even in the long term. Or unable to save, or to put in the extra effort. Or just too nervous about taking a leap into a new life.

          Immigration acts as a filter. You get only the people who DO the things they said. Who got over their fears. Who put in the extra effort and made the big leap.

          These are the kind of people you want as citizens. The kind who ALSO tend to start businesses and create jobs. It's one reason why for immigration is a good deal for the countries they head for.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          Well I for one, am convinced by your totally not made up story.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in.

          So, enlighten us... How did you identify which of the people lined up in the Social Security office were immigrants, as opposed to pensioners?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Haywood (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

            Age and control of the english language. There, now you can label me a racist and whatever else you want, I couldn't care less, this country will perhaps be saved perhaps not, but to have a country, you need borders and culture. Neither of which has been protected for a long time. Is a large part of our culture taken from immigrants? Sure, melding goes both ways. I think I'll go have some German sausage on a tortilla.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

              Gee, I wonder why this guy's mind went straight to German sausage, amirite?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

              Let's hear it for Haywood and His Magic Citizenship Detector.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

              There, now you can label me a racist and whatever else you want

              You just took out a big ol Sharpie and labeled yourself.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

            Not to mention that if you didn't work here you are not eligible for Social Security. One has to contribute to get something back. I am on Social Security, and what I get is based upon what I contributed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          Your anecdote about a Social Security office is of no value.

          First, because it is just anecdotal. But more importantly, because we have reams of data we can turn to on these very questions. Universities, states, the nation - they all have data that deals with the very issues you are trying to summarize: how and in what ways immigrants affect jobs, taxes, and the economy.

          So to use the most unreliable data when much better sources are available seems...just lazy.

          I wish I could rate your argument as -1 "insightful".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 8:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          "Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."

          From what you've written you don't sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you've missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you're making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Trails (profile), 13 Feb 2017 @ 11:45am

          Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

          Sigh, not too sharp, eh? All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

          Even if most welfare recipients were immigrants, it doesn't mean most immigrants are welfare recipients.

          Now, to unpack the astounding racism of your post, that you could tell by looking who were immigrants, is, well, breathtaking.

          Let's be clear on what you were actually saying:

          > Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall [darkies] looking for a handout, with a very few [old white people] mixed in.

          Be sure to wash that white hood of yours before your next meeting, ya hear?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Eric Johnson, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:46am

    Thanks for writing!

    That is all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jordan Chandler, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:46am

    America

    And yet prior to Trump if I suggested America may not be as great as people make it out to be I might be assaulted

    I'm a Canadian green card holder that's been hassled for YEARS coming home, and I'm white.

    As beautiful as this article is, maybe Americans need to realize that half of you are racist assholes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:50am

    Well Mike, I disagree on one point:

    But, as someone who tries to look at every policy proposal based on a "does this make sense" or "does this make the world a better place" metric -- and not on a "does this help my team" scale

    I absolutely cannot see this making any sense on the "does this help my team" scale either. Unless that team is a sadistic street gang betting money on less privileged people killing each other.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:24pm

      Re: Unless that team is a sadistic street gang betting money on less privileged people killing each other.

      Now you know what US politics looks like to the rest of the world...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:53am

    Thank you for this piece. I think that everyone needs to speak out against the danger that this administration's policies pose. Arguments about whether this falls under the established "beat" of a blog are secondary to the moral responsibility to oppose unjust and immoral actions by the US Government.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    383bigblock (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:00am

    All in Time - Its about trust

    I don't know that I agree with everything Trump is doing, has done or is about to do. I will give him credit that he is following through with what he has promised. The problem is trust. I don't trust that previous administrations did their job. I don't trust that we have a good vetting process, I don't trust that anyone in the government has held up their end of the deal to protect us from terrorists, I don't trust that they care about anything other than to buy/ grab votes to remain in power. If he has to put the brakes on a system that is clearly out of control, with not one shred of published evidence that we are doing our due diligence to clear the refugees then so be it. He didn't BAN immigrants forever, He put a temporary hold on them until he and his team can understand exactly what is and what is not being done to screen the incoming. Now all of sudden this presents a problem with liberal media and those who would just as well invite terrorists over here to kill folks and then blame themselves for not being understanding.

    Why is it that everyone and now Techdirt included, wants to jump to conclusions and Trump bash. We have a paid-for liberal media to do that we don't need anymore jumping on the band wagon. A 90 day waiting period is nothing in the grand scheme unless Americans are just dying to be in the club with out countries where Muslims are blowing themselves up in public places. Yes, I said Muslims because unfortunately, that's who is doing it. Not Christians, Not Hindus, Not budhists,......Muslims. I know the liberal media would like to distort that fact or bury their head in the sand trying to figure out how to rewrite history and spin it, but the facts are its Muslims.

    I don't know about you but I am not eager to read about the numbers of people killed at a mall because a Muslim decided to blow themselves up in the name of an Archaic religion. Its bad enough we had San Bernadino and Florida shootings, let's not be so eager to embrace the suicide bombing club just quite yet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:17am

      Re: All in Time - Its about trust

      Dude... Stop. Just stop. Read the damn thing again, go inform yourself. You've had over a decade already to become the Muslim-bomberman apocalypse already. But yeah, keep your head in the sand. We'll have 4 years of building hatred to show how bad Trump is.

      Remember, some centuries ago the Catholics were the ones spreading terror.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        383bigblock (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:58am

        Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

        Wrong... re-read your history dipshit. Muslims have been attacking Christians since "Day One". The crusades fought back and keep in mind you had to say "Some Centuries Ago" imagine that, it was Centuries ago. Well News flash, the muslims are blowing up people now and never stopped and have been doing it all during the Centuries when others got a clue and realized it was bad thing. How many Centuries have to go by before you can say about Muslims......probably never.

        Pull your head out of the sand there is no hating going on here just COLD HARD DATA and FACTS. I know you liberal haters don't like it because its not politically correct, however no one gives a shit about PC when their families die. Statistics don't lie they're just inconvenient truths for your PC liberal loving Asshats.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          Which crusade are you referring to? The one where the Christians slaughtered all the Jews in Europe, or the one where they gave up and decided to sack Constantinople? Deus Vult!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            383bigblock (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

            Constantinople .... Really, must have missed that happening in the New York times last week. We are talking about current events right????.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              11:58am: re-read your history dipshit

              12:10pm: We are talking about current events right????

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              Yeah we don't need your facts and figures!
              I didn't hear about it in the Times either!

              I'm so excited for Donald Trump. He's gonna make us so good. Christians are under attack!

              Abortion is the devil!

              Keep fighting for justice good christian warrior.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:21pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              heck yus! we git in our truck and save jesus from the msulim

              bigblock n me r gonna run fer office and fix america great again

              we can learn so many things from tramp!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              Wow right out the gate, you just shit the bed. That's embarrassing.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Aedile, 31 Jan 2017 @ 9:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              If you want more recent examples how about the IRA?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than in the name of Islam. In fact, historically speaking, Islam has been a lot more accepting of other religions than Christianity has. More wars have been fought over Christianity, or the conversion of people to a specific brand of Christianity then it has over Islam.

          Perhaps since the mid 20th century that has flip-flopped a little, but throughout most of the history of major religions it was Christianity that was the clear and apparent "bad-guy".

          Now does that make one religion bad and one good? Absolutely not. Just the flow of history. People are what make religions appear bad or good- not the religion itself.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          Oh, and I'm the one who should re-read my history. Well I've read and I've learned from it and we are repeating past mistakes.

          And you keep using the word liberal but I don't think it means what you think it means.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Cowardly Lion, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:19pm

          Ye olde worlde wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff

          dipshit

          It's 2017. Who the fuck still says dipshit?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:26am

      Re: All in Time - Its about trust

      I agree. If we keep killing muslims we will stop the problem at the root. It doesn't matter if almost all of the terrorist attacks in the last decade have been domestic ones done by white people.

      Well I guess we don't call school shootings and stuff terrorist attacks. It doesn't really fit with our narrative that the muslims are the terrorists. But who needs reality?

      Me and 383bigblock will just keep sucking ol' Trumps dick ;)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:46am

        Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

        "It doesn't matter if almost all of the terrorist attacks in the last decade have been domestic ones done by white people." Patently false.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist _attacks

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          where are the terrorist attacks that happened in the last decade in America GristleMissle?

          There is only one terrorist attack listed in the last 10 years that happened in the United States.

          Would you like to try again? You seem like a smart guy. I'm sure you've got another wiki link in you friend.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

            You want US-centric? Here you go, buddy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000.E2.80.9309

            Sadly sorting by date doesn't work due to someone not using a sort friendly date format. By my count approximately 50% of terror attacks in the US during the past decade were jihad related. "Patently false" stands.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              Are school shootings not considered terrorist attacks?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              can ban muslim fix this?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              thanks for puttin dat libcuck in his place

              can you use a link that is not wikipedia? it has too many libfacts on there.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

                Facts have a left-wing bias.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  GristleMissle, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:51pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

                  Liar.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:05pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

                    That's your comeback? Jesus you people are pathetic.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

                      Please note that that is someone using a name similar to mine to try to appear to be me. As the Trumpa Lumpa would say, SAD!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  GristleMissile (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

                  I'm not quite getting your point here, Roger. It is true that facts tend to have a left wing bias, but I fail to see what that has to do with the AC's comment of

                  >thanks for puttin dat libcuck in his place

                  >can you use a link that is not wikipedia? it has too many libfacts on there.

                  nor with my proceeding comment pointing out that terrorist attacks in the US do not at all match the earlier AC's comment that the majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have been by domestic white people.

