Ship of Fools: When Dick Cheney thinks you've gone too far...

Thread: When Dick Cheney thinks you've gone too far... Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005660

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

We were prepared to fight a ban on immigration. We were not prepared to see families split apart as people with valid green cards, student visas, etc are stranded at the airport. We were not prepared to see refugees who had already not only survived the horrors of war but gone thru the entire rigorous 2 year vetting process, got their golden ticket to the US, arrive at the airport children in tow... and now turned away.

He is trying to crush our spirits. I don't even. Can't even.

Help.

Pray.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Hell has frozen over (climate change???) -- I actually agree with Dick Cheney on something.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

[Votive]

As bad as Cheney was when he was VP and shadow president, he's done and said some good things since. He's steadfastly supported his lesbian daughter. He's spoken out in favor of SS marriage. (I think his daughter got married.) He spoke out against that county clerk that wouldn't issue SSM licenses.

I heard one of his daughters is entering Congress. I'm guessing the straight one, who's conservative and not for SSM.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm guessing Cheney has a book coming out and wants to make sure his name is still somewhat top-of-mind.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I am hearing of a grad student who cannot return to complete studies. With a request to work with an external here.

Cheney may be redeeming himself. But he still is a war criminal isn't he?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

The ACLU has gotten a temporary injunction. First battle in the courts goes against the short-fingered vulgarian.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

np--

I'm not saying that Cheney is a reformed character, or excusing what he did in office.

Back then, I loathed him more than I was comfortable with. So I wanted and needed some balance. When I found out about his support for his lesbian daughter (while he was still in office, IIRC), I seized on that as the one good thing I knew about him. It helped me a lot.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Good to hear about the ACLU, Ruth.

There's also a petition at Impeach Donald Trump Now. I'm not familiar with the groups behind it: Free Speech For People, and RootsAction. (More info in "Who We Are", under the "The Case For Impeachment" section.) And there doesn't seem to be much "there" there, yet. I want to do a little research into them. I'm for impeaching him. But anyone can start a petition site, and I want to know more about whose petition I sign. FWIW.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He is trying to crush our spirits. I don't even.

Nonsense. Extreme vetting is biblical.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The ACLU has gotten a temporary injunction. First battle in the courts goes against the short-fingered vulgarian.

But, if I read The New York Times report correctly, it's not as broad-reaching as might be hoped for:

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

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

But this injunction is a start.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
. Extreme vetting is biblical.

This guy may well be taking instruction from the Bible which is probably why a good proportion of the world's population is currently shitting itself.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He is trying to crush our spirits. I don't even.
Nonsense. Extreme vetting is biblical.

To my mind, an automatic No is not "vetting".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He is trying to crush our spirits. I don't even.
Nonsense. Extreme vetting is biblical.

These people are delusional. America is a great and shining city on a hill? ISIS arose from America's botched foreign leadership policy of the last 8 years? America First? These people were fascists waiting for a leader. Now they have one.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Above all, they are living in the wrong Testament.

This madness is made possible by identifying the USA and its legal residents as the Promised Land and the People of God.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I hope to God Britain looks at all of this and learns.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Cheney hell. Now Krauthammer is speaking out against Trump's foreign policy. Yes, that Krauthammer. Holy wow.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I hope to God she doesn't.

I read in a time expired Guardian today that Trump used to keep a book of the speeches of a mid-last-century demagogue by his bed. I'm not sure if his reputation for not reading applies here, and I don't want to raise Godwin.

I continue to read Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here" which feels as if it had just been written from an obvious model. It contains a group called "The League of Forgotten Men", who are people signed up by a radio preacher who claims to represent them (but their only thoughts come from him). I think I spotted a reference to the forgotten in a speech.

[ 29. January 2017, 13:41: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I hope to God Britain looks at all of this and learns.

Sadly, our un-elected shitshow of a leader seems to looking and learning that this seems like a good idea.

She has very firmly signed up to Trumpism. I can only hope that she pays a very hight price for this.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Above all, they are living in the wrong Testament.

This madness is made possible by identifying the USA and its legal residents as the Promised Land and the People of God.

This guy, on the other hand, seems to have the right idea.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

There is a certain irony about saying that the bible says nothing about US immigration policy whilst at the same time trying to influence the political direction by pointing to the bible as an authority on other issues.

But as I've been trying to think aloud in a Purg thread, this discontinuity seems to be a feature of much of the Evangelicalism we see "in the wild", and I worry that this opens the door to fascism.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I hope to God Britain looks at all of this and learns.
Sadly, our un-elected shitshow of a leader seems to looking and learning that this seems like a good idea.

