The ambiguities of dual citizenship

You may have read that the recent Executive Order also applied to those who hold dual citizenship in any of the specified nations.  I haven’t yet seen it fully explained how pernicious this is.  A lot of countries don’t easily let you renounce their citizenship, they may still claim you, or at the very least they will not issue documentation confirming you are not a dual citizen, no matter what the fact of the matter may be.  Very often there is no “fact of the matter” as to who is a dual citizen.  Say you were born in Iran, and your parents brought you to the United States or Canada at age two.  Let’s say the Trump administration then asks you to prove you are not a dual citizen of Iran.  How are you supposed to do this?  Leave the country and try to get confirmation in Iran itself, noting you might have to prove you have not broken any laws and have paid all back taxes and fees?  Who knows?

How do you like these apples?:

Based on Article 41 of the constitution, Iran does not recognize dual citizenship, and if an individual acquires the citizenship of another country, his or her Iranian nationality will be revoked. This, however, requires certain legal procedures that if not pursued will result in the individual’s foreign citizenship not being officially recognized.

By applying a dual citizenship provision, in effect we are making Iranian law American law.  It is Iran who determines who is banned, not Trump.  You even could imagine a foreign government using this to punish or blackmail people who have scant current connection to their nation.  What should I do if Yemen offers me honorary national citizenship, in return for the service of promoting their cuisine and restaurants in the fine state of Virginia?  Can I turn it down?  Prove I don’t really hold it?  What exactly is to count as such proof?


As an antidote to the vast supply of misinformed outrage-

Not that the restrictions on dual citizens apply to those traveling on a passport of the non-US country.

The link you've provided explicitly says "Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, will be barred".

Bob's your uncle!

Nadhim Zahawi, a British Member of Parliament of Iraqi Kurdish origin who was born in Iraq was told by his lawyers that the ban would apply to him (and his wife) even though neither have Iraqi nationality. The man's a millionaire so presumably his lawyers know what they are doing.

That is pretty weird if true, my cousin was born in Baghdad 30 years ago when his father was working on an engineering contract there. Subsequently he has had about as much contact with Iraq as Steve Bannon has had yet would apparently be banned from travelling to the US.

There are about 250,000 British citizens who originate from the banned countries who are likely rather annoyed by this.

Did those 250,000 British citizens (sic) vote for Hillary?

Dude! Don't out your cousin!

This is a truly telling line: "Well, that’s because Christians are the most persecuted religion in the Middle East, by Muslims. If there were a country in which Muslims were persecuted by another majority religion, they would get preference". I'm sure that statement is just so obvious to the author he never bothered to check if it was true. Muslims (Suni) persecuting Muslims (Shite) or visa versa doesn't count?

Then we have "Christians are being discriminated by Obama/Kerry" with the absurd conclusion that 10% of the country is Christian, therefore 10% of the refugees should be Christian rather than 0.5%. I will certainly concede that the best estimate of Christian casualties is 9% (which seems to refute that Christians have it worse), so the number of admitted Christian refugees seems low. You still need to show that Christian's applied and were denied refugee status at a disproportionate rate.

I have better things to do with my Sunday than pick apart polemics, but the religious part was too laughable to pass up.

The problem is that Christians are being pushed out of Jordanian refugee camps before they can apply.

That's partly true, though the other part is that Christians have typically sought refuge either in areas with Christian communities or where religious minorities are tolerated (Lebanon, Kurdish-controlled northeastern Syria, Kurdish-administered northern Iraq) and that has made it more difficult for UNHCR to reach them, compared to those the large Jordanian camps. Either way, it shows that the people drawing conclusions from the raw numbers of refugees accepted by the US have no understanding of the screening process, or just want it dropped altogether for those self-identifying as Christian. The obvious problems with the latter approach don't need spelling out.

Where can I find out the current process? I was honestly trying to understand a way to assess the claim that Christians are being selected against, and it's a hard problem to understand. I think the biggest thing missing from all of this is "Please point out ways the current system for selection is flawed and identify how this fixes these problems". Right now I don't even know what the process looks like.

I know it wouldn't satisfy some people, but I'd feel a lot better if the administration could articulate that this is a temporary state of affairs and they have a clear vision going forward. Right now if you want to know what the ultimate goal is, we only have Rudy Giuliani to go on, and he's not saying much that's good.

I doubt there is any getting through to the Perpetually Outraged, but thanks for trying Rich.

Anyone who refers to this situation as a "Muslim Ban" is a lying sack of garbage.

Looking at you, Tyler.

It makes perfect sense when one understands that everything they throw (monkeys flinging feces comes to mind) is false and misleading.

"No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other." St. Matthew 6:24.

Technically I agree that Rudy Giuliani is a lying sack of garbage:, but he 1) is part of the Trump administration, 2) thinks this is a Muslim ban.

Your cited story says that Giuliani said this was not a Muslim ban.

He also is not part Trump administration

No, he said it was an attempt to do the same thing but legally. The courts frown on that sort of pretext.

And he is a cybersecurity advisor to the president. He doesn't hold a Senate confirmed position, but he is involved:

Pretty clear from the Guiliani story that anybody who says it is not a Muslim ban, because it is dressed-up to avoid looking like a Muslim ban, is a lying sack of doggy-doodie.

It is dressed up to not be a Muslim ban. Which is what Giuliani said in that article.

A rose by any other name, no?

If I bar everyone from a predominately Muslim country, and grant an exception to religious minorities (e.g. non-Muslims), I've effectively created a Muslim ban even if I call it something else.

How can it be seen any other way?

Because muslims fro,m Indonesia are not banned to name one country only.


But 2 things can be true at the same time. A global ban on Muslims is a ban on Muslims. A ban on Muslims from selected countries is also a ban on Muslims.

It only allows religious minorities entrance if they suffer religious persecution.

And given multiple strains of Islam, there are Muslims in these nations who are religious minorities (Sunnis in Iraq for instance).

And I don't think it can be called a Muslim ban if it doesn't ban the great majority of Muslims. Just as a ban from seven European nations wouldn't be properly called a Christian ban or a white people ban.

What if the ban was on Christians from seven European nations? Or Christians from seven other nations?

Then it would be a ban on Christians from seven different nations. It wouldn't be a "Christian ban" because the great majority of the world's Christians can still enter.

And this doesn't just ban the Muslims from these nations. Religious minorities have to suffer religious persecution to be excepted, and Sunni Muslims in a majority Shia state are religious minorities.

Anyone who refers to this situation as a “Muslim Ban” is a lying sack of garbage.

You mean like Giuliani? Yeah, he's a sack of garbage all right.

"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani said. "When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban.' He called me up, he said, 'Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'" Giuliani reported that he assembled a commission of legal experts, "and what we did was we focused on — instead of religion — danger, the areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."

- So Giuliani said instead of religion, we looked at areas of the world that create danger. That would not make this a Muslim ban. That would not be Giuliani saying this is a Muslim ban. That is Giuliani saying "No, a Muslim ban would be illegal. Here is a policy that addresses your concerns without being illegal." That would make this not a Muslim ban. That would make this a legal alternative to a Muslim ban.

It isn't just "dressed up" to not be a Muslim ban. It is an attempt to address the underlying concerns Trump had that made him want a Muslim ban, without actually banning Muslims.

Dual citizenship per se as a criterion for anything is worthless since any country can declare anybody to be one of their citizens. North Korea could decide and declare that Donald Trump is a North Korean citizen, for example.

The only meaningful test is what passports a person holds since they have to actively apply for them.

Are you saying it applies to US Citizens who hold a dual citizenship in one of those nations?

It doesn't, but I'm not sure TC knows that.

Just reading Tyler's post it certainly seems like he is claiming it would apply to a US citizen with such dual citizenship. His hypothetical seems to be of a US-Iranian dual citizen.

If that is wrong Tyler should say so.

On my phone it says this post has been tweeted 1503 times. If that is right and isn't just my phone being terrible, Tyler should really clarify or else he will just be making an already confused discourse more confused.

Maybe that was the intent? Tyler knows that liberals desperately wish power again and that it looks like trump overreached.

Whomever in the administration authored the idiotic section 3.c needs to be dismissed. This, by itself, could sink the presidency.

They had everything and they are blowing it.

"They had everything and they are blowing it."

""McClellan brought superior forces to Sharpsburg, but he also brought himself."

I think you are right. No one with U.S. citizenship, regardless of any other citizenship can ever be legally denied entry into the U.S. or deported. But, someone with more than one U.S. citizenship could be legally treated differently based upon one of those citizenships.

Incidentally, for visa purposes, U.S. immigration law treats you as a citizen of the place where you were born rather than the place you have citizenship, even if you have renounced citizenship in the place where you are born and only have your naturalized citizenship.

Is that you lyin Ted?

It is completely illegal to ban US dual citizens entry. However, the EO was incredibly poorly worded and provided no guidance to CBP. It explicitly said that any national of the seven listed countries are banned from entry to the US, so if you are a national of that country and of the US the EO can be interpreted to mean you are now denied entry. Massively illegal but no one from the White House has issued any guidance to the contrary yet and the matter is just starting in the courts.

It's still bad to apply it to foreign nationals who can't control the fact that Iran (for instance) still claims them as a citizen. You could be talking about someone who immigrated to Canada after the Iranian revolution and is going to attend a scientific conference in the US. A lot of Iran's educated professional class (not to mention Syria's!) fled the country decades ago and resettled in Europe or Canada. There are a lot of Iranian born doctors and scientists all over the West.

I have come to the opinion that if the laws of the US, or Canada for that matter, were applied as written the whole country would grind to a halt within days. That seems to be the situation here. Legal immigration into the US is treacherous, expensive, time consuming and ultimately a waste of time. It is far simpler to cross the border and just lay low.

In other words, it is working as designed. Maybe the outrage at the harassment of 'legal' immigrants will focus enough political attention to sorting that out.

I doubt it though. Screaming is much more satisfying.

"I have come to the opinion that if the laws of the US, or Canada for that matter, were applied as written the whole country would grind to a halt within days. "

Any comment Dr. Tabarok?

Maybe that's the point.

Suppose you believe that people from (say) Somalia are more risky to let in than people from Denmark. What's the mechanism? It could be that their government has some legal/blackmail lever on them, which would disappear if they acquired Swedish passports. Or it could be that they're more likely to have ISIS sympathies and connections to get AK-47s... in which case the fact that they now have Swedish passports hasn't changed a damn thing.

A case in point:

911 proves Saudis are safer to admit to the US than Iranians?

Have congress pass a law amending the INA to remove section 1152(a)(1)(A) "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." There was nothing illegal about the previous national origins system pre-1965 which preferred Northern Europeans over Southern Europeans, and all Europeans over especially Asians and Africans. The irony is that they also shifted to a family preference system rather than a contribution to society and employability preference because they were worried about non-white immigrants which created a system today where most immigrant visas go to family members of people already here. This is why there is a multi-decade line to immigrate if you are Mexican because family members get to cut in line.