                  I backed my shit up with links. I await y'all's.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

                    "I fail to see what that has to do with the AC's comment of"

                    ...barely literate rambling with words made up by people with the mentality of a 6 year old.

                    That's sadly the level of some of these comments - the AC clearly rabidly on one side, to the point where he has to come up with childish names to dismiss the people he considers to be on the other "team". From my experience, that means he'll either be incapable of understanding actual nuanced factual citations, or he'll dismiss the source because it doesn't back up he prior assumptions (as, it seems, he already has).

                    My reaction that is "why bother, since it's clearly a waste of time trying to have an adult conversation". I suspect Roger's reaction was something similar.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 6:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration- of-law-enforcement/

              Top Threat to the United States is Domestic White Supremacist Groups. Not foreign threats. According to the FBI.

              Fuck you GristleMissle

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 10:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

              https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration

              I'll sum it up for you. The Cato Institute analysis of terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 found that foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia – have killed no Americans.

              Fuck You GristleMissle

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:48am

      Re: All in Time - Its about trust

      Except that Trump is eroding any potential trust in the executive branch by:

      Not relying upon good sources for information
      --his top advisor isn't intelligence or military sources, reorganizing the NSC

      He doesn't wish to have or accept the real facts of a situation
      --inauguration crowd size despite photo evidence, Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11, his hand size in photos, etc...

      He is making policy changes without looking at the long term consequences
      --travel ban, deregulation of industry (mixed results here), border wall, silencing of executive branch organizations

      He doesn't even try to avoid the appearance of shady dealings or corruption (not saying he is corrupt but it is hard to tell)
      --not releasing tax returns, not separating himself from his businesses entirely, picking business insiders to be heads of industry oversite/advisory/enforcement groups

      He also blatantly lies about things that are easily verifiable and then won't correct himself unless people make him (I'm not talking about just messing up facts or old memories)
      --look at his speeches, his press secretary, advisor Conway, he did change his take on Russian hacking but many more things he won't admit he was wrong on or correct his subordinates.

      Like its said trust is not given its earned. Soo far his track record is looking pretty bad for earning any trust.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        383bigblock (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

        Thanks for sharing mostly anecdotes and hipocracy. Obvious liberal, I imagine Hilary selling out our country to fund her foundation was just an oversight on her part. There's someone who enriched herself through politics and you have the balls to call out Trump because he doesn't 100% divest himself from his businesses. Tell me one president has has who actually had a business prior to being elected. I guess that leaves us only career politicians available for office in your mind. I guess that's why Trump bothers you because he doesn't need bilk America to make his money like the others.

        If you're sitting their professing your trust of Obama then you've lost all credibility. The man lied, manipulated, misled, etc, etc. I guess I need to get pair of those Liberal Glasses so that I too can see the world like you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          Yeah ol' Hilldawg can't be our president! We need to stop her! Gotta keep our man Trump lookin' good!

          All the lies that Donny T has told are ok because Obama lied! REMEMBER? He lied all the time. So it's ok when Trump lies.

          I'm gonna break your liberal glasses and give you a nice pair of conservative ones. That way you'll see the world the way it should be.

          I like how Donny T is staying in all his businesses. Think about it when he makes a ton of money it'll all come back to us! I agree with bigblock383. So many good ideas coming from Trump.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          Tell me one president has has who actually had a business prior to being elected.

          Jimmy Carter. (There were others, but you asked for one. There's one.)

          And as for non-anecdotal information about Trump's shady business dealings and problems with his foundation, David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post has a fine collection of well-sourced and detailed articles for you. You can Google it, or go to https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-a-fahrenthold/?utm_term=.0fe63e184cb7

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            383bigblock (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

            Exactly, no-one persecuted him for being a businessman prior to being a president and I don't remember anyone telling him he had to divest of it 100%. NO-ONE has but now all of a sudden having a business and being President is a BAD thing. You should be concerned about the Presidents who are career politicians who get government paychecks that in no-way can account for the massive amount of wealth they accumulate in office. Hmmmm, I wonder how that happens. I can see where Trump gets his, I wonder where the Clintons got their millions......interesting. I guess the lecture circuit is very lucrative....when the country is for sale anyway.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          She lost, get over it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ottermaton (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          I guess that's why Trump bothers you because he doesn't need bilk America to make his money like the others.

          There's no evidence of this whatsoever. (Hint: Trump saying this doesn't make it true. From we've heard from him so far, it's a good bet that whatever he says is provably false)

          If we could only see the darned tax returns of his ... wonder why not?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          Because anyone who has a problem with Trump is just all over Obama and Hillary. *snort*

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          bob, 31 Jan 2017 @ 4:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

          Nope not a liberal, just a conservative that calls out bull crap when I see it. I didn't mention Hilary because she didn't become president. I distrust her as well. She has done many of the same types of things I have outlined above. Which is why I didn't vote for her or Trump in the election.


          Just because someone points out facts about one person and not about another doesn't make them any less true.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:49pm

      Re: All in Time - Its about trust

      I don't know about you but if I couldn't return to the country for 90 days I'd pretty much be bankrupt and out of work. Even if my job supported me by keeping my job available, I doubt they would pay me for those three months away.

      And I wouldn't mind except I have yet to see a good reason why we need this ban. What's the justification? What's the benefit? It's not like terrorists are using their green cards to get into the U.S. to blow things up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:40pm

      Re: All in Time - Its about trust

      "I don't know about you but I am not eager to read about the numbers of people killed at a mall because a Muslim decided to blow themselves up in the name of an Archaic religion. Its bad enough we had San Bernadino and Florida shootings, let's not be so eager to embrace the suicide bombing club just quite yet."

      Jane, you ignorant slut, Those were both perpetrated by US citizens.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:11am

    It seems to me that Trump is the cornerstone of everything wrong with the US nowadays taken to a whole new level. And when that level of wrong meets power nothing good may come of it.

    In the distant past his ancestors were the ones running, emigrating and then immigrating into a land that received them with open arms. Sadly, it seems he and his kin failed at evolving and are stuck in the Middle Ages.

    I can only pray the world survives this piece of shit of human he is. No offense intended towards the shit but I can't find anything worse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dr. David T. Macknet (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:13am

    All Too Familiar...

    The responses you've had are all too familiar to anyone with a public persona. Scott Hanselman has tweeted about it, as have John Scalzi, and countless others - responding to people who only want to hear one side of a person's experience (in those examples, either the tech side or the author side). This proscriptive bullying is an attempt to devalue the person behind the writing - to tell you that you're ONLY valuable because of your writing on a particular subject, and should not speak on anything else because that's not your PLACE.

    Liberties are, indeed, all intertwined, and must be defended as part of a whole. You cannot be free in one venue if your freedoms are arbitrarily restricted in another - that's just not how freedom works, whether you're a radical progressive or a libertarian or anyone in between. I appreciate your writing on them as part of a whole. Keep it up. Also: any time you can speak truth to power, please do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:51pm

      Re: All Too Familiar...

      If it helps... Pablo Neruda got those responses too.
      (See "I explain a few things".)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 2:31pm

      Re: All Too Familiar...

      This proscriptive bullying is an attempt to devalue the person behind the writing - to tell you that you're ONLY valuable because of your writing on a particular subject, and should not speak on anything else because that's not your PLACE.

      That is a ridiculous inference. Preferring to keep only veggies in the veggie drawer (tech in the techdirt blog) and disliking having the meat tossed in there with it isn't 'bullying.' It's like complaining about someone's white papers being posted on their Homestuck fanfic blog or vice versa.

      Of course dubbing this post 'not belonging' on techdirt shows an incredibly narrow view of what topics it's concerned with, and plenty of objections here are stupid, emotion-based, and rife with alternative facts, but calling complaining about a blog's contents 'bullying' the poor bloggers is just completely out there.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AC, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:37am

    Give Mike a break

    After all, he made the EXACT SAME post after Obama shut down Iraqi immigration for 6 months during his presidency.

    Oh, wait. No he didn't.

    Hypocrite much?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:41am

    Welp you have jumped the shark and earned yourself 1 less reader/follower

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Firewing, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:12pm

    Re: humanity

    My family has been in the US since before the Mayflower arrived on these shores, and I am proud to be an American. That means BEING an American.....learning our language, following our laws....and entering the country legally! It does not mean that you should be here to get all the benefits of citizenship without earning them.
    I have a nephew in the Border Patrol at Nogales, AZ. I have seen first-hand the path of illegals: discarded trash of every sort littering the landscape. So first comes the illegal entry into the country, then the trashing of it as you pass through. If that isn't enough, then find someplace that will give you food and shelter and probably money as well. And you didn't have to do one damn thing to earn it. Well, gee........isn't that what criminals do? They steal from others and give nothing back except hurt.
    There is NO humanity in allowing our country to be overrun by those that only come here to take what they can get.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:25pm

      Re: Re: humanity

      This is such truth. I too have a cousin in the border patrol and he says that under Obama they didn't have the right to lock up the children and parents when they were illegal.

      I think Firewing is right. If we can't kill the immigrints who come to this country then how can we protect ourselves?

      The right thing to do is kill all immigrants and leftist pussies so us true americas can fight for what is right.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:26pm

      Re: Re: humanity

      There is NO humanity in allowing our country to be overrun by those that only come here to take what they can get.

      Did the native Americans think that way when your ancestors arrived I wonder?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re: Re: humanity

        They probably should have.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Cowardly Lion, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:32pm

        Re: Re: Re: humanity

        "Did the native Americans think that way when your ancestors arrived I wonder?" Right from the get-go they were helping the colonists. I often wonder if they could have sneak-peeked a few centuries ahead would they have behaved any different? I don't believe they would have. Compassion was hard-baked into their communal way of life.

