It is important for everyone to speak up

Tim O’Brien puts it this way:

A reminder that POTUS, executor of the Constitution, is banning re-entry to the US by perfectly legal residents because of their religion

Here is his link.


Yes, it is of the utmost importance. Thank you for using your forum to publicize this unconstitutional action, Tyler.

Except there is nothing either unconstitutional or immoral about it

Lots of moral issues including the fact that army translators who risked their lives for the U.S. and went through all the vetting to secure visas are now blocked from moving to the U.S. Also, green card holders who were told their status is "permanent" will now have to wait at least 90 days before reentering if they were unlucky enough to be in the middle of a trip when the order was released.

Does the US Constitution apply to non-US citizens? If so, to what degree? Trump has always said that he wanted to stop entry from certain countries until we can figure out "what the hell is going on". This was not sold as a permanent ban.

@Rich, Yes it does apply to any person physically present on the american territory, and to any american anywhere. This has been clearly affirmed by the supreme court on several occasions. As for a permanent resident while he is abroad, I don't know, I hope a law expert will step in.

So in other words it doesn't apply to anyone affected be this policy. Thanks for playing.

But he cites 911 as a specific reason for his policy but then leaves out big terrorist producers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. So it's a clown policy made simply as red meat for his base but with no real cost to him.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "it" (the constitution) not applying to anyone affected by this policy, but since you so graciously thanked the previous commenter, I extend the same pleasantry to you:

My mistake in assuming leftists understand pronoun usage. Let's try to spell this out in the equivalent of crayon. Either visa holders, green card holders etc. are current in the US in which case they are not affected by the policy, or they are outside the USA in which case the constitutional protections do not apply to them. I'm sorry that guy isn't going to be able to see his brother for a few months but honestly they can both go back to Iraq and see each other every day if they prefer.

"or they [visa holders, green card holders etc.] are outside the USA in which case the constitutional protections do not apply to them"

Tell us, Crayon Master, do the "constitutional protections" of which you speak apply to non-citizen Green Card holders in the US military serving abroad? And does this policy in particular apply to them? (My guesses, for what they are worth - not much - are "some do" and "no".)

They will be granted waivers as per the executive order. Now that we have dispatched that red herring what's next on the Media Matters checklist?

Doesn't answer first question, and answer to second question probably wrong (since the EO relates to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which I think doesn't govern entry to the US by serving military personnel).

Sheesh. The level of punditry these days. Anyone else know anything about constitutional protections and how they apply to non-citizens serving in the military? I am guessing the answer is more complicated than the Crayon Master(s) would have us believe, but who knows.

Mr. Haysom:

On closer inspection, perhaps the problem here is your shift from "apply" to "affect" in both your posts. The way I interpreted your post and contrasted it with the linked article, the person has lived in the country for eight years. The constitution "applies" to him. Now, he is unable to visit his family in Canada (or leave the country for business reasons). The executive order "affects" him in the conventional sense of the term: "to have an effect on, make a difference to". On that basis, it was reasonable to suggest your assertion was mistaken. If the same term had been used in both instances- either "apply" or "affect", maybe "subject to”- then it would have been hard to misinterpret. The implication of your argument seems to be something like: once a non-citizen steps off US soil, the constitution doesn’t apply to him, so there is no contentious issue. He is in the US of course, so the constitution does apply to him and a quick glance suggests citizens and permanent residents enjoy the same travel rights. “Constitution applies” may also refers to the constitutionality of executive orders on immigration policy- an issue that was raised with Obama’s immigration EO’s in 2014. The fact that a policy that is apparently meant to prevent potential terrorists from entering the US altogether also applies to a US resident, who has sufficient documentation of his status, is gainfully employed (software engineer at facebook) and is quite likely not a terrorist, from visiting his family in Canada and returning would meet many peoples definition of a moral problem. You, or the courts may decide that the EO should stand as is, but it is reasonable to suggest that they are relevant considerations.

We already know "what the hell is going on". This is the dumbest excuse ever.

Until July 9, 1868, at most 30% of persons in the United States were citizens. At that point, the meaning of citizen was changed from original intent, by Republicans who stupidly drafted the 14th amendment badly. After all, to preserve original intent, infants would have the vote, not to mention women.

I would have loved to hear Scalia rationalize the word citizen in the context or "plain language" and "original intent" before and after 1868.

And I can find nothing in the Constitution that shows any intent to have border walls, much less restrictions on migration.

Not one person who could have been a citizen in 1800 was alive when restrictions on immigration was first proposed.

The US would do well to amend the Constitution with something like Arcticle 30 through 39 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution.

It defines rights, privileges, and responsibilities for individuals, then breaks individuals down into Mexican national, Mexican citizen, and foreigner, each with further privileges and responsibilities.

The US Constitution is based on persons, and then a small subset: citizens. That is the original intent, paralleling Athens. Andrew Jackson, a populist institutionalist expanded citizenship greatly, perhaps from 10% of the population to 20, maybe 30% in some places where families were small or families few.

So, everything in the US Constitution should be applied to "person", not "citizen", with the presumption a "person" is not a "citizen".

Having a perfectly legally issued visa revolked is a pretty substantial harm. This is especially bad for current green card holders. You don't seem to be aware that for generations, green card holders have effectively been treated under US law as equivalent to citizens, with the exception that they cant vote. This is actually a dramatic and extreme change and is unprecedented for a US President to do something this extraordinary, especially an action that is specifically targeted based on religious belief.

Haysom is incorrect. The EO applied--explicitly--to green card holders and was used, at US airports, to justify the detention and attempted deportation of some green card holders. In addition, their attorneys were prevented from seeing them. This means that they were protected by the constitution at the time and the EO was used to violate their constitutional rights to, among other things, due process. In recognition of this, several federal judges issued court orders staying the detentions. In other words, the constitution applies to people who were affected by the EO and Haysom is wrong. Because he was so categorical I believe it's fair to say he was 100% wrong, which is, of course, a huge embarrassment. Too bad for him.

""""Lots of moral issues including the fact that army translators who risked their lives for the U.S."""

US troops are still in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting and dying.

Why should these people come to the US when their country is still a mess and Americans are still there?

Find a cute answer for this:

If the U.S. wants to keep troops in those countries then that's on them (i.e. the U.S.). Has no bearing on whether any given Iraqi or Afghani should feel obligated to stay in the country.

Why? Where they not paid? The Indian scouts that assisted the French and British armies never expected to be offered asylum in the Europe- some where but most weren't.

""""Has no bearing on whether any given Iraqi or Afghani should feel obligated to stay in the country"""

Agree, he can leave his country. Does not mean that the US should take him in.

You think it makes it easier for U.S. soldiers to fight alongside Iraqis against ISIS?

@anon: awesome link, thanks

Um... Obama banned entry to ALL Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011, including translators. Did that bother you back then? Was it constitutional? I know the constitution is a living document, but still...

"Um… Obama banned entry to ALL Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011, including translators."

Nope, he sure didn't.

Unconstitutional: Because immigration law specifically bans country of origin restrictions (and the President lacks the constitutional power to make up laws).

Immoral: Because you're banning hundreds of thousands of current legal residents who are completely innocent of any crime.

Idiotic: Because no terrorist from any of the countries in question has ever killed an American on US soil. Iran isn't even the right religion.

The Supreme Court has routinely granted the president almost unlimited powers in deciding who can and can't enter the country. This policy isn't unconstitutional.

Nope, it is not unconstitutional.

It harkens back to the days when America was great, and we were keeping out the Yellow Peril - 'In the U.S., Yellow Peril xenophobia was legalized with the Page Act of 1875, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the Geary Act of 1892. The Chinese Exclusion Act replaced the Burlingame Treaty (1868), which had encouraged Chinese migration to the U.S., and provided that "citizens of the United States in China, of every religious persuasion, and Chinese subjects, in the United States, shall enjoy entire liberty of conscience, and shall be exempt from all disability or persecution, on account of their religious faith or worship, in either country", withholding only the right of naturalized citizenship.'

Further, it isn't as if the U.S. hasn't banned group from specified nations before - 'Under Nativist political pressure, the Immigration Act of 1917 established an Asian Barred Zone of countries from which immigration to the U.S. was forbidden.' Interestingly, if one was to look at the map, one sees that the current exclusion zone shares more than a bit with the old one.

The laws have changed since 1917.

In other words, the Constitution provides no limits on Congress or the executive in the limits of power once laws are passed. Ie, Obamacare, the EPA, and restrictions on migration are constitutional even though none are remotely listed or implied in Article 1 as powers of Congress.

Citizenship had nothing to do with coming to or being in the USA or territories because it was only a small subset of persons allowed to hold office and vote in elections. To imply naturalization had anything to do with being in the USA means the USA was only for priests and gay men, no women and children allowed.