The section that you are discussing, INA Section 1152(a)(1)(A) has NOTHING to do with family preference, contribution to society, or employability preference. If we created a points-based immigration system (such as they have in Canada and Australia), it would not conflict with that section. Indeed, that section is EXACTLY what is needed if you want to implement a points-based meritocratic system since the previous national origins system essentially meant that a poor uneducated lazy Italian man had preference for immigration over a rich well-educated entrepreneurial Chinese woman.

I don't the example you used works in the case of a child born in Iran who becomes a US citizen. "The dual-citizenship ban doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens who are also citizens of the seven nations singled out by Trump," according to WSJ and The Hill.

You mean, Tyler doesn't know what he's talking about? Impossible. Tyler never expresses an opinion about anything unless he is an expert. That's why he doesn't discuss free expression on college campuses, because he hasn't given the issue the detailed study it requires. He would never spout off based on something he read in the Washington Post, no no no.

I don't think it's ideal but what is? I thought at first you meant dual citizenship of the US and another country, which really would have been outrageous and possibly induced me to join the protests of my liberal friends. As it is, this seems more like an unfortunate wrinkle.

Let’s say the Trump administration then asks you to prove you are not a dual citizen of Iran. How are you supposed to do this?

Sign a sworn statement renouncing your Iranian citizenship, send a copy to the nearest Iranian consulate via certified mail and give another copy to the American official examining you.

You honestly think this would work?

If you are a US citizen you are unaffected.

What does 'not work' mean in this context?

That the US government would accept this as proof.

CBP agents have almost unlimited authority to make immigration determinations at the border with no need to consult precedent. Such a document would only get you in on a case-by-case basis.

CBP agents, however, have no authority to deny a US citizen entry into the country since US citizens are, by definition, NOT immigrants. That doesn't mean that they can't harass you and deny you entry until you prove to their satisfaction that you are a citizen. However, they will ultimately be forced to admit you to the US.

The Iranian government would still consider you a citizen if you were born there or your parents were born there. To renounce your citizenship you would have to travel there and go to court and even then you would likely be arrested as a dissident as a desire to renounce your citizenship is a crime. So you are technically an Iranian citizen even if you have never even been there.

A lot of countries don’t easily let you renounce their citizenship, they may still claim you, or at the very least they will not issue documentation confirming you are not a dual citizen, no matter what the fact of the matter may be.

Who cares?

The Mexican Constitution States leaving Mexico for five years automatically results in loss of Mexican citizenship.

Thus very few "illegals" in the US are Mexican citizens. Few people came from Mexico in the past five years, most having arrived before 2008.

The Mexican Constitution States leaving Mexico for five years automatically results in loss of Mexican citizenship.

That only applies to naturalized citizens (see Article 37), not native citizens. That aside, they're still illegal aliens even if they are stateless nationals and not Mexican citizens.

Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic: I. II. Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried; Having an honest means of livelihood.

Those covered by DOCA are not Mexican citizens.

But you get the point, citizenship is unrelated to having rights, or having rights to migrate or reside any place.

In the original construction, intent, whatever, restrictions on migration were never intended or authorized in the Constitution.

They were not authorized because restrictions on migration were inconceivable.

As a believer in a "living Constitution" based on the evolving views and norms of We the People, We the People can elect representatives who tax us and build walls. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax Mexico to build a wall, and presidents have no power to tax or impose levies, tariffs, without authority from Congress. Anything passed by Congress is implicitly incorporated into the Constitution as Supreme Law ofirm the Land.

In other words, I believe the US can evolve by We the People into the offensive government that the British were accused of being in 1776 to justify treason.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

The "Laws..." referred to Plantation Act 1740, which applied a religious test excluding Papists, and obviously Jews, etc., but otherwise made becoming a citizen extremely easy. The Crown's offense was doing what Trump calls for and is trying to do.

I say, forget original intent. We the People can decide we should be as horrible as we considered the British to be in 1776 rather than being locked into the ideals and principles of long dead people who put words to paper.

But "doing" requires paying people, so where are the taxes to do something about the offensive illegals. Oops, now we get to the reason for revolution, paying taxes to restrict migration by paying military and naval and officials to restrict and levy taxes.

So, to answer your "Who cares?"

The people who do not want to pay taxes to "make America Great again" and to "take America back".

Ie, the Tea Party, et al. who base their arguments on sand washed by rip tides.

completely false. there is no law that makes anyone "illegal". you can't find it, doesn't exist. the whole thing is a folderol since none one left or right really wants to expose the limits on a federal government whose powers are supposed to be confined to national defense and regulation of commerce. there is never anything illegal about being America without being a citizen as well. The alienage is is said to be "transient" or "domiciled"; and that's it.

The States are the ones with the power to expel, refuse or admit foreign nationals as residents. "Immigration" is just an analog of "Importation", hence I.C.E.- control of the commercial entry of things and controls over the commercial entry of people.

some people are deemed "removable". i can forfeit your lease under certain conditions, or i could just sell you the house, or abandon it altogether. i can have you removed, or renew the lease. these regulations just define the rights and duties of the parties.

Ordinarily you are very careful to be ambiguous. This is what happens when you make a bold statement without actually checking the facts.

Don't dig yourself deeper. Just admit you posted before you verified. It's a blog - we will forgive you.

Right, if there is any chaos following an Executive Order it is the fault of a random independent observer.

We should not question whether the Executive Branch is executing as a well-oiled machine.

And it would be a total coincidence if a chaos candidate was later judged a chaos President.

>"This is what happens when you make a bold statement without actually checking the facts."

That's the Trump Effect.

No matter how bad Trump looks, his unhinged critics end up looking worse.

Meanwhile, outside your bubble:

Is that really a win in a utilitarian sense? Even a narrowly American utilitarian sense?

I think we would be better off as a nation if fewer Americans had gone to Iraq over the past 15 years.

Sure, and Trump was always opposed to the Iraq War, and Libyan intervention, and surely won't get our military involved in other conflicts without thinking through the potential costs. Just like how he was so thoughtful in how he rolled this out.

I think Iraq and the Middle East would have been better off as nations if Americans had stayed out of the area for the last 15 years. A whole lot more would certainly be alive.

That did not answer my question, but did the mis/redirect make you feel better?

Policy from today forward should help, in a utilitarian sense, from today forward. It should not be "feel-good cruelty" to fan the base while harming national interest.

Anon, I hope you can notice the humor in your complaining about redirection when the post you want me to answer was a complete redirection from the post you were responding to.

That's a bad look for you TV.

The Other Jim, as commentators are wont to do, engaged in partisan fantasy. I, as I try to do, linked to the external reality. As correction.

Now we know which you prefer.

The Toronto Star is now reporting that dual Canadian-Iranians (say) traveling on Canadian passports will be allowed into the US. This seems to indicate a change from both the text of the order itself and earlier interpretations of it.

One question is why the Trump administration issued such a broad and indeterminate executive order. I can think of three possibilities, none of them good:

(a) Incompetence. In the rush to get the order out, they did not think through all of its ramifications, nor did they spend much time crafting its wording.

(b) A show of force. The goal was to be punitive. Iraqi translators for US Marines and green card holders with 11-month old baby US citizens were intended to get caught up in the mess. Now we know Trump means business.

(c) A tentative experiment in truly arbitrary rule by decree. Indeterminate, vague, and even contradictory orders can be used by lawless regimes to maximize uncertainty, fear, and their own scope for action. The Trump administration may want the rules for entering the United States to be vague, uncertain, and arbitrary.

Whatever you think of the need to reform the American immigration system, none of (a) through (c) should inspire confidence in how Trump intends to implement that reform.

or (d) expression of the latent xenophobia that has been present since the founding of the nation.

Why are there so many people demanding to live in such a xenophobic country?

"Why are there so many people demanding to live in such a xenophobic country?"

Because of the high level of economic freedom which provides a functioning economy. My ancestors came to this country at a time they knew they would be looked down upon and likely discriminated against by the white native-born population, but they preferred that to starvation.

And those generous whites who opened their country to starving likely non-English speaking people get repaid with resentment.

Those Whites weren't doing it out of the generosity of their hearts. They wanted to import workers to do all the crap work that they felt to high and mighty to do themselves.

Those Whites weren’t doing it out of the generosity of their hearts. They wanted to import workers to do all the crap work that they felt to high and mighty to do themselves.

No, workers arrived and formed a niche which displaced the extant niche. Where I've lived, nursing home staff are heavily black. Where my brother lives, they've been displaced by Chicanos. I seriously doubt it's because people in California are preternaturally 'too high and mighty' to do work they did routinely 50 years ago (and that people in other loci continue to do). Tootle around in small towns in Pennsylvania and New York. Whose working the grocery stores, the convenience stores, private pay eldercare, &c.? Er, 'high and mighty' English-speaking whites.

Scott Adams votes for something like (b): It's an opening position, to soften up both his supporters and opponents, before walking it back to something more reasonable.

The translators who had the misfortune to be in the air at the time will be temporarily (and very visibly) inconvenienced. Feeling queasy about them is what will make his strongest supporters happier about accepting a more moderate policy later.

Adams is not poster child for "permanently wedded to a failed analysis."

What does that even mean? You don't like something else he wrote, and forgot the sarcasm tag?

You are assuming that "his strongest supporters [will ever be happier] about accepting a more moderate policy later." Near as I can tell, his strongest supporters want a tougher policy that explicitly bans all Muslims (including US citizen Muslims) from the US. None of them are "feeling queasy about" those inconvenienced by this. Indeed, some are emboldened by this and are wondering why it isn't a worldwide Muslim ban. What this is actually about is something known as moving the "Overton Window". Trump thinks of this policy as the "moderate policy" and once we accept that it is moderate, he can go for an even more extreme version later.

I do find it hard to model Trump's actions. Randomness? Incompetence? Strategy? Gut instincts that turn out to be strategic? Here's my best guess here, though. First of all, we have to remember that his main audience isn't *us*, it's his voters/supporters. Are *they* outraged? Or are they feeling like they're getting what they were promised? And are they more gratified by Trump going too far and then backtracking than they would be by more cautious actions from the start? I suspect the answers are 'no', 'yes', and 'yes'.

That's part of it. The other part is that Trump repeatedly benefits by baiting his critics into going off half-cocked. They've darkly suggested that the 7 countries on the list are suspicious (Iran but not Saudi Arabia? And none of the Muslim countries where Trump has business interests!). And...then it turns out the list of countries receiving special scrutiny is a carryover from the Obama administration. And here Tyler suggests that the order covers U.S. citizens with dual citizenship (which apparently it does not). And the green card holders from those countries -- will they be be permanently banned? Separated from the families and lives in the U.S.? Apparently not:

A senior White House official later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening.