        If you get the chance, read "Bury my Heart at Wounded knee", by Dee Brown. But be prepared to weep buckets.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:28pm

      Re: Re: humanity

      *MY* family truly was here before the Mayflower (Mohawk) and I find your attitude disgusting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:04pm

      Re: Re: humanity

      Fuck you and your family.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:45pm

      Re: Re: humanity

      I have a nephew in the Border Patrol at Nogales, AZ. I have seen first-hand the path of illegals: discarded trash of every sort littering the landscape. So first comes the illegal entry into the country, then the trashing of it as you pass through. If that isn't enough, then find someplace that will give you food and shelter and probably money as well. And you didn't have to do one damn thing to earn it. Well, gee........isn't that what criminals do? They steal from others and give nothing back except hurt.

      Ah, my favorite type of nonsense argument. It's the "I have a semi-distant relative who saw a thing" anecdote, which I now take to be a perfect example of what the broader reality is, even when the data and facts disagree with me.

      Anyway, if you're going to use Mexicans coming across the border as your argument, you do realize that net migration between Mexico and the US has been negative the past few years (as in, more people are going back to Mexico than coming to the US). But who cares about that, your nephew saw some litter and you're positive it's because Mexicans are stealing from US taxpayers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 2:48am

        Re: Re: Re: humanity

        Not to mention these illegal immigrants usually go through hell in the hands of the coyotes to reach the US. But it seems it's all ponies and unicorns if we believe our expert.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:23pm

    Built on immigration

    Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920

    People have said that the US was built on immigration as if that was somehow a good thing.

    I wonder what native Americans feel about that one?

    Some of them may wish that there had been a much more comprehensive immigration ban for the last 500 years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:10pm

      Re: Built on immigration

      This is another side of the same coin. When the first colonizers came they didn't think of natives or black ones as people. Maybe if they were in the (admittedly limited) level of evolution a good portion of humanity is now the history would have been different and we would have way more indians in the population.

      By 1890 the genocide against the natives were already done basically. So, yes, one could say that immigration became a good thing but the colonization was terrible.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Derek Kerton (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:09pm

      Re: Built on immigration

      Humans are native to the region around Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.

      Humans anywhere else migrated there, whether sooner or later.

      It is my opinion that it's the more industrious among them that migrate, and these characteristics correlate with those that drive progress. Courage, adventure, sacrifice, curiosity, hope.

      Stayers always go on about the glory of having been born somewhere, the Mayflower, or the importance of their ticket in the lottery of birth. But how much pride can they have in their homeland if they never actually chose it, or made any effort to be there?

      Nothing wrong with having been born somewhere great like the USA. It just makes it possible that either you DO love your country, or you're just lazy and lucky. Can't say that for migrants - they all sacrificed to be where they are.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    lars626 (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 12:23pm

    Morality

    Humanity, morality, however you want to describe it always has a place. Just because this is a tech blog does not mean you should confine yourselves. If the Trump supporters don't like that you point out the insanity they can always read breitbart or foxnews.

    If you ever stop calling out this kind of inhumanity and go vanilla on me I will be the one moving to other sources.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:37pm

    Perhaps this is the equivalent of battlefield triage? If I were president, and my advisers said to me that we need to shut down immigration temporarily from specific countries and get a handle on this. That we have confirmed threats pouring into our country on a daily basis and our current immigration system is so broken we can even slow it down. I may have to go to the nuclear option temporarily as well. Yes it's going to hurt people. That part really REALLY sucks, but if that could possibly prevent another 9-11 or major catastrophe, then it's necessary.

    I know people are going to say there is no proof that something like that is going on ... etc etc.. I'm not so sure it would be a wise idea to even tell Americans if it were that bad. Every redneck with a truck and shotgun would be out looking for bad guys.

    I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'll have to give this some more thought.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 4:38am

      Re:

      A simple and well thought out reason someone would do something like a temporary ban on immigration.

      I couldn't help but to notice everyone avoiding it like the plague.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 7:01am

      Re:

      I know people are going to say there is no proof that something like that is going on ... etc etc.. I'm not so sure it would be a wise idea to even tell Americans if it were that bad. Every redneck with a truck and shotgun would be out looking for bad guys.

      Yeah, gonna go with Occam's Razor on that one. It might be true that the government isn't providing evidence in support of their actions here because they fear a 'furriner hunt by good ol' muricans'... or they might not be providing the evidence because they don't have it to release.

      Out of the two options the latter strikes me as much more likely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 1:59pm

    Thank you for this post. I've disagreed with some of the things you've said in the past but this website has widened my viewpoint on many things and I'm glad to know that its creator is principled and has a sense of human decency that lately I'm finding in short supply in many public figures.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 2:07pm

    Supporting DJT

    DJT's most vocal supporters do so in the face of:
    1. Proven DJT lies - not a few, a lot.
    2. Proven illegal actions and massive civil violations
    3. Decades (plural) long history of misogyny, bigotry, racism, eletisim, selfishness, sexual assault, oath violation, contract violation, bankruptcy (financial), bankruptcy (moral), narcissistic and transference disorder.

    You are essentially asking people that support this sort of person to display deportment incompatible with their icon.

    That isn't going to happen.

    In fact, they consider traits of compassion, understanding, charity, honesty, veracity, insight, intelligence, empathy, honor and duty as signs of a weak person and revile them, frequently calling them "special snowflakes" and less repeatable characterizations.

    The only solution to these sorts of people is to simply not engage with them. Upon identifying them, smile politely, nod agreeably, back away slowly, and hit the exit. A longer term solution entails finding a country that would be willing to force them into the mental health system and court ordered medication compliance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:56pm

    they start bombing trump owned facilities in 3, 2, 1...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 3:59pm

    Here we go again...

    More "my shit does not stink, but yours does" diatribe.

    Sorry, those of you that fail history lessons. Trump is the exact person that comes after the pendulum swing that Obama created. The person that comes after Trump will be what comes after the pendulum that Trump swings.

    Just as George Washington said... this bullshit is going to happen if you keep letting your politics rip set us apart. The anti-Trump crowd has gotten so shrill that they are now louder than the anti-Obama crowd.

    This place wants to become nothing other than an echo-chamber. I hope that is does not, but I am certain that it will. And down the tubes this place will go. I will keep sitting here and watching each side ignore the sins of their own or soft pedal them, while shrieking loudly at the smallest of trespasses by their foes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:00pm

    Let's take the emotion out of it...

    The ban is not a Muslim ban as only 6 countries are affected.. The 6 countries Obama designated as terrorists hot beds. It is not even a ban, but a temporary halt to get vetting in place. In fact Obama made the same "ban" in 2011 for Iran. Carter did it too. Go to YouTube and you can find a video of Bill Clinton talking about curbing immigration to a cheering crowd.

    But the media and Dem leadership are long on emotion and short on facts. They do this to whip the emotional left into a frenzy which apparently is going to be a weekly thing now. They don't care that these protestors are violent, assault people, destroy property and probably end up with a criminal record thus hurting their employment chances.

    There is a reason the left is called low information voters. They get all their news from 1 place, the liberal media.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:04pm

      Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

      Also, it is a fallacy to say there is only 1 solution to a problem. In this case, bringing them here is not the only solution. If you think we can solve the worlds poverty problems, watch the video below. We are $20 trillion in debt thanks to Obama and climbing. We have the lowest labor participation rate in decades. Thanks to Obama's lack of leadership, we don't have jobs for the people that are already here.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:23pm

      Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

      The ban is not a Muslim ban as only 6 countries are affected.. The 6 countries Obama designated as terrorists hot beds.

      Not quite. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

      In fact Obama made the same "ban" in 2011 for Iran.

      False. (And you mean Iraq, not Iran. They are two different countries.) http://wpo.st/l1iX2

      Carter did it too.

      Entirely different. http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/

      But the media and Dem leadership are long on emotion and short on facts. ... There is a reason the left is called low information voters.

      ... ahem ...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:29pm

        Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

        Trump's order broadened Obama's a little. Yet nobody cares that Obama did something similar. It is all mfg outrage by the media. We will be in for many more of these to create more fake news to try to swing the next election back to the left.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

          Yeah it "broadened Obama's a little" from increased screening processes for refugees from one country to flat-out immigration bans for anyone from seven countries. And from covering 33-million people to to 218-million. Y'know, "a little".

          Stop being obtuse.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 4:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

            Ah, so 1 country is ok, its just a little bigoted. But 7 is too many. Is 3 ok?

            You also are still going with the fallacy that there is only 1 solution and that we have jobs and money for millions more people. Watch the video and get back to me.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

              ob·tuse
              /əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/

              adjective

              1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
              "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

              synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:06pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                  chillax, its okay for them to use them... just not you!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

              Add Cuba to the list as Obama cancelled the wet foot/dry foot policy on his way out of office stopping Cuban's from being able to stay. So does 2 countries make Obama a racist?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

              Ah, so 1 country is ok, its just a little bigoted. But 7 is too many. Is 3 ok?

              Except, again, what Obama did with that one country is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what Trump did with the 7 countries. One involved revamping the review process of a specific group of refugees -- no ban, no block. The other involved a blanket ban that was so broad it covered green card holders, people who already had been through "extreme vetting" and were on their way to the country, those who were dual citizens or citizens of allies who just happened to have been born in a blocked country... and more.

              To say they're the same, or that the only difference is the number of countries suggests someone being willfully ignorant.