The 14th Amendment was stupidly written and totally turned the word citizen into a joke.

Ie, if Obamacare is unconstitutional, so are all immigration laws. Strictly constructed interpretation requires open borders.

Well, it is failing its early tests. And it's lost a number of right wing security hawks - those who are not actual fans of malevolence - into the bargain:

So yes, the order is malevolent. But here’s the thing: Many of these malevolent objectives were certainly achievable within the president’s lawful authority. The president’s power over refugee admissions is vast. His power to restrict visa issuances and entry of aliens to the United States is almost as wide. If the National Security Council had run a process of minimal competence, it could certainly have done a lot of stuff that folks like me, who care about refugees, would have gnashed our teeth over but which would have been solidly within the President’s authority. It could have all been implemented in a fashion that didn’t create endless litigation opportunities and didn’t cause enormous diplomatic friction.

How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact." One of the reasons there’s so much chaos going on right now, in fact, is that nobody really knows what the order means on important points.

Some examples:

Sec. 3(c) bans "entry"—which to the best of my knowledge has had no meaning in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) since the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. Pre-IIRIRA law did use the term “entry,” but that is no longer the case.
Section 3(g) talks of waivers on a case-by-case basis for people who are otherwise denied visas or other benefits under the immigration laws pursuant to the order. If a person needs a waiver to obtain "other benefits," does that mean that nationals of the seven countries are denied any benefit under the INA without a waiver, benefits such as naturalization, adjustment of status, or temporary protected status, even if they are already in the US?
On its face, the order bars entry of both immigrants and non-immigrants. Again, as entry is not defined, and no one was given any time to draft implementing guidance or to clarify any points, it’s no surprise that Customs and Border Protection doesn’t seem to know how to apply it to lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The INA, at section 101(a)(13)(C), says that green card holders will not be deemed as seeking admission absent the factors enumerated therein—factors that do not include an executive order banning entry. Yet Reuters and The Guardian are both reporting quotations from a DHS public relations official, stating that the order does apply to LPRs. If that interpretation lasts, look for DHS to get its ass handed to it on a platter in federal court—a defeat it will richly deserve.
Another big mystery is how the order will apply to asylees. Will people even be allowed to apply? On the one hand, the right to seek asylum is right there in the INA. But to apply for asylum, you have to be interviewed by a U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services officer to determine if you have a credible fear of persecution. Is that interview a benefit under the act? And if so, is it barred? From what I hear, right now anyway, Customs and Border Protection is not allowing anyone to claim asylum and have a credible fear interview.

"Because immigration law specifically bans country of origin restrictions (and the President lacks the constitutional power to make up laws)".

So what about 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)? It says "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." Source:

There's more than one law at play:

"(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, 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."


This is of course a question for the courts, but the reasoning and precedents in the NYTimes article look solid.

I agree that this looks solid. But what about the "Green Card Lottery". According to wikipedia, "Those born in any territory that has sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years are not eligible to receive a diversity visa. For DV-2018, natives of the following nations are ineligible: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam." Isn't it in direct contradiction with the law you quote?

Hum, last message was a question asked to Aaron (but anyone should feel free to answer of course).

The clause includes exceptions, in this case:
"(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants

Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year."

And 1153(c)(1)(b)(ii)(i) has the specific 50k clause you're looking for.

Note that the author of the order would have been a highly competent lawyer who knew exactly what they were doing and did everything they could to justify it under current laws. Also note that Trump would have dictated the broad terms of the order, so this author may have been working at an impossible task. I suspect there is some specific clause or group of clauses they're relying on, but those clauses might not be applicable.

Most importantly IANAL so I'm just going off the NYTimes analysis, ultimately it's going to take actual immigration lawyers weighing in to know if the order has a good chance of withstanding legal challenge. Even if it fails this is screwing with a lot of people in the short term, and it's a strong indication that he's going to follow through on a lot of his more objectionable rhetoric.

If it wasn't for double standards, libs wouldn't have any. Plus, it's 100% ignorance and it's a lie.

Nobody screamed "Unconstitutional!" or demonstrated in 2011 when for six months Obama banned refugee requests from Iraq.

There the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, two years before Trump. It is a kind of ‘Muslim ban’ before the Muslim ban. Almost no one criticized it in 2015 because it was Obama’s.

Interesting, isn't it. Obama suspended refugee applications for 6 months in 2011. Crickets. Trump does the same thing for 3 months and all hell breaks loose.

Just this month, Obama ended a 20-year policy and announced that Cubans escaping the Castro regime will be returned to the odious dictatorship. Crickets again.

I'm not "screaming unconstitutional" because I think the EO is immoral.

I'm screaming unconstitutional because according to the source I provided the general ban on country of origin violates the constitution.

This is not true about the part of Trump's order that banned refugees (from practically anywhere). I believe that's immoral but to the best of my knowledge that's constitutional for the same reason Obama's order was.

The claim is that the general ban on immigration (or entry) for those 7 countries is unconstitutional.

"There the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, two years before Trump. It is a kind of ‘Muslim ban’ before the Muslim ban. Almost no one criticized it in 2015 because it was Obama’s."

The act you refer to required citizens of certain developed countries to apply for visas prior to visiting the U.S. for tourism or business purposes if they had a history of travel to places like Iraq and Syria. That law had its own problems but since it was an act of Congress, affected people had some advance warning and could make appropriate arrangements. The law did not prohibit anyone from obtaining a visa or from entering the U.S. on a visa.

These kind of internet arguments about how "almost no one criticized" something a few years when some other side did it are pointless and tiresome. I was aware of the policy at the time and saw many criticisms. People who don't read the news might not have had the same experience I did. Here are some links:

Democrats are angrier about travel bans than when Republicans freed their slaves.

Your claim about it being unconstiutional for your cited reason is wrong. Violating or going beyond the limits of power granted by Congress to the President does not make the act unconsitutional, it makes it illegal.

To be unconstitutional it would need to go beyond the powers that the President constiutionally possess. Not just beyond those legislatively granted.

Though to be clear on the latter point, a statute could authorize the President to do something that the Constitution says he can't, and the use of said power (and its grant) would be unconstitutional.

Your view would make any Presidential violation or overreach of a statute unconstiutional, which it is not.

I read the executive order and see nothing about green cards. Most of it refers to visa issuance and refugees, in a forward looking basis. I note that the "guidance" seems to be coming from DHS holdovers from the Obama administration- see . This seems to be a post hostile to Trump, but the salient facts on these people is included. This seems to be a Trumped up protest, and the outrage seems phony and tendentious.

It does not explicitly exclude green card holders, and uses terminology that includes them.

Here's a summary from the AILA (immigration lawyers association). -

No mention of green cards.

Rich, "green card" is a colloquial term for immigrant visa. Read the summary you linked to again with this in mind.

Go away. You're wrong and unconvincing.

"Go away. You’re wrong and unconvincing."

Can you repeat that? I don't think anyone cared the first time.


Are we counting total votes, or number of people protesting this action? Either way, I think we're winning. ;-)

How in the world people put such laws on paper in 2017? Seriously, banning legal residents to go back to their normal lives because they're from certain countries or are Muslims?


So Tim O'Brien is one of your colleagues at Bloomberg View; why are his statements believable?

"It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email. (see link below).

There is some question about this- green card holders may be assessed on a case by case basis. However, once again, it is reasonable for someone to assume that the above quote actually means what it means.

I don't support the action. However, according to the prohibition of entry does not seem to be based on their religion, even though he promised to do so during the campaign.

A residency permit does not override the fact that adherents of certain religion wish violence upon US citizens

You might have half an argument if Trump included Saudi Arabia in his order. He didn't, of course, for reasons that are as obvious as they are unsurprising.

Perhaps the common denominator here is that the seven are either failed states from which no information on migrants can be obtained, or enemy states from whom the information is unreliable.

As far as I know, the Saudis collaborate with the US in indentifying terror suspects.

My reply was to Art Deco who sought to justify the current order by claiming "adherents of certain religion wish violence upon US citizens." He did not seek to justify the order by appealing to the alleged unwillingness or inability of certain countries to share intelligence with the U.S.

Moreover, as has been pointed out, this order applies to people who, in some cases, have been residents of the United States or closely allied countries for years and may have only lived in their native countries when they were children.

By the same token, citizenship does not override...

adherents of certain religion wish violence upon US citizens

All adherents of that religion? Or a certain percentage? If it's, like, 5%, isn't this a rather draconian measure? And given that millions of adherents of that religion are currently within the borders of the country and not under detention, could this policy not prove dangerously counterproductive in the medium term?

Since I'm sure your curiosity is genuine- the number of muslims who support violence against the west is far greater than five percent. Depending on your definition of violence it gets as high as fifty percent in some countries.

I'm genuinely curious when left wingers problem solve do they not focus on making sure the issue isn't getting worse before starting to solve the problem.