She has very firmly signed up to Trumpism. I can only hope that she pays a very hight price for this.

Given that the news here is reporting that your "un-elected shitshow of a leader" ordered two senior ministers to call their American counterparts to protest, I call bullshit on your views.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that the news here is reporting that your "un-elected shitshow of a leader" ordered two senior ministers to call their American counterparts to protest, I call bullshit on your views.

I strongly suspect May is only interested in British passport holders

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that the news here is reporting that your "un-elected shitshow of a leader" ordered two senior ministers to call their American counterparts to protest, I call bullshit on your views.
I strongly suspect May is only interested in British passport holders

I think she's more interested in herself.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
When Dick Cheney thinks you've gone too far...

Cheney criticizing Trump on middle-east refugees is like a tobacco company CEO criticizing a doctor for using quack methods to cure lung cancer. There may be many people who are entitied to criticize the quack. The man who caused the cancer in the first place is not one of them.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that the news here is reporting that your "un-elected shitshow of a leader" ordered two senior ministers to call their American counterparts to protest, I call bullshit on your views.
I strongly suspect May is only interested in British passport holders

Oh I see. Whereas Google is standing up for all humanity?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that the news here is reporting that your "un-elected shitshow of a leader" ordered two senior ministers to call their American counterparts to protest, I call bullshit on your views.
I strongly suspect May is only interested in British passport holders

The news this evening is that the phone calls were to arrange exemption from the ban for UK passport holders. Theresa the Appeaser thinks her problem has gone away.

She's wrong.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that the news here is reporting that your "un-elected shitshow of a leader" ordered two senior ministers to call their American counterparts to protest, I call bullshit on your views.
I strongly suspect May is only interested in British passport holders
The news this evening is that the phone calls were to arrange exemption from the ban for UK passport holders. Theresa the Appeaser thinks her problem has gone away.

She's wrong.

No actually, she's right . UK passport holders are exactly her problem.

You all seem to believe that a foreign leader should just wade right into the middle of domestic US decisions and seek to undo them in their entirety. It's a deeply unrealistic view of how the world actually works.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Her problem wasn't Mo Farah, Nadhim Zahawi and a handful of pissed-off Brits who couldn't go to America. Her problem is the - probably - millions of Brits who think Trump and his racist ban are morally abhorrent, and who want he to come good on her promise that she wouldn't flinch from criticising Trump. And it's not that Britain is a shining beacon of anti-racism. It's not. But one thing we really hate is a Prime Minister who's an appeaser and a coward.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Her problem wasn't Mo Farah, Nadhim Zahawi and a handful of pissed-off Brits who couldn't go to America. Her problem is the - probably - millions of Brits who think Trump and his racist ban are morally abhorrent, and who want he to come good on her promise that she wouldn't flinch from criticising Trump. And it's not that Britain is a shining beacon of anti-racism. It's not. But one thing we really hate is a Prime Minister who's an appeaser and a coward.

But she's bought Peace In yOur Time.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Quite so, mousthief. It's no coincidence that one of the most popular images of her at the moment is her head photoshopped onto Neville Chamberlain's body.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The petition to uninvite Trump for his State visit will probably reach 1m by morning.

I'm looking forward to having that debated in parliament.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Her problem wasn't Mo Farah, Nadhim Zahawi and a handful of pissed-off Brits who couldn't go to America. Her problem is the - probably - millions of Brits who think Trump and his racist ban are morally abhorrent, and who want he to come good on her promise that she wouldn't flinch from criticising Trump. And it's not that Britain is a shining beacon of anti-racism. It's not. But one thing we really hate is a Prime Minister who's an appeaser and a coward.

You don't merely want her not to be an appeaser and a coward. Be honest. You want her to be the growling leader of the US Opposition.

[ 30. January 2017, 00:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Join my son and 4000 others protesting the ban at LAX today. A very positive spirit, good interactions with police AND the travelers inconvenienced by the large protest. Heard no complaints (altho the press says there were counter-protestors I didn't see them) but lots of travelers stopping to explain to their kids what was happening and express their support.

Of course this is L.A. May not have gone as well in the red states.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Quite so, mousthief. It's no coincidence that one of the most popular images of her at the moment is her head photoshopped onto Neville Chamberlain's body.

I can't help thinking of the contrast with Love Actually where the UK prime minister stands up to the US President after finding the latter groping his secretary.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The chief contrast being that a scripted romantic fantasy can just go for whatever feels good.

Meanwhile, here in Australia the PM is being criticised for not mounting the same criticism of Trump's actions as his U.K. Counterpart has done, and for not clarifying what happens to dual nationals in the way his UK counterpart has done.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think this means the DHS has changed its mind about green card holders, doesn't it?