              Stop playing for your team and start playing for humanity.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:16pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                I would argue you are splitting hairs. But the wet foot/dry foot is a all out ban, is that ok? You also haven't addressed the economics. Can we spend a few trillion more $ and recover? Sinking this country does no one any good.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

              You have got to be doing this deliberately, the idea that you really can't see a difference between 'temporary slowing of immigrants from one country and 'complete stop of immigrants from seven countries' is just something I find hard to buy.

              That's 'broadening it a little' in the same sense that driving a semi through a BB hole 'broadens the hole a little'.

              If you think the EO is defensible then defend it on it's own merits, don't try to make absurd comparisons to something that's 'connected' only to the extent that both deal with immigration.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                It is not a permanent ban, it is limited time so it is a slowing as well. So yes, you are splitting hairs. Also, one more response that fails to explain how we can solve the worlds problems by bringing them here. There are 3 billion people in poverty and probably millions being persecuted. We cannot afford to bring them all here. Again, it is a fallacy to say there is only 1 solution to any given problem.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                  Oh, and you failed to address Obama's Cuban ban which is not temporary or slowed.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:38pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                    Probably because you added that particular goalpost after multiple people have pointed out how the comparison doesn't hold up.

                    Once again, if the think the EO is defensible then defend it on it's own merits, stop pointing to other actions by previous presidents with 'Well he did it too!'.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:45pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                      First, nobody has addressed the Cuban ban. Two, obviously I think it is fine for a sovereign nation to control its borders. Just like I think it is fine that you lock your doors and windows. Though I question why you haven't opened your home to the local homeless?

                      And yet again we have the economics of the situation that has not been addressed. Did you watch the video? Do you think we can import 3 billion people in poverty or would it be better to help them where they are? Or do you only see 1 solution to a problem?

                      But yea, keep dodging the issues.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 6:08pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                        First, nobody has addressed the Cuban ban.

                        Oh this is just too good. You were bluffing.

                        Obama ended the 'Wet Feet, Dry Feet' policy(at the last minute to be sure, but last minute's better than never), and the policy itself was in place well before he became president, he was simply continuing a policy that had been in place for 12 years as of 2017, when it was finally ended, and even then it wasn't a ban, it was basically an 'agreement' between the USG and Cuba that if people trying to cross from Cuba to the US were caught at sea they would be returned to Cuba or a third-party country, whereas if they made it to land before they were caught then they had a chance to gain US citizenship.

                        Two, obviously I think it is fine for a sovereign nation to control its borders. Just like I think it is fine that you lock your doors and windows. Though I question why you haven't opened your home to the local homeless?

                        Red Herring and False Dichotomy. Defend the EO on it's own merits or admit that it has none.

                        And yet again we have the economics of the situation that has not been addressed. Did you watch the video? Do you think we can import 3 billion people in poverty or would it be better to help them where they are? Or do you only see 1 solution to a problem?

                        Red Herring, The EO has nothing to do with the economy or 'helping people where they are'. Defend the EO on it's own merits or admit that it has none.

                        But yea, keep dodging the issues.

                        Oh yeah, I'm totally the one dodging the issues here. /s

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 6:13pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                          So no discussion of economics or other solutions? Guess when you have nothing to add you dodge it. I have stated the ban is fine, and it is temporary, it is not race or religion based. The left has made lots of false claims and based their anger on those lies. So I am also throwing out the economic issues to go with the non-bigoted reasons for the temporary ban. You and the others have had nothing material to say except parroting the lies about the motivation of the ban. Like I stated in the subject, remove the emotion and address the issues. Or keep losing.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:19pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                            So no discussion of economics or other solutions? Guess when you have nothing to add you dodge it.

                            I notice you have yet to suggest a single solution to homelessness and pollution. Why haven't I called you out on this? Because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

                            I don't need to get involved in an economics discussion because the EO has nothing to do with economics. Seriously, you've thrown out so many red herrings it's like you're trying to start a fish market.

                            I have stated the ban is fine, and it is temporary, it is not race or religion based.

                            Absolutely, that's why it most certainly doesn't contain language discussing how religion will have an impact on the priority of those affected that only applies to minority religions. That's about as nonsensical as saying that a particular policy isn't 'race based' because it doesn't penalize one race specifically, it just gives every person not of that race preferential treatment.

                            You and the others have had nothing material to say except parroting the lies about the motivation of the ban.

                            Says the person that's brought up red herring after red herring(Economics! Obama! Cuba!), tangent after tangent to avoid defending the EO on it's own merits. But by all means, tell me which 'lies' I've been parroting.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:54pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                            It is impossible to have a productive discussion about economics with someone as intellectually dishonest and/or stupid as you are.

                            If you cannot or will not even acknowledge the difference between Obama's Iraq refugee screening and Trump's all-out immigration ban, then you are not mature enough to understand even basic economic concepts, and certainly not worth having a whole debate about them with.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              sorrykb (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:01pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                              Yep. I'm just flagging him now for being a witless time-suck and moving on.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 2:50pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                              Ah, so your opinion of the difference between Trump's and Obama's immigration orders is the one that counts. Got it. Sorry, but you and the rest of the left are witless fools being played by the Democratic leadership and media. You react with extreme, unchecked emotion every time the liberal media does a story. You would think by now, you would have learned your lesson and take a day or two to investigate things for yourself before throwing your tantrum. Please, take the red pill.

                              Again, for like the 5th time, Trump's order was not race or religion based or it would have covered lots more countries. It was based on a list of countries currently known as hotbeds for terrorists. In fact, it was a list put together by Obama's administration. Second, it was a very short term ban and not a permanent one so no, it was not nearly an "all out ban". Also, Trump and presidents before him, have made temporary immigration orders due to circumstances at the time. Trump's is different than other, not worse, but different, because each situation is different.

                              Finally, everybody seems to want to call names and not discuss the fallacy that there is 1 solution for any given problem and that we can afford to bring the worlds poor (3 billion or more) here. But go back to your name calling and tantrums and keep losing.

                              http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost -900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:48pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                  Nice (and obvious) wordplay there. That it isn't listed as permanent doesn't magically change it from 'stopped' to 'slowed', the rate went from it's previous one to zero for at least three months, that's a stop, not a slow.

                  The 'bringing them here' thing angle is a red herring, the EO is explicitly about 'terrorism' concerns, it has nothing to do with 'Well our economy can't handle them, so regretfully we have to turn them away', so bringing that up in defense of it is a waste of your time and mine.

                  Once again, with feeling(Third time's the charm perhaps?) If you think it's defensible then defend it on it's own merits, stop trying to pretend that it's something that it's not.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 6:00pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                    Oh, so if the wording had been mentioned our $20 trillion debt you would be fine with it? And yes, 3 months is temporary so not an outright ban and not a muslim ban or there would be lots more countries involved. So the left's characterization of it is politically motivated.

                    I have defended it, any country can control immigration and in fact every last one does. Are they racists?

                    I am pointing out what the President of just a few weeks ago did to the delight of the left but when Trump does it, it is just deplorable. You guys are being suckered by your leadership. The continued demonization w/o discussion of the issues is why you are losing and apparently want to continue losing.

                    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost -900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 6:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                      If it mentioned the $20 trillion debt as the justification for the stop of immigration from seven countries(and if seven countries is bad for the economy then clearly a lot more immigration needs to be stopped) then it could be argued on those grounds, but it doesn't, so doing so is a waste of time.

                      A ban does not have to be permanent count as such. It went from more extra screening to a complete stop from seven countries. If you think it's defensible then defend it on it's own merits, stop trying to pretend that it's something that it's not.

                      I am pointing out what the President of just a few weeks ago did to the delight of the left but when Trump does it, it is just deplorable.

                      No, he didn't, as multiple people have pointed out at this point which means you have no excuse and are simply lying to defend your position.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 6:29pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                        I have defended it several times and yet you ask for me to defend it? It is a non-race or religion based, limited time ban. The left cries racism and stages protests on those lies. You keep diverting back w/o answering my defense of it. Since it is a non-race/religion based temporary ban, are you ok with it? If not, justify YOUR anger, after all, it is the left throwing a tantrum about it.

                        And yes, I would slow most immigration now until we find a way not to go broke. An economically crippled US is not good for anyone. We are in dire straights and need to take drastic measures to right the ship. There are a handful of billionaires and if we stripped them of their wealth, we would not make a dent in the national debt. Oh, and many of the billionaires are leftists so no chance the left will ever actually tax themselves.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:32pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

                          I have defended it several times and yet you ask for me to defend it?

                          You've 'defended' it by comparing it to something Obama did which wasn't even close in scope, brought up economics when it has nothing to do with economics, brought up something Obama ended and which also wasn't remotely close in scope... if I continue to ask for you to defend it on it's own merits it's because so far you've done a really bad job at doing so.

                          Since it is a non-race/religion based temporary ban, are you ok with it? If not, justify YOUR anger, after all, it is the left throwing a tantrum about it.

                          As I noted above it is religion-based, or at the very least has a religious based component for it, but in general no, I still wouldn't be in favor of it even if that weren't true because I have seen no evidence that it's necessary.

                          The immigration process was already incredibly complex, with multiple levels of scrutiny, such that I've argued before that only the terminally stupid terrorist(and while terrorists in generally certainly fit into the 'stupid' category there's stupid and then there's 'pulls the pin on the grenade, throws the pin and drops the grenade' stupid) wannabe would try to enter the country via that route, meaning the only people likely to be impacted weren't threats to begin with.

                          There are a handful of billionaires and if we stripped them of their wealth, we would not make a dent in the national debt.