"You will be allowed to re-enter the United States pending a routine rescreening," the official said.

"A senior White House official later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening."

Gee, thanks, unnamed senior White House official. Meanwhile, I checked and the top story on their main web page right now is "Architect for the New U.S. Embassy in Seoul." There is no information at all about how one schedules an appointment for this screening, what paperwork is involved, and what one needs to bring to show airline check-in agents and immigration on one's flight home. What an amateurish, poorly executed and communicated cluster****.

You obviously haven't had the joy of trying to drive across the border and hope the border patrol agent didn't decide to search your whole car for a piece of American grown apple that you bought in Canada but forgot to take out before coming back to the US.

I live in Michigan and have been across the border and back many times. Post 9/11, the main annoyance is long lines. But the one and only time we've been asked to get out and come in for extra questioning while the car was inspected was by Canadian border control officials when crossing into Windsor.

"First of all, we have to remember that his main audience isn’t *us*, it’s his voters/supporters. Are *they* outraged? Or are they feeling like they’re getting what they were promised? And are they more gratified by Trump going too far and then backtracking than they would be by more cautious actions from the start? I suspect the answers are ‘no’, ‘yes’, and ‘yes’."

I agree, this is the most likely reason.

The idea that Trump is just a complete idiot, but some how keeps failing upward, is just poor analytical thinking.

"The other part is that Trump repeatedly benefits by baiting his critics into going off half-cocked. "

Yes, absolutely. I don't think Trump is a genius by the way. I just think he's got a lot of experience and skill at enraging the "other side". He's very, very good at it. Soon, the administration will correct the policy. His opponents will point to it as a sign of his incompetence, but his supporters will point to it as a sign of him going to bat for them. Contrast that with the reputation of Congressional Republicans over the last 8 years who had electoral majorities but never seemed to accomplish anything.

How about

(d). The collateral damage of the poorly-specifies order guaranteed that there would be more press coverage. Screwing over people whose planes were in the air when the order was signed couldn't serve any policy goal, but it did serve the goal of ensuring heart-rending images and an extra couple days of news coverage and lawsuits. Leaving the status of dual-citizens and permanent resident aliens ambiguous similarly didn't serve a policy goal, but it made sure there would be more angst, more people angry, and thus more attention on the executive order.

Four years from now, what will the average voter remember about this incident? Trump tried to keep terrorists out of the country, but the ACLU and liberal judges made him let them in. All the details will be forgotten.

So far, Trump has shown no ability at all to govern, but incredible ability to get attention and control the news cycle. That may get him reelected even if his actual policies don't work or even are disasters. The key question is what the voters remember come election day.

This post is very wrong Tyler. Disappointed that you have contributed to the hysteria.

The Order has yet to be published on the White House web site. The judge's order blocking part of the ban does not include the text of the Order. What the media are relying on is a copy released by the White House press secretary and scanned by various news organizations. Here it is: The Order does permit exceptions to the ban, but the burden is on the applicant and requires a joint determination by the Secretary of State and Homeland Security. Of course, the potential for corruption is high, as desperate people are willing to pay any price. Indeed, one wonders if that's the purpose of the ban: to limit admission to those who can most afford avoidance of the ban. And not surprisingly, as the ban is met with furor throughout the world including in our closest allies, Trump is digging in. Does Trump really believe the U.S. is under assault by would be terrorists or is this just Trump's way of showing off. I would point out that Saudi Arabia is not included in the ban, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

So you would be less critical of the order if it included Saudi Arabia?

Interesting question. Including Saudi Arabia would make it more and less stupid at the same time.

Less stupid because it would include the home of past terrorists.

More stupid because it would greater impinge US commerce.

The only winning strategy is to not do country of origin bans at all, and do a points system screening instead. Which is probably close to what we had.

We may have a good method of vetting Saudi Arabian citizens in place now. Saudi Arabia in 2001 had identified OSB as a threat. These other countries, identified by the Obama administration, have lesser records of their citizens to vet them by. I think this ban is too broad, but I'd would agree with stopping the flow of refugees from these countries. Safe spaces inside of these countries generating refugees, maintained by the UN is way more efficient than shipping them to the US.

Do you suppose there is any possibility that this was understood in the old screening, and that more positive confirmation was needed in sketchy cases? Could that be why only numbers are so small?

All Muslims together would just maybe fill Wrigley Field.

"Just two countries – Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012) – were the source of more than half of fiscal 2016’s Muslim refugees. The rest are from Iraq (7,853), Burma (Myanmar) (3,145), Afghanistan (2,664) and other countries (3,741)."

It'd be nice if people could just say "this is a bad policy and there are better ways to achieve the stated aims, or there is no reason to try to achieve the stated aims" rather than descending into a full-on freakout.

Which is this?

Sparrow, you're assuming that discussion in liberal politics (or faculty libertarian politics) has much interest in policy per se, rather than status signalling. You're only right when your interlocutor is named 'Harold Pollack' or, perhaps "Alan Dershowitz". Scott Sumner is a tool.

This is no ,longer hysteria, it's hilarious! Each anti-Trump commenter exposed in one sentence: "I don't even have a tenuous grasp on reality."

I believe the rationale for the list of 7 countries (which was set prior to Trump) is that they are high risk populations AND the governments are deemed to be uncooperative, making it difficult to verify information. So I believe the Saudis are not on the list because, in the US government's view, they are more willing to play ball than the Iranians, et al. But a cynic might question if financial considerations are clouding judgment on the Saudis.

An even more cynical view would note that Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia:

" I would point out that Saudi Arabia is not included in the ban, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia." but that is understandable because of the Trump business interests there and the other mid-east oil states that were not on the list.

Remember, Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim!

Doing business with the Trump Organization does indeed seem to be the only safeguard against being targeted by this President:

Yea this was cute the first time you saw the cute map.

Not many American companies have much business in Iran, Somalia or Syria, for obvious reasons. While many have interests in long-time dodgy ally Saudi. Who knew!

'Not many American companies have much business in Iran'

One can be confident that our likely next secretary of state will do his best to help at least one American company ensure it will have more business with Iran.

I guess 9/11 was a fair price to pay after all for such a, hum, rewarding relationship.

Thiago it really disgusts me that the west is in bed with the Saudis. Maybe it's a cold war hangover, I don't understand. Prior, no shit, the number of American investments in Cuba & Iran stopped being zero once Obama opened the door.

None of this changes the fact that this meme about countries without Trump investments is bullshit.

The Saudis are nasty, no question about that. But after the last decade or so of experience, I am *really* uneasy about what might arise in place of the Saudi monarchy, if we somehow cut off ties with them and they fell.

So am I. This is a problem that deserves serious discussion instead of America's usual sabre-rattling about freedom fries and how America opposes the Shia because they are eeeevil - while supporting the biggest financer of Muslim terrorism.

Pretty stupid stuff. Amazing that it keeps going around, all in 36 hours

Certainly Anders Breivik must be one of those European born radicalized Muslims.

Suppose I am a citizen of Sudan, but I am also a citizen of Brazil. I am not allowed to enter the US on my Brazilian passport. This seems an eminently sensible result to me (given the purpose of the restriction). Otherwise, contra Tyler, we are making Brazilian law US law.

When you use a Brazilian passport, how would anyone know that you are also Sudanese?

They ask? And if you lie that's one strike.

No doubt they have also hacked the Brazilian passport office. And whoever prints them for the sudanese.

"When you use a Brazilian passport, how would anyone know that you are also Sudanese?"

Because under "Naturalidade" on your passport it says "Khartoum, Sudan".

Unless you were born in Brazil and later acquired a Sudanese citizenship e.g. after marriage.

Let's be real. Trump wanted a Muslim ban, and this is what he could get away with.

It is not a real Muslim ban, nor a real terrorist ban, it is just close enogh that the kind of people who feel "safer" with no Sudanese immigrants go for it.

How many Sudanese have the average American met? Zero?

So glad you feel safer.

I also doubt that any Trump voter could tell the difference between a Sudanese and a Nigerian, or indeed a Muslim or a Christian Sudanese.

I'm sure the ranks of Clinton / Obama supporters are chock-a-bloc with people who can distinguish spoken Igbo from spoken Nuer.

The Christian Sudanese may have a cross pendant, and perhaps wounds.


1. List was generated by the previous administration.

2. Ban does that include the world's most populous Muslim countries.

You are desperately trying to show that the previous administration was inches from this ban, and Trump just gave it a little nudge.

That is horse shit.

No he is arguing that these nations were already of particular concern.

You really cannot recognize the rhetorical gambit in "List was generated by the previous administration?"

It was meant to counter the Rudy quote. But guess what? Both can be true. Trump can try for a Muslim ban, and use bits and pieces of old policy.

This frees trolls to say the ban is just an "extension" of the old policy.

Horse shit.

You libs never said anything when Obama dropped thousands of bombs on JFK's baggage pickup area, and blamed it on youtube censorship.

Alex Jones saw his minions' proof on twitter.

"No he is arguing that these nations were already of particular concern."

Regardless of what the previous administration thought was a concern, none of these countries has ever had one of their citizens attempt a serious terrorist attack on America. No Iranian has ever conducted a major terrorist attack on Western soil. The list is bullshit, Obama-produced or Trump-produced. If you're president, it is your job to get these details right.

If you wanted to put in place a temporary ban on citizens of certain countries while you reexamined your vetting procedures, you would undoubtedly also have a rule in place that did not permit those citizens to enter your country on another passport (otherwise, you are deferring to the vetting procedures in that country).

"(otherwise, you are deferring to the vetting procedures in that country)."

Well, that's the basic principle in accepting a passport to begin with, and it's not a courtesy, but the product of bilateral agreement. Otherwise, you're arguing that Luol Deng is passing himself off as a British citizen when he flies back to LA from a road game in Toronto for having been born in (now Southern) Sudan, or (an actual case this weekend) that an Iraqi-born Israeli citizen is less Israeli than someone born there. It's an assertion that blood nationality takes priority over civic nationality, and we know there's a nasty lumbering drunk with the ear of the president who believes that.

As its collapse proceeds right as schedule, the American regime becomes more and more bizarre and its apologists more and more pathetic.

I think things are moving in the other direction. More men and their wives are leaving the KKKrazy Koalition, which is doubling down (as they must) on the Oppression! Privilege! and politically correct hysteria. That's why the Left is melting down: Trump is going to stop importing Democrats.

The American regime has become nightmarishly dysfunctional. Americans hate one another and themselves. The regi e is ready to collapse in a bloodbath.

Sure, that is exactly why Trump is at 35% approval rating his first week in office is that the libtards are on their way to irrelevance.

