About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, February 4 - 5:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This Executive Order is an example of a non-objective secret law.  Read the actual text of the order, published from the White House, here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

 

I read the White House document and I followed the links in that document. I am at a loss to find any law that specified five of those seven nations. The original order did identify Syria and Iraq. But the order then also cited other orders. I read those. They set criteria and issued warnings, but none of the primary links in the White House document actually named Yemen, Iran, Libya, Somalia, or Sudan. Moreover, I went to Al Arabiya English, CNN, Reuters, and NPR and no one cited a law. They all seemed to be quoting from some unidentified document or source.

 

Ayn Rand pointed out that the horrors in a dictatorship stem from non-objective law. It is not that the laws of a dictatorship are harsh, but that they are secret and arbitrary. Rand cited Anti-Trust laws as an example of that. They were unenforceable because they made everything illegal (charging the same, charging less, charging more). But you could buy your way out with pull. Thus, Major League sports were exempt from anti-trust laws.

 

Rand gave ancient Rome as an example of objective law. The laws were not intended to protect individual rights, but the laws were publicly posted and uniformly enforced. Thus, they were objective. This law is non-objective. Where is the definition of which nations are prohibited? Most of all, the one nation that is truly the source of jihadi terrorism was not mentioned: Saudi Arabia.



Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, February 4 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Progressives, in a state of full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome are incapable of getting facts straight where Trump is concerned.

 

This executive order is NOT about choosing nations that are Muslim Majority.  It is NOT about choosing nations from which terrorists have come in the past.  It is NOT about choosing nations supplying funding to terrorists.  It is NOT only about choosing nations which have terrorists in them today, that might come to the US.

 

It is about choosing nations that can't, or won't, supply adequate information that can be used in vetting. Here is where it says that in section 3b: "The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order."   [My emphasis]

 

That is why the list of seven, that was originally put together under Obama, was chosen.  Here is what CNN reported on the list of seven: "In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list,in what it called an effort to address 'the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.' "

 

If a person is not a citizen of the United States, and has not been granted legal permanent status (green card) then they do NOT have any right to enter the country.  The executive branch has been given constitutional authority over entry into the country.  It is appropriate for the president to deny entry for anyone who comes from a place with significant terrorist activity if they cannot be vetted because that nation isn't able or willing to supply the needed data.

 

I hate the way laws (or executive orders) are written today.  They are full of useless legaleze, mind-numbing detail, a thousand times too long, link to other laws and documents ad nauseum, and often just cannot be followed.  I agree with Rand's disdain for non-objective laws.  But this executive order, however poorly written, however non-objective it is in style and format, has an objective intent based upon national self-defense.

 

Open border people object to any kind of restriction, but if asked, "Do you believe that terrorists should be allowed into the country?" they will either waffle, or say, "No" but then have no idea of how to keep them out.  Or they will say something like, "There is no way to guarantee terrorist can't get in" or "This doesn't address home-grown terrorists," or some other deflection from an attempt to say what should be done to reduce the chances of terrorists coming in.

 

Saudi Arabia (or at least members of the royal family) has long been (and may still be) a source of terrorist funding and an active exporter of jihadi ideology, but it doesn't meet the standards the executive order lays out for suspending visas until they can determine adequate vetting procedures. 

 

But here is the real point.  Progressives are focused on only one thing: undermining Trump for the purpose of regaining control for themselves.  They attack Trump on this or that specific, they lie, they distort, they make fake news, but their hatred is due to his effectiveness in thwarting their quest for power.  They had Obama and they felt like they were so close to transforming the nation... They didn't see that their policies and political correctness and condescending elitism were generating enormous dislike.  It came as a shock that they lost - even with as flawed a candidate as Hillary.



Post 2

Sunday, February 5 - 5:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That is why the list of seven, that was originally put together under Obama, was chosen.  Here is what CNN reported on the list of seven: "In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list,in what it called an effort to address 'the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.' "

I have seen this cited in numerous places, and it is very telling that nary a peep of protest arose at the time.

 

Let's patch the huge gash in the hull of the Titanic and bail the water from the internal compartments, and we can argue later about what color to paint the deck chairs.

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/05, 5:19am)



Post 3

Friday, February 10 - 3:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve focussed on the essence of the order, Section 3b.  Luke also pointed out that this list was in effect under President Obama - and without protest.  I add here that these places are not nations.  We call them "failed states."  That raises a deeper question of what makes  a nation or a state. I do not have an answer, but, obviously, the central government in Damascus, Syria, has no control over much of the nation.  Somalia, Libya,  Yemen, are likewise in the throws of internal warfare.  And, of course, so is Iraq.  Iran stands out as a successful state, but as an active exporter of terrorism.  Sudan is somewhere in the middle, an active state, a supporter of terrorism, yet with an unresolved war with the Southern State.  So, all in all, it is impossible to get the usual police vetting from those places.

(For a mainstream report, read CNN here:  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/trump-travel-ban-countries/ ) 



Post 4

Friday, February 10 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Marotta wrote: 

Steve focussed on the essence of the order, Section 3b.  Luke also pointed out that this list was in effect under President Obama - and without protest.  I add here that these places are not nations.  We call them "failed states."  That raises a deeper question of what makes  a nation or a state.

My main point was that progressives are attacking Trump, and in this case by totally misrepresenting this executive order.

 --------------

 

I'd say that those "places" are still nations.  They still have governments (or sorts) and they still have recognized geographical borders.  No government has perfect enforcement of all of its laws (or of its dictatorial desires) in every corner within its borders and at all times.  So, that makes it a matter of degree. 

 

The attempt by ISIS to create a caliphate out of Syria and Iraq (as a start) would created to a new state, eliminated old states, and created a new nation with its own geographical borders.  But this would be a change from one nation to another.

 

But it is reasonable to say that at a certain level of inability to exercise its enforcement, or at a certain level of political chaos it should be called a "failed state" - note that it would still be a "nation."  (E.g., one could say, "The nation of Syria has become a 'failed state' due the amount of territory inside that nation's borders that it no longer controls.")  The nation of somalia could have such an ineffective government as to be no government - to be in a state of anarchy - but it's borders can be drawn on a map.  What else would you call it?  The geographical area formerly known as Somalia?

 

I'd say that Iraq had been nearing a point, not that long ago, where the nacent "nation" of ISIS was getting close to replacing the Iraq government and becoming a new state and a new nation.  Control over a geographical area would have taken them from an organization to a nation and a state.  I think that the difference between an organization and a nation is the geographical area being central to being a nation, but not necessarily to an organization.

 

This takes one to the issue of borders.  If there isn't a geographical border, there isn't a nation.  If there isn't some degree of effective border control, there isn't a state.  The complete loss of control over borders is one way a state could fail, or it could stand as evidence that it is a failed state.

 

Anarchists don't recognize borders as valid because they don't recognize states as valid.  Progressives don't recognize aspects of borders for their own reasons - most of which relate to increasing state powers in all other respects.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.