If so, that will take some of the sting out of the outrage.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I heard on the radio, Sunday, that DHS had always disagreed with the White House on that point, and wasn't happy with the version of the executive order that came out. Looks like they decided to override that bit of the order. Yay!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It's not much of a victory if the ban still applies to non-refugees with valid visas.

You have to wonder if the overreach was deliberate in order to get people to accept what was previously unpalatable.

I should think a lot of Americans with little contact with foreigners won't grasp the difference between a visa and a green card anyway, and that by this morning US time Trump's team will be deriding the protestors for having made a fuss over nothing.

Trump supporters are already out in force on the interwebs saying Trump did nothing more than Obama had already done in 2011 temporarily blocking refugees. Expect all technical objections to this to be drowned out.

(Meanwhile, it seems Steve Bannon has replaced the Chiefs of Staff on the NSC's Principals Committee. Why is nobody demonstrating about that?).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It is going to be an interesting day. Despite various statements from above and court decisions, there were still reports last night of people being held with visas and/or permission to remain in the USA - and some reports of people being put back on planes in violation of the court decisions.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Her problem wasn't Mo Farah, Nadhim Zahawi and a handful of pissed-off Brits who couldn't go to America. Her problem is the - probably - millions of Brits who think Trump and his racist ban are morally abhorrent, and who want he to come good on her promise that she wouldn't flinch from criticising Trump. And it's not that Britain is a shining beacon of anti-racism. It's not. But one thing we really hate is a Prime Minister who's an appeaser and a coward.
You don't merely want her not to be an appeaser and a coward. Be honest. You want her to be the growling leader of the US Opposition.

Really really not. I just want a PM who'll call evil what it is. And maybe not hold its hand. And not sell the NHS to it. Oh, and not elbow her way to the front of the queue to stick her tingue up its arse.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I'd like to swap her for Justin Trudeau. Not gonna happen, though.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

All kinds of interesting stuff is circulating about the travel ban. For example, Trump has exempted countries where he does business (e.g. Saudis), and also countries which the US is not bombing, e.g. Nigeria.

Also plenty of analysis of recent terrorist attacks, none of them from the 7 countries named, e.g. Boston marathon attack was by Chechens.

But why would you look for a rational explanation? I suppose Trump supporters like it, because he's doing something, and he's targeting those brown people with weird names.

One problem for Trump - a total Muslim ban would probably be terrible for business and trade, hence, a token number of countries?

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No actually, she's right . UK passport holders are exactly her problem.

You all seem to believe that a foreign leader should just wade right into the middle of domestic US decisions and seek to undo them in their entirety. It's a deeply unrealistic view of how the world actually works.

However, there is a difference between wading into a country's domestic affair and making clear normative statements at an international level on the basis of a country's behaviour towards foreigners or even its own citizens.

I think I know what you mean: we shouldn't get too involved in business that isn't our. But if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should just mind our own business and stop getting so exercised about North Korea's "holiday camps". Oh, and along the way save a buck by closing the International Court of Justice.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
All kinds of interesting stuff is circulating about the travel ban. For example, Trump has exempted countries where he does business (e.g. Saudis), and also countries which the US is not bombing, e.g. Nigeria.

Also plenty of analysis of recent terrorist attacks, none of them from the 7 countries named, e.g. Boston marathon attack was by Chechens.

I think this show it for what it is, but it can't be entirely pegged on Trump. Last year, the US lifted the visa-waiver ruling for nationals from Western countries who had travelled to any one of the same seven countries in question, meaning that they would have to apply for a costly visa rather than fill in an ESTA form (I know, because I fall in that category, meaning 150 bucks and a nasty interview should I ever wish to return to the US). But where money is involved, security becomes less urgent. As we know, S.Arabia is a proven exporter of jihadism; meanwhile, when did you last learn of an Iranian blowing him/herself up?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I guess they stuck Iran in because they just don't like them, although Iranian backed terrorism is limited geographically, I think. And of course, Iran hates IS and AQ, and supports Assad (and Russia).

Well, most of the 7 countries are being bombed by the US, and Iran, they want to bomb!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The other point is of course, blowback. Do you wanna bet that ISIS recruiters and propaganda boys are toasting Trump at the moment, in Coke, or whatever they toast things in?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Much as I admire Mr Cheney, I think he's wrong on this point.

President Trump's idea is fine and I would welcome us looking at something similar here in the uK.