Are you suggesting that a temporary pause on admitting people form these seven counties might inspire resident muslims to take up violence against the USA? That seems like a pretty insidious thing to suggest.

"Are you suggesting that a temporary pause on admitting people form these seven counties might inspire resident muslims to take up violence against the USA?"

People who think "that adherents of certain religion wish violence upon US citizens" sure should understand this. But even if is just fostering ill-will beyond resident Muslims and non-Muslim Americans, it seems bad. And again, exactly how many 9/11 terrorists or Tsarnaev borthers would have been stopped?

In the following case study you can eat or not eat. I give you a bowl of m&m's and tell you that there are some poisoned m&m's. Will you eat any? But, it's not a fair comparison. The world's other m&m's can't blow you up for not eating their co-religionists.

Just saying.

Zero murders or terror attacks by anyone banned countries. Empiricism is a bitch, huh?

Jan, empiricism is indeed a bitch for those who don't know what it means.

Google Somali terror and you will find results that don't equal zero.

Yes, it can be pretty hard to stop religious maniacs who adhere to a self-proclaimed religion of peace when determined to gun down people in a church -

In new adventures in internet stalking, I attribute to random individuals thoughts on policies re which they have no opinion. People got tired of me chattering about 'cucks'.

But I don't care! They're all cucks!!!! I'm the biggest cuck of all so I know em when I sees em.

The sharper criticism I have heard is that it would have stopped no past terrorist. It is the wrong countries. Is that correct?

None since 1975, I have read.

Certainly it would not have affected the 9/11 terrorists; most were Saudi and none were from the listed countries.

One claim is "Muslims from the banned countries have killed no Americans in terror attacks on U.S. soil since 1975". I don't know of any counterexamples.

Let's be prisoners of the past not confront the realities of the situation.

Which situation? The Saudis stopped supporting terrorist activities?

Let's grasp at straws to justify any policy that terrorizes good people and refugees from counties we have bombed at will.

"from counties we have bombed at will."

You've finally noticed we're bombing those countries? Did anything change between now and Jan 20, 2017?

Terror attacks by Muslims? Yes, but not from those countries.
Murders by people from those countries? Yes, but not terror attacks.
Terror attacks by Muslims from those countries? Yes, but none that killed anybody. (Mostly knife attacks.)

There's an exception built into the executive action for religious minorities; in other words, everyone from that country who isn't a Muslim. It is based on their religion.

Seems to me that's it's just good old fashioned minority rights. I applaud Trump for stand up to majoritarianism, the hidden fascism.

I applaud you for standing up for the small brained among those in the WH and among the elite today.

We had special treatment for ((( a certain religious minority ))) to immigrate from the USSR. Funny how none of the ((( constitutional scholars ))) had a problem with it then.

卐卐卐Gerber Baby卐卐卐 January 28, 2017 at 4:55 pm
"We had special treatment for ((( a certain religious minority ))) to immigrate from the USSR. Funny how none of the ((( constitutional scholars ))) had a problem with it then."

I support Trump's sensible anti-terrorism policies and just hope he has the balls to eventually ship all the alt.Nazis to Guantanomo. Save that for the second term.

Apologize if you were offended by my use of the ((())), I guess I should stop using it if it is associated with nazism.

Yeah you probably should. (((Jesus))) does not approve.

At some point perhaps the left-wing media will learn it doesn't do their arguments any good to misrepresent their opponent's actions. That used to work, but now it's too easy for people who care to check things on the Internet.

I agree it's by country, not by religion. It doesn't help the pro-immigration side's argument against it to confuse the issue and complain about the wrong thing.

I agree. I also think we should keep an eye on the cyber arrests in Russia. I am not really convinced Trump does distraction (instead, rapid-fire error), but genuine proof of Russian involvement in the election is something else we should talk about.

Want investigation into voter fraud? Fine. Do it right with an independent, bipartisan, comittee. This is not the time to fall in line for Trump investigating his own election.

Isn't this thread about abortion? Oh, sorry, I forgot to take my meds today...(hint, hint).

As I said, it "ties" by distraction. How many are hearing today of the Russian arrests?

Intentionally or accidentally, something important is pushed off the page.

Don't worry about it! The Russians are cleaning up all the loose ends on their side. Give them a few days, and all the news will fit.

Funny how Muslim countries where Trump has business interests weren't included, even though the majority of the 9/11 terrorists cam from those countries.

Got any real evidence?

Here's a list of the countries covered by the order:
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen

And here's a list of countries where Trump has investments:
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar.

And here's a list of the countries of origin of the 9/11 terrorists:
Saudi Arabia (15 terrorists), UAE (2), Egypt (1), Lebanon (1)

Bottom line: None of the 9/11 terrorists came from any of the countries covered under the order. Almost all of them came from countries exempted, where Trump has investments.


I couldn't find 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) 217(a)(12). One source that claimed the complete text only went to (a)(10). The others didn't appear to have it at all. But I'm very inept at searches for this kind of bureaucratic obfuscatory legalese. Any help?

I am willing to bite the bullet and say the list is too short.

You might find this illuminating regarding the choice of countries (clue, it was not based on Trump's list)

MR may be the original source of these falsehoods, but it is facilitating their spread.

I dont have the link, but saturday afternoon NPR reported that this list was based on an earlier Obama adminstration list.

Any chance it will persuade you?

This is the easiest thing to fact check on the planet.

Why be prisoners of the past. 9-11 as the left never tires of spouting was just one in a long list of terrorist attacks. Rational forward looking policy needs to take into account the current composition of terrorists. It makes me sad that you are so unwilling to adapt your priors to create sane, welfare enhancing policy.

Indeed, why be prisoners of the past? The biggest threats on U.S. soil are likely to be U.S. citizens.

per capita? Why be a liar, Ricardo. Just overcome your cowardice and admit that you are wrong.

He specifically cites 911 as grounds in his executive order. Why would we imagine future terrorists would not come from Saudi Arabia?

We can imagine anything you like I guess. I prefer to stick to data.
Saudi nationals have not been involved in much terror of the past decade. Al-Queda was a Saudi run organization- terrorism is no longer spear headed by Al Queda.

Again adapt your priors to on going facts and reality- I assure you it creates a lot better policy than outdated gotcha. Admittedly for a certain frustrated bitter mental type weak tea gotchas are more satisfying, but I'm assuming the whinny bitterness of your post is only temporary frustrstion not indicative of your full time thinking.

San Bernardino was a combination of Saudi Arabia plus Pakistan.

Lazy deflector is lazy.

Top of the list should be Saudi Arabia given its the salafi interpretation that forms the foundation of all Qaeda and ISIS and radical terrorism, Saudi missionaries behind recruiting terrorists in Britain, not to mention, the persons responsible for killing almost 3000 persons on US soil.

But perhaps Trump is rewarding the Saudis for their role in promoting 10% of US gdp. Without the Saudis, no massive TSA, no DHS, no tens of thousands of government contractors in Virginia, no big contracts with mercenaries listed on Wall Street, no jobs in security theater.

In case readers didn't get the point of my comment (and presumably Cowen's point too) to Cowen's blog post about China's high speed rail project that runs from Kunming (that would be in China) through Laos and Thailand down to Malaysia and Singapore, China is reaching out to be the Connector to the World while Trump is building a Wall to separate the US from the World.

Mexico is the world now?

And China isn't connecting to the world (hello, Facebook and Twitter are banned). They're buying influence and when buying doesn't work, they send in the military as with the South China Sea, or confiscate property as with Singapore's armoured vehicles.

Why don't you claim that approving Keystone is connecting America to the world, oops, I mean Canada. Or rekindling the special relationship with the UK and ending the hostility to Israel.

Trump has some bad ideas and will make decisions that need heavy pushback. But the flaky hysteria we're getting now is only going to make it a lot harder when those times come.

Well, according to Trump's words, radical islamic terrorists are flooding in from Mexico. Otherwise he'd be building walls around US airports.

Again (it happened last week about the import tax) people discuss, get indignant, argument, counter-argument, on a presidential executive order with almost no one giving a link to that order, and I am sure, with no one having reading it for himself/herself. Partisanship is having depressing consequences on the level of political debate in the US, which is falling fast, evn on the best blogs, to that of France.

By the way, the order is here:

I read the order because I thought (like you) that the description I read was hyperbole. When I looked at the text, it was worse than I thought.

I started reading but got bored and gave up. What do you find so objectionable?

Like section 3.c .

I, generally, hate the press and a liberals. However, this section does seem questionable. I completely understand reducing the issuance of visa, that would be a sensible policy while we figure out how to screen. However, the voiding of 90 days of currently valid visas seems extreme.