                          Given you could only do that once that's a ridiculous idea for several reasons. No, you want to see more taxes coming in you don't go after the individuals, you go after the companies. Tax breaks and incentives for smaller companies to get more people willing to start up companies and boost things at the bottom, close the tax loopholes at the top and make it so companies can't so easily dodge local taxes while at the same time getting the same treatment as local businesses.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hans, 30 Jan 2017 @ 5:49pm

    "It's simply inhumane.
    This is about humanity"

    M & M, you are inane, trying to link
    politics with tech.

    This is no place for the latter and thus
    I am deleting my account after being a devoted
    (daily) reader for some seven years.

    I am very sad to leave. Thanks for the
    great tech coverage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 11:06am

      Re:

      "M & M, you are inane, trying to link
      politics with tech."

      If you don't understand how the two are inexorably linked, you obviously haven't been paying attention to anything they've posted in the past (which has been quite nonpartisan), so it's highly questionable as to whether or not you're actually a reader.

      This is a polite way of saying goodbye and good riddance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Martin Samuel, 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:32pm

    Incredible

    You know Mike, one thing I respected about Techdirt until recently, was how this site really never took a partisan stance. How it was always fair minded, and how; while it did take part in the kinds of activism that are important, and directly related to technology and the freedom to speak, it never really aligned itself with any political party of movement.

    I'm sorry to say, that over the last year and a half, that's changed. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading. I read a lot of news sites that I disagree with. But it really does feel like the end of an era.

    For you to be extremely concerned, and talk about our humanity when Trump passes this order, and not mention that Obama used virtually identical language in an almost identical order is hypocritical, and severely disingenuous, to say the least. As one of the last spots for actual journalism on the internet, I have a hard time believing you were unaware of that.

    Techdirt used to be special. It had a liberal bent when being a liberal meant something. But there's a huge fucking difference between being an Aaron Swartz liberal, and being a Clinton liberal.

    I'm holding out hope that you guys come back to your senses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:39pm

      Re: Incredible

      For you to be extremely concerned, and talk about our humanity when Trump passes this order, and not mention that Obama used virtually identical language in an almost identical order is hypocritical, and severely disingenuous, to say the least. As one of the last spots for actual journalism on the internet, I have a hard time believing you were unaware of that.

      Because it's not true. I'm going to assume you decided to save your sanity and not wade through the comments, but that particular bit has been brought up and shown to be false. Obama's order involved one country and merely instituted a temporary increase in security screening, slowing down immigration. Trump's covers seven countries and involves a total stop to immigration for it's duration.

      Here's the link if you're curious.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 7:57pm

      Re: Incredible

      But there's a huge fucking difference between being an Aaron Swartz liberal, and being a Clinton liberal

      So given that we have written numerous posts in praise and defence of Aaron Swartz, and virtually none (if any) in praise of Hillary Clinton (amidst many criticizing her) I have to wonder what website you are talking about, since it sure aint this one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 30 Jan 2017 @ 8:39pm

      Re: this site really never took a partisan stance

      Pointing out a long catalogue of stupidities associated with patents and copyrights and various other kinds of “intellectual property” over many years doesn’t count as “partisan” in your book? Some in the MPAA and RIAA and allied organizations might disagree...

      But lamenting that the tedious cesspool of Tweedledum-versus-Tweedledee politics that the US was founded on has reached an excremental new low, and suddenly that is considered “partisan”?

      “Partisan” ... you use that word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:12pm

      Re: Incredible

      But there's a huge fucking difference between being an Aaron Swartz liberal, and being a Clinton liberal.

      And there's where one can only laugh at your worldview.

      Bernie Sanders is a liberal. "Clinton liberal" policies are those of a pre-2008 Republican. A traditional conservative. Even Ronald Reagan is to the left of Clinton and would be tarred and feathered by Republicans as a RINO today.

      The closest you could get to a credible denial is her support of same-sex marriage. But even Dick Cheney supported it before she did. George and Barbara Bush and other pre-2008 Republicans support it too.

      Wikipedia defines alt-right - now controlling the Republican Party - as "a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:03pm

    What is it that polarises people in regards to President Trump?

    Hmm? You either hate him or love him. There doesn't appear to be many (if any) who aren't in one of these two categories.

    So what polarises you?

    Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made? it was just recently pointed out that President Trump has started doing just that - a politician who is keeping his word.

    Has the novelty of this caused such an internal ruckus in people that they can't look at the man and see the reality of what he has previously promised? A politician who is actually keeping his word. Unheard of? Well maybe not, but for such a role that he now functions in, it appears to be so.

    This article by Mike talks about humanity and what is happening in the USA now. Yet, this same attitude was fully evident in the USA during the 70's and 80's. It has been evident during even earlier times in the USA.

    But one salient point is missing, most of the planet has no such sentiment. Being humane to others is not the focus of most nations. Look at all the relief work done and in essence it is fruitless.

    We should be trying to help other, whether it be in our local neighbourhoods, our cities and towns, the unemployed, the underemployed, the sick, the week, the mentally and emotionally distressed. There are some who make this a priority to help others in their local areas of influence.

    But improvements depend on making changes in the lives of people and if human nature doesn't change, then any help given will be essentially wasted.

    Whether or not President Trump's initiatives work or fail, only the future will tell. You can scream and rant all you like for either side, but if you don't actually do something, all your words are meaningless chatter.

    If you think something needs to be done to help someone then put your time, effort, resources and money into it and show everyone a better way. This is irrespective, of political, philosophical, religious or social viewpoints.

    All that the protest marches against President Trump has done is to highlight that a bunch of malcontents have no answers and are just imbecilic. If they want to show the way then actually do something constructive and show everyone that it is a better way.

    David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 30 Jan 2017 @ 9:45pm

      Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?

      Has he really?

      What happened to “Lock Her Up”?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:20pm

        Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?

        Lawrie,

        If that is all of your response, then you haven't thought hard about you and your actions.

        David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ottermaton (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?

          Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is going to take you seriously when you insist on putting all 5 of your names at the end of your posts. I makes you look self-absorbed and WAY WAY WAY too convinced of your own importance. You're being laughed at and can't see it through your smugness.

          One last thing, Davy Ollie Grammy Sammy: Calling someone named Lawrence "Lawrie" after repeatedly rolling out your own ridiculous names just makes you look extra stupid.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 4:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?

            Dear sir, thank you for your very "insightful" response. Now I know you don't get it. Think carefully and think clearly. It is very obvious. I'll repeat in again for you.

            David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              David Oliver Graeme Samuel OffenCOCK, 1 Feb 2017 @ 11:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?

              Smug asshole confirmed.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cowardly Lion, 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:58pm

      Re: What is it that polarises people in regards to President Trump?

      "So what polarises you?"

      Speak for yourself. When (if) Trump manages to a) build an unscalable wall along the entire US southern border and b) get the Mexicans to pay for it, and c) oh yeah, the swamp-draining thing, which so far does not appear to be going well. Until Trump does actually deliver on all his promises, I'm going to maintain the view that he's not competent to hold the Office of President.

      The "grab 'em by the pussy" thing did it for me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Babs, 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:02pm

      Re: What is it that polarises people in regards to President Trump?

      But one salient point is missing, most of the planet has no such sentiment. Being humane to others is not the focus of most nations.

      I guess being different from the rest of the planet couldn't be related to why people want to come to America...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:07pm

        Re: ...why people want to come to America...

        Is this a good time to point out that the net migration across the US-Mexico border is southwards?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 10:19pm

    This isn't the first time we (as a nation) have done this.

    Following a decade of anti-Chinese violence starting in 1872, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 forbade Chinese immigrants for originally 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 and made permanent in 1902 until it was repealed in 1943.

    so this isn't exactly "Unpresidented".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    restless94110 (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:15pm

    Way to miss the point

    There are so many wrong turns in your essay, I could not possibly deal with them all. I'll just talk to the one: the story of your family and their immigration to the United States. You told a tale of a family that assimilated into America.

    This current issue is about a group that does not assimilate. Yes, some do. But a vast amount do not. You are talking about a group that holds extremely backward and intolerant views on women and gays. A group in which some of the younger members can be and have been radicalized fairly easily.

    This is about being humane. To your fellow citizens. It's not racist or xenophobic to think of Americans first. So, how about you cut the dramatics. They cause a loss of perspective. We have anough Fundamentalist Christians here don't we? Explain clearly why it's more imporatant than the quality of life and our culture to import millions more fundamentalists into America (or any other secular Western country).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jan 2017 @ 11:57pm

      Re: Way to miss the point

      This current issue is about a group that does not assimilate. Yes, some do. But a vast amount do not. You are talking about a group that holds extremely backward and intolerant views on women and gays. A group in which some of the younger members can be and have been radicalized fairly easily.

      This is a load of absolute bullshit. The same thing has been said about EVERY major wave of immigration, including my own relatives. What you're talking about is revisionist history. After immigrants do assimilate (and they almost always do by the 2nd generation) peopel forget about how they insisted that they did not.

      Each new wave of immigrants tend to cluster in areas with people from where they came from -- which totally makes sense. If you were travelling to a brand new place with a different language/culture/foods, wouldn't you seek out at least some people who you were more comfortable with?

      There were complaints in the 19th century about Chinese and Irish immigrants and the fact that they wouldn't assimilate. I mean there was a whole freaking political party dedicated to the fact that the Irish were a problem because they wouldn't assimilate (research it...).

      Ditto for Jewish and Italian immigrants in the early 20th century, followed by Latin American immigrants. And today it's still being used against all kinds of immigrants.

      And it's almost never true.