We would manage the whole thing better of course.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

OK Hell Hosts - 'fess up. Who forgot Deano's meds?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think he took meds ... just not the right ones. It must be comforting to be so stoned that you don't notice the garbage that you type.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

A fact that needs to be understood about visas is that they don't guarantee entry to the USA. As a smirking border guard explained to me, they just allow you to present yourself at the border and request entry - they can still send you back if they want to. Those last words are the key - entry is at the discretion (or whim) of the individual border guard, and there's no appeal.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But being bombed by the US is becoming an indication that you won't even get a visa. Plus Iran.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Does it make any difference re this travel ban if they pretend they are Christian? Like trump. Like other elected people.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A fact that needs to be understood about visas is that they don't guarantee entry to the USA. As a smirking border guard explained to me, they just allow you to present yourself at the border and request entry - they can still send you back if they want to. Those last words are the key - entry is at the discretion (or whim) of the individual border guard, and there's no appeal.

It must really give Embassy staff a great deal of job satisfaction. They get a folder stuffed with paper work from someone applying for a visa to enter the US, spend days cross checking facts and confering with other agencies to confirm that the applicant has a valid reason to enter the US, has applied for the correct visa, poses no known security risk etc ... and then some jerk at the airport who's had a bad day cos their football team lost the night before can simply say "Nope, can't come in here".

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Well, my guess is that a lot of them couldn't care a shit (although I am sure there are at least as many who try their best). They themselves are as whimsical as hell when it come to picking up the Approved or Denied stamp at the end of a visa interview.

In fact, I know from talking to people who process visas (not necessarily Americans) that they are often pretty cynical about a lot of people's motivations for gaining entry to a country and are inclined to distrust anyone.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My sister's MiL, very elderly, Canadian passport identifying her as a journalist, has been told by some jobsworth petty-Hitler of a US border guard that he could see her banned forever from entry if she didn't answer him in whatever way it was he wanted her to answer him. (She is white, but I got the impression he wanted her to answer like a slave.)

And a friend going to a scientific conference was told not to say that was the reason for the visit, because the next question is about the conference paying the fare, and the next event is being sent back because of not having a work permit.

I assume they pick this sort of person deliberately. (Ours seem to have this sort of person gravitating to the job as well.)

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

You mean they give the job to twats like our Deano?

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Karl, I was just reading your signature after your post....!

Well you might get sensible answers [Snigger]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And a friend going to a scientific conference was told not to say that was the reason for the visit, because the next question is about the conference paying the fare, and the next event is being sent back because of not having a work permit.

That's one I've never understood. Lots of people travel for business reasons, a scientific conference is just a particular form of business meeting - and, unlike say going to negotiate a deal to sell your widget, isn't something that is expected to result in any income (at least, not directly).

I did get a load of information about needing a visa and green card if I wanted to work in the US on one occasion (I think at Newark). Though why anyone would assume that I was even contemplating working in the US because I'd turned up there to spend a two week vacation with inlaws I don't understand.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A fact that needs to be understood about visas is that they don't guarantee entry to the USA. As a smirking border guard explained to me, they just allow you to present yourself at the border and request entry - they can still send you back if they want to. Those last words are the key - entry is at the discretion (or whim) of the individual border guard, and there's no appeal.

And apparently a green card doesn't guarantee it either. However much there might be a "permanent" printed on my husband's card it really just means "whatever the hell we feel like for whoever happens to be in power at the time".

A conservative friend was defending the ban yesterday on fb. I reminded her of debates we've had in the past about immigration, and how Republicans like her are always telling undocumented immigrants to "get in line and follow the rules". Well, her are 2000 refugees (with another 90,000 or so behind them) who did precisely that-- got in a two-year long line, followed the rules. We're the ones who aren't playing by the rules we wrote.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

At least there'll be no scientific or professional international meetings or conferences held in the US from now on. It'll give the rest of the world a bit of look in.

(WorldCon 2017 is in Finland - I'm just wondering if San Jose 2018 will fold)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One of the insane aspects of this order is that it seems to apply to people already living in the US. For example, there are 1 million Iranians living there - does this mean that they cannot leave the country, as they will not be allowed back?

Not just unjust, but amateurish.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Now that is an insult to amateurs. It's batshit crazy. I'd expect better reasoning from an Orang-Utan.

Either they got the intern to draw up the order or they are trying to stoke up trouble and chaos as a smokescreen for something else. I still can't bring myself to believe they didn't know what they were doing to the degree it appears.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

You have to feel sorry for Iranians, many of whom fled the Iranian regime, and found refuge in the US. And now?

It also seems to a good way to increase Islamist radicalization round the world. But then Trump would just say, told you so.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

I do indeed. I know an Iranian couple who won a Green card in the lottery and hoped to travel to the US. I am assuming that plan is scuppered, at least for now.