Yeah exactly the point

I suspect that it's our educational system's "yuge" failure over the past two or three generations in instilling critical thinking and the desire/ability to find out the facts before reaching conclusions that is to blame, and that the increasing partisanship is a result - when people aren't able to understand the issue, they rely on authority which leads inevitably to polarization. Trump is just the canary in the coal mine.

How long will Republicans in Congress ignore the catastrophe that their president will likely confer on us? As long as it takes for the Congress to adopt and the president to approve the policies the Republicans want. Trump may be a psychopath but his advisors aren't stupid: they will drag out approval of the policies the Republicans in Congress want long enough to bring catastrophe to all of us. Why would Republicans risk their credibility with American voters? Because American voters have a memory shorter than Trump's fingers: after nearly bankrupting the nation with a combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and a catastrophic war sold to Americans on misleading if not fraudulent information, it took but two years (two years!) for Americans to forget. Americans used to be smarter: after the catastrophe of 1929, it took two generations for Americans to forget.

I love this kind of posts. First your political instincts are terrible so even if the republicans thought you had their best interests at heart why would the listen to you.

You are a washed up, bored, lonely leftist your perspective doesn't matter.

Big fan of ad hominem argument, huh?

Bored lonely leftist or all three?

Please please Democratic Party make this issue the centerpiece of your opposition to trump. This nation could make a lot of progress with the Democratic Party reduced to a Federalist Party like rump Party status. Also please please keep threatening secession it makes right wingers quake in their boots at the prospect.

A quick google search suggests not a winning strategy:

Kinda hope it happens. Secession, that is. Depending on the details, of course. Here's a map:,_2016#/media/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2016.svg

Split off the coastal counties plus maybe a few more inland from CA, OR, WA, plus all of HI, into one country. That includes some red counties, but necessary for contiguity. NYC, NJ, Philly, and everything east of NY State (CT, MA, VT, NH, ME) make up a second country. This includes "red" counties in NH and ME, but they're not heavily populated.

Rest of the country becomes Trump Land. Bummer for the blue counties in S.W. Texas and certain parts of NM and CO, but there's only so much you can do.

"Pacifica" and "New New England" should have decently large GDPs, so it wouldn't be completely lopsided economics-wise. All three would be more or less contiguous (except for Hawaii), though "Pacifica" would loo a little like Chile geographically speaking.

Damn I like it! Can we back date it so I get a 100% refund of all my federal taxes?

Right after the seceding states get back all the taxes they poured into Trump Nation

what the hell! I live in Maryland. dont leave me behind!!!!!!!

This strikes me as a mostly false or at least highly misleading description of what the order says.

It temporarily bans the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries. None of the most populous Muslim nations are one the list.

Resident aliens would only have trouble returning if they either have an expired visa or let it expire while they were away.

I do not remember this kind of hyperventilation when Obama did the exact same thing in 2011 with regards to Iraq. Not to say it wasn't criticized, just not with the kind of hysterics we see here.

No, read the order. It clearly bans "entry" and not just visa issuance. See section 3, part c. I would guess its application to green card holders will be rescinded or overturned but the order is poorly worded and thought out.

The order seems to be using entry and issuance of visas somewhat synonymously, so we will have to see how it is applied. Since the order is for only 120 days, it is unlikely to make it to the courts before it becomes moot by expiring.

Whether it ought to apply to some (or all) green card holders or not, if there is statutory law regarding their rights, then they certainly would have redress in the courts.

Since the order is for only 120 days, it is unlikely to make it to the courts before it becomes moot by expiring.

You're kidding, right?

ACLU already got a stay

I apologize for my inexact language. It will expire before courts resolve the legality of the order.

BBC confirms that green card holders have been stopped from boarding flights back to the U.S. Also, an Iranian citizen who resides in the U.K. and was vacationing in Costa Rica was stopped from merely transiting through New York on her way home. She is out thousands of dollars after missing her flight and booking a new ticket that doesn't stop in the U.S.

From the executive order: "to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes. a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States."

So some federal bureaucrat, with the help of similar bureaucrats in a foreign country who probably feel that they're already overworked, will be capable of accurately predicting the future on a daily basis. Color me skeptical.

Oh, yes, the Federalist Party. The Party of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, the latter having fought alongside Washington in the Revolutionary War, the Party to which Washington was sympathetic although not a member (because Washington was non-partisan), the Party that promoted the union and opposed slavery. Unlike their partisan counterparts, including Jefferson who, while governor of Virginia, ran like a scared rabbit to the Poplar Forest when the British invaded Richmond, or the traitor Aaron Burr who, after killing Hamilton, ran like a scared rabbit to southeast Georgia to hide on a slave plantation. And unlike today's Republicans who ran like a scared rabbit from the catastrophe that was the George W. Bush administration and will run like a scared rabbit when catastrophe befalls us as the result of the ignoramus Trump. If only we had men and women of courage and patriotism, men and women like those of the Federalist Party, rather than the weaklings of today's Republican Party.

Mike Flynn is braver than you ergo what? What on earth is wrong with you? These are some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Clearly I was referring to the fact that the Federalist Party was reduced to a rump regional party due to the aftermath of the Hartford Convention. I've never seen the vicarious Internet tough guy act before but I'm not surprised your invented it.

@Sam Haysom:

You might not have seen a vicarious Internet tough guy act, but you're doing a real good job of playing the part of a "bigot who likes to hide behind 'patriotism' and love of 'national security'" with your idiotic casuistry and a fundamental misunderstanding of the political theory underlying our American republic.

1. The executive order bans ALL visas except NATO, G1-4, and C-2 U.N. visas. Where do you see Green Card holders (permanent resident aliens) are exempted?2. Green card holders are being stopped/detained. I interpret these facts (claimed facts) as proving you are demonstrably wrong. "None of the most populous Muslim nations are one the list." The most populous? Top 5? Top 10? Top 100? What is your point?

India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Egypt all have more Muslims than the first on the banned list, Iran. Hence it is silly to say that entry is being denied by virtue of religion. These top 6 account for about 1 Billion Muslims, which is more than half of the total.

More tedious TDS.

From the real document:

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (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) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

Do read the whole article.

Yes, read the whole article, including part c which comes before the part you quoted. It implements an immediate entry ban for 90 days that applies to nationals of 6 countries. The only exceptions are for the visa categories also listed in the part you quoted.

Twitter is blowing up with stories of good people caught on the wrong side of the rule. As of course it would. Most people are good. Most immigrants are good. It is the math. It is also why a ban, to catch the vanishing few, was never popular.

Trump's first big bad PR wave, rooted in his distrust of good people.

Just because anon was wrong the fifty previous times he predicted disaster for trump doesn't mean he's wrong this time.

The good thing is he isn't at all emotional invested in opposing Trump (it's hard to say if he's pro or anti trump honestly) so you know this prediction isn't wishcasting.

Dude. This is another day of disaster for Trump, and I am not the one angry posting weak defense.

Dude. scoreboard.

Omg, I just noticed that Carter beats Trump in that poll!

So just above Obama?

Here is some more from that same polling site

"""""November 04, 2016""""""

""""Clinton Leads by 5 in Firewall States""""

Dude that's out the scoreboard you are pointing at.

To pull this back, to Trump's strategy and impact on his support - a good analysis from Anne Applebaum is that the spotty country list says that this is not about safety so much as satisfying, exciting, the base. It is for those true believers. If innocents are harmed, pfft.

But look around at the effect on traditional right of center groups who don't go this far. That is, on conservatives now split off.

Look at Tyler, a reliable anti-statist now pushed to the opposition column.

That is Trump's loss.

Jettisoning the Tyler Cowen's of the world is an excellent way to build a lasting politically dominant coalition.

anon citing a poll. Because this election has taught us how wonderfully accurate the polls are.

The election result was within the polls' uncertainties. If someone says the odds are against, and you win, you just win at long odds.

It happens in every sport every day. The favorite certainly does not win every horse race.

So let's quit the innumeracy.

Look at Tyler, a reliable anti-statist now pushed to the opposition column.

Since Cowen told us all he'd 'miss' BO and his favorite Republican commentator is a no-account named Bruce Bartlett (whose stock-in-trade is attacking Republican politicians), I think it's fair to say he'd be part of the opposition even if Trump hadn't pointed the artillery at a Mercatus lodestar.

The Mercatus crew are for the most part reliable denizens of the faculty rathskellar, and at pains never to take a stance that would be outre in that social nexus. The exception would be Bryan Caplan, for who the term 'applied autism' appears to have its exemplar.

Or Barack, Bruce, Tyler, and I are more moderate than many of you would admit, closer to flipping than hardened partisans, less ready to tear it all down.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Traditional conservatives need to decide which side they are really on.

And then there is this:

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are ...

Do read the whole article.

"...for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked, "

So there is a workaround.

Quit whining, you lost. Elections have consequences.

