ColoNoCoHusker

Another one of the Trump EOs, this one from 25 January:

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

 

'Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States'

 

Sec. 13. Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The Secretary shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take all appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such victims. This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States.

 

Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

I believe this is the Privacy Act in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974

 

That correct but here is the DOJ version updated for 2015... https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2015-edition

The P.I.I. piece alone will have wide-ranging ramifications and end up being costly for lots of citizens. PII exists as part of every financial system as well every audit/industry information standard across numerous markets (HIPAA, FERPA, GLBA, PCI, etc). The direction I have heard so far is the exclusions are expected to be enforced. That is to say a non-citizen with a US credit card, the PII attached to the credit card CANNOT be encrypted without violating this. Similar interpretation to healthcare systems right now. Corporate America will fight this as the financial cost will easily be in the $Billions if this early direction holds.

Dulles, I wish... No, I was at Denver Int'l Airport...

House cleaning more or less for those that didn't "follow orders"... He believes many of the supervisors/managers that respected the court order will be forced out or terminated for doing so by the current administration. This is based on statements made to the attorney by the HS or Customs supervisor(s). More or less they were told to enforce the E.O. regardless and only POTUS could direct otherwise... Emotions are running pretty high within these Federal agencies so it may just be paranoia but it feels like it's more than that. As with so many things right now, we'll have to see what happens and react to it as needed.

Spent some time at the protests at DIA. Only negative is that sometimes it feels like it takes the worst humanity has to offer to bring out our best... Truly impressive that so many people feel compelled to not sit by & watch; whether it is sharing opinions online or actively protesting, it all helps prevent this type of depravity from taking hold.

After the restraining order was issued, I was able to have a great talk with a civil rights attorney that showed up to assist. We discussed a few things but the most interesting was the research Repub's have done in regards to ignoring Judicial Supremacy of the courts. I posted on this a while back but not finding it, atm. I am convinced we will soon see Trumps administration defy our courts ala Andrew Jackson's "you made your decision, now enforce" anecdote.

Anyway, the attorney had met with Federal officials at DIA which resulted in the release of at least one foreign national being wrongfully detained (airline employee). Based his interactions, the attorney believed the Federal employees had been given verbal direction to ignore anything contradicting Trump's E.O. that didn't come directly from Trump's desk. The attorney agreed we will probably see a lot of Federal employees forced out after today's events...

To Zoogs/Knapplc/NM11/Moiraine/dudeguyy/BigRed_inSD/ZRod and everyone else that have been so reasonable in P&R, I don't know you but I sincerely thank you! I thank you for taking a stand and voicing your opinion. I thank you for doing something, anything in this time of need for so many!

If there was something I liked better, I would be using it already... I'll see what I can do tho...

As with so many other folks here, this is a horrible matchup. As much as I like zoogs, there is just no way I can root for the Pat's to win. I have to root for Atlanta teams to lose, always every game and every sport.

So there it is; I have to hope Atalanta loses and the Pat's don't win. I hate sports sometimes...

 

 

 

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

 

 

Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS.

 

One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts.

 

None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

 

I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country.

 

So having specific requirements an individual needs to meet to immigrate to this country is functionally equivalent to banning say ALL immigration into this country? I am not trying to be difficult, I just do not see how that is semantics...

Managing immigration is way different than banning it. It is the difference between say having felony convictions or never being arrested... I appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

 

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

 

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

 

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better.

 

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

 

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

 

To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

 

Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS.

One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts.

None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country.

I'm glad that McCain intends to advocate for the sanctions and continued toughness on Russia. In that effort he is a Senate ally. However, I'd also not go any further than that and credit him with Maverick status. McCain has in my view quite compromised that, and his steadfast commitment to hawkishness is not entirely admirable.

 

Of course, he and the cool-tweetin' Lindsey Graham will (as any politician would) milk as much street cred from this break with the Trump administration as they can get. That's fair. So's cooperation without endorsement. Important to recognize where priorities don't align.

Absolutely, zoogs. My Maverick comment was intended as sarcasm

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort.

Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back...

And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better.

EDIT:

Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility.

http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

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

http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview

HERE'S MY SOLUTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TOP RECRUITS INSIDE THE DONU 500-MILE RADIUS:

 

WE CREATE A DATING WEBSITE ONLY FOR PEOPLE INSIDE THE RADIUS.

 

THESE PEOPLE WILL BE MATCHED UP BASED ON ATHLETIC ABILITIES.

 

THEN WE WILL JUST BREED FUTURE RECRUITING CLASSES.

