361–370 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most didn't according to a metric that's not the metric that is actually used to select the president and thus candidates and parties don't try to optimize for. As for the other point, agree to disagree.
Use "elected" instead of "voted" in the future and you're more likely to avoid this kind of semantic distraction in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I would have called it a good example of how moving fast and breaking things is OK even for government action. It's only been two days and it's already been amended to allow green card holders to enter again, and several courts have ordered it to not be enforced. Before this, I and most people I know would not have guessed that government could move to amend broken policy this quickly.
But meanwhile 1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis. 2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order mean…
2. I'm fine with that. It's a work in progress, and the "harm" of travel delays that everyone in the world is aware of is pretty overstated. I think focus here is mostly a consequence of people being willing to place blame for harm caused by government action while giving harm caused by government inaction a free pass.
3. Same as 1. I'm pretty sure everyone already knew Trump, and by extension, the country, hated Muslims. As for ever having had the high ground, that's largely a delusion fueled by blind patriotism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the new job need to continue to sponsor under the H1B program? If so that's not comparable.
What exactly do you think is sponsoring H1B? The company just pays a one time fee for applying for your permit which is negligible compared to how much engineers are paid. They don't have ongoing expenses related to work permit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was this downvoted? It would be helpful if someone stated the reason why. What is clear is that Trump represents American workers over the elites that want to depress wages. What is also clear is that Rubio was "bought" by Disney precisely because they wanted to depress American wages. Are these facts incorrect?
I don't know if you can claim as facts that Trump represents American workers over the elites or that Rubio was bought by Disney. Those are hypotheses and opinions that can only be strongly or poorly argued to the rest of us. I would declaim your first contention of Trump favoring workers over wealthy elites, merely by the long sordid history of wage theft perpetrated by Trump[0]. The claim about Rubio needs more evi…
I didn't say that Rubio was bought by Disney, but that 'Rubio was "bought" by Disney', the quotes are operative to suggest a strong implication without in fact true evidence which might be illegal. The point is that Rubio accepted $2 million from Disney to increase from 85,000 to 250,000 the number of H1-B visas that only serves to replace American STEM workers with immigrants who are cheaper and who don't have job mobility. Rubio ignored his own constituents, 250 of whom had their jobs replaced by Disney using immigrants. Increasing the number of H1-B visas by 165,000 fewer American STEM workers get jobs each year or 1.65 million over a decade.
What is clear about Trump is that he has spoken out against Disney's use of H1-B visas to replace American STEM jobs. He has spoken out and intervened with Carrier which wanted to send 2000 Indiana factory jobs to Mexico. About 1000 of those jobs will be saved.
Sanders agreed with Trump about Carrier, Disney, etc., but Hilary was silent as were all of the other Republican candidates. I can only speak of Rubio's actions (accepting $2 million from Disney which wanted to put more American STEM workers on unemployment and sponsoring a bill to increase H1-B Visas) compared with Trump who spoke out against these actions and who did not receive one cent from Disney or probably most SV and Wall Street firms.
Most of the SV and Wall Street firms hate Trump precisely because he won't allow them to import cheap STEM labor so now the firms will have to pay market rates to retain STEM employees.
HP chief Meg Whitman, a Republican, said she was voting for Hilary because
'“Trump’s reckless and uninformed positions” on immigration...' [1]. Trump's reckless and uninformed position on immigration is stopping illegal immigration and ensuring H1-B visas are issued according to law -- only for those STEM jobs for which no Americans are qualified. HP like Disney and other firms that hire STEM workers want to depress STEM job income using immigrants (e.g., H1-B Visas). Trump will have nothing of it and that makes them very, very angry.
[1] http://fortune.com/2016/08/02/hewlett-packard-enterprise-meg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that CBP has very wide powers and very little supervision has been talked about for ages. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. Refusing to execute a court order should be grounds for immediate dismissal, and possibly following contempt of court proceedings, but I suspect CBP has a union which would fight that tooth and nail and probably win. > No longer can we claim to take the high ground against…
I edited my comment to clarify. I did not mean to imply that we are equivalent in all regards, or that this is the one thing that broke the camels back (guantanamo, predators bombing civilians in Pakistan, etc have been far worse for example). I just mean we lost something real and tangible there for no gain. This is not a good MO for the government.
While a lot of people in US certainly think some aspects of current practices of some Muslims are problematic, there's no law in US that limits Muslim practices, exercise of their religion or any aspect of their life based on their religion. It's not even on the same planet with what ISIS does - where not only being a non-Muslim but even being a Muslim not devout enough by their standards means death sentence. You might compare it to Saudi Arabia maybe, which bans anybody who ever visited Israel from entering, it still would be way wrong and misguided, but at least it would be regular wrong, not insanely wrong.