It is incidentally a 9-day trip to Iran that has wiped me off the US visa-waiver programme. Besides obviously turning me into a frothing-at-the-mouth Islamist radical, the visit was enough to confirm my suspicion that Iran is a very much more sophisticated and outward looking country than it reputation in the West would ever have it, and people we spoke to seemed genuinely concerned about their country's reputation. Having said that, I do not wish to deny that the country has its dark sides, particularly dogma-driven oppression and a very effective and sinister secret service. Nevertheless, I've seldom felt safer travelling outside of Europe, and as Westerners we were made to feel very welcome. In fact I were to draw up an global hospitality list, Iran would have all to play for in a bid for the top spot.

I came back all the more puzzled as to why the US throws its lot in with Saudi Arabia and its islamofascist ideology. With a bit of care Iran could be brought into the fold of respectable nations. The Iran-deal shows that constructive negotiations are at the very least possible.

[ 30. January 2017, 16:04: Message edited by: molopata ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lots of people travel for business reasons, a scientific conference is just a particular form of business meeting - and, unlike say going to negotiate a deal to sell your widget, isn't something that is expected to result in any income (at least, not directly).

I learned to be very specific when talking to US immigration people. There are words you don't use - never ever say that you are travelling "for work" if you are being sent somewhere by your employer. Do not use the "w" word, because if you're travelling on the visa waiver scheme, you don't have permission to "work".

Even though what everyone does at conferences and business meetings is "work", the word means something slightly different to US immigration.

I've never had an issue saying I was coming to the US for a conference. Having a conference pay your travel expenses is fine, but an honorarium is income, and whilst is is legal to accept an honorarium on a visa waiver business trip, there are strict limits on frequency and duration.

I would very much advise two things when dealing with US border officials:

1. Don't lie.
2. Be careful with your choice of words, so they hear what they want to hear.

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

I came back all the more puzzled as to why the US throws its lot in with Saudi Arabia and its islamofascist ideology.

It's black and sticky, and having an autocratic monarchy means you can do deals and they stay done.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
1. Don't lie.
2. Be careful with your choice of words, so they hear what they want to hear.

I think this is true of border guards the world over, but I agree you need to be extra cautious when entering the US.

Also

3. Have the requisite number of fingers. I'm still wondering where the guy in front of me in the queue with a missing finger went. When they found out he could not undergo the customary biometric fingerprint procedure, he got the red folder treatment and was not seen again.

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
I do not wish to deny that the country has its dark sides, particularly dogma-driven oppression and a very effective and sinister secret service.

Enough about the US.

What was it like in Iran?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the insane aspects of this order is that it seems to apply to people already living in the US. For example, there are 1 million Iranians living there - does this mean that they cannot leave the country, as they will not be allowed back?

Not just unjust, but amateurish.

Yes, it means and has been applied to exactly that situation. People who, like my husband, have green cards-- permanent legal status-- have lived in the US for years or decades w/o any legal problems, paid their taxes, been productive law-abiding residents. But not citizens.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

I came back all the more puzzled as to why the US throws its lot in with Saudi Arabia and its islamofascist ideolog

Surely now that Rex Tillerson is the pick for Sec. of State, the three-letter answer to that question is quite clear.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, the three letter word can't be the entire answer. 158,400 barrels.

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would very much advise two things when dealing with US border officials:

1. Don't lie.
2. Be careful with your choice of words, so they hear what they want to hear.

I would supplement with - be honest, be civil, be polite but only answer the question you have been asked, no more, no less.

"Do you know what day it is?" = "Yes".
"What day is it today?" = "Monday".

I have had my own sticky moments with CBP, and have learnt that if I am travelling on business, the purpose of my business is always "meetings with colleagues". Because if you try and explain that the reason you are there is to train someone up in a new software system it lands you in all sorts of hot water.

Also, CBP officers are allowed to lie and give mis-information to travellers (eg giving you a hard time and saying "I'll let you in but next time you'll need a visa") - this has been through the courts but I'm afraid I don't have the case details to hand. There are absolutely no rights at the US border if you are not a US citizen.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Originally posted by molopata:

I came back all the more puzzled as to why the US throws its lot in with Saudi Arabia and its islamofascist ideology.

It's black and sticky, and having an autocratic monarchy means you can do deals and they stay done.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, the three letter word can't be the entire answer. 158,400 barrels.

