I'm in the exact same boat. I don't like Trump at all and this move frightens me. But my friends who argued for Trump actually had more logical arguments and my friends who opposed Trump actually mostly just insulted the people who voted for Trump.

How is anyone going to listen to us if we just insult them?

not only is this move ridiculous but it was executed with no foresight. now border agents are forced to make ad hoc decisions because it went into effect immediately. trump supporters cheering and claiming its just temporary, to give us time to "figure out whats going on" are deluding themselves. they rush through a ridiculous, anti-american order and now somehow they are going to make it all better.

trump supporters are a minority of the country. they won this time but i dont see any reason to pander to them.

I actually think most people (Trump supporters, you, me, everyone) vote mostly based on identity (liberal/conservative, religion, race, open-minded, well-mannered, etc). I think Trump supporters mostly voted for the party that they most identified with, the guy they thought was on their side. And I think you did the same. (I see myself as unaligned and open-minded, thus I voted for someone else as I found both sides to be extreme and closed-minded.)

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most Trump supporters are horrible people. But they are still people. Like you and me, they have a dark and a noble side. And, just like you and me, they are not going to listen to the reasons of someone who insults them.

So what do we gain from demonizing them? We only lose influence.

You are right about the ideology being very important. I originally supported Rand Paul [1] and moved to Trump when Paul dropped out. I wish either Ron Paul or Rand Paul would be the nominee of GOP and sincerely believe that is the purest form of Republicanism that currently exists out there. I support both the ideology and the priorities that both of them are pushing. However, since we couldn't get Rand Paul, Trump was the next best choice this season.

I can't stand any of the Democrats right now. I wish they instead nominated someone like Elon Musk, who would cut on identity politics, political correctness and similar things that are being pushed so hard to divide us instead of uniting us; e pluribus unum. I would like to see a future nominee focus on the scientific and technological development, abolishment or at least a reform of the patent system, ending NSA spying, etc.

[1] https://randpaul.com/issues

people have dark and noble sides, sure, but the balance of them is not always the same

at protests in nyc last night people were chanting for love and no hate, all our welcome, this is your land.

maybe that's corny, but compare that to "lock her up" and "build the wall"

there is a right and there is a wrong.

Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome.

If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

Germans have accepted collective guilt for the Holocaust, and have come to terms with that, even though a minority first voted Hitler into power-and, as a consequence of this collective acknowledgement, popular support for Nazism has been purged from German culture.

In contrast, a large proportion of South African whites tend to equivocate when asked if Apartheid, which was voted for for generations of whites, before they voted it out, was bad (spoiler alert: it was evil, and I'm not going to relitigate why on HN again). The Truth and Reconcilliation Comission allowed for those who committed physical acts of violence to confess their crimes in return for forgiveness, but the broader plunder and evil of apartheid remains unacknowleged by much of white South Africa (and its diaspora), and it means that racism still permeates SA society.

Working class people are hurting all over the world. But the economic pain felt by Germans in Weimar Germany didn't excuse the Holocaust. They were voting for anti-Jewish violence, as much as they were voting for VW Beetles and autobahns. Similarly, the suffering of Boers at the hands of the British didn't excuse Apartheid.

I'm not equating the scale or scope of Trump's actions with the Holocaust or with Apartheid, but I do think that those who chose to vote for him did so with their eyes wide open, and knew what he stood for. Trying to forgive them, or excuse their actions before they acknowledge their own culpability is not healthy for anyone.

Explain how the EO is racist. Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different.

And homophobe? A gay man spoke at the RNC to huge applause (even made a comment on how getting upset over transgender bathroom use is pointless).

These kind of careless accusations just make everyone ignore real charges of racism.

Indeed."Muslim" is not a race. Perhaps a better word would be "bigoted" or "discriminatory" not "racist"?

If we are going to be splitting hairs: are Persians a race, or are they an ethnicity?

And of course it's discriminatory! That's sort of, like, the whole point. All the existing immigration policies are discriminatory. That's why I (Canadian) can go basically anywhere, but someone from Central America can't.

So Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from entering the US. He then instituted a blanket ban on entry from 7 overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Are we splitting hairs again implying that these two things are a coincidence because the wording of the EO happened to avoid a blatantly unconstitutional formulation?