That's an awfully narrow loophole. If the government enacted a ten year prison sentence for speeding, the argument that "the president can pardon people on a case-by-case basis" wouldn't help much.

@ Lanigram,

Um. Actually, no. Elections do not have the consequence of ripping up the basic tenets of politics enshrined in the Constitution. Even erstwhile wannabe dictators like Drumpf take an oath to "protect and preserve" the Constitution. Hence, THAT is their first objective, not "making sure everyone is safe", a most bogus and easily demonstrable fake objective meant as political theater for the ill-informed.

Building a wall, ensuring that undesirables are not allowed (re-)entry, proclaiming a National Day of Patriotic Devotion - why, it seems like someone remembers the glory days of the DDR.


The idea of Trump as FDR is truly intriguing - though I don't think Trump has it in him to be a class traitor.

Some people seem to be arguing against the ban but implying that they'd be happy with it if Saudi Arabia were included. Can they really mean that?

Not me. I think the ban is damaging to individuals and to US reputation. The Saudi thing just shows that it isn't internally consistent either. The entire rationale is to "keep us safe" while skipping Bin Laden's country.

The staus quo, which already was extreme vetting, was better.

Extreme vetting????

How are they going to do that?

Send FBI agents to ask neighbors in Aleppo if they are good people?

Its hard enough vetting someone in the US, doing it in a foreign country which is a war zone is almost impossible

That doesn't address any of the issues.

EXACTLY! Who is going to monitor this behemoth of a vetting system?? So much for a smaller leaner government!!

But for most of the countries where it matters, "extreme vetting" is surely just wishful thinking. Little information from such countries is remotely trustworthy.


The people bringing up Saudi Arabia not being included are pointing out a simple notion that not only is the bad unconstitutional and immoral, but it is also highly corrupt, as it excludes a country that has sponsored terrorism against the US and currently seems to support and sponsor ISIS in its war against shia muslims. The corruption comes from the fact that SA was excluded because the Trump family has business interests in SA, not because Fuhrer Drumpf actually cares about keeping America safe.

Yes, many ISIS fighters will come through refugee programs from these countries. But, who cares? You are more likely to die in your bathtub than be tortured to death by an ISIS fighter, so who cares? Besides, Americans deserve to be punished for all the evil things the American government has done in the past. Bring in more refugees and place them in bumblefuck, Kansas, and nowheresville, Ohio. We have enough people in Manhattan and DC.


But the revocation of the rights of those with existing visas is quite weird.

It is, isn't it? They must be among the few people from those countries whom you can hope to vet properly, based on their years in the US.

Oh on. Does this mean that muslims has to live in the muslim world. To build schools, universities, railroads and so on by themselves.

Racist are going crazy - everybody knows muslims are not able to create a succesfull society.

We have to let them in. otherwise they will die - you know?

I mean it doesn't even have to be that bad anon and rayward could take their inexhaustible free time and go to the Muslim world and help them build those things.

Let's put the conversion rate of online virtue signaling workhour:to hammering nails workhour ratio at a conservative 5:1 conversion ratio. That's almost four hours a day each could contribute.

"because of their religion"

Umm...False. Because the Obama administration was wholly negligent by failing to properly screen these folks in the first place. Yes some may be inconvenienced but that really is a small price to pay to better ensure security of US citizens, but it would not be necessary if the Obama administration had been competent. Of course the potential for a terrorist act against US citizens is of no concern to Tyler. The lost utility of victims is a wash with the gained utility of the terrorist. As an anti-nationalist, he is indifferent. If anything Tyler and the pearl clutchers are pro-terrorism. They are like Old Man Warner in Shirley Jackson's The Lottery: "Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon." Terror attacks on US citizens are the clerisy's favorite thing - gives them an opportunity to tsk, tsk over the immense horror of the inevitable redneck backlash and isn't it terrible some Muslim somewhere might hear something that hurts his feelings.

I think you meant the "Bush administration."

You're welcome.

Ok Bush administration and Obama administration.

Goodness me, were they different?

Right-o! No difference!

@ Edgar,

It's interesting to read bigots rationalize their views. You write "some may be inconvenienced but that really is a small price to pay to better ensure security of US citizens", which is easy to write as long as YOU are not the one to be inconvenienced. Hmm, let's see. Since driving cars seems to kill far more Americans than terrorist ever have, why don't we ban all driving above 30 MPH? Hey, it's a slight inconvenience which ensures security of all US citizens. What about getting rid of hand guns and the 2nd amendment? I don't see hypocrites like you volunteering to give up your freedom and willing to bear such "inconvenience" even though all evidence from other countries shows that doing so would lead to greater security for its citizens.

Please stop with the hypocrisy. Reading your weak rationalization, I'm almost embarrassed for you.

If this is targeted on the basis of religion then the U.S. has made war on the basis of religion for decades.

The exception for religious minorities who are victims of religious persecution would presumably be read to apply to Shia Muslims in Sunni dominated nations and Sunni Muslims in Shia dominated nations.

And the religious-minority based exception only applies to the admission of refugees, not the "pefectly legal US residents" ban. So as I read the order, any "perfectly legal US resident" from those nations, to whom this applies, would be denied re-entry without regard to their religion.

This is a haphazard list of countries, not all the terrorist supplying, not all the Islamic, not all the anything.

It is for fans of haphazard lists.

But at least it is a ban, am I right?

I have lost the list of countries but if I recall correctly all but Iran are experiencing some level of violent ethnic and religous-based civil strife. Indeed the US has recently bombed targets or supplied one faction or another in all but Iran, right? Iran would be the oddball in the current group.

It provides that more can be added.

So you are on the sides of bans, more bans, eh?

Banning those with residency status is a bad idea.

I am fine with reducing the number of refugees allowed into the US.

I don't think the President should have the power to make such a decision, but it seems that he does. I hope that power is curtailed.

anon look at me and weep.

This seems to be legal from what I have read of the applicable law.

Perhaps this would be an instance where opponents, rather than focusing on Trump, should question whether this is a proper power to place in the Executive's hands in the first place. Remove the power and you remove the possibility of perceived abuse.

A law prof on TV says it will fail in court, but in terms of where to focus, here:

I am skeptical. I am sure some legal experts were consulted in crafting the Order. And how far will a challenge make it before being mooted anyway?

Actually that was in the news this week too, that Trump has surprised subordinates by not clearing EOs with lawyers or affected departments.

Going to still say someone with legal expertise in the area crafted it. Trump didn't write it.

Already getting blocked legally:

Guess I sometimes forget that just because the litigations I work on drag on for years doesn't mean a court can't act rapidly.

Also still going to say that based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the laws at play here, I would probably make a (small) even-money bet that the whole order would be upheld as legal by SCOTUS. But I would assume there won't be any such ruling.

A stay is not the same as a ruling.

Yes that is also true. Shows there is some level of perceived merit in the challenge though.

Tim O'Brien is being intentionally obtuse and ascribing motives to Trump that aren't in evidence. Trump did not select these seven "Muslim majority" countries for special scrutiny--DHS did, in relation to the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, signed into law by Obama. Nationals from these 'Countries of Particular Concern' were targeted by the Obama administration as well, but we didn't hear a word about a so-called "Muslim ban." The selection of these countries has nothing to do with Trump's business dealings or their being Muslim-majority countries. The Trump administration did not identify these countries on its own.

Which isn't to say this isn't a stupid policy. It's a disgrace. But it's disgraceful on its own. Readily refutable lies from Tim O'Brien and others covering this story will only strengthen Trump's hand as he tries to defend it. Once again the anti-Trump outrage machine is tripping over itself to posture and preen, which makes it that much less likely that Trump will reverse this action at all.

I searched up that Act. Did it include Iran? Could not see it.

Seems to have included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Fourth question down:

So it is both a different list and a different purpose.

No, it updates and amends the Immigration and Nationality Act mentioned in the EO.

It says that citizens of 38 countries could have visa wavers, unless they had specifically gone to those countries, as a jihadi might.

Again, different concept, identifying individuals.

Okay now I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Those countries were flagged before Trump ever took office. Tim O'Brien, among others, is trying to argue that Trump has targeted nationals from these countries because of their religion, because they're Muslim-majority countries. That is not true. In the EO Trump is asserting authority under the INA as amended by the VWP/TTPA of 2015 which explicitly mentions those countries and which existed before he took office.

I am stubbornly refusing to buying "flagging" in a review process as equivalent.

But then false equivalence is a standard play for Team Trump.

Most reasonable and perceptive comment I have seen.

Even if it was not made up, it obviously is false equivalence. The 2005 Act, for a different list (?), was not a ban.

As I read coketown, he isn't saying they are equivalent. He isn't saying he supports the Order. He is saying that if applying special scrutiny to those nations under Obama wasn't targeting based on religion, then neither is this.