So basically it would be like if farmersonly.com and geek2geek.com had child website...

EDIT: Redux beat me to it...

Here's a article discussing working-class exploitation of Coal Miners that continues to this day. Take it with a grain of salt but even then it's pretty deplorable:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/24/14289/labor-department-unveils-changes-aid-miners-black-lung-benefits-cases

From the same time period (2014), here's an article discussing the Ludlow Massacre:

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-ludlow-massacre-still-matters

We are not as far removed these types of event as it seems sometimes. These usurpations have nothing to do with racism which is more than likely to become a major issue (again) as well...

If this McCain had showed up to the 2008 Presidential Election, I think the might have won... Glad to see Maverick is back

 

 

Regardless of what Trump *wants* to do, we have a long established system of government in place. He is just a cog in the machine. A cog with really, really bad hair.

 

 

 

Then it is good that our long established system of government does not also have a long established history of violating the rights of its citizens or large groups of people. Things like slavery, race-based voter disenfranchisement, wholesale withdrawals of civil liberties, internment camps, persecution based on religious or political affiliation, mass expulsions, genocide of Native peoples, wrongful convictions, discrimination based on some arbitrary classification, etc.

 

 

 

Are there gov't policies and laws in place today that discriminate against minorities? Seems to me that most forms of government sanctioned discrimination are against the law.

 

As for our American history, sure this nation does not have a perfect record of providing equal rights to every group. But when America was founded, our early American ancestors experienced a nearly unprecedented amount of freedom. The common man could own land, come and go as he pleased, and had a voice in governance. It wasn't that way in Europe or any other spot on earth back then.

 

I don't want to derail the thread but my examples are just looking back at the last ~150 years of US history. Remove slavery and we are talking about the last few decades. Looking at the widespread civil liberty & discrimination of the last 100 years, in most instances there were laws against them but it didn't stop politicians and government agencies at multiple levels from ignoring those laws. And the judiciary in our country has no enforcement powers...

All our liberties depend on our citizenry, regardless of political party. All that is needed is for a few hundred politicians to look the other way on any issue for rights to be trampled. That's a very fine line...

So all those winter fruits and vegetables we get from Mexico, about $21 billion worth in 2015, are going to come from where?

 

If I, the consumer, am not going to pay more for fresh produce, where is it going to come from?

If we close or roll back FDA regulations, this problem will probably solve itself...

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

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

It's based on current technology.The author recognizes the heat from the nuclear reactors would literally melt it. If we wanted to KEEP it, I would imagine a few more 0's are needed...

Here's the original Quora post if anyone wants to check out the discussion: https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-realistically-cost-to-build-an-Imperial-I-Class-Star-Destroyer

Regardless of what Trump *wants* to do, we have a long established system of government in place. He is just a cog in the machine. A cog with really, really bad hair.

 

 

Then it is good that our long established system of government does not also have a long established history of violating the rights of its citizens or large groups of people. Things like slavery, race-based voter disenfranchisement, wholesale withdrawals of civil liberties, internment camps, persecution based on religious or political affiliation, mass expulsions, genocide of Native peoples, wrongful convictions, discrimination based on some arbitrary classification, etc.

The USA can weather Mexico hating us. However, Mexico's exports can be sent elsewhere pretty easily. China has been trying for 20 years to improve its trade relationship with Mexico & Central America. I don't think Mexico's economy is nearly as dependent on the USA as many Americans would believe. Strategically, part of the Mexican Federal agenda since the 1930s has been diminishing reliance on the USA.

The US is heavily reliant on Mexican labor for agriculture. Most of our winter produce comes from Mexico or directly relies on Mexican labor. If we don't have that source of labor, we're either going without food or paying $5 for a head of iceberg lettuce.

EDIT: I also forgot that over the last few years, CEMEX has taken control of the USA aggregate & cement markets. Would love to see what happens when Mexico hikes the price of cement-based building materials to offset the tariffs. This could get interesting fast...

And for the record I lived through the Jayne Wade Anderson era of the UNL Greek System.

Thanks for narrowing that down to the 35 years or so that she was there. There are countries that were measured by the length of her tenure...

Glad you included Britt's 14 points. Most of the criticism's of it are valid but I have found it's a great conversation piece when discussing fascism and still has lots of merit. Some consider totalitarianism as a super-set which includes fascism. My view is this is a bit more of a fluid continuum rather than strict hierarchy.