There are millions of people who have dual citizenship without knowing it. (You don't need a passport to have the citizenship of a country.)

If the person itself does not now what citizenships he/she has, how should an immigration officer know? I am a (German) citizenship lawyer and I need to go back several generations in a person's history, research the laws in place at the time, and so on, to determine what citizenship someone has. I doubt that people checking passengers at airports have the expertise to do that.

They won't, of course. In practice, unless the policy is clarified, I expect any foreign national whose place of birth in their passport is listed as Iraq, etc., to be automatically sent to secondary screening.

Which shows how stupid such a practice is because a whole lot of Iraqis were born in London, Paris, Amman or Izmir.
Under the citizenship laws of most nations, the citizenship of your parents is far more important than the place of birth.

"Alien" (the Order applies to "aliens" from the designated countries) is defined in Title 8, Section 1101 of the U.S. Code as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States". It's unclear if someone who has dual citizenship is an "alien" since she is simultaneously a person not a citizen of the U.S. and a person who is a citizen of the U.S. (my understanding is that the U.S. doesn't recognize dual citizenship). If "who is" appeared in the definition between "person" and "not" would it be clearer? Of course, ambiguity begets confusion, and confusion begets arbitrariness.

The term "not recognizing dual citizenship" would be like "not recognizing that other countries have their own laws".
US law CANNOT do anything against another country bestowing citizenship upon anyone, just as the US would be outraged if Fiji or Chile passed laws interfering with US citizenship.

The only point where US law can try to limit dual citizenship is by requesting applicants for naturalization to give up their primary citizenship (like Germany does, with some exceptions). US law chooses not to do so. I would therefore argue that the US very much "recognizes" dual citizenship.

If you are, say, a dual-German-U.S. citizen, the U.S. will insist it has no obligation to notify the German embassy or notify you of any right to consular assistance if you are arrested. That is what I think is meant by lack of recognition. You are the same as Joe Blow born and raised in Omaha.

This is how I have understood it. "Doesn't recognize it" means "doesn't care and won't do anything as a result of it."

'I would therefore argue that the US very much “recognizes” dual citizenship.'

No - the U.S. only recognizes American citizenship. An American citizen cannot use a German passport to visit a country subject to travel sanctions (concrete example from the past - Cuba), as this is merely considered evasion of American law in a manner that is subject to the same punishment as if that American citizen had used their U.S. passport.

The same principle applies to taxation. It is a fascinating - and disturbing - subject in any number of ways for Americans to have to deal with. Basically, the American government is a jealous government.

I would like to change that.

The only point where US law can try to limit dual citizenship is by requesting applicants for naturalization to give up their primary citizenship (like Germany does, with some exceptions).

Request? No, insist as a condition of naturalization. Sign on the dotted line in front of a notary and copies to the consulate. And if you undertake any uncoerced civic act in your old country - vote, run for office, enlist in the military, accept a consequential public office - you lose your American citizenship. We need to be telling aspirants to American citizenship that they need to piss or get off the pot.

'vote, run for office, enlist in the military, accept a consequential public office – you lose your American citizenship'

So, the single largest group of Americans who would be affected by this are those American citizens who also hold Israeli citizenship. Have you thought this one out? And if yes, then it is nice to see someone be so consistent.

So, the single largest group of Americans who would be affected by this are those American citizens who also hold Israeli citizenship.

There's a grand total of one person in Israel's general legislature who was born in the United States. He no longer has American citizenship. Gross additions to Israel's population are running at about of 190,000 per year, of which 1.7% are migrants from the United States. That's consistent with a stock of 140,000 or so residents, or about 1.5% of the total population of American civilians resident abroad. Somehow I doubt that's 'the largest group'.

Have you thought this one out?

Yes I have. And you haven't.

Under the US Supreme Court decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), even a naturalized US citizen cannot lose his or her citizenship by voting in a foreign election.

I have seen some pretty wild arguments that were apparently not frivolous, but I think arguing that a US Citizen could be defined as an Alien under the US Code would really test the boundry.

A dual citizen isn't simultaneously a US Citizen and not a US Citizen. They are a US Citizen. And not an Alien.

US citizenship should require denunciation of citizenship in any other country. No divided loyalties.

I think this specific case is clear. A U.S. citizen is a citizen not an alien under U.S. law, full stop. U.S. policy has been to neither recognize nor actively forbid dual nationality. Any claims another country may have on you as a citizen or national are strictly between you and the foreign government in question.

excactly, there really isn't any ambiguity here. an alien is someone who is not a US citizen.

Via Instapundit:

PROF. JACOBSON (LegalInsurection): Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading.

There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks. That they are 7 majority Muslim countries does not mean there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and more).

Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected.

Moreover, the “ban” is only for four months while procedures are reviewed, with the exception of Syria for which there is no time limit.

There is a logic to the 7 countries. Six are failed states known to have large ISIS activity, and one, Iran, is a sworn enemy of the U.S. and worldwide sponsor of terrorism.

And, the 7 countries on the list were not even so-designated by Trump. Rather, they were selected last year by the Obama administration as posing special risks for visa entry, as even CNN concedes in passing. . . . The problem, of course, is that Trump worked off of the Obama administration’s list of particularly risky countries for visa entry. To lay the blame on Trump’s business interests is a lie, or as Frantzman puts it, fake news.

Iran has nuclear ambitions, a large espionage network, and is governed by a notoriously paranoid and reactionary regime. Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen are all in active civil war and should frankly be quarantined while they sort out whether they are going to be viable states with functioning civil orders.

Sorry but the "Iraqi translators" and "Iranian grandmothers" don't move me on this. These are low-trust countries with lots of casual brutality. If you leave here, go there, and then try and come back here I want it to be a real hassle, if not an outright ban.

"Citizenship" is another one of several areas where all the gimlet-eyed free market economists get squishy. Citizenship is messy because its not rationed economically. So introduce market incentives: you have to buy citizenship on the open market, or have it gifted to you by your parents. Or the other shareholders get to vote on whether to give you a slice of the pie, like they do in Switzerland. Then it would become apparent that the government inflates the supply of citizenship. And the category of "immigrant" would disappear and there would only be owners, guests and trespassers.

"Sorry but the “Iraqi translators” and “Iranian grandmothers” don’t move me on this. These are low-trust countries with lots of casual brutality. If you leave here, go there..."

Then at least advocate that specific restriction and give people some advance notice. Unlike the policy implemented by Obama (and passed by Congress through a bipartisan vote), this policy is not narrowly applied to people who actually visit places like Iraq or Syria.

"low-trust countries with lots of casual brutality" Like Chicago?

BTW a friend of mine is married to a Kurd from Iraq. He likes to see his family from time to time.

“low-trust countries with lots of casual brutality” Like Chicago?


BTW a friend of mine is married to a Kurd from Iraq. He likes to see his family from time to time.

Still unmoved.

Honestly when my ancestors came to the US in 1640 they literally never were going to see their extended family again. Why on earth should I feel sorry for a guy who only has to go four months. If he liked his family so much he should have married and Iraqi. It's amazing how inoperative trade offs become if you opt for the rootless cosmopolitan path.

when my ancestors came to the US in 1640 they literally never were going to see

a flipphone

When my ancestors came to the US before the revolutionary war, they had to sh$t in a hole in the ground. Other ancestors came from Germany in 1850 and they had to live in a sod house, literally a house made from pieces of grass turf.

Also known as: it ain't 1640.

My mother immigrated to Canada from the UK in 1966. She didn't see her parents or brother for over 10 years after that, despite being from a relatively nearby, equally prosperous and peaceful allied country. She just didn't have enough money to afford such things.

She also had a phone, but they didn't. They had to schedule use of a neighbour's phone. Long distance was expensive for everyone, and those on the British end were incurring even more costs than my mother was. It happened rarely.

Granted, it was 50 years ago and people had different expectations then. On the other hand, means of communication into Iraq now are probably faster, more reliable, cheaper, more realtime, and more personal than they were between Canada and Britain then. So there are some options available that once were not, even into Iraq.

But as I said, people have different expectations now. Back then my mother would also not have been able to sponsor her adult brother and his family, and their aging parents, as well as many other adult relations, for immigration because there was no "family reunification" beyond spouse and dependent children, not even for a country like Britain in an immigration system biased in favour of such places.

Your friend's spouse's position nevertheless seems deeply unenviable unless he is also already or on track to being a US citizen in a few years. Then presumably he would be able to travel there as such.

These are low-trust countries with lots of casual brutality.

These particular countries at this time, perhaps. Arab countries in general do not have high homicide rates unless they are failed states, even if they are quite tribal and 'low-trust'.

Well, pre-Trump the Iranians had probably figured going nuclear was going to cost more than it was worth. You can bet that analysis is going to be rethought now.

they will consult with putin.

Are you saying the Iranians are going to renege on their treaty obligations? I love how the left wing case for open borders basically boils down to "see that mean tough guy in the corner don't make him angry. Also there's no angry guy in the corner just some women and children."

This is basically an advertisement for sociopathy.

As of now, no. But that depends on what other surprises Trump has in store for Iran. And FWIW I am not opposed at all to Trump building his wall, open borders are only feasible for countries with similar economies.

Why discard that reality for that FWIW? We have heavily policed, not open, borders.

Well, this seems to support Prof. Cowen, but really, what does the White House chief of staff know?

'Priebus said that green-card holders may be subject to additional scrutiny at the discretion of border officials.

"If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to additional screening," Priebus said. "I would suspect that if you’re an American citizen traveling back and forth to Libya, you’re likely to be subjected to additional screening."'

So, at least one person who might be expected to know what the administration is thinking is talking about American citizens.

But in that case, it has nothing to do with citizenship. Wouldn't you expect and hope that returning travelers from Libya (regardless of their citizenship) were getting more scrutiny at immigration checkpoints than those, say, returning from a beach vacation in the Caribbean? Don't you imagine that EU countries pay closer attention to travelers returning from Libya?

'But in that case, it has nothing to do with citizenship.'

I wondered about that - the statement is not exactly crystal clear about whether that American citizen who has been to Libya, and thus subject to exactly the same checks as a Libyan. Particularly in light of the fact that one would not assume that the American citizen is barred from returning to the U.S. - unless, perhaps, they were born in Libya and are still considered Libyan.

' Wouldn’t you expect and hope that returning travelers from Libya (regardless of their citizenship) were getting more scrutiny at immigration checkpoints than those, say, returning from a beach vacation in the Caribbean?'

No. Why? (Serious question - the Caribbean nations are noted for the drug trade, which includes money laundering - why is this better or worse than Libya?)

'Don’t you imagine that EU countries pay closer attention to travelers returning from Libya?'

Well, as of today, they don't bar Libyans with legal visas or residency permits from entering those EU countries, in contrast to the U.S.