And that putting it needlessly into the religion/constitutionality frame (rather than just saying it is bad policy) makes it to where the religious aspect will become the battleground and perhaps let the order survive longer than it otherwise would.

He tries to rev up a different list for a different purpose to prove:

"The anti-Trump outrage machine"

You have a funny straddle there TV, against banning Green Card holders but buying the "outrage machine."

Anon, it's the same list and you know it. In his executive order, Trump claims authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act; the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, signed into law by Obama in 2015 and which grants DHS authority to compile that list of countries, specifically amends the INA. Text here: If you have evidence to the contrary beyond your heartfelt insistence, I'm genuinely interested in seeing it.

But here's what I find both frustrating and comical about this exchange: You took someone--me, a conservative--who categorically agreed with you on the issue and diminished my interest in it so severely I now don't care. I now just assume it's the latest fake outrage sending liberals into hysterics. This is why progressive successes are so few and far between and depend on popular apathy or indifference, like gay rights, rather than things that require a change in popular will like tax hikes, climate change, gun control, immigration. You not only can't convince people, but you take people who otherwise agree with you and turn them off to your cause completely.

Here's the fact of the matter: Trump is president; Trump issued his executive order; the federal government is complying as we speak; it will be federal policy for at least the next 120 days; and there isn't a goddam thing you can do about it.

For some reason my comment went to the wrong place.

To say it a different way, don't lead with "outrage machine" when you want to look moderate.

Don't ignore the difference between a list and a ban when you are trying to be honest.

This is like "sure, I killed the seven dwarves, but Disney listed them, so its the same."

I never pretended to be moderate. Even so, how can you look at the Democrats, the press, and liberals on Twitter and call it anything other than an outrage machine? They have been outraged by something new every single day, oftentimes with merit, other times not so much.

An astute reader would note I didn't ignore the difference between a list and a ban. Once again, that was NOT my original point. My original point was, and is, that this was not some hate-induced, anti-Muslim initiative invented by Trump, but builds explicitly on work done during the Obama administration. I do not believe it's accurate to call Trump's EO anti-Muslim, or to say, as Tim O'Brien did, that Trump is banning people from entering this country 'because of their religion.' I did, however, say I found this policy disgraceful from the beginning. Not sure what else you want. For the record, I would never excuse the killing of Snow White's dwarves.

Do you understand why the old list had Iran there for scrutiny while at the same time we accepted many Iranians for green cards?

It absolutely does not build on the previous administration's work to lump everyone from Iran in the same bucket.

"It is important for everyone to speak up"

Tyler - you were probably hoping that most of those who would "speak up" in the comments section here would share your general view of this action by the POTUS. But many (most? I haven't counted - too depressing) of the commenters do not. As a regular reader of this blog and occasional (too depressing again) reader of the comments, I am not surprised. But you shouldn't be surprised either.

I can understand why you might as a point of principle want to take a light touch to moderation and to responding to specific comments. But why post at all if the net effect is to give a platform to large numbers of people whose views - I am guessing - you may well find abhorrent? "It is important for everyone to speak up" ... but this is your blog and you own what goes on in here in the comments too.

Not the first time this has been my reaction upon wandering into the comments section, but this post in particular brought out the issue very clearly, at least for me.

Do you think if he shut down the platform those views would disappear?

Do you think their ideas are so attractive and make so much sense that allowing them to be posted will infect right-minded people?

I find your comment inviting censorship absolutely deplorable. But I think and hope that by allowing your view to be freely expressed, its ridiculousness will be made clear.

And as I have done before, I would like to praise Tyler again for making his comments section a haven for free speech.

scratch a leftist, find a censorious asshat.

I'm no fan of this EO, but still think you are a bad person.

I am well Left of center but do not believe in censorship.

Since Tyler is Right of Center, Right of Center people will dominate the discussion here. And recently Far Far Far out into the Next Solar System Right of Center people have become empowered by Trump and Bannon, and so are speaking more.

I have been censored in the other direction-- for being Left of Center-- and not even extremely so--by Slate Star Codex recently, basically for not speaking worshipfully enough of Ayn Rand.

So I am against censorship in either direction, unless someone is obscene or say some other sort of extremely inappropriate stuff.

"or saying" I meant to type.

No Jill,

You were banned at SSC for bringing up Ayn Rand as a non-sequitur in every argument, in such a way that demonstrated you hadn't ever either read or understood anything she wrote, or anything your interlocutors wrote. As I understand it, you're welcome back if you can manage to write a book report on atlas shrugged.

It's true, this place has become such a cesspool that I can hardly be bothered to engage most of the time. I don't think there are actually that many individual commenters here with despicable views, but the ones who fit that profile are prolific, combative, and immune to facts, and they dominate most threads to a degree that makes intelligent (or even interesting) conversation unlikely.

There are plenty of bright-lines that can be drawn around what sorts of speech are acceptable that are not slippery slopes. Tyler and Alex seemingly can scarcely be bothered to eliminate comments containing material that isn't even constitutionally protected from most threads.

Nicely put. If it were my blog, I would moderate. I would not feel obligated to make what is a private platform available to people to spout stuff I personally find abhorrent. And then the discussion here might even be enlightening, even though (or maybe because) I take different views. But not my blog. TC and AT own it. I do wonder where they draw the line, though. (They must draw the line somewhere ... right? I don't see a moderation policy but maybe I missed it.)

Wonderful BTW how these commenters think they have a right to make use of what is essentially private property, namely a blog run by people of a libertarian bent, and decry a suggested limit to their use of someone else's property as "censorship".

Tyler certainly has the right to censor comments on his blog. That he doesn't do so deserves praise and respect.

A citizen is guaranteed entry. That is a long standing policy of the U.S. and many other countries. A non-citizen is not. Simple as that. A green card holder is a guest not a citizen.

Still a green card is, generally, considered a promise, by the US government to the holder, of access.

Reducing the issuance of green cards? Acceptable. Reducing the issuance of visas? Acceptible.

The voiding of currently valid visas? This seems to be very, very far from acceptible and will lead to, at the minimum, a number of disastrous stories at foreign airports.

This is the 1st clearly stupid policy by the Trump administration. Assuming he does bar those with existing visas.

If you travel to different foreign countries you WILL need a visa for many of them. You get it before you expect to arrive and make sure it is well before so that it gets approved in time. IMHO we should require visas for all visitors, tourist visas ONLY and end all of the other couple dozen types of visas. Also We should restrict visitors to 3 months a year with a visa of course. We won't but we should. There is no good reason for green cards.

So you're requiring Canadians to get visas for some reason? Germans? etc

So you're ending student visas? Ending fiancee visas? Temporary employment visas, no matter how special and/or temporary the employee?

Yes, a visa is not such a big impediment to travel. I don't see the problem. Visa to enter the country and proof that you left. Makes sense to me.

Have you ever gotten a visa? Getting a real visa for most countries is actually a huge hastle and usually takes weeks and hundreds of dollars.

Yes I have had to apply for a visa prior to visiting some countries. I think it should be universal.

Green cards are quite often used as bridges to citizenship.

But this is about more than just green card holders. All existing promises (i.e. Visas) should be honored. New promises need not be issued at the current rate.

End it and after that point if you aren't a citizen you can only stay here for 3 months a year retroactively. In other words on the day it passed if you have already been her for three months or more then goodbye.

Yeah thanks for the input of the American Nazi Party

A green card is the path to citizenship and has been used by, among other people, our current First Lady and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Doing away with green cards and naturalization in the process is crazy fringe stuff even by the standards of this comments section.

Why! We don't "need" immigrants and over the last 40 years we have been flooded by immigrants. Why not end all immigration until the millions of immigrants already here can assimilate and after that put it to a vote and if the people want more immigration then allow it.

Logic is clearly beyond GWTW....just nonsense all over the place.

Still a green card is, generally, considered a promise, by the US government to the holder, of access.

Yeah, someone who has a green card has had a very reasonable expectation of being able to live the rest of his or her life in the USA, and has likely taken steps based on that, such as housing, employment, and raising a family.

Let the green card holders in. Now

Green cards aren't forever and you can get deported if you do a crime with a green card so not exactly true

Um. NO. You have gross misunderstanding of the political theory underlying America's constitutional system. Your rights are not given to you because you are magically anointed the status of "citizen". It's not that states can do anything they want, except that they cannot infringe on citizen's rights. It's that, we the people as citizens do not give the state the right to do ANYTHING unless we explicitly permit the state to do so. Hence, the state does not have the right to just do whatever the hell it wants to a non-citizens, because, hey, non-citizens aren't anointed rights. The state doesn't have such permission because we as citizens do not empower the state to act in a such manner, as it would be nearly impossible to protect the right of citizens themselves when states develop the habit of just doing whatever the hell they want.

One would think that those following a George Mason professor would get this basic point.