One piece of fallout post-WWII was an avoidance of identifying regimes as fascist. There was a lot attached to that term so politically and sociopolitically that tag carried a lot of risk. Since the end of the cold war, the term has come back in vogue. I say this as there are a lot of regime's that have not been identified as fascist that really should have.

The other thing to keep in mind is the impact of internet-based technology on these points. When China took over Hong Kong, they went from straight-line Communist over to Democratic Socialist with Capitalist sectors very quickly. Had Hong Kong reverted to China in 1980 instead of 2000, EVERY Hong Kong bank would have moved its holdings out before the takeover. Fiber optic allowed those banks with billions of $ in assets under management to "wait & see". On the other end of the spectrum, eaves-dropping without people having a clue is easier than ever.

Lastly, I think the rampant sexism is a function of other factors than fascism. Don't get me wrong, these regimes are sexist but if you look at gender roles in countries like Italy/Germany/Spain/etc before/after/during fascist regimes, the sexism is rampant in the culture independent of fascism.

As far as Trump and his administration, so far Trump has demonstrated a complete authoritarian persona. He has also demonstrated command-control authoritarian approach to governing/decisions. I think he is trying to create a cult of personality within government agencies but nobody is getting on that train. I think he would like to be fascist, but he doesn't have the blind allegiance of those in charge of most government agencies (below the appointed positions). He is definitely trying to change that. I think his focus truly is personal financial greed and everything else is secondary. Unfortunately, his ego is his biggest "appetite" so I think he could turn here very quickly.

We are in in his first week and are having a discussion about whether or not Trump is fascist, totalitarian, authoritarian or other. I think we will know the answer within 6 months. It's obviously apparent given this is a widespread conversation across the country. Keeping this conversation alive is our best chance at minimizing the self-aggrandizing talking head that is Trump.

 

No... the protestors from the Women's March are rioting. I'll link the Facebook group. It's bad...

 

https://www.facebook.com/events/721430504680141/

Pre-warnings about "not being responsible for property loss", "don't speak to conservative media at the OWH", "Fuhrer Trump", etc.

 

Ah, thx. And you are right, that is really not good...

Similar to the women's suffrage protests of a hundred years ago (using property damage to create support)... Don't like the methods but worked in the past, unfortunately...

 

 

 

Quick question, what's everyone's problem with enforcing our immigration laws?

 

You mean our current laws or whatever it is Trump's trying to do? Because those are two very different things.

 

For example - Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries where he has business ties. Do you agree or disagree with this selective enforcement? Do you think this is an ethics violation?

 

 

I'm talking about deporting illegal immigrants. As for the so called 'Muslim ban', you could look at it from a business interest or that those countries are war zones. How do you vet a refugee from Syria for instance? It's nearly impossible.

 

 

Who has expressed a problem with deporting illegal immigrants?

 

You can look at a Muslim ban from any number of angles. The best one would be the human angle, as in, they're humans, they're suffering, if we can help then we should.

 

It isn't impossible to vet refugees from a war zone. It just takes work. That's a small price to pay to help someone whose life is on the line.

 

It is not an insurmountable problem, nor has it been. I have seen a few different numbers of terrorist that passed the vetting but should not have. Both sets of numbers are single-digits out of hundreds of thousands of people. We are talking on the order of 0.000007% of the total.

By comparison, our judicial system WRONGFULLY convicts between 0.025% and 0.00017% of those convicted in any given year. The most conservative number is 100x as many as wrongfully passed immigration vetting. Given so many more people wrongfully convicted, should we suspend our judicial system while we determine the efficacy? It is ludicrous.

I am not saying changes should not be made but to ban immigration from certain countries despite the facts is crazy.

Is this what you are asking about? Did you read the whole you/BRB/me string? I am not trying to be rude...

Atbone95: "they're bluffing, and they're proving it daily."

BRB: "All Teach and I are saying is that we aren't fully believing the "total bluff" comment from you when we experienced things totally different BECAUSE the school has and continues to crack down.

Me: "Atbone95 exaggerated a bit, but not by much."

BRB/LOMS - Continuous improvement as a business practice is part of numerous certifications, audits, industry methodologies, etc. As you mentioned, the idea is to constantly evaluate if something can be done better. I have never seen it implemented in a way that halts the business or business function unless there is an actual egregious finding. The idea is assume success, check for failure.

If something is already at 99% efficient, how do you know that unless you are tracking based on a process of continuous improvement? If you have the key performance indicators in place, the evaluation is very easy to do real-time.