In fact, I think this overblown rhetoric is exactly why immigration debate is getting so insane in the US - each time somebody says "ok, let's discuss how risky is to import people from Yemen or Syria and what precautions we may want to take so that good people get in and bad people stay out" people are screaming "you bigot, you hate Muslims, damn you, filthy Nazi!". So people start thinking "sigh, we can't really discuss it anymore in any sane way, so let's just elect Trump who would ban it altogether without discussing anything - at least it's more safe that way".
And the other side takes it as a confirmation that it's all plot to oppress Muslims. And so on. So the choice we get is between two insane extremums instead of a sensible policy in between. We need to get down from that tree and we need no more to see anti-Muslim bigot in each person that wants immigration to be more controlled than we need to see anti-Western terrorist in each Muslim. It just doesn't help anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about the checks like judicial review, which is not being enforced in dulles currently as CBT continues to bar lawyers from visiting with detainees in violation of court order. I am talking about the disregard for Geneva refugee convention the United States was committed to. I am talking about looping in people are supposed to enforce this and having a common sense discussion with them about what it means…
So can you explain to me, how this is not democracy, if Trump was elected, democratically? Without saying the election was rigged by Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But meanwhile 1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis. 2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order mean…
1. That was a lost cause as soon as Trump was elected. Or arguably, nominated. And although I can appreciate that it might be better for the country if we didn't look capricious and incompetent even when we are, if we are, then it's hard for me to feel too bad about it. 2. I'm fine with that. It's a work in progress, and the "harm" of travel delays that everyone in the world is aware of is pretty overstated. I think…
Your original argument even stated the courts functioning as a reason that things could continue like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I edited my comment to clarify. I did not mean to imply that we are equivalent in all regards, or that this is the one thing that broke the camels back (guantanamo, predators bombing civilians in Pakistan, etc have been far worse for example). I just mean we lost something real and tangible there for no gain. This is not a good MO for the government.
Even with the edit it's not right. First of all, immigration EO has nothing to do with religious freedom. 7 countries are targeted not because Muslims live there (though of course they do, but Muslims live in a lot more countries than that) but because they are either failed states or states actively supporting terrorism (of course, that doesn't mean they are only failed states or only ones supporting terrorism). Whi…
> 7 countries targeted not because Muslims live there
This nonsense has got to stop. Those nations have sent us exactly 0 terrorists to my knowledge. Meanwhile plenty of nations like Saudia Arabia have clear links to terror groups and remain free to travel to the US. What they all have in common is they are convenient Muslim bogeymen without the ability to strike back internationally and with plausible deniability about this being a Muslim ban in some circles. [0]
It can be discrimination against a group without targeting the entire group if it disproportionately affects that group and if there aren't other reasonable explanations- this does fit that bill.
Trump also promised a shutdown of muslims entering the country on the campaign trail? Are you saying he just happened to sign this executive order based on other unrelated principles?
You use a false analogy to equate people calling Trumps policy bigoted with muslims being bigoted against westerners. We aren't painting an entire class of people as bigoted. Trump has said bigoted things about muslims. That is reason to believe that orders Trump gives mean exactly what he has said they would mean on the campaign trail. There is no extrapolation from a few to a whole group.
Furthermore Rudy Giuliani's description of how the ban came to be should put this point to bed. [1]
We can have immigration reform without people calling you a Nazi. Obama put into place some very strict immigration controls on those same countries without outright banning.
[0] conveniently also no Trump company interests in those states [1] http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/01/30/political-panel-on-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> higher immigration (or even better distribution of existing immigrants) would likely have kept him out of office. Only importing immigrants who have political views that agree with yours? A country has a particular culture and set of views. Why would we want to import people from countries with inferior living conditions and follow the way they do things? There's a reason they left.
No, the presence of immigrants who have political views that disagree with me would be even better. As for why let people in from poor countries, because we are siphoning off the most educated and ambitions people from that country, who bring their drive and good genes to our country. It's the same reason Asians, who consist of the top people in their home countries who chose to came here, do better in the US than bl…
What part of the point "let people in from poor countries, but don't let them keep doing things the way they were doing them" is not clear? Sure they want to move here, don't let them turn this place into the place they left by making them learn the language and culture.
>It's the same reason Asians, who consist of the top people in their home countries who chose to came here
That is an incorrect statement. Most asians who first came to america were imported as cheap labor to compete against Irish unskilled labor. The Polish, Irish, and Italian who came to the states were definitely not the best and brightest, but because they assimilated and learned the culture prospered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that CBP has very wide powers and very little supervision has been talked about for ages. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. Refusing to execute a court order should be grounds for immediate dismissal, and possibly following contempt of court proceedings, but I suspect CBP has a union which would fight that tooth and nail and probably win. > No longer can we claim to take the high ground against…
What of the Iraqis who helped the US in exchange for promises of asylum? Sending them back to Iraq very well may get them murdered and/or raped.
[1] http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/01/30/defense-secreta...