What was the breakdown by religion of those killed by drone strikes under Obama?

using extrajudicial assasination by the president the basis of anything seems, um, somewhat dicey to me.

There was a risk (from the perspective of those of us who loath the man) that Trump could have started acting a just a little more presidential and avoided overreaching - that and a little luck on the economy could have been bad news for the opposition.

But he (predictably) hasn't changed his personality a bit, and is showing every signs of overreach. And yes, his base loves him for that. But his base is maybe ... 1/3 of the voters, at most? He's doing everything he can to alienate the reluctant Trump voters and to energize the opposition.

Looking to me like the Trump presidency is going to be followed by the Republican party being out of power for three generations. Have fun now alt right losers. We're going to squash you like bugs when we take power again.

Because if there is one thing people love it's political parties that whinily obstruct efforts to keep terrorists out of the country.

Democrats please follow this guys advice. As a political moderate it is clear to me that the Democratic Party is in desperate need of some wilderness years that will allow moderate, rational leaders that moderates can support like Senator Manchin to gain influence in the party.

So please please please pretty please with stevia on top lose your minds over this common sense policy. I'm confident that a decade out of power will create a Democratic Party I can support again.

Oh, I don't want to convince you, just keep on believing it. :)

The funny thing is, a narrowly tailored executive order might well have proven politically popular. Still useless and bad, but perhaps perceived as common sense. And trump could have governed that way, and maybe been successful.

But that's not his disposition, and Bannon has his ear, so it's over broad, over reaching, an optical disaster. A massive unforced error.

But by all means keep believing the contrary. Trump's gonna listen to people like you, which will doom - is already dooming - his presidency.

And to be clear, I am quite sure that somewhere between 25% and 33% of voters agree with you. That's ... A bit shy of a majority. But go ahead, vocally support the order. Trump will listen to you guys, because that's his nature. It will lead to bad policy and misery, but it will lead to a return to sanity in the long run.

Yes, 2018 and both Houses of Congress back to the Dems, here we come.

Haysom, you are in no way, shape, or form a moderate. You're hard right and either in denial or too chickenshit to embrace the label.

.... and suddenly many of you wake up and this clown it's president of USA ... and all those crasy things this asshole said he would do... oh my god, he's actually doing it ... and now everybody wants to speak up, resists, march .... kind of too late! .... next time you must do it before the next "Maduro" runs for office and a very important thing: go to vote. Now you have, for the next four years your own "Hugo Chavez" .... welcome to populism .... relax and enjoy the show ... it won't be boring, thar's for sure!

Welcome to the Return of America's Greatness. If you thought it was going to be like the 1980 US Olympic team, you were wrong. More like professional wrestling type greatness.

"professional wrestling type greatness" ... absolutely!!! you have the right to have your own "Kim Jong-un" enjoy

Yep, that's what he is, a master showman for the masses. A blend of WWF and the Kardashians. It's kind of fun, in a way. Every day there is a new episode.

If people are offended, then they should have complained when a guy got elected for being a President's son and the next guy got elected for being a non-scary black guy. We've long ago given up on even pretending to elect the most qualified person. And no, the person whose only real accomplishment was being the President's wife doesn't count.

That reminds me: I'd been complaining for years about the "Fact" that we had elected a president because of who his father was, followed by one elected because of where his father was from, followed by one elected because of who her husband was.

Well, the voters sucked in a different manner than I anticipated.

HRC had loads of qualifications and experience. The idea that she was riding on her husband's coat tails was just fake news.

Yeah, the things she did that didn't rely on her husband... She got into a good law school. Hey, she matched Obama there!

Is your complaint that HRC got some of her qualifications from being with her husband, and once she got some qualifications a steamrolling process began (for example, Obama probably would have picked her as Sec. of State if she had divorced Bill years before)? You're kind of talking about how the whole world works.

Some of her qualifications? She has no qualifications beyond a JD that didn't rely on her husband.

Trump's rich Muslim friends will be an exception

Yep, that's why he didn't shut off travelers from Afghanistan. Who ever heard of an Afghani terrorist? Absurd!

Call your nearest Trump branded hotel and express your displeasure and keep calling until something changes

The police arrest you for harassment?

This country needs a decent conservative, small-government oriented, market oriented party, but this GOP isn't it. It's a mutation of the John Birch Society. It's been a while since I've been involved in third party politics, but if a party emerges in which Ronald Reagan could be a member, let me know.

The libertardian party is that way ===>

It seems the one thing Muslims want more than anything else is to escape from Muslim societies

Wouldn't you? The last Moslem I knew well enough to speak of such things very much wanted to become a citizen of a particular West European country where, amongst other advantages, he would no longer be obliged to pretend that he believed in Islam.

+1 delicious

I know a person who came from a Muslim country to the U.S. on a visa to work in computer software. He's gotten his citizenship now. He told me that he's now an atheist-- and has also decided that he's gay. You never know what people are like until they have a chance to freely express themselves without getting killed for it.

Who is killing people for expressing themselves?

This is not escape it is invasion.

Invasion is what we did to Iraq.

Which time? The first Gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait and killed thousands of civilians? Or the second war after Saddam refused to abide by the cease fire rules he agreed to after the first Gulf War?

What a scared little girl you are.

If you aren't scared then you aren't paying attention. Muslims are killing people around the world by the tens of thousands for no other reason than that they are not Muslim. Wake up! Pay attention!

I read though all the comments, and nobody mentioned that Trump's executive order is unconstitutional since it violates a 1965 Congress-passed law that bars targeting specific countries for immigration. Only Congress can do that.

Second, does anybody have a list of organizations that are against Trump and/or pro-immigration and also accept Paypal? The ACLU and FWD.US (Zuckerberg) sites don't accept Paypal (neither does the Democratic Party org).

It's amazing in this day and age how many website still refuse to accept Paypal. I don't want to give out my credit card since you'll be put on their call list and also you'll get spam mail forever (also I don't want people who I have pick up my mail knowing where I contribute money).

It is legal. In fact it was Obama who did this back in February 2016. Trump's executive order simply restated the intent to limit any travel from these six countries as Obama ordered. I assume you gave money to those opposed back then too, right?

So you don't know what the visa waiver program is? DHS required people who had visited three countries to apply for visas at an overseas embassy or consulate (i.e. additional scrutiny).

No, this is just about the exact opposite of the truth. Obama's policy was pursuant to an act of Congress called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 and required citizens of developed countries (mostly in Western Europe and developed East Asia) who had a history of travel to Iraq, Syria, etc., to apply for visas in order to enter the U.S. for tourism or temporary business purposes.

The policy did not ban an entire group or nationality from obtaining visas, entering or re-entering the United States and did not impose additional restrictions on the ability of Iraqi, Syrian, etc. nationals to apply for visas or enter the U.S.

In that case Obama violated this extra secret provision himself in 2011 when he suspended all entry from Iraq. In other words you made this provision up.

Sam Fulsome, you poor corn-fed dumbo, it's on the net...just Google it...I'm busy right now doing my family's stock planning. It's a 1965 law that bars any executive order from discriminating against race. Wait...let me Google it since you're plain dang dumb...hold it... my opportunity cost is greater than yours but as a public service...NY Times (Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”)

Dar u go, Forrest G.... now back to my mutual funds research. It's quite fun to search for suitable investments when you have a million dollars to play with...kind of scary too, since you can make big mistakes if you're not careful...speaking of which, D. Trump was a big time I'll vote!

I'm the kind of wealthy that doesn't have to check my net worth Ray so I'm if anything a little embarrassed for you. I mean it doesn't make me better than you just because I'm wealthier but it certainly makes you look silly.

And Ray the 1965 bill doesn't apply here because this isn't about immigration quotas. Ray cmon your opportunity cost is effectively zero.

Don't be silly, you crazy old duck, a quota of 'zero' is still a quota. The law is unconstitutional. And you're not wealthy. You wear and drive your net worth. Your net worth is in tatters and that rust bucket you sleep in.

More on illegality here: USA Today- The future of President Trump's executive order suspending immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries may come down to a legal battle between his powers as commander in chief and discrimination limitations established by Congress.

Obama did not suspend all entry from Iraq.

Coketown, you *started* with "outrage machine."

Thus plugging your ears to everything unique and awful about this ban.

Wow, the rare day where I find myself answering to Ray.

A whole lot of places that take donations never see your credit card number, because credit card processing is a complicated business, and saving credit card numbers in ways that won't go against PCI-DSS rules is just a whole lot of work for anyone other than the largest e-commerce sites.

Instead, what those places do is have a third party processor take care of pretty much anything: You embed a dozen lines of Javascript in your site, fill out a form with your company's bank detail, and poof, you are done, without having to deal with the separate step of a page served by PayPal.