      And, indeed, while you insist that this group "does not assimilate" the data actually says current immigrants are assimilating faster than any group before them. https://thinkprogress.org/new-study-demolishes-3-pernicious-myths-about-first-generation-immigrants- in-america-73e498b5c0ff#.sohzz9t2t So you're just totally and completely wrong.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        restless94110 (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Re: Way to miss the point

        I have known many Chinese-Americans from when I lived in San Francisco, Mike. Young and old. And, guess what? They still don't assimilate. Marrying outside of their race is not acceptable, though it is done, but with a lot of guff from their society. The same could be said of many Jewish people. They have told me directly: the push is to marry within the Jewish or the Chinese society within America. Do some branch out? Sure they do. But a huge majority do not.

        But of both these groups, and also Italians and Irish, and other Europeans who came to this country, which ones believe in stoning women and hanging gays? This is the base belief of those who come here from the Muslim faith.

        What's the chance these people will assimilate, Mike? Maybe by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their offspring will. But for now? At least, your people, and all of the other peoples you and I have mentioned could generally be trusted to put the Constitution above their religion and Sharia law.

        I don't see that with this group. And they don't see it in Europe either. Groups of young Islamic men spitting on women who travel on trains alone in Europe? Mike? I've driven through the south of Birmingham in early 2001--16 years ago--and passed through miles and miles of women in black hijabs (sic). Why is that, Mike?

        Where's the adherence to English values in the UK, Mike? And the same can be said of a substantial minority who come here to the US.

        Where is your humanity, Mike? For those who are citizens in the country that your kin gave their loyalty to? You want to come here? Leave that intolerant, that violently intolerant shit at home.

        Anyone who doesn't is as totally full of shit as those who advocate for those intolerant dirtbags to come here claiming it is inhumane not to allow just any old maniac in, because humanity. Nonsense. No. Specifically, full of shit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 10:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

          I have known many Chinese-Americans from when I lived in San Francisco, Mike. Young and old. And, guess what? They still don't assimilate. Marrying outside of their race is not acceptable, though it is done, but with a lot of guff from their society. The same could be said of many Jewish people. They have told me directly: the push is to marry within the Jewish or the Chinese society within America. Do some branch out? Sure they do. But a huge majority do not.

          LOL for a whole variety of reasons -- made even funnier if you knew anything about me and my life, my family and my friends -- of all of which prove that the statement above is almost 100% stereotypical hogwash. Sure, some people marry within their cultures, because cultural connections often are part of a community, and so that's the people that you meet. But that doesn't mean they don't assimilate.

          But of both these groups, and also Italians and Irish, and other Europeans who came to this country, which ones believe in stoning women and hanging gays? This is the base belief of those who come here from the Muslim faith.

          Italians and Irish were most frequently Catholic. Catholics don't exactly have a history of being accepting to gays and women, do they?

          And, for what it's worth, when Italians and Irish first came over to America, they too, were encouraged to marry within their own communities. That's pretty common, but not a sign of a refusal to integrate.

          What's the chance these people will assimilate, Mike?

          Extraordinarily high. How many Muslims do you actually know? I know many and they're all highly integrated into American society, just like all of the Jews, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Indians and Germans I know.

          Maybe by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their offspring will.

          Again, this is no different than EVERY OTHER IMMIGRANT GROUP BEFORE. When my great grandparents moved here, you know what they did? They joined a local community group that was made up of people from the old world, where they came from. Because when you're in a new place, of course you want to see familiar faces and have people you can rely on to help you out as you build your new life.

          And, yes, of course they kept speaking their native tongues. But so what? They also became Americans.

          At least, your people, and all of the other peoples you and I have mentioned could generally be trusted to put the Constitution above their religion and Sharia law.

          Oh lord. You're totally ignorant are you. Any time I see someone raise the bogeyman of "Sharia Law" it's clear that they've been brainwashed. The fears about "Sharia law" are no different than the fears about Judaism for Jews when they immigrated, or Catholicism when the Irish and Italians came, or Chinese/Confusionism when the Chinese came. You're scared of "different" and you interpret it stupidly.

          Seriously: EDUCATE YOURSELF. Go look at the fear mongering about Catholics 100 years ago. It's nearly identical to the insane fear mongering about "Sharia law" today.

          Try this: do some research on Al Smith and how people freaked out that he might run for President and be controlled by the Pope rather than the Constitution. It's the same superstitious nonsense that you spout about "Sharia Law."

          I don't see that with this group.

          Because you've been brainwashed by the ignorant.

          And they don't see it in Europe either.

          I've traveled extensively in Europe. What you're claiming is not reality.

          • I've driven through the south of Birmingham in early 2001--16 years ago--and passed through miles and miles of women in black hijabs (sic). Why is that, Mike?*

          I've been there too and didn't see anything like that. Were there some people wearing their traditional clothes? Sure. So what? When I walk in almost any city in the world I can find some people wearing traditional clothes. So what?

          Where's the adherence to English values in the UK, Mike?

          Pretty much everywhere.

          Where is your humanity, Mike? For those who are citizens in the country that your kin gave their loyalty to? You want to come here? Leave that intolerant, that violently intolerant shit at home.

          Again, you're spewing myths and fantasy. Yes, some people retain aspects of their culture from where they came from -- as they should. The idea that they brought with them "intolerance and violence" is laughable. There's simply no evidence or data to support that.

          The only intolerance I see is from you.

          You're an ignorant fool and I hope you educate yourself. Get out of your bubble and maybe go meet some real people, not the myths in your mind.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2017 @ 11:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

            Mike,

            LOL for a whole variety of reasons -- made even funnier if you knew anything about me and my life, my family and my friends -- of all of which prove that the statement above is almost 100% stereotypical hogwash.

            the only thing your statement says is that in your personal interaction you have not found it to be true. The almost 100% is hyperbole and itself is hogwash.

            Extraordinarily high. How many Muslims do you actually know? I know many and they're all highly integrated into American society

            I grant you know some, just as I do and some are highly integrated and many are not. I have been at events hosted by Moslems (family and extended family events) and there is a distinct and obvious separation between those who are devote Moslem and those who are not.

            We have entire areas where they do not integrate, they take over. You can believe or not, you just have to walk in those areas over a period of time and see the difference.

            Oh lord. You're totally ignorant are you. Any time I see someone raise the bogeyman of "Sharia Law" it's clear that they've been brainwashed.

            That so. Even despite the warnings that have come from people who have left Islam (by becoming secular or otherwise)? Even despite the warnings that come from those who lived as minorities in countries that had Sharia Law and now are integrated into western society? Your ignorance show, so as you say, so apply it to yourself

            Seriously: EDUCATE YOURSELF.

            I've traveled extensively in Europe. What you're claiming is not reality.

            And how much of this was into the very enclaves that you say are not a reality?

            The only intolerance I see is from you.

            You're an ignorant fool and I hope you educate yourself. Get out of your bubble and maybe go meet some real people, not the myths in your mind.

            The same can be said for you, Mike. You are just as much in a bubble and need to get out and meet real people. The unwashed, the poor, the hungry, the embarrassed unemployed, the mentally ill, the drug addicts, are people too. How often do you rub shoulders and see their lives or do you just see them and ignore them as background in your daily life?

            David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 11:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

              Well, David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach, I like how you skipped over the fact that all of the complaints you used about "Sharia laww" etc were the same arguments made against every other immigrant group in the past.

              You just deleted them all.

              I wonder why.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 4:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

              Even despite the warnings that come from those who lived as minorities in countries that had Sharia Law and now are integrated into western society?

              Here in Canada a small group of Muslims called for sharia courts for their own people. They were shouted down - marches even held to protest them - by a much, MUCH larger group of Muslims who had had enough of that crap in the old world and wanted no part of it here.

              (The upshot: They pointed out that Jews have private religious-based courts recognized by the Ontario government. Canadians went "Wait.... what?" and those courts were shut down.)

              some are highly integrated and many are not.

              You said the same of Jewish or the Chinese society within America. Many cities have a "Little Italy."

              And....? You get that with every wave of immigrants. It fades out in a couple generations as people assimilate, and "Little Italy" or "Chinatown" becomes more of a marketing theme.

              And how much of this was into the very enclaves that you say are not a reality?

              The more common word for "enclaves" is "ghettos." With the group inhabiting it forced in by others.

              While almost every country in the western hemisphere has birthright citizenship, until recently European countries did not. France brought in a lot of workers from it's holdings in Africa as maids and other workers. Soon they had kids, and then grand-kids. None of whom had citizenship. They weren't allowed to assimilate. They grew up knowing that they weren't even second class citizens. So ghettos formed and riots started.

              We don't have that problem in North America. The kids born here automatically become citizens. They're allowed to assimilate. Even keeping their language and culture, they're first-class citizens.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:52am

      Re: Way to miss the point

      "Explain clearly why it's more imporatant than the quality of life and our culture to import millions more fundamentalists into America (or any other secular Western country)."

      Perhaps you could explain why it's only the fundamentalists being affected here (rather than the people fleeing the fundamentalists and/or people who have already assimilated into your culture). Or, why the lives of non-fundamentalists are fair game inorder to stop being afraid for a moment (even though the countries that have actually sent dangerous individuals to you are not covered by the ban).

      The primary issue is this - it's not the fact that you're supposedly trying to ban the people who pose a threat. It's the fact that the action is so broad they're affecting people who are genuinely fleeing danger - or those who have already spent their lives living productive lives in the US to the benefit of your country. Plus, the fact that this just makes your country look so bad in the eyes of the world that it actually strengthens your enemies at home and abroad.

      You're meant to be better than "let's destroy the lives of innocents because we're scared of fundamentalists". That's the humanity that the article is talking about.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        restless94110 (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re: Way to miss the point

        Perhaps you could explain how you thing you know that those coming here are fleeing the fundamentalists, because it appears that the base Muslim belief is fundamentalist. You are confusing violent cut off your head ISIS with a base belief that women are 2nd class citizens and homosexuality is perversion. These are issues that have been settled in American society. You apparently want to unsettle them by allowing an entire group of people in who does not agree that these issues are settled.