Absolutely. But Iran does black 'n' sticky too. And they have had a fairly predictable political system too. Besides, the US has shale now. I rather suspect that it's the fast and pointy stuff and the business deals and money flows underpinning it.
However, even if the US were to do a cynical business case for their cosy Saudi-Arabian love-in, i.e. weighing the benefit of selling arms for oil against the money they have spent mopping up the blood being spilt in the region as a result of said relationship, then I would be surprised if they got anywhere near break-even.

[ 30. January 2017, 20:03: Message edited by: molopata ]

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Originally posted by molopata:
I do not wish to deny that the country has its dark sides, particularly dogma-driven oppression and a very effective and sinister secret service. Enough about the US.

What was it like in Iran?

On the whole a very positive experience. Of course, I would be deluded to think that a short visit would be enough for me to speak on the country authoritatively, but it was enough to recognise huge discrepancies between Western ideas of Iran and the reality on the ground. Yes, there were a lot of chadors and yes, head-scarves are mandatory for women (in some cases only just). But people were very welcoming and we even had some surprisingly frank political (and even religious) conversations with people which left me with the hope that the Americans might be as moderate in their upcoming election as the Iranian might be in theirs (a hope that was obviously to be dashed). Despite the dress code, many women appeared to be in roles of authority. Men and women alike have a strong sense of style and have a lot in common with Italians. And in terms of hospitality, we were treated like royalty.
But there is also a darker side lurking below the surface. Obviously, comprehensive women's rights are a long way off. A few whispered comments such as "the neighbours are watching" or "we can't say that here" did hint at the often malevolent watching eye of the system that could ruin your life in a heartbeat. There was also the time when everyone was herded off the public bus at a police checkpoint while a mean-looking Alsatian was used to check the vehicle for stashed heroin suggested that not all is well with the Islamic Revolution.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Originally posted by molopata:

I came back all the more puzzled as to why the US throws its lot in with Saudi Arabia and its islamofascist ideology.
It's black and sticky, and having an autocratic monarchy means you can do deals and they stay done.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, the three letter word can't be the entire answer. 158,400 barrels.
Absolutely. But Iran does black 'n' sticky too. And they have had a fairly predictable political system too. Besides, the US has shale now. I rather suspect that it's the fast and pointy stuff and the business deals and money flows underpinning it.
However, even if the US were to do a cynical business case for their cosy Saudi-Arabian love-in, i.e. weighing the benefit of selling arms for oil against the money they have spent mopping up the blood being spilt in the region as a result of said relationship, then I would be surprised if they got anywhere near break-even.

Silly goose. It's not about the American federal budget breaking even-- that's a silly, inconsequential thing that matters only to those poor schmucks who actually pay taxes. No, what matters-- what's truly vital-- is the cash that makes its way into the pockets of Trump, Tillerson, etc.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Perhaps they need reminding that there are no pockets in a shroud.

IJ

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A fact that needs to be understood about visas is that they don't guarantee entry to the USA. As a smirking border guard explained to me, they just allow you to present yourself at the border and request entry - they can still send you back if they want to. Those last words are the key - entry is at the discretion (or whim) of the individual border guard, and there's no appeal.
It must really give Embassy staff a great deal of job satisfaction. They get a folder stuffed with paper work from someone applying for a visa to enter the US, spend days cross checking facts and confering with other agencies to confirm that the applicant has a valid reason to enter the US, has applied for the correct visa, poses no known security risk etc ... and then some jerk at the airport who's had a bad day cos their football team lost the night before can simply say "Nope, can't come in here".

The embassies and consulates come under the State Department, which often hires intelligent and educated people. Border control belongs to Homeland Security, which comes under the Justice Department, and they seem to hire, with intent, persons of the thug class. A friend in Montreal who deals with refugees believes that they pay them low wages in exchange for power. Some people might call that gangsterism.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
The embassies and consulates come under the State Department, which often hires intelligent and educated people.

Or at least they did, back when there were people still working there to do the hiring. Last week pretty much the entire senior management quit or were fired. Accounts vary, but it looks very much to me like they saw what was coming on Saturday (and perhaps still more we've yet to see) and were unwilling to be a part of it. Patrick Kennedy's resignation letter was made public and certainly sounded as if that was what was going on, although he made no mention of the (then coming) Muslim ban.

Rumors are now flying that Justice Dept. is next.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, the three letter word can't be the entire answer. 158,400 barrels.

No, it isn't.
It's quite much worse than that. There's decay, heavy boots and darkness involved, which the wearers and bearers call it good and just.

"Sir, surely this is an instance that we are always the most violent against those whom we have injured." (in Patrick O'Brian's The Nutmeg of Consolation, 1991)

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Bloody nose and burning eyes, put through the wringer. Will they be okay? There's fascist architecture for you.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks T messed up on the immigration executive order.

