Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but isn't this very very VERY frowned upon? I believe there is something in place saying that the POTUS can't use the official communication channels for this type of thing?

That's his personal account though isn't it? @POTUS is the official account as far as I know.

Gwen Cooper

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's his personal account though isn't it? @POTUS is the official account as far as I know.

That's a good point actually. However (and I'm not saying this to argue), wasn't it agreed that the tweets coming from @realdonaldtrump are the official presidential tweets?

I think that was also the reason Donnie is not allowed to block people who don't agree with him.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's his personal account though isn't it? @POTUS is the official account as far as I know.

It was, but then he refused to use the official one, and then they stated that the personal one counted as statements by the president in his official capacity and that it was to become part of the historical record and archived as such.

That is why he had to unblock some people as well after they brought a case that him blocking them from viewing and commenting on his twitter was an abuse of their rights to communicate with the president.

Not sure what it means for the status of any pre-2017 tweets on that account which is now considered to be the official voice of the president and if they are all archived off as well.

everlast75 wrote: »

I see you removed the part where you said that you'd vote Trump just to p*** off people like the poster above.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the embodiment of Trumpism...

"Voting for Trump to own the libs!"

I didn't display any Trumpism. Trumpists like Trump. What I displayed was Fúck-people-who-insinuate-I'm-Hitler-for-asking-basic-factual-questions-ism.

robinph wrote: »

It was, but then he refused to use the official one, and then they stated that the personal one counted as statements by the president in his official capacity and that it was to become part of the historical record and archived as such.

That is why he had to unblock some people as well after they brought a case that him blocking them from viewing and commenting on his twitter was an abuse of their rights to communicate with the president.

That's right - forgot about that. Hilariously sad that this is even something that matters

Mexcans are refugees? Nope.

But then neither are people from any other country as it has bugger all to do with what country you come from or your nationality. Just because someone is from Mexico doesn't make them a refugee any more than them being from Mexico means they cannot be a refugee.

robinph wrote: »

Mexcans are refugees? Nope.

But then neither are people from any other country as it has bugger all to do with what country you come from or your nationality. Just because someone is from Mexico doesn't make them a refugee any more than them being from Mexico means they cannot be a refugee.

Can you give your definition of a refugee?

everlast75

robinph wrote: »

Mexcans are refugees? Nope.

But then neither are people from any other country as it has bugger all to do with what country you come from or your nationality. Just because someone is from Mexico doesn't make them a refugee any more than them being from Mexico means they cannot be a refugee.

It really is as simple as that.

Trump is an out and out racist.

That is a fact.

And with a lot of people who have an issue with asylum seekers, or refugees, or immigration, it manifests itself whenever those issues arise.

His racism was evident before he became president, but now that he is in power, it is manifesting itself in his policies. First came the travel ban...

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give your definition of a refugee?

The individual definition of "refugee" is irrelevant. The relevant definition is that contained in Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):

(42) The term "refugee" means:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or

(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The individual definition of "refugee" is irrelevant. The relevant definition is that contained in Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):

I'm aware of what a refugee is. I'm interested in robinph's definition.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm aware of what a refugee is. I'm interested in robinph's definition.

I don't get to define what a refugee is.

robinph wrote: »

I don't get to define what a refugee is.

Can you give an estimate on how many Irish citizens are refugees? ie. Citizens born in Ireland.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give an estimate on how many Irish citizens are refugees? ie. Citizens born in Ireland.

I assume you are waiting to go through a list of countries and then use that as if it proves some kind of point. Why not just state your point now and save us all the bother?

By the way, Mexicans can be and are refugees under the US system due to fears arising as a result of corruption and collusion with the drug cartels. In fact, until 2012 fears from LGBT Mexicans was a valid reason for seeking refugee/asylum status (changed by case law in 2012 due to changing attitudes in Mexico of LGBTQ community (see: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-9566.pdf).

455 Mexicans granted refugee/asylum status in 2016: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table17

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm aware of what a refugee is. I'm interested in robinph's definition.

It's irrelevant to anything.

robinph wrote: »

I assume you are waiting to go through a list of countries and then use that as if it proves some kind of point. Why not just state your point now and save us all the bother?

That's three factual questions I've asked here now that haven't received answers.

Are Mexicans refugees?
What is your definition of a refugee?
How many Irish citizens are refugees?

My position is that Mexicans aren't refugees so they shouldn't be called that. I have friends living all over that country in as much safety as they'd expect in Ireland. If there are problems with gangs or police, people can move internally.

I've caused ire here with basic questions because it is desirable to label these people refugees instead of illegal economic migrants. Now before you go thinking I'm a reborn Nazi general, I don't agree with the treatment in the camps. I am a fan of logic and the proper use of language though.

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

No judges or court cases is precise totalitarianism; even illegal immigrants get their day in court, cos that's why they're called 'illegal' in the first place, right?

Not exactly. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows for deportation without need for review by a judge or court. Thus far, the policy has only been applied to persons in the country for 14 days, but the law allows for the process for those in the country up to two years.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/practice_advisory/final_expedited_removal_advisory-_updated_2-21-17.pdf

It may be a reversal of policy from last month's "Everyone gets prosecuted", but it's not illegal.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give an estimate on how many Irish citizens are refugees? ie. Citizens born in Ireland.

Applying in the US? None.

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table17

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table19

Deleted User wrote: »

My position is that Mexicans aren't refugees so they shouldn't be called that. I have friends living all over that country in as much safety as they'd expect in Ireland.

Your position or my position or any other person's position is irrelevant.

The US Government, DHS and Court are the positions of relevance - they agree that, by definition, Mexicans can be refugees and in practice the Courts have held the same.

If there are problems with gangs or police, people can move internally.

Various immigration Courts in the US disagree with you here.