Do people really think Somalia is some kind of Isamic power-player versus Saudi Arabia or the Emirates?

These countries were not picked randomly because they "Muslim". There is a long standing animosity against them. A retired US general in 2007 said: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran...”[1].

And now which countries are banned: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen... that's 6 out of the 7 named above.

Now please do not read this as a defence of the executive order. Whatever its intentions, it was poorly implemented and applied with seemingly no thought to the political fallout or the disruption to peoples' lives. Green card holders in America deserve better than no-notice before being detained at the borders.

However, it seems to me that every one of the countries named is currently embroiled in a civil war or has strong non-governmental forces within its borders----that is the commonality that they share.

[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-count...

I don't follow..a religious minority in a Muslim majority country would by definition not be Muslim. Why is this surprising?

Thus this is actually a worse order than a straight out ban on muslims from these countries would be.

If Trump supporters want to appeal to the left, they shouldn't assume all Hillary supporters are liars, in favor of obstruction of justice, and want to go to war with Russia. Likewise, if you want to appeal to Trump supporters, which is what you'll have to do to get their votes in the next election, you're not going to get very far by calling them racists, homophobes, etc.

Because that's a tough decision to make. You might decide that the media is wrong, you might decide that your kids are the most important thing, or you might decide that principles are worth more. Either way, it's not simple, it's very complicated.

Get rid of your television and replace your cable news subscription with a library card.

If we REALLY want to solve these sorts of problems, we need to:

1. Stop playing team sports with our votes, and be willing to look for the best options in third-party candidates. Sure, we may lose a few elections initially, but if we keep pushing, eventually we'll win. We can never achieve greatness by settling for the "evil of two lessers," as we did on both sides of the political fence last year.

2. Force our elected officials to stick to the checks and balances of the Constitution, and eliminate things like executive orders, which are in place solely to short-circuit Congress.

3. Get new blood in Washington. Stop voting for morons like Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell; or better yet, push for term limits and the elimination of exorbitant retirement benefits for these public servants. We cannot "drain the swamp," as Donald likes to say, until we, as voters, stop defecating into it with our suffrage.

The government is one of the biggest hinderances for minorities, and the Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans, if not more so. If we're going to fix this issue, we need to fix the corruption in Washington, as well as in our states and local communities.

They used to call Trump also an anti-semite in the same sentence. Now he is down to just a racist and homophobe. Have I missed something?

edit: don't let little things like jewish son-in-law, daughter converting to judaism and inauguration rabbi fool you.

I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.

So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

Check out the swings in the race section. If there hadn't been a massive swing towards him from blacks and hispanics, he might not have won.

And despite that Hillary still won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She did pretty well across the board and in an election as close as this one almost any single thing could have flipped the outcome.

> There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that.

So, black people vote for a "charismatic" candidate, but when they are left with a mediocre candidate and a candidate that (as is argued) hates them, they decide "Hey, the guy that hates me is better than someone who isn't so charismatic"?

Just look at the graphs here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...

White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.

Not necessarily if they also viewed Clinton far less favorably than Obama; support of one party by any group in one election vs. another isn't a sign of absolute support for that party's candidate, it's a sign of relative support of that candidate compared to the alternative.

Tell that to Asian Americans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

Do you want the possibility of a job? Does it matter if your disadvantaged, Muslim, first-generation American friend - or his/her parents - gets the shaft so that you can have a happy home and a job?

Does having a job mean that I have to be careful not to be out in the sun because then I look arab? With good reason, too - my grandmother was first generation american. Her parents were from Syria.

Does having a job mean that my bi-racial niece and nephew have to deal with alt-right led government?

Does it mean that I have to hide the fact that I'm bisexual?

It isn't enough that I have food and shelter. I want others to have the same, otherwise, I'm simply sharing and having less on whatever paltry sum the overlords will pay out. It isn't like there is a real social safety net to rely on.

This could be quite interesting. I'm sure I have picked up on some of this now -I'm an immigrant. My spouse knows all this stuff about me, and I was able to let go of some of the familial baggage. It is really freeing, at least for me.