Yes but he doesn't say they'd be banned- as US citizens their right to enter is clear. He says they'd be subject to additional scrutiny.

I had hoped that the US had always screened its returning citizens coming from war zones or hostile countries more carefully. Even my lackadaisical Canada has always taken that view.

Why would US citizens returning from such places not be subject to additional questioning?

Yes, I was subject to additional scrutiny returning from frequent trips to Indonesia and Malaysia last decade, and they're hardly Afghanistan

It's a red herring. If you have dual nationality but only use your US passport, and don't claim any other nationality you're fine. If you want to use your non US passport from say Iran, then you default to an Iranian citizen. Why should you hold dual nationalities anyway?
Regarding terrorism from nationals of these countries, we should not just count successful acts. The FBI has stopped many attempts by Somalians in the US for example.

"FBI has stopped many attempts by Somalians in the US for example"
Trump knows more than the FBI, so Bannon alone will do the same as Obama's FBI did.

An additional thought -- Tyler likes to interpret the world in terms of raising or lowering status of particular groups. What happens if you use that filter here? Which Americans will have their status lowered the most through these kinds of actions by Trump? Wouldn't the answer be: those who live and work in places with lots of foreign-born residents? Those who have colleagues abroad? Those who are most likely to travel internationally for work and leisure? Do these groups sound like Trump voters to you? Also, suppose Trumps actions result in a lot of criticism in the media and protest marches by those on the left and these actions turn out to have no effect? Whose status is lowered in that case?

What's really happening here is libertarians are seeing there feckless propensity to dance between the democrats and the republicans repudiated. Basically libertarians have been reduced to the status of hot potato and Trump has wisely unloaded them onto the Democrats. 2 percent of the vote isn't worth 65 percent of the whining.

I would call myself a populist libertarian, I've voted Libertarian for President more than anything else and even stuck some Gary Johnson signs in my yard this year.

But this election showed how pitiful libertarians are as a political force. Even with the most hated major party candidates possible, and a non-crank candidate, Johnson only managed low single digits. And there didn't seem any particular concern in other major coalition to try to aggressively court those with libertarian-leaning views.

*either major coalition

Turkey I would be very supportive of your brand of libertarianism growing in influence. I find that you bring a very humane voice to your populism that a more full throated populist like me proballly misses. I guess that's my way of saying keep up the excellent work.

But yes libertarianism as an ideology is likely over. That's not to say that drug legalization won't proceed apace but whatever progress "libertarian" ideals make going forward will be piecemeal and not related to an ideology of liberty, but one of convenience likely.

Cowen likely senses this and sees a last ditch attempt to derail Trump as one of his last opportunities to demonstrate ROI to his big money backers- who are probaly all starting to wonder whether it's better to not just go the Carlos Slim/ Jeff bezos route and buy a newspaper.

The difficulty with 'libertarianism' is either that it's non-salable inventory (Leonard Peikoff's), largely non-salable and rather crankish (Thomas Woods'), a cover for an adolescent mentality (the Libertarian Party), or consumed by faculty status-signalling (Mercatus). Megan McArdle and Thomas Sowell are sensible sorts, but they run afoul of non-negotiables to which von Mises and the Libertarian Party adhere (and would both be cut from the team just about anywhere in contemporary academe).

"Even with the most hated major party candidates possible"
You haven't seen 2019 the rest of 2017 yet. Trump Bannon filed with FEC for 2020.

You may briefly wonder, "Why bother?"
Then realize, "Cheap prank."

"how pitiful libertarians are as a political force"
I can't tell you why, because Jill Stein already had me vaccinninated.

"aggressively court"
Republicans pretend to fake courtship and, "This is love at first sight," works every time as 2AM closing time approaches.

I don't like someone with divided loyalties voting in our elections, so dual citizenship is a bad idea. If someone wants to keep citizen status in another country then fine, the most we should offer is a permanent green card.

So far nobody in this thread has answered TC's question, so I, a law school dropout, have to.

TC's question is this: "Let’s say the Trump administration then asks you to prove you are not a dual citizen of Iran."?

Answer: you can renounce your citizenship, and, you may not even be a citizen even though you comply. On the second point, technically, the children of a person who was born overseas to US parents is also a US citizen, even if said person has never visited the USA, as is their children, etc, etc, etc, but (1) you must apply for citizenship, and, (2) if you don't apply, before you die, you lose your citizenship.

This issue has come up under estate law for tax purposes with the IRS. Specifically, a child of US parents born in Canada, who never visited the USA, was deemed by the IRA a US citizen even though the child never applied for US citizenship (for obvious tax reasons, as the US taxes on worldwide income), but this was litigated, and if memory serves the child won.

Disclaimer: it's not my field, so caveat lector. But at least, unlike all the other posters upstream, I've provided an answer.

Did not edit my last post but you see my point, however for IQ 100 people I fill in the blanks:

US-born parents A, B, have child, C, in Yemen. C is automatically is a US citizen. However, C stays in Yemen, only visits the US for less than their visa, and becomes a major exporting goat-herd in Yemen, and last is heard has 2000 kids and 2 children. Technically, the two children are also US citizens, as is C, but they must go through the paperwork to become US citizens. It's not automatic (but the US IRS says it is, however, it was litigated and it's not). Got it? Got milk?

Bonus trivia: goat milk, the easiest milk to digest, is my favorite, but even in Greece where it's cheap and plentiful, sadly people prefer the more bloating and heavy tasting cow's milk. Never ceases to amaze me how 'convention' dictates society. In Japan, where brown rice is hated and white rice is loved as a status symbol (even today) Japanese gentlemen would die of beriberi (thiamin deficiency) rather than eat brown rice. Amazing. One reason they fortify white rice today. I even met doctors in the Philippines who refused to eat brown rice. They worship white skin over there. Paris Hilton is popular (endorses some properties in Manila) and The Don Trump-card would also do well there, as would his lesbian-posing latest model wife.

It is more complicated than that and depends on whether or how long C resided in the U.S. and also on the citizenship of the other parent. The gory details are all here:

The bottom line seems to be that if someone is born and raised outside the U.S. and has no connection to the U.S. at all other than the fact that their parents were citizens and then proceeds to marry a non-American and have children outside the U.S., those children will not be citizens.

@Ricardo, thanks, it's as I said, C and their offspring "must go through the paperwork" and are not automatically US citizens. But I appreciate the citation to the code.

@Sam Fulsome - (internet) "It is estimated that by the year 2042, white people not referring to themselves as Hispanic will no longer constitute a majority but rather only a plurality of the population of the United States. Minority groups, led by Hispanic Americans (mainly Mexican Americans), Black Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans would together outnumber non-Hispanic White Americans.[23]"

Su tiempo es pasado, cuello rojo. Volver al trailer de Dónde está la basura de blanco. Trump es su canto del cisne, disfrutar de sus últimos 15 minutos de fama.

English translation: "Your time is past, rojo-neck. Go back to the trailer where the blanco trash is. Trump is your swan song, enjoy your last 15 minutes of fame. "

White rice tastes better and no one has beriberi.

White rice also has one of the longest shelf lives of any food. An extra unopened sturdy plastic bag is a cheap and easy earthquake plan.

Also, Ray, if you knock up some Filipina but don't marry her, that child will be a U.S. citizen if and only if you can demonstrate residence in the U.S. for five years including two years past age 14. You would also need to meet the other requirements listed in the link I provided. News you can use.

Cart before the horse first he's probally going to want to prove it's his. These girls aren't exclusive no matter what their pimp is telling Ray.


"if you don't apply, before you die,"

Yo, dope rap.

"you lose your citizenship."

So the Out of Touch DC Establishment Coastal Elite Government in the Washington Swamp punishes corpses twice, with the Death Tax and taking your corpses's last chance at becoming a citizen.

This is an outrage. Punishing the dead should be devolvulated to the States.

I can't be the only American who is urging Scott Adams to run as the Not-Precisely-Clinically-Dead Personhood Party's presidential nominee.

Wake up Sheepberts!

That raises some interesting questions.

Does US citizenship work as Canadian citizenship does- it proceeds to the first born-overseas generation only. That generation cannot have kids overseas who are still Canadians.

An ideal citizenship formulation for me is probably hybrid birthright-bloodline without the nuttier features of each.

You should read up on the case of Maher Arar. There is effectively no way to renounce Syrian citizenship. Because he could not renounce his Syrian citizenship, when the US government (mistakenly) thought he was mixed up in a terrorism plot, they deported him not to his home country (Canada) but to Syria instead, where he was repeatedly tortured and abused.

The justification for his deportation to Syria was because the USG said that he must be a Syrian citizen since it is impossible to be born there and still not a citizen despite his cutting of ties with his birth country. Absolutely shameful but good precedent for Trump.

This thread is titled "The ambiguities of dual citizenship". And so it is (ambiguous). That's Cowen's point. If it's ambiguous, then the government (i.e., the Trump government) can do whatever it wishes. The rule of law requires well-defined principles to be applied to agreed-upon facts. With Trump, there are no well-defined principles or agreed-upon facts.

although at face value, if you want to tighten visa procedures against the 7 countries identified by the previous administration as having the highest risk of terrorism (due to failed state, ISIS, antagonism to US, etc), then this is probably the best way to do it. Temporary ban, tighten them up, and you're done. It's fun to get excited about the edge cases at each point, but that's why we're called the "chattering classes".

The rule of law absolutely does not require agreed upon facts. Our legal system is based on the assumption that facts will be disputed. Each side makes its best case for its facts and a fact-finder makes findings based on the presented cases.

Tyler, I suggest you google "renvoi", "conflict of laws" and "international private law". The application of foreign law to determine citizenship, the validity of foreign marriage, divorce, etc. is not at all unusual, and not just in the US.

So it now turns out that all these things about green card holders not allowed tor return in the US after a trip aboard was fake news. Actually the EO mentioned visa programs, which the green card is not, so reading it should have been enough for avoiding this mistake, but it is so much cooler to signal that one is outraged...

Green card holders were detained at Dulles Airport, which is not fake news at all - 'A federal judge in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order that for one week will block green card holders arriving at Dulles International Airport from being removed from the country.

The order, issued Saturday by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, also says that anyone detained at the airport should have access to a lawyer.

The motion was filed by the Legal Aid Justice Center on behalf of more than 50 permanent residents detained at Dulles on Saturday'

(Generally, green card holder and permanent resident are used interchangeably.)

First, you are simply wrong on the terminology. Green card holders possess what U.S. law calls "immigrant visas." Second, you obviously did not read the executive order carefully. Here is section 3, part c: "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas)."

There is no mention of section 3, part c being limited to people who participate in "visa programs" and, even if there was, legal immigrants do indeed hold what the law calls immigrant visas. If DHS wants to clarify this point and order all their immigration inspectors to allow legal immigrants to return to the U.S. from short trips abroad, it can easily do so. At the moment, they have not done so.