Hmmm...Arnold is the new host of "Celebrity Apprentice"; and IIRC T is still in charge of the show. Will Arnold get fired?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

And it gets more horrible:

"After 5-Year-Old Iranian-Born Boy Handcuffed And Held Five Hours At Dulles Airport, Trump’s White House Said He May Have Been Security ‘Threat’." (Inquisitr)

[Mad]

PS He's an American citizen.

Time to call in whatever UN agency is appropriate.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

According to a Congress bill I saw yesterday, there is an idea being floated that the US pulls out of the UN and stops contributing. If that happens there may be no UN to call in soon..

I guess I've already got so jaded that believing it is possible that Trump could destroy the UN, could pull out from NATO, could completely mess up the Paris climate accord, could speed up the decline of the EU, could help Israel to completely take over the West Bank and expel millions of Palestinians, could start a war with China and could develop a special relationship with Russia no longer requires a vivid imagination.

He would only need to declare that the moratorium on the Antarctic Treaty is defunct and instead he is going to start mineral prospecting there and declare ownership if the moon to become the full-house cartoon-book villain.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mr. cheesy--

There are many Americans who think the UN has gotten too big for its britches, loathe it, and/or are terrified that UN black helicopters will come and take us over. (If you don't believe they believe it, search on "UN black helicopters".)

I know the gov't held back our payments to the UN for a long time, to control something the UN was/wasn't doing. I think maybe the gov't finally paid part of it, but not sure about the whole thing.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to a Congress bill I saw yesterday, there is an idea being floated that the US pulls out of the UN and stops contributing. If that happens there may be no UN to call in soon..

I guess I've already got so jaded that believing it is possible that Trump could destroy the UN, could pull out from NATO, could completely mess up the Paris climate accord, could speed up the decline of the EU, could help Israel to completely take over the West Bank and expel millions of Palestinians, could start a war with China and could develop a special relationship with Russia no longer requires a vivid imagination.

He would only need to declare that the moratorium on the Antarctic Treaty is defunct and instead he is going to start mineral prospecting there and declare ownership if the moon to become the full-house cartoon-book villain.

He's even got a long-legged beauty-queen with a Russian-sounding name. All he needs to do now is buy a white cat and relocate to a volcano island. Really.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Why does the US float so much of the UN that our pulling out would destroy it? Why aren't y'all ponying up?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why does the US float so much of the UN that our pulling out would destroy it? Why aren't y'all ponying up?

I've wondered that. Maybe because we want the UN more that other people do?

If we pull out of UN, do they have to move? So much I don't know, never had to wonder before.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why does the US float so much of the UN that our pulling out would destroy it? Why aren't y'all ponying up?
I've wondered that. Maybe because we want the UN more that other people do?

If we pull out of UN, do they have to move? So much I don't know, never had to wonder before.

They probably should. Seven of their delgates can't come here.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Get your facts straight.

quote:
(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)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why does the US float so much of the UN that our pulling out would destroy it? Why aren't y'all ponying up?

The US provides 22% of the UN's budget, and accounts for 27% of the world's GDP.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The problem is that if the US doesn't pay, nobody else will either.

I don't really see how China gets away with paying a quarter of the US contributions. Or why the UK is paying about the same as China.

You want us all to throw our hands in the air and walk out, or does the US have unique dibs on being self-righteous about UN contributions?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Oh and quite a bit of that US contribution must come back to the US economy. What with the HQ being in the USA and everything.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In addition to financial contributions, my understanding is that personnel seconded to UN peacekeeping operations are funded by the nation donating these forces rather than paid for from the main UN budget. Currently the United States contributes a total of 72 people to these operations. Which is downright miserly compared to other nations much less able to support these operations (like, more than 8000 from Ethiopia).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Pretty sure that's not correct Alan. Governments pay the soldiers but are reimbursed from the UN's peacekeeping budget.

quote:
How are peacekeepers compensated?

The UN has no military forces of its own, and Member States provide, on a voluntary basis, the military and police personnel required for each peacekeeping operation.

Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month.

Police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budgets established for each operation.

The UN also reimburses Member States for providing equipment, personnel and support services to military or police contingents.

From the UN website

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Thanks for that. Though $1332 per month is significantly below cost for developed nations, so it does mean this is an additional contribution.

I also note that that page says "Many countries have also voluntarily made additional resources available to support UN Peacekeeping efforts on a non-reimbursable basis in the form of transportation, supplies, personnel and financial contributions above and beyond their assessed share of peacekeeping costs." which may be where I got the impression that contribution of soldiers etc is in addition to cash payments (it doesn't say which countries and how much support anywhere I can see).