But I don't know if that would be the case other places. I'm in Norway, and the culture tends to be (publicly) accepting of folks and treating folks as equals. Obviously this has its limits and there are some downsides. Discrimination and racism persist nonetheless. The king, though, puts out inclusive statements and it makes me feel better about being here. I'd love to know if such things were the norm or not - and I'd love to see that data.

I realize that the democratic candidate was less than ideal.

Source? June 2016, 48% of Republican votes strongly support a ban on Muslims entering the U.S:

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6ecRKMebsPAFHon1HVC86QbFYTg...

If big numbers did vote for him on that reason then there's a cancer running deep in USA's society that trying to brush under the rug isn't really going to help.

I'm curious why you think supporting a ban like this is a "cancer"? It's heavy-handed and misguided, but religion is ideology. People see heinous acts worldwide perpetrated in the name of Islam. Some Muslims have extremely regressive beliefs on women's rights, gay rights, personal freedoms like drinking alcohol or even making loans that make even the staunchest Bible thumper look progressive. They see countries with larger Muslim immigrant populations like France in constant disarray, with little integration and once peaceful neighborhoods lit on fire. Even people with no initial ties to terrorism read up on this ideology online and commit lone wolf attacks.

So why do we want these people coming in? Maybe we have a principles-based belief in religious freedom and don't want to appear discriminatory. There are some more secular or Westernized Muslims who can live peacefully and contribute to our society. Helping refugees will help save innocent lives and undermine ISIS. Those are all great reasons, but it's disingenuous to pretend they come at zero cost. Some people do this analysis and say it's worth it, and others disagree. A sovereign state has a right to its borders and admitting immigrants who advance its interests.

I don't support the ban, namely for the reasons I gave above, but it's completely understandable why someone would. It doesn't make them a bigot or evil, just scared and perhaps lacking in empathy. The hardcore left does itself no favors in this regard, constantly parroting the "religion of peace" line and pretending there are no reasonable reasons to oppose immigration that they need to argue against.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/25f.asp

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/racist-...

Quoting the first line of the Atlantic article:

"There was a time in America when the Irish were characterized as apes, Italians as street filth, and Chinese as parasitic locusts."

There is a huge difference between calling every single Trump voter a racist and bigot, and making the correct observation that Trump got elected on a platform of racism and bigotry. Some Trump voters chose him because of his racism and bigotry, and some Trump voters chose him despite of it. Regardless, there are no Trump voters for whom racism and bigotry are complete deal-breakers, as painful as that may be to acknowledge.

As a european who truly despises Trump: This idea that you're too busy blaming people for being racist to spend time listening to them is honestly frightening.

One day perhaps in your lifetime, there'll be a candidate, populist like Trump but with extreme-left ideals and you'll be duped, just like the people you refuse to listen to were duped, because when there was time to learn you chose to be vengeful instead.

Dude, I'm also European and I've spent 25 years listening to and debating with conservative people - in person, on the net, at academic gatherings and many other places. I have studied a wide variety of conservative philosophies and social groups. At what point are you OK with me drawing some conclusions, even temporary working conclusions that I might have to alter later?

When I hear comments like this, the overriding impression I have is that thinking about this stuff is rather new to you and you are hesitating out of uncertainty. But it's a mistake to assume that people with stronger opinions than your own have not put in the hours to think through the issues.

As always, there are exceptions (like you). Which is broadly what the comment was claiming - Trump voters are not 100% made up of nazis, in essence.

A Trump voter that votes Trump because of some economic point also votes in support of all the other policies that Trump stands for and so carries fractional responsibility.

edit: a good chunk of this is that all this sets up "damned if you do, damned if you don't, double-damned if you choose the winning side". This doesn't encourage more people to get involved, it just drives them away from trying. That's the exact opposite of what we need.

Even then it probably was too late but who knows, maybe there would have been a way to push back against the brownshirts.

Historians are not in agreement on this subject, there is a school of thought that the whole thing might have been averted.

The main culprit (the treaty of Versailles) was a 'winner takes all' arrangement that sowed the seeds for WWII, Hitler merely tapped in to the resentment that was already there and managed to wreck Europe for two generations as a result of that. In the end Germany ended up much worse than where they started as a result of their 'Germany First' policy.

I think the main lesson learned here is that if the spoils from globalization aren't divided in a fair way there will be a huge backlash (predictable), unfortunately turning the clock back will result in yet another backlash.