I think you might need to tell these people they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to terminology - 'The steps to becoming a Green Card holder (permanent resident) vary by category and depend on whether you currently live inside or outside the United States.


Who is a Green Card Holder (Permanent Resident)?

A Green Card holder (permanent resident) is someone who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent resident card, commonly called a "Green Card." You can become a permanent resident several different ways. Most individuals are sponsored by a family member or employer in the United States. Other individuals may become permanent residents through refugee or asylee status or other humanitarian programs. In some cases, you may be eligible to file for yourself.'

Also, the cards are no longer green in color.

Nope, they changed that back in 2005 or so and on that generation of cards there is green text on the back above the hologram. In 2010 they reverted the card general front color back to green.
Source: Wikipedia

Many members of ISIS hold citizenship from countries other than the seven mentioned. This EO is not targeted at terrorists. It's targeted against refugees from countries average, decent people, are attempting to flee because they're experiencing civil wars. In Syria, ISIS would target Shias because, as far as they're concerned, Shias are not Muslims.Yet, because they're part of the majority religion as the EO defines it, they are barred from entering the U.S. as refugees.

If you think this EO is targeting terrorists, you're fooling yourself. It's an attempt to block Muslim refugees who might be admitted into the US. because of the fact that they're fleeing for their lives, and these Muslims will slip into the US. in large numbers out of sympathy for they're plight. It's an attempt to block Muslims entering the U.S., not terrorists. The terrorists are smarter than that, and I hope our intelligence services know that.

There is no reason that a refugee needs to be shipped all the way across the world. Let them flee to the nearest country.

Most of them have, Sam. The problem is that the refugee numbers are so large that refugees in some of those countries are beginning to destabilize those countries. There is a possible Sunni/ Shia war brewing. We don't want that. That's what ISIS wants. They want Sunnis to think that only ISIS cares about them, and is ready to fight to defend them. We want Sunnis to think otherwise.

Was Thailand 'destabilized' by Burmese and Cambodian refugees?

We've talked about this before. I agreed that most should remain local, but think some spillover will occur. Remember, you're moving different sects around in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, that have sectarian wars or have had. Pinnng Sunnis in certain areas is very good for ISIS.ISIS has one main goal..
Convince Sunnis that they are unwelcome or will be mistreated in other countries. Why would we want Sunnis running to ISIS?

The Shia in Syria can flee to the Alawite government areas, which are in fact growing as Assad, an Alawite wins the war.

But this brings up an interesting twist: many of the male refugees may be fleeing because they don't want to be drafted by the army (or any militias, etc.)

How do we feel about that?

The EO is not targeted at refugees, it is not targeted at terrorists. It isn't targeted at all. It smacks of incompetence, someone who doesn't understand how things work, has no interest in learning or delegating to those who do, and who when his idiocy is exposed will double down on it rather than adjust and correct. We have now the worst of all possible worlds in the Oval Office.

"It smacks of incompetence, someone who doesn’t understand how things work, has no interest in learning or delegating to those who do"

As the list was generated by the Obama administration, I agree.

The list was stupid when Obama made it, Trump is even dumber for relying upon it for his first massively controversial EO.

One of the problems with dual nationality, particularly with regards to terrorism, is the second passport can hide your travels.

So, imagine I'm a Canadian-Iraqi. My family has been radicalized, and we spend years in Afghanistan or Yemen and trained as terrorists. Then we decide to come back to the West. If we've used Iraq's passport for our terrorist tourism, its essentially invisible as we enter on our clean Canadian passport.

Omar Khadr and family comes to mind.

If everyone was a nice person, we'd not need most laws let alone immigration laws. This is a real tension.

Asylum and refugees are also abused a lot, sometimes by nice people. I know a political asylum seeker who was in my high school in the USA. Very nice, very American, etc. But he stupidly returned to Iran, and then our government wouldn't give him a new visa. He's perfectly safe in Iran how much of a asylum seekers was he?

BTW, when do we start caring about dual nationalities? When they cause trouble:

So, we worry about Chinese dual nationals because we have cases where they are not very "American" as they spy for China, or Israeli dual citizens, or now from Islamic countries. This seems pretty reasonable. We're not just being jerks - there are hard issues at play. (Though, we must all admit immigration officials can be jerks from any country...its one of those jobs.)

And yet mysteriously we don't have to worry about anyone who is a full citizen of Saudi Arabia coming here (let alone duel citizen or green card holder).

You do and should worry about them. It's just impolitic for a whole range of reasons for the USG to do so openly in this fashion-

yes, that does include the business interests of all sorts of people and companies. It also includes the current requirements of US foreign policy and national interest, which is a valid and excellent reason for not including KSA on this list regardless of how many other interests are served. Foreign policy is about interest and necessity, not unnecessary consistency.

It's not unlike the point raised by a commenter above regarding the huge numbers of Israeli-American dual citizens holding public office in Israel [perhaps some], voting in Israel [for sure], and serving in the Israeli military [many]. Yes, those things are something of an affront to the ideals of republican citizenship, but it's better when the country isn't hostile. Israel is friendly, if self-interested.

Come to think, that settles something for me. Libertarianism and republicanism [the classically informed political belief system, not the specific party or the mere absence of a monarch] are both pretty woven into the American way, but they are extraordinarily incompatible when put to the test.

What if one is not a dual Israeli citizen or Muslim, just a plain Jewish American or Muslim American? Can't one be recruited?

Yes! This is a big problem as well.

Even members of the US military have been recruited.

Don't forget this is/was a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'd have a suicide bomber who was a police recruit, etc. This isn't a simple problem to solve "oh just ignore it" or "oh, just ban 'em"

I'm hoping this dies down like anarchism in the late 19th century.

This is a real problem, I hope America find real solutions, not fake ones.

I suspect there are no good solutions that will please everyone.

I will say one non-PC thing here that may seem in defense of Trump. I think if we apply pain to Islamic elites, they might be the ones to find solutions much faster than we could ever do so.

This means if Saudis find they can't get visas unless they police their own coreligionists.

We could declare that we will match Kuwait and Saudi in refugee acceptances: for every one they take, we take one. (They'd probably take Sunnis, which would be helpful.)

We could suggest the Haj be temporarily stopped and the facilities used for refugees. (I'm sure God would understand.)

And its not really a defense of Trump, because he won't do anything smart like what I suggest, but do dumb, clumsy, heavy-handed stuff. Possibly on purpose.

Tyler Cowen is worried about a handful of dual citizenship difficulties but apparently doesn't mind that millions of people could lose their health insurance. Funny. (of course, I forgot,"studies" have shown losing health care is not harmful to health and probably promotes self-sufficiency). I honestly admire Tyler Cowen's numerous accomplishments and this fabulous site, but people like him are responsible for Trump winning. The liberal elite class has proven that it doesn't care the least bit about working and middle-class people (especially Whites).

That said, I am concerned about Trump going over the top and hurting innocent people like discussed above. I'd like him to appoint someone to do a "Don't be Evil" check on every policy proposal. But at least Trump realizes that destroying your country (see Merkel) is actually really evil for the people you're supposed to be serving.

Trump trashing the health care of millions of people is indeed a concern. But we are just two weeks or so into the shit show.

Your post may be well intentioned but it is actually counter productive. Kind of like making the perfect the enemy of the good, you are seeking to make stupidity cancel itself out. If this stupidity is ignored because health care is more important, no doubt health care will end up being ignored as well by those who will use some other stupidity to distract from it. Every stupid thing the administration does needs to be called out, whether it's many or a few who are harmed by it.

The point is that liberal elites are far more concerned with the fringes than in mainstream working and middle-class (who happen to be mostly whites) and the latter can (surprise!) pick up on the contempt and (at best) disinterest.

Judah Ben Hur should have been Judah Bar Hur. Wallace made a mistake, but you don't have to.

Thanks for clearing that up I've always wondered why one of the most interesting Jewish figures in US history was named Judah Barjamin.

BTW, if Ben-Hur were around today, he would use the Hebrew ben instead of the Aramaic bar.

Barrabas was Bar Abba.Barnabas was Bar Nabya. Binyamin is the twelfth son of Jacob.At that time, Bar was used as 'son of' , not Ben.

Barabbas.Excuse me.

"liberal elites". If I went on vacation on Monday to Europe expecting to fly home on Friday...I'd expect to fly home. I wouldn't expect to suddenly not be able to return home because the Orange King decided to suddenly alter the law in some type of flashy show of 'doing something' about terrorism....actually doing nothing.

Now some people impacted by this may indeed be elites, like international businessmen suddenly caught unaware. But lots of people with green cards are as middle class as you or me.

To answer the original question, this statement by Britain's Foreign & Commonwealth Office seems to contradict statements published in the press.

You would have to ask why Obama left off Saudi Arabia from his list that Trump is using.

My point is just that there is a legitimate reason why dual nationality poses problems for border control.

I don't like standing in line for TSA, but I have to because of a few bad apples.

Nope, this is the Orange King's shitshow. When Obama temporarily halted *new* immigrants from Iraq he knew how to do it without fucking around lots of other people for not good reason.

Presumptively Trump didn't include Saudi Arabia because he has interests there and Saudi princes love his golf courses.

Oh, I think its definitely Trump's shitshow.

But I suspect that list has its reasons. I suspect the reasons are that we trust Saudi government's passport office hasn't been overrun by Jihadis who used the machines to make fake docs, or isn't corrupted.

Now...I have doubts about that as well, but I doubt Obama chose the list based on Trump's golf course locations.

I'm guessing it has to do with actual real life stuff like customs finds fake passports mainly from country X. Or US troops find ISIS camps tend to have passports from Mosul's passport office.

Trump just is using the same list, but we should be careful not to assume Trump abusing a list = there are no issues with those countries at all.

As I think it has been noted above, the premise of Tyler's posting is incorrect. The dual citizenship issue does not concern Amcits.

Group A: US citizens killed by citizens of:
Saudi Arabia 2,369
UAE 314
Egypt 162
Lebanon 159

Group B:
(Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria Yemen) 0

Group B is the countries included in Trump's ban. Group A not a single country is included.

The list of 7 is based off the Obama Administration's categorization. My guess is that you weren't particularly outspoken at the time the Obama Administration listed them as 'Countries of Concern"

"In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in an effort, the administration said, to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”"

This is a chickenshit defense. It is punting on responsibility for the ban, not manning up that the ban so many Trumpists wanted is finally here.

It also fails the reality test:

"Administration officials weren't immediately sure which countries' citizens would be barred from entering the United States. The Department of Homeland Security was left making a legal analysis on the order after Trump signed it. A Border Patrol agent, confronted with arriving refugees, referred questions only to the President himself, according to court filings." - CNN

So Trump was so off the wall that he signed a ban without even knowing about this other list.