You are both correct from different sides of the coin, especially as comparing it back to our immigration policy ban. It could not more asinine ban based on a feeling nowhere rooted in fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My realistic opinion: The University has shown an absolute unwillingness to punish actions on this campus when it comes to the Greek community. Too many wealthy alumni who donate to the university and the Athletics Department. You don't have to look much farther than Farmhouse receiving a 6 month suspension for a pledge's death in 2013 to know that the University, through their own body of work, shows they have no balls.

The Greek system was held to a lower standard when I was there. The reasoning has always been the alumni. I had friends in FIJI and they seem to get away with more than other fraternities. I know two UNL chapter officers that cut all ties with FIJI after their terms. They were that disgusted with what they encountered. If that chapter was at any other University, the chapter would have had charter revoked & recolonized several times over.

 

I do believe the Greek system can be a force that builds great leaders and citizens and has a positive impact on the community. Left unchecked, it can easily create the worst of society as well. The latter happens all too often, imo.

Good Lord....if the frats would do anything like the partying they did while I was there, the entire greek system would be shut down and bulldozed.

 

 

But we're not talking about partying? Or are you talking about sexism being more prevalent back then?

 

The comment from Atbone about Farmhouse was about an incident where unfortunately a kid who had diabetes partied too much and died. I know of other frats on campus who have been shut down because of partying.

 

When I was in college, it was like the school didn't care. I don't remember anyone dying and the kid from Farmhouse was a strange incident with his diabetes. But, full blown keg parties in houses with drunks all over the yard and stumbling down the block...music blairing...etc. I remember being at some parties in houses that reminded me of Animal House. NO WAY could they do that now......and that's a good thing.

 

Re: Farmhouse... I hate that excuse. Yes, he had a medical condition. He was still forced to drink alcohol to a BAC well over a dangerous line. People on campus like to use it as a copout, but it isn't like it didn't happen. He's dead. That was a sad couple of months on campus.

 

Whoa whoa whoa.....Please don't take my comments as meaning I condone what happened that night or am using that as a copout. I know families who know the kid. It's an extremely sad situation that should have never happened.

 

My point is actually in the other direction. Things happened when I was in school that SHOULD have been cause for fraternities to be locked up and kicked off campus but weren't. The school literally would look the other way.

 

I was refuting your comment about how the school refuses to punish. Yes, maybe Farmhouse should have been punished harder. There are other frats who have been kicked off for breaking rules. My point is the school is much more willing to punish now than they used to be. And, from what I have heard, most frats have taken notice and don't do things the way they used to do.

 

Fair - I wasn't meaning to jump on you in an any way. I was speaking to how some people like to use that as an excuse to look the other way.

 

We have been given some pretty strict warnings, including threats of a mass-Greek extinction if things don't improve.

 

Then Phi Psi brands a pledge, Sig Ep ties a kid down to a bench and covers him in ketchup and mustard, another fraternity knocks a girl out cold at a party, numerous rape/sexual assault allegations.... nothing.

 

To speak to the current perception of the university from a fraternity leader's POV: they're bluffing, and they're proving it daily. That's all I'm saying; I don't expect the FIJI decision to show any different.

 

Branding a pledge and sexual assault should not be tolerated. But....covering a pledge with ketchup and mustard? OK....maybe they shouldn't have done it. But....not sure if that is at the same level of the others you listed.

 

You obviously are in the middle of it right now and have totally different perspective than the rest of us.

 

All Teach and I are saying is that we aren't fully believing the "total bluff" comment from you when we experienced things totally different BECAUSE the school has and continues to crack down.

 

I was there right after the keg ban. The logic was a keg requires group effort where individual containers in whatever number do not. I remember going and grabbing hundreds of cases of beer but it was an individual party. I remember when I had to be the rep to IFC for the weekend party inspections. We had to be escorted by house officers; never mind we would sit at the door for almost an hour while a house officer was located. Meanwhile, we would watch kegs being taken out the back door along with all the minors. Since it was not "inside" the fraternity nothing could be done.

The process tweaked slightly and has evolved but there is always a loophole left behind. List goes on of these types of examples. Yes, crack downs happened but only AFTER something very egregious and even then it is half-hearted changes. They are implemented poorly or with little oversight. What should have taken months to change has taken decades.

Atbone95 exaggerated a bit, but not by much.

Anyone remember this guy? He actually looked like Herbie.

 

http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/63775162.html

 

When the thread started, I took to my phone to find pictures of him (archived off). We ran into him & hung out at our bowl games like 3 years in row. Super awesome guy and spitting image of our actual mascot.