These pendulum swings are way too fast and violent for society to adapt without damage.

Now what do you expect them to do when they're offered the chance to vote for two new candidates, neither of which they approve of? Personally, I expect them to run the other way, rather than voting.

When I call people out for being racist I assure it is not for want of having listened to them first. I'm absolutely in favor of listening to people, but there are also times when you need to firmly declare your opposition to their ideas and your intent to obstruct them.

Not all ideologies are morally equivalent, and I am opposed to any ideology that seeks to limit or reduce the rights of individual people in order to promote compliance with some abstract moral standard as opposed to some utilitarian one where you can demonstrate a harm exceeding a putative benefit.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

How is the comment I was replying to at all civil?

Meanwhile, I was equated with somebody tacitly approving of segregation. Because I'm telling someone else that it's more productive to understand why this is happening than look for retribution.

Civility is about more than tone. hsod's tone was fine but his comment certainly wasnt; my tone was harsh but I maintain it was appropriate for the kind of accusations I was replying to.

It wasn't, by the site's guidelines and patient explanation by a moderator. These aren't laws of physics, just the norms of the venue. Would you 'maintain' it's appropriate to show up at a stranger's funeral waving a lighter and yelling 'Freebird'? Same thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

People might accept welfare, but that doesn't mean they feel OK about it. Many people, conservatives especially, want jobs. People want to feel that they support a family, without help. Poor conservatives don't seek to tax the rich because that would feel unethical.

So yes, life is tough for these people, but they really don't want to feel that it is also unfair. They don't want to cheat, they don't want others to cheat, and they don't want the government helping anybody to cheat. An equal chance is demanded, but an equal outcome is at best a nice-to-have. (possibly undesirable because the non-lazy should be rewarded)

There is no lack of understanding here. It's a different value system.

I'm not telling you to listen to the xenophobic demographic, but to listen to those who are willing to disregard their moral limits in order not to vote for the other side.

Trump has gotten votes from wildly diverse demographics. He's hijacked two parties he doesn't belong to just to win the election and he did win the election. Think of analyzing this as a post-mortem: What went wrong, why did people vote for somebody like this, etc.

Anyway, what I was trying to communicate (and seem to have failed to) in my earlier comment was that like in any post-mortem it's pointless to try and point fingers and assign blame. What good is "holding people accountable" going to do, other than strenghten the divide?

Has there ever been a candidate who even talked 100% of what you would approve of? If no, why did you vote (or have you ever)?

Edit: to be clear, I do think Trump is (and was) much further down the extreme side than others have been in recent history. But what you're advocating for does not make sense.

But let's not forget that Spencer and various members of his social circle have - for years now - been expressing approval for ethnic cleansing and even straight-up genocide. Some people say that the solution to objectionable speech is more speech, but that's an easy stand to take when you're not one of the people who should be 'ovened' in alt-right parlance. Oh sure, they're just expressing their dislike and probably don't have an actual to plan to construct ovens and shove people into them, but this is not the sort of joke whose punchline I care to passively wait around for.

When people are promoting genocidal ideas and attempting to normalize them as political discourse, they are themselves engaged in political violence, notwithstanding that it's indirect incitement rather than active commission. If you've ever been the target of gang violence than you may have experienced the phenomenon of a smart person calling the shots, while bigger and less cerebral types do the actual punching and kicking. That's why, if you find yourself cornered by a gang, you should focus your attentions on the guy at the back rather than the toughs in the front.

It's true that not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot. But they were OK with voting for one, weren't they? The longer someone makes excuses for this sort of thing, the more responsibility one takes on for it. You say you're worried about the rhetoric from the left, but it's Trump who has been going about expressing a desire to use nuclear weapons, punish women who have abortions, muzzle the press, demean women and so on.

I am absolutely not going to apologize for being against such statements or moderate my condemnation of them. If you let those things slide by saying 'it's just Trump being Trump' or whatever, then you're making excuses for the systematic intimidation of large social groups. Why would you want to normalize such behavior? Why does open opposition to that bother you?

1. Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations? I hear a lot of people talking out against illegal immigration, since it drives down wages and makes it harder for poor Americans to compete and make a living. I also hear politicking regarding banning muslims from entering the U.S., due to the fear of terrorism. I agree that an all out ban stinks of WW II internment camps (a bit close to home too, since my wife is Japanese), but I'm not sure how you can extrapolate genocide from those conversations. Disallowing people from entering the U.S. doesn't really equate to genocide, does it? I don't really know what you're referring to, exactly, since you didn't provide any citations, but "genocide" seems a bit hyperbolic to me, with the information I currently have.

2. Are you advocating physical violence against people who have differing opinions than you? You lead in with Richard Spencer, and then ended by saying you're not going to apologize for being against the political speech you're referring to. I'm curious if you're suggesting physical violence as a means of shutting down said opinions?

1. Here are some examples of people calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide or similarly oppressive policies. If you're basically liberal then these articles will be pretty offensive:

  http://www.amerika.org/politics/the-peat-party/
  http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-we-need-three-castes/
  http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/sexual-liberation-and-racial-suicide/

2. I'm OK with physical violence against people who are actively promoting violence like this, yes. People can have differing opinions about all sorts of subjects and I'm fine with that. I am even wiling to defend the concept of free speech for people like neo-nazis and the kkk - but only up to the point where they endorse violence against others as opposed to merely asserting their own superiority.

2. How would your policy of physical violence be any different, or less self-superior, than the kind of violence you believe this type of talk incites? I'm not trying to be snarky. It's just that enforcing a prescribed way of thinking via violence tends to have a lot of ill side effects that people don't take into consideration before heading down that slippery slope.

The sooner you start steering away from the current course the better the chances that can be avoided.

But time is running out.

Come on man, one of our ongoing political problems is the unfortunate tendency of police officers to shoot unarmed black men because the police officer felt a degree of anxiety about their personal safety, sometimes without even knowing why, as in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/opinions/shooting-man-lying-do...

That strikes me as a serious problem, compounded by the fact that police officers have difficult and complex jobs and nobody outside of a few theoretical anarchists wants to abandon the idea of policing crime.

I'm really not that worried about very minor acts of violence directed against people advocating nazi ideologies and the violent death or removal of other people by the millions. Such proposals are not the sort of thing I can agree to disagree over, because they constitute a threat against my friends, family members, and my self. Why should we be subjected to such threats with no means of responding to them? You can worry about a slippery slope of violence all you want, but I don't recall historical oppressive regimes making a special exception to their oppressive practices for the conscientious objectors who repudiated violence, do you?

You started out talking about Donald and his supporters, then jumped to some fringe and obscure websites as citations. Who is it, exactly, that you want to start punching? Some nobody with a website? Donald? His supporters? I don't get it.

Then, in response to my statement that it isn't right to combat words with fists, you jumped to cop violence (which happened far more frequently under Obama than Donald, so far). I think when the state is actively shooting you for no reason, you're justified in fighting back with equal violence; however, this is a far cry different than punching someone in the face for having a different opinion than you do, isn't it?

Rather the opposite, those were the first up against the wall because it was already known they wouldn't resist.

1. The fact that you haven't heard of them is beside the point. They're influential within their circles and have been building their fan base for years. I would hope you have heard of Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway, and I have no hesitation in saying that their political starting point is only a very short hop away from the authors I've cited here.

2. To put it very simply, I'm saying that it might be OK to punch a nazi in response to the things they say or do which threaten the safety of others; they're saying it might be OK to kill or harass people because of their genetic characteristics or social affiliations, absent any demonstrable harm.

If I was saying it's OK to punch Richard Spencer because he's white, then you'd be right. But I have no interest in punching Richard Spencer for being white, or for thinking that white people are better, or for saying that he'd prefer to hang out only with other white people. When he starts saying it's OK to get rid of other people in order to create the white nationalist utopia he pines for, that's an incitement to violence and may justify a violent response.

Look, these people are not mainstream folk that are basically the same as everyone else but made a racist joke one time or something. Promoting violence against demographic groups is way outside the realm of acceptable discourse and is not something that we should be attempting to incorporate into it. You seem oblivious to the effect such behavior has on people who are members of the designated out groups.

I can't believe I even need to explain this to an intelligent adult person.