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
My sister's MiL, very elderly, Canadian passport identifying her as a journalist, has been told by some jobsworth petty-Hitler of a US border guard that he could see her banned forever from entry if she didn't answer him in whatever way it was he wanted her to answer him. (She is white, but I got the impression he wanted her to answer like a slave.)

And a friend going to a scientific conference was told not to say that was the reason for the visit, because the next question is about the conference paying the fare, and the next event is being sent back because of not having a work permit.

I assume they pick this sort of person deliberately. (Ours seem to have this sort of person gravitating to the job as well.)

This brings back happy memories of my first trip to the States. I flew Air India and we arrived at about the same time as a plane from Germany. The Germans were all waved through whereas the Indians had to run the gauntlet of a bunch of officials who clearly thought that life had intended them to play the part of Colombo before cruel fate had saddled them with a bad uniform and a worse attitude. When it got to my turn the bloke took my passport and made a point of peering repeatedly at it and me, hoping no doubt that his scrutiny would make me break into a sweat. I assumed the neutral expression adopted by Mr Edward Fox when he had to bypass officialdom on his quest to eliminate General de Gaulle, although unlike Mr Fox it was not to conceal my nefarious intentions but because I thought he might take it badly if I burst out laughing. This allowed me to earwig on the exchange in the next queue.

Official: Is this your first visit to the United States?
Indian guy: Yes sir.
Official: Are you going to enjoy it.
Indian: Yes sir, very much.
Official: (triumphantly) How do you know if you've never been here before?!

I didn't hear how it ended because my chap wordlessly passed me my passport and I slipped out into the throng to retrieve my sniper's rifle... er... meet up with my friend. But I do recall thinking that this kind of petty rudeness made life unpleasant for honest travellers and would do nothing to deter the real bad guys.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Thanks for that. Though $1332 per month is significantly below cost for developed nations, so it does mean this is an additional contribution.

I also note that that page says "Many countries have also voluntarily made additional resources available to support UN Peacekeeping efforts on a non-reimbursable basis in the form of transportation, supplies, personnel and financial contributions above and beyond their assessed share of peacekeeping costs." which may be where I got the impression that contribution of soldiers etc is in addition to cash payments (it doesn't say which countries and how much support anywhere I can see).

I don't know that either, but I somehow suspect that there is rather more incentive in Pakistan or Ethiopia supplying troops (which are presumably paid a fraction of $1332) than the USA or Denmark.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The UN is supported when it feeds back money to the funding countries. Via trade, via strategic self interest. Not supporting it, and not supporting NATO is about the the "america first" ideology. That ideology is about supporting America business and profit. If it ain't making money why invest?

Not that we should really believe that democracy, justice around the world, social development etc are other than window dressing. Self interest and profit are primary.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why does the US float so much of the UN that our pulling out would destroy it? Why aren't y'all ponying up?
I've wondered that. Maybe because we want the UN more that other people do?

If we pull out of UN, do they have to move? So much I don't know, never had to wonder before.

Not certain what the real estate deal is, but I think that the UN wouldn't have to move. When the League of Nations was in Geneva, Switzerland wasn't a member.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why does the US float so much of the UN that our pulling out would destroy it? Why aren't y'all ponying up?
I've wondered that. Maybe because we want the UN more that other people do?

If we pull out of UN, do they have to move? So much I don't know, never had to wonder before.
Not certain what the real estate deal is, but I think that the UN wouldn't have to move. When the League of Nations was in Geneva, Switzerland wasn't a member.

The problem is, how many delegates will be turned back at the airport?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If I were them I would indeed move. The property (on the East River Drive in New York City) is hugely valuable and its sale would fund a noble HQ in some more hospitable polity.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Does the UN own the land???

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

From Fox News, which most likely views this as A Very Bad Thing:

"Obama's last money shower for the UN: some $9.2 billion." (Fox News)

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

From Wikipedia (ergo true):
Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations and not the U.S. government. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police, fire protection and other services, the United Nations agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.

Footnoted:
Kelsen, Hans (1950). The law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 350. ISBN 1-58477-077-5.

This accords with what I thought the arrangement to be. I thought that extraterritoriality obtained, in which case eviction would not be an option for the US (unless they wanted to break the law - surely not). As to passage of diplomats and staff via JFK, or a barge up the East River, I think that the dips would be screwed. Even if embassies enjoy extraterritoriality, the sidewalk outside them is not included (viz. Assange's holiday in "Ecuador").

[ 03. February 2017, 20:32: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0