        How stupid does that sound? Devout Muslims believe these things. Even moderate Muslims believe these things.

        As for the people who are "genuinely fleeing danger?" For one, how about you push for an end to the US's push for destruction in the Middle East? That then ends the need for these people to flee from anything. Why is that not your first idea?

        And for another, how on earth do you know who is fleeing genuinely from danger? It appears clear that thousands of young Muslim men are fleeing "from danger" into European countries, and molesting European girls and women. These are fighting-age men.

        Something is not right here. It is inhumane to push for huge amounts of an intolerant and possibly violent group of aliens to our western culture into our lands. It is inhumane to disrupt the cultures of Islamic peoples far far away.

        That inhumanity should be your focus, not bringing the intolerance and foreign values to our shores.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

          restless94110 wrote:

          You are confusing violent cut off your head ISIS with a base belief that women are 2nd class citizens and homosexuality is perversion. These are issues that have been settled in American society.

          REALLY?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            restless94110 (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 2:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

            From the PEW website in 2016:

            As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.

            The Pew Report is considerably more detailed, and it does offer a less radical picture than I had previously understood to be true.

            But this may be a factor of the difficulty of getting to the United States by Muslim immigrants, as suggested by others, as opposed to the closeness of the European countries. In other words, that difficulty takes money and time and thus more economically advantaged Muslims can come here.

            Thus, Pew measures this group, and less so the young, male, poor Muslims, although Somalis of this class are apparently being given special advantage to come here by the departing Obama Administration.

            The full report is found here:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-a round-the-world/

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ryunosuke (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 2:11am

      Re: Way to miss the point

      so let me ask you THIS question. Name me 5 things that are as a whole, a pure american thing that has ZERO influence from another culture.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        restless94110 (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:53pm

        Re: Re: Way to miss the point

        All cultures have added to American culture. I never said that. So your straw man is a logical fallacy.

        So let me ask you THIS question. Name me 5 things about Sharia law that you feel can assimilate into American culture.

        You know, rock and roll? Freedom? Tolerance? Our culture.

        What 5 things about Sharia law, the base belief of ALL Muslims, will assimilate into Western and American culture?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 2:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

          >You know, rock and roll? Freedom? Tolerance? Our culture.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_hip_hop

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

          Sharia law, the base belief of ALL Muslims

          Here in Canada a small group of Muslims called for sharia courts for their own people. They were shouted down - marches even held to protest them - by a much, MUCH larger group of Muslims who had had enough of that crap in the old world and wanted no part of it here.

          (The upshot: They pointed out that Jews have private religious-based courts recognized by the Ontario government. Canadians went "Wait.... what?" and those courts were shut down.)

          One can list plenty of horrific Old and even New Testament directives that the vast majority of Christian are nevertheless opposed to. But they're still, as you put it, "the base belief of ALL Christians."

          However... There are parts of Sharia law that have already assimilated into American culture.

          As example, the influence of Islam on the development of an international law of the sea can be discerned alongside that of the Roman influence.

          Makdisi states Islamic law also parallels the legal scholastic system in the West, which gave rise to the modern university system. He writes that the triple status of faqih ("master of law"), mufti ("professor of legal opinions") and mudarris ("teacher"), conferred by the classical Islamic legal degree, had its equivalents in the medieval Latin terms magister, professor and doctor, respectively, although they all came to be used synonymously in both East and West. Makdisi suggests that the medieval European doctorate, licentia docendi was modeled on the Islamic degree ijazat al-tadris wa-l-ifta’, of which it is a word-for-word translation, with the term ifta’ (issuing of fatwas) omitted. He also argues that these systems shared fundamental freedoms: the freedom of a professor to profess his personal opinion and the freedom of a student to pass judgement on what he is learning.

          As for things that can still assimilate into American culture, how about:

          _sharia classically recognizes only natural persons, and never developed the concept of a legal person, or corporation, i.e., a legal entity that limits the liabilities of its managers, shareholders, and employees...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 8:41am

      Re: Way to miss the point

      Way to miss the point.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 8:42am

      Re: Way to miss the point

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        restless94110 (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: Way to miss the point

        Because some called an Italian immigrant 100 years ago a dago, because they were ignorant of Italian culture and fearful of that culture in the White Protestant America of 1910, has nary a thing to do with a complete and encyclopedic knowledges of Muslim culture and Sharia law, sorrykb.

        Another fallacious straw man bit of nonsense.

        Italians were Catholics by and large and were part of the rich Latin/Roman culture that American culture springs from.

        This is not at all the same thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

          > complete and encyclopedic knowledges of Muslim culture and Sharia law,

          *snort*

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 4:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point

            Dear sir,

            For the benefit of the obviously ignorant, please detail your expert knowledge of Islam and Sharia law and the basic fundamentals of the requirements as detailed in the Koran and hadith. This will allow us to make a comparison with what the OP has said and be able to check the veracity of the OP's ideas and concepts.

            From your comment, can we take it that you are a leading Islamic Koranic scholar?

            David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Gigi Duru, 31 Jan 2017 @ 1:35am

    You're so wrong...

    It all boils down on one simple thing - everyone loves treason when it benefits them, no one loves traitorous scum.
    And no matter how you're trying to spin this, if you don't put your country first then you're nothing more than a traitorous scum.
    So why are you surprised when you're called for your support of traitors?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Fred Elbel, 31 Jan 2017 @ 4:58am

    The right and obligation to control our population

    American women voluntarily achieved replacement level fertility (2.1 children per woman) in 1972. Yet mass immigration is driving US population to double within the lifetimes of children born today.

    That will mean twice as many houses, roads, cars, schools, hospitals, and prisons. Twice the demand for power and water. Twice the demand upon our sustaining ecosystems.

    America is full. There are no more vast uncharted spaces to settle.

    America has the right - and indeed the obligation - to control its population, for the sake of future generations - of all races, creeds, and colors.

    Fred Elbel
    Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - CAIRCO org

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 5:14am

      Re: The right and obligation to control our population

      Don't try and bring any common sense to a bleeding heart convention, your about to learn where that will get you. Were really busy modding each other up for like minded comments right now, but rest assured, we'll get to you in short order.

      -Snowflakes

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 9:07am

      Re: The right and obligation to control our population

      Hi CAIRCO. You linked to your site, so I went there to have a look and found:

      So, yeah, tell me again how your concern is about population growth and infrastructure.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    holly (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 6:32am

    Thanks for this, Mike. It's tough to talk about this shit in public when every other comment is willful ignorance and blindly repeated talking points. It's easier to keep your mouth shut and keep blogging about tech. But you're right, all this "political", "emotional" stuff is fundamental to all the other issues techdirt is all about. I've been a reader on and off for about a decade now and we don't agree on absolutely everything, but I appreciate your and the other writers' commitment to thinking critically about complex issues. Keep it up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zach, 31 Jan 2017 @ 7:11am

    Really disappointed in this article. Frankly I rarely read the comments and I don't particularly care what your history or opinion is. This is a tech website. Criticize Trump all you want but keep it relevant. This isn't relevant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      Zach wrote:

      This isn't relevant.

      You must have skipped this part of the article:

      But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    My_Name_Here, 31 Jan 2017 @ 7:25am

    Where to start? Should I start by saying that my comments will be "moderated" for a couple of days before posting, thus rending them moot? I will make them anyway, because some things just need to be said.

    I think key here is that being critical of Trump (who appears to have serious mental issues) isn't a bad thing. The bad thing is how you are critical of him. Too often, the tone (as I did above) is about the person and not the policies. That will always get you in trouble.

    Also, bans on people entering the US from certain countries is not all that ommon, but it has happened. Japanese were banned (by law) in 1924. You can see some other bans in the past by following this link:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

    F inally, you have to face certain realities which few want to look too closely at. One of those is the questions of huge increase in Muslim populations around the world outside of normal areas, and the impact of all of that immigration. While some Muslims do choose to integrate into the societies of their new homes, many of the more recent "refugees" seem to expect to import their way of life into their new countries. This includes a life clock set by multiple prayer periods in every day, Muslim banking, Sharia law, and the treatment of women mostly as chattel and not as people.

    If you spend some time in the UK, as an example, you will see some of the problems this creates. You end up with a society inside a society that is non-integrating and does not feel beholden to the laws of the land or the traditions of their adopted country. You get enclave style living situations where people group together and try to enforce their religious "laws" on everyone in the area. You get women walking around covered in sheets to try not to offend the menfolk.

    Given a few more generations of near unlimited immigration, the UK will effectively become a Muslim nation. For some, that has the look of a sort of trojan horse attack. The "refugees" and immigrants overwhelm the system and at the end of the day, end up controlling the place. Political correctness and reasonable accommodations are things that make it even easier for this sort of silent take over to occur.

    In the US, there are a few great fears. There is the threat from the South, with parts of the southern US becoming almost provinces of Mexico and Central America, and the threats from non-integrating immigrants from Muslim nations. That fear is what Trump campaigned on, and it's real enough for enough Americans that he got elected. People also don't want foreign wars and conflicts to get exported to the US.

    Most people's humanity stops at the point where they realize that it's hurting them more than it's helping others, or where they see that they aren't helping people up, but rather being stepped on and used as a doormat to a better quality of life.

    You aren't wrong Mike, but you are not considering at what point humanity is self defeating.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 11:06am

      Re:

      Where to start? Should I start by saying that my comments will be "moderated" for a couple of days before posting, thus rending them moot?

      Well you're off to a great start so far.