Well, probably the guy saying "sieg heil" and giving a Nazi salute[1]. And he's giving a Nazi salute because he thinks the election winner is his guy.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

Actual Nazis liked to be punched by their opponents and even arrested by the cops for their nonviolent activism in the 1920s and early 1930s. They like the publicity for the same reason Gandhi and MLK liked it: It makes them sympathetic by exposing the evil behaviors of those that hate them.

Punching Spencer is a huge win for Spencer and the things Spencer stands for.

Punching commies is OK. The right gets to decide who is a commie.

Welcome to 2017.

You can see some highlights(>!) of a recent speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

I did not decide he was a nazi by making some theoretical extrapolation using Marxist calculus or somesuch. He's saying in plain English (and occasionally German) that he wants to engage in a race-based war of conquest in which the stakes are life and death.

I'm a Canuck and so I may be biased. But if my understanding is incorrect, I'd be interested in hearing.

-Theodore Roosevelt 1907

I'm of Finnish descent. I have a Sisu bumper sticker and eat pulla. Do I refrain from making small talk with strangers at a bus stop? Of course not! Americans tend to be more open to strangers than Finns.

And there's no question that such radical Islamists exist, are generally strongly against the western-liberal-pluralist tradition, and that some of them are willing to commit heinous acts of violence. It would be a logical mistake to conclude that every Islamic person must necessarily be an extremist, but sadly it's not hard to think of politicians and pundits willing to mine that particular fallacy for all the political capital they can extract from it, and sadly there's a large portion of the population that is too dumb to spot the difference and who can easily be talked into scapegoating anyone who looks or acts differently, regardless of whether they actually pose any danger.

Tech CEO's have to address the outsourcing/factory shutdowns and visa misuse that has happened for a couple decades now. Using the Obama line of "well those jobs have gone and wont come back" creates space for characters like Trump to exploit.

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

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-gree...

The prison walls are getting closer... By the time you're able to reach out and touch them, it'd be too late.

In a statement that the State Department is due to release, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the 90-day visa moratorium extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, would be barred, according to a U.S. official...."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-c...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-visa-ban-also-applies...

Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.

No wonder I haven't heard from them in a few months.

Also, banning permanent residents is just ludicrous

I'm taking a guess at this one, but many people believed this was just the usual pre-election bla bla and that he wouldn't follow through with such an unreasonable idea, given the obvious financial (wall) and legal (Muslim ban) challenges. They only wanted someone who promised to listen to them again after decades of globalization left them behind, and got a monster as result.

What I'm really afraid of: given the horrendous stuff Trump has done in a week, what will he have done in the next 1450 days?

I don't recall seeing anything about Indonesians being affected, or Indians, or Nigerians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc.

because the companies you are thinking about boycotting very likely have ~50% of their employees who have similar political positions to you. you're hurting them too.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/825371208355020801

"Calls to ban Muslims from entering the US are offensive and unconstitutional".

Were people listening to that and hoping he'd reign in Trump? Was he lying when he said that?

Trump just spews a bunch of stuff, some of it contradicts things he said earlier.

At this point I'm not willing to wait to see how far this goes before they come to their senses.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have any good will for people who voted for him. Especially the "I voted for you, but you're doing X" people. EVERYONE seen how hateful his campaign was. There isn't a sensible person who looked at it and thought otherwise. However, there are a lot of people who witnessed what he was doing and thought "it won't hurt me though" and were absolutely okay with him and his hateful approach to "making America great"

Fuck them

I know people, aside from myself and my family, that are already hurting because of his policies. And now when he gets whatever form of that nationwide stop and frisk going, it won't be white kids harassed by law enforcement, it will be my suburban black son and his friends.

You can miss me with the "not all voters" bull because every single one of them are complicit in how things are going now. Those people NEED to be called out. They need to be shown and constantly told that they made the WORST choice. I don't care about their feelings when the person that they voted for policies will criminalize me and a lot of people that I care about. Again, fuck their feelings

This is the same flavor of bigotry and ignorance that leads people to believe that all immigrants or black people are dangerous criminals. Not everyone who voted for Trump supports all of his positions. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if a good chunk of his voters disagree with the majority of his positions, such is the nature of a two-party system.