It is not punting on responsibility for the ban. None of these comments has said that Obama basically banned people from these states.

It is saying that acting like concerns about these specific states is completely new, and made up by Trump, is idiotic. Each of these countries has been invaded, bombed, or considered a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the US within the past 15 years.

You keep misdirecting every time someone makes the latter argument.

I keep my eye on the ball, just like thousands in the streets.

1. Trump promised a Muslim ban.

2. Trump asked Rudy how to do a legal Muslim ban.

3. This is the ban.

Man up and be for or against that Muslim ban, don't whine and cower and say it's Obama's fault for leaving a list in the bottom of a drawer.

Your new narrative fails to respond to my point, but I will respond to it anyway.

Trump saying he wants a Muslim ban doesn't mean the eventual policy result is a Muslim ban.

Suppose Trump said "We need a Muslin ban to protect America from terrorism."

Advisers respond "No that is a bad idea and taken to the extreme is likely illegal or unconstitutional. But there are particular nations that the US has dentified as being particularly likely to produce terrorists, due to ongoing religious civil wars, ISIS involvement, and being State Sponsors of Terrorism. You could achieve your stated goal legally, and with a much more narrow impact, by only applying the ban to these nations."

Trump says "Okay sure sounds Great."

It wouldn't become a Muslim ban regardless of the original motive because it is not, in fact, a Muslim ban. It does not ban Muslims.

It doesn't matter if the list came from Obama or not. Either the list is correct or it is not correct. This list clearly has nothing to do with actual terrorist threat vectors and if they relied on a bad list from Obama the Trump admin people are even stupider than I thought (which is a pretty low bar these days).

"This list clearly has nothing to do with actual terrorist threat vectors"

Every one of the states listed has either (1) been invaded by the US, pre-Trump, as part of the Global War on Terror, or (2) been bombed or targeted with drone strikes by the US, pre-Trump, as part of the Global War on Terror, or (3) is considered a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the pre-Trump State Department.

If all of that policy is mistaken, fine, but it sure indicates that the US, pre-Trump, considered these nations to be particularly worrisome as "terrorist threat vectors."

"This is a chickenshit defense."

No, it's a logical consideration. The Trump Administration used the Obama Administration's list as the basis for the temporary ban on travel.

"Man up and be for or against that Muslim ban, don’t whine and cower and say it’s Obama’s fault for leaving a list in the bottom of a drawer."

LOL, I don't have any problem with a Muslim ban. However, this clearly was not a 'Muslim' ban. It doesn't include most of the worlds Muslim countries, it specifically covers the 7 countries that the State department under Obama had already specifically called out.

You seem to have a problem with the actual facts. I'm sorry you can't make Trump into the devil you obviously want him to be.

All of you people appear to be sidestepping whether this policy is morally just or not.
We have people who went through the legal process, were already vetted by the procedures legally put in place by Congress, got a legal visa, and were literally in mid-flight, and then were denied entry to the US when they landed. Does that not even bother you at all?
It's one thing to say "we're not going to issue any more visas to people from XYZ countries". It's another thing to suddenly revoke a visa that an individual was travelling on, in the middle of their trip. Especially in the case of permanent residents who have lives here, including families and children.

If Trump's order was merely "no more refugee visas for Syrians" but he continued to honor already existing visas, there would not be people trapped in the international terminals of airports. Revoking visas that were already issued is pointless and unnecessarily cruel.

Trump is not the devil, but he is as incompetent as I warned.

"All of you people appear to be sidestepping whether this policy is morally just or not. "

That's a justifiable and valid point and I do think the Trump administration botched the execution.

How many just made the first ACLU donations of their lives?

Trump is incredibly dangerous, but fortunately also to himself. A competent authoritarian would be far worse.

In terms of the authoritarianism, I am pleased and thankful to be on the same side as Charles Murray and Charles Koch.

I am happy that they see what I see, and are willing to speak up, no matter whatever other differences we have.

In fairness, I'm slightly wrong on Group B. Libya did kill 187 Americans in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing in the late 80's and there was some bombings in Europe by Libya that killed Americans in the 80's. Strictly speaking you could call them attacks rather than terrorism as they appear to have been directed by the Libyan gov't of the time.

But your point about Obama illustrates what is wrong with this dysfunctional administration. Obama limited certain travellers. Whether or not those limits made sense at the time they were executed in such a way as to respect those who already held green cards (unless there was specific reason to suspect them) and implemented in a non-disruptive, clear way. This is a shit show that in terms of terrorism does nothing but lower our security by leaving us without our act together and more vulnerable as it is clear we have a leader who is unable to lead and unwilling to learn.

Playing nice with Saudi Arabia despite 9/11 has been US policy through a Republican and Democratic administration. If Trump had included Saudi Arabia you would be calling it an insane choice, pissing off a major oil producer and sometimes-useful Mideast ally.

We invaded one of the countries on the list (which led to US citizens being killed) and we have launched air strikes or drone strikes on most of the others.

Iran, Sudan and Syria have been designated State Sponsors of Terrorism for decades, through numerous administrations, and still are.

So as best as I can tell, every one of the listed states was either (1) invaded by the US, which was said to be part of the Global War on Terror, (2) subject to US drone strikes within their territory as part of the Global War on Terror, or (3) considered State Sponsors of Terrorism by the pre-Trump State Department.

The problem is not the listed states, it's the fact that it applies to permanent residents, as well as other people who has already been issued legal entry visas.

That makes it bad policy.

I am not arguing that applying it to green card holders or others with pre-existing legal visas is good policy. It isn't. If it were up to me the Executive would have either no or exceptionally narrow power to implement any sort of ban like this. Hopefully the upshot of this furor is that the Legislature reappropriates its power over the issue back from the Executive.

I am arguing that these nations were considered of particular concern by past administrations of both parties, up to the point of actually invading and bombing them. So the narrative of this as some haphazard list, or one made up to reflect Trump's business interests, or whatever else along that line is being peddled, is BS.

"Iran, Sudan and Syria have been designated State Sponsors of Terrorism for decades,"

The State Sponsors of Terrorism list is useful for just about anything *but* keeping terrorists out of the US.

"Playing nice with Saudi Arabia despite 9/11 has been US policy through a Republican and Democratic administration. If Trump had included Saudi Arabia you would be calling it an insane choice, pissing off a major oil producer and sometimes-useful Mideast ally."

Wow what a pathetic cuck you are in your defense of this fool. It was only a few months ago that even accepting charity contributions from Saudi's was horrible. Now your defense of this absurdity is this!

I'm hearing a lot of "Obama did something like this years ago...even though it was handled totally differently" from people like you but I'm hearing nothing about how this is an intelligent policy that actually helps protect the US homeland from terrorists....esp. since not a single domestic act of terrorism has been done by someone with a green card or visa from these countries.

Anyone whose paid actual attention to terrorism over the last 10 years knows the old Al Qaeda model of sending trained 'agents' into countries is out and what is in is recruiting malcontents and disturbed people either directly or indirectly from inside a country.

"Wow what a pathetic cuck you are in your defense of this fool."

Seriously, go fuck yourself you worthless piece of shit.

Ahhh, always better when people take their masks off.

I went to the Carribean for a week and all the shit hit the fan. Of course, I deliberately ignored the news because I knew that it would be full of whatever horrible things Trump was doing.

I see he completely shitcanned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, not even bothering to re-negotiate it. So much for the claim that it was all just a negotiating position to get a better "deal", idiots.

I also see that he went right ahead with his ban on Muslims including current visa holders. I do recall numerous Trump shills here claiming that he wasn't ever really going to do that.

I wonder what your limits are, you fucking retarded morons. Is there anything that Trump could do that would cause you to abandon your insatiable thirst for his cock? Or do you get so excited thinking about deporting all those evil Mexicans stealing the jobs that rightly belong to below average IQ white guys that he can do just about anything and you'll never stock sucking it?

You seem well hinged.

Trump is the one who is unhinged. Do pay attention to the fact that people are reacting to some seriously immoral inhumane bullshit unfolding. Or do you not consider Muslims human beings?

We have been making war on Muslims since 9/11. Acting like a temporary travel ban on countries we have already invaded, bombed, or listed as State Sponsors of Terrorism is a bridge too far is unhinged.

What is the dominant religion of the countries the US has conquered and occupied since 9/11?

What is the dominant religion of those nations where Obama ordered air strikes and drone striked while in office?

What is the religious breakdown of individuals killed by US military action since 9/11?

What is the religious breakdown of those killed by drone strikes during the Obama administration?

Yet the breaking point for you and so many others is a temporary travel ban.

We have been making war on Muslims since 9/11.

Not according to George Bush or official US policy. In fact, Bush made it crystal clear on day one that the "War on Terror" was not a war on Muslims. He repeated it, over, and over, and over, again.
And for good reason, because the propaganda of Al Qaeda and ISIS and all of the radical Islamists, is *precisely* that the US makes war on Islam, because this is a call to arms for all Muslims. Because according to their religion, Muslims are required to defend the faith, by force. The day that the US declares war on Muslims is the day the Islamist threat grows 100 fold. We're not attacking Muslims. We're attacking a specific, narrow, radical religious movement within Islam. You want to change that, you will be playing directly into the Islamists hand. You will be giving them exactly what they want.

As for breaking points ... I was never on the Donald Trump bandwagon so there isn't one. There is no loyalty there to be broken. Donald Trump is a dangerous idiot who will likely only INCREASE the appeal of radical Islam.

And it is NOT a "temporary travel ban". It's a ban on entry of people who already have valid visas to enter the US, which were acquired by going through often an extensive, time consuming, legal process, including permanent residents who have been living legally in the US for many years. People who have lives to get back to, and cannot possibly have anticipated having their visas revolked in the middle of a vacation or business trip.

So you can say that invading, bombing and killing a bunch of people of one religion across many countries isn't a war on that religion,

But banning people of one religion across multiple countries is a ban of that religion?

You really can't have it both ways. Either they both target Muslims or they both just target the bad people who happen to be Muslim. Official US policy is that this is not a Muslim ban, just as you say Official US policy is that the Global War on Terror is that this is not a war on Muslims.

But the collateral damage to the non-bad people affected by invasions and bombings happens to be a little more severe than the effect on non-bad people affected by a travel ban.

By your breaking point, I mean the point where someone who has expressed a desire to socially exclude bigots decided to make homophobic taunts at Trump supporters because you are so angry.

Personally, I don't care whether it applies to ALL Muslims. We're talking about people who have legal visas, who are US residents, who are having their lives fucked with because they come from Muslim countries.
That's bad enough. Some individuals are being harmed unjustly because of their religion or the religion of the place they immigrated from. Period. full stop. That is wrong.