      I think key here is that being critical of Trump (who appears to have serious mental issues) isn't a bad thing. The bad thing is how you are critical of him. Too often, the tone (as I did above) is about the person and not the policies

      The person matters. Everything Trump does is about who he is. Sure, that's true of everyone, but his ... disorder absolutely determines every policy he will make. His behavior is reckless, impulsive. He is driven by a constant need for attention and adultation, and by vindictiveness towards anyone who fails to praise him.

      Also, bans on people entering the US from certain countries is not all that ommon, but it has happened. Japanese were banned (by law) in 1924. You can see some other bans in the past...

      And most of us, looking back, acknowledge that those bans were mistaken and immoral, not in keeping with who we are, or at least who we aspire to be as a nation.

      One of those is the questions of huge increase in Muslim populations around the world outside of normal areas...

      "Normal areas" -- Tell that to my Irish Catholic immigrant ancestors. And by your implicit definition American Jews are not in their "normal areas".

      many of the more recent "refugees" seem to expect to import their way of life into their new countries.

      "But these immigrants are different than everyone before". Not so much. No. Read this article at Popehat, or just read up in the comments, where this has been discussed repeatedly.

      Given a few more generations of near unlimited immigration, the UK will effectively become a Muslim nation. For some, that has the look of a sort of trojan horse attack. The "refugees" and immigrants overwhelm the system and at the end of the day, end up controlling the place. Political correctness and reasonable accommodations are things that make it even easier for this sort of silent take over to occur.

      Bullshit fearmongering. I bet you believe there are also Muslim "no go" zones in English cities.

      In the US, there are a few great fears. There is the threat from the South, with parts of the southern US becoming almost provinces of Mexico and Central America, and the threats from non-integrating immigrants from Muslim nations. That fear is what Trump campaigned on, and it's real enough for enough Americans that he got elected.

      I live in Southern California, which used to be a territory of Mexico. In my L.A. apartment building live people from all over the world, speaking a variety of languages. And you know what? It's fine. We're fine. We've made it work. In fact, much of it is pretty damn awesome, and the state is thriving.

      And by the way, Trump didn't win here in California. He lost, by a huge margin. By your logic, shouldn't we Californians be most fearful?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re:

        Also worth noting:
        Trump lost the border state of New Mexico, and didn't exactly pull off a landslide in Arizona (48.7% for Trump vs 45.1% for Clinton). And he lost Nevada (not a border state but still southwest). In fact, he did worst in states with greater demographic diversity.

        So what does that tell us about the fear you speak of? What is it that scares those people? What do they fear they might lose?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        My_Name_Here, 31 Jan 2017 @ 4:48pm

        Re: Re:

        "much of it is pretty damn awesome, and the state is thriving."

        Really? California is a mess. Cities going bankrupt. Over burdened school systems. Huge issues with drugs, crime, and poverty, and the "shining jewel" of the tech world is a place where normal people can't even afford to live.

        If you call that working out fine, then yup, you are fine. Just remember that you pay some of the highest taxes in the nation to pay for all of those non-taxpayers shipping their money out of the country (including the big corporations).

        ""Normal areas" -- Tell that to my Irish Catholic immigrant ancestors. And by your implicit definition American Jews are not in their "normal areas"."

        You miss the point entirely. Ireland didn't have a plan to turn the US into an Irish state. Your ancestors integrated in the US, became citizens, and didn't suddenly demand the government to give them special laws or allow them to take 5 breaks a day to "pray". They became "Irish Americans".

        For some, moving to a new country means becoming part of that society. For others, it means bringing your entire society with you, and forcing it upon your new home country. I respect their right to be whatever they want to be, to the point where I have to change what I already was to in order to make their unbending way of life work.

        "Bullshit fearmongering. I bet you believe there are also Muslim "no go" zones in English cities."

        Thanks for trying to paint me as an extremist while ignoring the point. I didn't mention any no-go zones, I was talking about places where Sharia Law is effectively the law, and is enforced by zealous people who couldn't leave that shit behind in their home land.

        Based on your statements, I assume you have no problem of women as chattel, unable to get a divorce from even a physically abusive relationship?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 2 Feb 2017 @ 5:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Muslims are not an homogenous group. Educate yourself.

          If you can't be bothered to do so, it's the Wahabbists you should worry about.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 12:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Really? California is a mess. Cities going bankrupt. Over burdened school systems. Huge issues with drugs, crime, and poverty, and the "shining jewel" of the tech world is a place where normal people can't even afford to live.

          Well, if we didn't have to subsidize you, we'd be nicely in the black. California is a net donor to the FED, fam.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Scott (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 10:02am

    Mike, very well stated. Passionate w/out being overly emotional. Thanks for writing it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Legion2k13 (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 10:12am

    Our Humanity

    ' That group of people probably won't like this post very much, though I do hope they'll read it with open minds."
    First, Our Humanity and Donald Trump cannot be used in the same sentence. Secondly, I don't think that you will find a Trump supporter with an open mind.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    rawcookie (profile), 31 Jan 2017 @ 12:12pm

    Humanity?

    It is painfully obvious that most people are ignorant of history and need to study it more. Here is an excerpt of an article that should be read so you will have a better understanding of the true nature of Islam.

    Muhammad established the belief among his followers that God had commandeered all Muslims’ purposes and property for His efforts and that all Muslims had a responsibility to fight for the faith. Everyone—men, women, and even children—had an obligation for military service in defense of the faith and the ummah that was the community of God’s chosen people on earth. It is essential to understand that the attraction of the Islamic ideology more than anything else produced the manpower that permitted Muhammad’s small revolutionary cadre to evolve into a conventional armed force capable of large-scale engagements.

    And here is a link to the article although there is a lot more out there you should study so you have a clear understanding of what the world is up against.

    http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2017 @ 5:07pm

      Re: Humanity?

      Don't actually expect too many to follow up on this. Most people want their opinions about all sorts of subjects uncoloured by actually understanding the subject matter.

      David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Fred Elbel, 1 Feb 2017 @ 8:27am

      Re: Humanity?

      As Garrett Hardin said, it takes five years to change a willing mind. I would add that it might take a bit longer to inform those who are resistant to factual information.

      Here is some basic information on the threat of islam:

      Islamic terrorism and ISIS
      http://www.cairco.org/issues/islam-terrorism-isis

      Earlier, someone asked about the relationship of immigration-driven US population to our sustaining environment. Here is one resource:

      Environment and the consequences of immigration-driven population growth
      http://www.cairco.org/issues/environment-immigration

      Fred Elbel
      Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - CAIRCO org

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 12:57pm

        Re: Re: Humanity?

        Earlier, someone asked about the relationship of immigration-driven US population to our sustaining environment.

        No, no one asked about this. Unless you're talking about yourself in the third person again. And forgot your own name.

        And there's no need to link again to your turdfest of a website. We've been there, and it's pretty clear that it's not "the environment" you're concerned about. It's keeping (or rather, making) America exclusive to white Christians.

        No thanks. Actually, strike the "thanks". Just no.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 2 Feb 2017 @ 5:34am

          Re: Re: Re: Humanity?

          *Right wing white Christian fundamentalists.

          FIFY

          I'm a Christian, I'm white, I'm conservative and can't stand Trump. Everything he stands for is completely contrary to everything I stand for, starting with traditional community values of honesty and decency.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 1 Feb 2017 @ 5:45pm

      Re: Humanity?

      Muhammad established the belief among his followers that...

      How is this different from Christianity? Plenty of similar quotes are in the Bible. Modern Christians are just as bound by them. (And like most Modern Muslims, disagree that they're bound by them.)

      "Spreading Christianity" was a major driving factor in the Christian conquest of the New World, Africa and Asia, with the occasional genocide as required. Not to mention countless pogroms - even after WWII and the Holocaust.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TheOtherDude, 1 Feb 2017 @ 7:15am

    Good Stuff

    Ive been a TD reader since around 2007/2008 and have to say this is the best post I have ever read on the site . . . Thanks!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:45am

    This is all started with 9/11, the biggest lie in recent world history.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

The Last Word

No non citizen has a right to enter a country

Back in World War II, when Sir Arthur "Yearnin' for a Burnin' German" Harris and the Allied air command was pulverizing (and incinerating) German cities (something that caused more civilian casualties than the two nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the common sentiment was that civilian casualties were okay. If they hadn't wanted to be targeted as part of the Axis war machine, they shouldn't have elected a fascist government. In short, they got what was coming to them, and they were responsible, as citizens, for the actions of their government.

I can certainly see obvious arguments for such a conclusion. Not certain it's right, but I could make an argument in support or opposition without much mental gymnastics.

There seems to be an equally obvious corollary though; No state is composed of 100% approval. No action gets unanimous consent, and some people are always on the losing side of an election.

And therefore, if you believe that people vote with their citizenship (similar to voting with your dollar) and are responsible for the results, supporting the free movement of people is necessary. Otherwise citizens become hostages; "You have to support our state, our war, not because it is right or just or moral, but because you have no choice, and you might live if we win- but if we lose, you won't. Even if you don't like it, want it, or support it, you have nowhere else to go."

I could make a bridge here by referencing some big names and pretentious (but significant) quotes, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Let's not and say I did.

But it's simple self-interest. Don't put your enemy in death ground. It costs you more than you'll ever get out. Don't force them to defend their position to the death- it's much more profitable to make them your friend. They might be your enemy now, but you don't have to like them to make money selling to them hand over fist. And they might be your enemy now, but there always might be a worse one further down the line you could use a hand against.

And to do that, you need to give the a way out. A way to stop being your enemy- while continuing to be, because most people consider that an unacceptable price.

—Anonymous Coward

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.