Are you saying that white Americans would had been okay with Obama campaigning on harsher policing for white people and their kids because he also spoke about lowering taxes or giving everyone access to healthcare?

You people keep coddling these bigots or bigot-ajecent people and telling us, the people most affected, to treat them with kid gloves. No that doesn't make any sense. Talk to the openly bigoted/bigot-sympathizers about their behavior and beliefs. Don't come to me asking me asking me to see beyond the stuff that hurts me and the people I love because they were promised jobs

Because you are indiscriminately labelling all Trump voters as racists.

> Are you saying that white Americans would had been okay with Obama campaigning on harsher policing for white people and their kids because he also spoke about lowering taxes or giving everyone access to healthcare?

I do believe many white Americans would still have voted for him, if they felt the alternative was worse or felt like harsher policing was a small price to pay for universal healthcare.

> You people keep coddling these bigots or bigot-ajecent people and telling us, the people most affected, to treat them with kid gloves.

In my defense, I'll probably be more affected than you (e.g. I stand to lose my visa if Trump does re-negotiate NAFTA like he said he would). I'm also what you might call an anti-nationalist and am generally in favor of free movement across borders. Still, I can see valid, non-racist, reasons people might have voted for him.

Finally, I'm not trying to coddle people who voted for Trump. I don't want you to show them good will or have sympathy for them. I just want you to be more rational about this because I'm tired of seeing Americans talk past each other. People who voted for Trump did so for a variety of reasons and while you might not convince the racists amongst them, you might still have a chance of gaining support from the rest (if you stop insulting them).

I wish you the best, I really do. I hope the pressures from silicon valley and the people change things for the better, but we'll see how that plays out. If this first week is any indication of the next four years, we're in for a constant bombardment of our sensibilities. Daily they will say something that we know is a lie or put forth something that will hurt people and say it doesn't. Pretty soon we'll be thinking "am i the crazy one?"

I have an Iranian friend whose parents are visiting and they'll be leaving soon. If this ban becomes the norm there is a good chance he'll either never see them again or never be allowed back into this country where he came for a better life.

I choose not to sympathize with those who constantly put people in power to oppress me and my loved ones. Again, fuck them and fuck him too.

That attitude is not going to solve your problem; that attitude is not going protect you or your friends.

Look you are angry, for all I know you may be 100% right. The question is, do you want to be right, or do you want to improve the situation?

I'm not from the US but this really looks awful. I wouldn't set foot on this city even if you paid me a million dollars. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/

Edit: okay, that was not a great thing for me to say. Sorry. I'm just fed up with the repeated vilification of a great American city by the buffoon-in-chief. Yes, violence in the city is a big problem, but it's hardly its defining characteristic.

Edit 2: apology rescinded.

15 humans lost their lives yesterday in shootings, 268 during January: http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

I suppose that'll end when Trump sends the Feds as he's promised on Twitter, though.

Wonderful. Stay away from the world-leading food and culture scene as well. More for the rest of us.

>That'll end when Trump sends the Feds as he's promised on Twitter, though

Under what authority? And which Feds are we talking? Just more delusional talk.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/27/illinois-gov-we-dont-want-...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0925.h...

Every city has bad and good areas. Chicago is no different.

I think Paris is much safer than Chicago: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Uni...

France overall has a murder rate of 1 per 100K. Paris I believe is slightly above average. Chicago is something like 15.

I wouldn't necessarily consider Paris to be some sort of golden standard either. You should aim for much better.

If you feel that having an x15 murder rate isn't "standing out" and it's just that you've got some bad neighborhoods than IMHO you're deluding yourself.

EDIT: And assuming the murders are not evenly spread out but rather focus in the "bad" neighborhoods is support for the polarization argument. We can look at some stats but I'm pretty sure they would support my notion that the bad neighborhoods in US cities are much worse than the bad neighborhoods in safe cities worldwide. Try comparing violent crime statistics of major US cities to major European cities over 50 or 100 years. This didn't start yesterday.

EDIT2: Don't take all this to mean I support Trump's rhetoric or actions on this topic. I do not. But I do think Americans need to do some introspection here

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-murders-shootings-2016-m...

> However, there are a lot of people who witnessed what he was doing and thought "it won't hurt me though" and were absolutely okay with him and his hateful approach to "making America great"