You have claimed to be technically adept enough that you could look at the credit card page of most of those sites and see if they are really the ones doing the processing and they keep a copy of your address, or it's 100% a third party. Said third parties act exactly like PayPal: Heck, one of PayPal's subsidiaries does this.

You can also consider prepaid visa gift cards: You don't end up having an address on those. Here in the US you could buy them in the supermarket.

Thanks Bob, but I still prefer Paypal for donations, since it seems to me when I fill out a credit card order online, with any organization, I end up getting a lot of junk mail from them...but with Paypal I don't. BTW, I tried to donate to Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, who is anti-Trump, but it's not clear how (I guess he doesn't care about donations and anyway the Fed election laws are so complicated maybe he doesn't want to bother).

I looked, found only with which you might have IP differences.

Judge Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order

i support the court blocking the revocation of existing visas. While it is very likely that Trump has the authority to revoke these visas, I would hope that this pause would allow him to reconsider his EO and its implications. I hope to see a press conference where the EO is clairified,

The reduction of issuance of visas OTOH seems entirely reasonable, it is what re ran on. He should do that.

First of all, good on you Alain. A moral stand separate from politics.

But, as I have said, and you hated hearing, you might have seen the chaos coming.

Maybe my warnings were less politics than many believed, or rationalized.

I am always astounded by the trump sycophants here who leap to his defense no matter how immoral and damaging his action are. All pretense at objectivity flies out the window.

That's tribalism for you.

My tribe and leader are good, no matter what they say or do.
Your tribe and leader are evil, weak, and incompetent, no matter what you say or do.
Even when both tribes do exactly the same thing.

It's sort of like being a fan of a sports team. Your team is always good and never deserves to get a penalty. You defend them no matter what, because you identify yourself with them.

When your identity-- or what you think your identity-- is threatened, there is no objectivity. People react from survival instincts-- as if it's their life that's threatened, rather than an imaginary view of who they are.

" or what you think your identity is"

My take on Trump's executive order: The amount of hypocrisy is simply staggering...

If it's by religion, I think it's illegal. If it's by country, I'm OK with it. I'm so sick of the media only showing women and children when most of these people are male opportunists that something like 9-11% are ISIS sympathizers. We don't need them here. Of course, all the people whining about this don't say anything about our week last President who was too chicken#$%^ to do anything with the US military but use them for his social engineering schemes.

You tell 'em, hun.

Install grammar check,
or have someone proof your entries before you Submit.

By the way, some of these Trumpsters are simply doing the job they are paid for.

The Facebook Near-Billionaire Secretly Funding Trump’s Meme Machine

things are happening fast and furiously. If people think that executive order was all the crazy news we get from Trump for today, well, look again:

Now Trump is having Steve Bannon replace the head of the US military at the National Security Council.

That means that Bannon now has equal status to the Secretaries of State and Defense

Bannon, the man who is reported to have said this, is now on our National Security Council.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

What America was:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


GT :)

I boycott dimes and I respect George Takei.

22, 43, 46, 48 dux, 50, 50 dux, 53, 54. Ballad of the Green Berets was a great movie.

I actually do try and boycott dimes. He was a heroic man but he should have tried harder. We all need to care about those who try to care about others. Life is not simple. It rains on the just and the unjust.

Roosevelt, that is. And Eleanor was a wonderful young woman - full of life and energy and hope, beautiful eyes and pre-Raphaelite hair.

I think they are both in heaven, having repented for their colder moments. I could be wrong: I doubt it, though.

FWIW I also think they are reading this. Sort of. :)

"sort of" modifies "reading this" not "I also think"

Hebrews 12:1. Speak up O Cloud of Witnesses!

I'll see your Hebrews 12 and double Proverbs 8

in everything always give thanks

cherish the word I use to describe...

The Association was a great band. The harmonies were unlike earlier harmonies and have not been closely repeated.

did you write the song? if not, why mention it?

the harmonies were good


PLS PRAY I MEAN IT, seriously. one in a million year comical insults also welcome but not likely so PLS PRAY I MEAN IT. We are more loved and less loved than we imagine, generally speaking.

id est oremus pro invicem. semper fi. tradidi quod accepi.

Luke 18:1-8 would be useful for most. I was just kidding about the less loved than we imagine shtick. God loves us all more than the best of us have ever imagined. Ever. At our best. It is not a waste of your time to wonder if that is right.

It is right by the way. God loves each of us more than we imagine. Or can imagine. ....... well someone has to set a good example for the bots, you might be asking yourself. Why not you?

This is what I tell my bots. As much as God has loved anyone, he loves you that much. If they understand, they are no longer my bots. If they don't understand, I was still right.

word. thanks for the indulgence, Tyler and Alex

word. thanks for the indulgence, Tyler and Alex.

not my site

1:54 was a phishing site

hence not my site, sorry!

poor beloved bots...

poor all of us

Even Elijah?

happy all of us?

en la sua volontade es la nostra pace

yes that is what one hopes.

13 May 1917

11 February 1858

a good day!

still 2017 :)

boycott dimes.

I just like the word boycott. Figure out for yourself what is worth boycotting.

But remember when judging others how little we love each other and how much we want to be loved. Hebrews 12, Proverbs 8. I have lived a long time and not many people have the right to criticize others for foolishness. Who are we to say that we are not the fool who says in his heart that there is no God? Unless we say otherwise in our hearts and proclaim it?

If I had a bot that is what I would tell the bot every day, hoping against hope that the bot would some day be more human than me! The only tragedy is not to be a saint, said Peguy - or was it Bloy - but that was for them! Perhaps for us the only tragedy is not to be human!!! Not just bots !!!! .... and now I will go back to my off-line essays on Morphy and Casablanca. God bless you, my friends!

la dicha del ser que amamos es la unica bien terrestre que nos colma

Nice to see that you care, señor Colacho. You got it!

feel free to delete all this at sunrise. the person I wanted to read it has read it, God be praised.

la dicha del ser que amamos es la unica bien terrestre que nos colma

the guys at quill from narrative silence are good. not as good as they think but who is. excelsior is not just the peaks but also the dusty foothills. treat his own subject after his own way. they were born poor, lived poor, and poor they died. brick from brick distinct. the wish to pray is a prayer in itself. Teffilah. Rukous. 2017. 11 February 1858. Sophrosyne? Not just: "huge camels knelt as if in depreciation" "beyond the hills a watered land". ":Gone before; It tarries". adh mor.

veronese (the camels, pictured - not by del sarto). prayers against volcanoes requested

and again thanks for your hospitality, Tyler and Alex. God Bless!

1:50 AM was the point. The intended reader got it.

not was. will be. The Faith I love the best, says God, is hope.

Was it important to speak up when Obama.....

Oh, I forgot. Tim O'brien would never question his Dear Leader. But the other team's Dear Leader, now we can do that.

As someone who neither supports Team Red or Blue, the perspective from the sidelines makes it clear the fight between Team Red and Blue is like watching a bunch of religious zealots from different sects fighting with one another.

Right, if you ignore all the personal tragedy, you can see it as just two sides.

But be aware that you are doing that, and not tallying human impact at all.

What terrible personal impacts did Obama cause by rash executive order?

Obama ordered 500+ drone strikes that killed around 3k people. Some of that happened in the nations on the list here.

Guess what the religion of the vast number of those killed was?

Did the same people who are saying this order is targeted at Muslims say that Obama was actually killing people because they are Muslim?

A policy can be bad without it needing to be outrageous or evil or persecutory.

"killing people because they are Muslim?"

Oh come on

The piece Tyler excerpts said "because of their religion."

Where was Tyler's moral outrage when Obama banned Cubans fleeing communism?

You can't see any difference between ending wet foot/dry foot and this?

I'm saddened that so many people here believe that an act by the executive within the powers granted him by the constitution are unconstitutional because when viewed through the lens of disproportionality it appears contrary to a law passed by Congress. The Constitution created Congress, not the other way around.

When HItler started to commit his heinous crimes, did his supporters search under every rock and through decades or centuries of history, to find something that someone from his opponent political party once did, that they deemed to be comparable? And then did they say "See, both sides are the same. You have no right to complain about Hitler, because you did not complain when your own side did X. Everything that my team is doing, is completely acceptable,"

How long can this game go on? Forever, it would appear.

Yeah this is basically mass murder.

Everything short of mass murder is okay. In fact, good policy, come to think of it.
"He's not as bad as Hitler" should be the new motto of the Trumpistas.

Good thing Tyler decided to become an economist instead of a constitutional or immigration lawyer.

Funny that the press (conveniently?) forgets how the previous POTUS handled a similar situation ... see esp paragraph 5 of this ABC story from 2013.

Trump has completely lost the plot

Meanwhile, when Obama cut off refuge flow from Cuba-- because they vote GOP-- there wasn't a peep from the fascist left. Hypocrites.

Comments for this post are closed