I am not arguing it is wise policy.

You aren't addressing whether it is moral or humane either.

I'm not addressing that because that isn't what is being argued over here.

Whether or not the policy is moral and humane doesn't affect whether the countries were chosen without basis, or were chosen because of Trump's business interests, or whatever else.

So people can't just say "Ohh Saudi Arabia isn't on there because of Trump's business interests!!!!" and then, when I say "Well no there's actually a reasoned basis to choose these nations and not include Saudi Arabia," reply that "Well the policy is evil why are you defending it/how can you defend it?"

The underlying problems with the policy don't give people carte blanche to just make up any old bullshit they want about it.

Well, *I* am talking about whether it is moral or humane. Trapping someone outside the country who is legally permitted to live here is not a trivial harm. These people have jobs, they have rent to pay, they have mortgages, they have careers, they have families. They may not have the financial resources to live abroad for three months by themselves. Having traveled internationally while I was an immigrant and nearly getting stranded in a foreign country because some officials thought my paperwork wasn't in order, I know how terrifying that is. These are people who, according to the laws established by Congress, should be legally entitled to enter the US. That's what a visa is for. The president should not, by executive fiat, place a blanket ban that includes people who have legal visas, except perhaps in an extreme emergency in which all travel from the country would be banned. If he wants to say no NEW visas for people from those countries that's a different story. But as legal visa holders, they have a right under US law to enter the country. We're not in a state of emergency. There is no moral justification for keeping out people who have a legal right to be here.

While I'm on the subject, I had the fun of coming back through the Chicago International terminal where the cops were blocking all the elevators and escalators yesterday, because of the protests. I nearly missed my connecting flight, but I was gratified at being present to witness history unfolding. It was a great way to return to the US after a week of being thankfully ignorant of all world news.

History unfolds in the joy of each of us at the small things of life.

Those who love their children appreciate law enforcement more than those who do not. They do not expect law enforcement to have the subtlety and sophistication each good parent takes pride in. They would like it but they do not demand it. Those who love lower their demands; it is not easy to protect those whom evildoers wish to harm. One prefers to be polite, but politeness is an obligation secondary to the obligation to protect the innocent. Those who care understand and do not complain more than they need to, do they?

Rah rah rah.

The limit is harm to actual American citizens. Delaying a hundred visa holders at an airport isn't even on the list of "deal-breakers." Neither is withdrawing support for TPP (which Chuck Schumer said was already dead).

Get a grip.

People other than actual American citizens have human rights. And legal visa holders have a right under US law to enter the country. That's what a visa IS. For the president to effectively rescind hundreds of thousands of perfectly legal visas by executive fiat is extreme - it's the sort of action that should only be taken during a state of national emergency such as a nuclear attack or a world war. If you believe there are terrorists among the people who already have legal visas there are better ways to identify them than placing a blanket ban on all travellers from a sizable list of countries.

And actual American citizens could very well be harmed by this too - they might be the family or children or employers of foreign nationals who are being blocked from entering the country. You could be trapping the father of US citizen children so that he cannot get back to his job and hence is unable to pay rent in which case his family could be evicted and have no means of support.

All good points Hazel. The lawyer scums who drafted this clearly were not Harvard's best. Very simple 'root cause analysis' would have identified how horribly executed this fiat order was. I'd also like to think that many thousands of dollars and life hours disappeared into the ether with this decree.

I have no idea about the identified countries, but I have family in Brazil who often had to take cross country flights to nearest embassy, over night lodging for any number of nights while paperwork and interviews sorted, etc, to secure a travel Visa. The costs are unfathomable for many. The absurd amounts of vetting done. Bank statements, certified report from federal police, certified birth certificates, employment letters, waivers, child custody paperwork, and on and on.

Incredible to see commentary from the ignorant stating "we just want to find out whats goin' on!"

When will these people get it through their heads that these people are ALL VETTED - By our team, you know the guys in blue on our side!

at the age of 22 a cop stopped me on the street he said do you mind if I ask you a question the question was this do you know there are not many guys your age with a mustache i am a cop we have a burglary perp with a mustache your age and we need a bunch of guys with mustaches in their 20s but they are hard to find would you mind spending an hour helping us with a lineup i said sure i just said sure (even though many cops have been rude to me over the years i thought but i did not say) and i went in i met the perp he was a typical burglar boy needed cash for the ladies i guess the cops offered me a 10 dollar bill when it was over i did not want it but i took it to save them the embarrassment of taking 10 bucks from the guy who had helped them out the victim looked at me i still remember the look in her eyes she knew i was not the perp and the look had no dislike in it at all after the first suspicious moment God bless her and i do not dislike people or feel overly sorry for people who spend too much time in the airports of other peoples' countries if they truly care about others they will get over it a friend asked me tonight what i think about the new 90 day rules I i said when i came back from nam (not really nam one of the later similarly difficult conflicts) nobody and i mean nobody cared that i spent 36 hours in airports getting home should have been a 12 hour flight actually for what i did for my country i should have had a private plane with my pals my friend said i did not know you were in nam (not really nam one of the later similarly difficult conflicts) i said i never mention it people died over there and if i say i was there i feel like i should not because they were the ones who paid why should i take credit, any credit at all, because i remember the those who paid the ultimate price david niven said the same thing about wwii... either we care about each other or we don't: i care more about those who don't care about others to tell the truth they are the lazy complainers one used to be in the more selfish days of one's youth so one feels their pain (while not approving of their laziness and their selfish complaints) some parents with many children love the likable ones more real parents love the unlikeable ones just as much just as much just as much. at the moment the cops noticed my mustache i had emerged from the public library where i had been on the fence about whether i should check out a rachmaninoff score but decided not to as i was bicycling home and there was nowhere to comfortably carry the rachmaninoff score, the story might be better if it was not the famous second piano concerto but it was.

for the record you notice a lot when nobody cares about you much. God loves the unloved. Divine providence and all that.

the mustache look is a good look for a lot of guys it wasn't - not even close - for me. Hence 'God loves the unloved'. Even in embarassing details! We are all human, right? live and learn, Proverbs chapter 101!

that being said those who care for others overlook bad fashion choices, thank you Dianna, Beatrice, and Donna!

line 8 word 21 'the' should not be there

the bicycle ride passed a beautiful but rather polluted pond (it is cleaner now), an amazing commericalized four-lane highway lined with the type of barely profitable stores that paid the storekeepers mortgages (not that i knew that then i mostly noticed how shoddy I thought they were - the standards of the young are absurdly high), several thousand mid-atlantic trees each one of which i would recognize at this very moment if i were blessed enough to see it again as it was in the day (they are all unrecognizably larger now except the oldest of them), the cool deli owned by puerto ricans who thought it was right that teenagers should be able to buy a can or two of beer, a weird stationery store that stocked foreign language newspapers and had a memorable selection of weird candies, an old folk's home, and, unbeknownst to myself at the time, the homes of hundreds and hundreds of people who would pass away in the peace of the Lord long before I ever typed a word on a computer connected to the internet, God bless them; so many of them are missed by those they left behind, even today! They too would miss the trees if they still lived in this vale of tears! (Obligatory Pushkin quote would follow if I could type in Cyrillic)

Peace begins with a smile

"Up to a point, Lord Copper"

"unbeknownst"? seriously?

stol/n the scraps: they have been at a great feast of language and have stol'n the scraps .... so unbeknownst is an ok word

Rachmaninoff is good, so is Taneyev. You would think Dostoevsky would be better with people without a lot of cash than Tolstoy but the main characters in the Karamzoviad were all born with cash - Grushenka, Katerina, Dmitry, Alyosha, Zosima, the narrator, Ivan, and poor little fifty something Fyodor. The ones born poor - Smerdyakov, Grigorii, Rakitin, Fyetuchka - are almost all given at best walk-on roles. Sad! We need to care about our poor neighbors more than that!

Peace begins with a smile

Kind words can be short and easy to speak but their echoes are endless. Hazel you remind me of my sister. God loves my sister, so do I. We will get through this.

Dostoevsky was, by many standards, poor. One wonders how many fewer faults he might have had without the nearly unbearable sufferings his fellow Russians imposed on him. That being said, nobody should criticize the impoverished for enjoying gossiping about the rich more than they gossip about their fellow impoverished. Still, gossip and slander are wrong. It is not unkind to point that out, I am sure.

"love alone is credible"

love and that feeling we feel when we think we ought to feel love but know we are not at that level. the wish to pray is a prayer in itself.

This may all well be true, but many of the dual citizens in question are actually active citizens of both countries. Meaning they hold current valid passports of both countries and regularly travel between the two. Basically, the second adopted passport is a passport of convenience. So, I think this is the type of scenario that it is being questioned.

So, yes, as difficult as this may be, one can try to show that one has no links with the "home" country, does not travel to the given country, or if so, one does it under the adopted passport for example. Also, one could show an old expired passport as proof of the last official contact with the country in question.

Where there is a will there is a way,

does Melania have dual citizenship ?

Missing from over 275 comments:

Any actual positive defense of this policy. The best that seems to be mustered out there is "Obama said these were dangerous countries". Errr yea they are dangerous countries. "Obama once prohibited travel from Iraq". Errr yea he once did, without causing this type of chaos and uncertainty over the law.

But no positive defense. No explanation why green card holders are different. (or why green card holders who happened to be travelling are different from those staying at home). No reasonable argument that this makes terrorism less likely to happen in the US. All that is mustered is that maybe this is not absolutely without precedent and maybe not absolutely totally criminal or totally insane. What a low bar that's been set in just 10 days.

It's because the deplorable's don't travel (except for Cabo). They don't have passports (except to get to Cabo). The wouldn't recognize a Visa from a grocery list. They've never met or shared a conversation with an individual who wasn't at the church picnic. They can't fathom the worry, hardship, anxiety that comes with overseas or long journey travel where social stability changes from month to month.


I get your satire (I think it's satire). But see I don't have any beef with people who never travel internationally or even domestically for that matter. I've only left the country myself 3 times and one of those was Canada. I get that but I'm not going to screw around with those that do unless there's a good reason too.

Here's another way to think about it. I don't ever buy anything at Tractor Supply. But I wouldn't randomly shut down their computers for no particular purpose or end and when people call me out on it just smirk and chuckle at all those 'silly farmers' trying to get their supplies.

And that is precisely the point. The Executive used a two man crosscut when a surgeon scalpel was needed.

Or no scalpel at all. What evidence was there that green cards are a risk or that previously issued green cards are a problem? You can't talk about whether or not something solves a problem unless you first define a problem and then define what you mean by solving it.

We'll save our powder for when the Muslims start getting deported.

I suspect if the USA were going to honor Iranian law on USA soil the entire discussion our be moot or nonexistent.

Comments for this post are closed