Trump creates "Denaturalization task force"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

https://apnews.com/1da389a535684a5f9d0da74081c242f3

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/in-america-naturalized-citizens-no-longer-have-an-assumption-of-permanence

Trump created a task force designed to go through immigrants who were naturalized (IE, who came here legally) and strip them of their citizenship so that they can be deported.

You'll forgive me if this make it feel like Trump isn't just interested in hurting illegal immigrants.

Oh, and just a heads up. The United Nations classifies stripping someone of their citizenship as a human rights violation.

Now the claim is that they're just doing this for people who lied to get their naturalization, but A. is there any evidence of this being a widespread problem? And B. considering the well-documented abuse of ICE and the fact that they have attempted to forge evidence and deport US citizens on multiple occasions, blatantly ignoring it when they were given legal documentation to prove citizenship, this organization strikes me as being utterly ripe for abuse. This administration has not earned any trust to not use this as a front for incredibly racist actions.

I just find it ironic that the man who bitches and whines about being the victim of a witch hunt so much seems to really want to get a witch hunt going.

As you waited until nearly the end of the post to point out, the initiative is to find immigrants who unlawfully obtained their citizenship through naturalization through lying about previous criminal charges, affiliations with terrorist groups, etc. These are not people who came here legally, in that case, I'm sorry to tell you.

In regards to your "A point", if you read the articles that you post, you'll see that part of the reason that this is happening is due to recent findings and corrections regarding fingerprint data and false identities. Trump and his administration didn't suddenly just feel like rounding up a bunch of people they didn't like and deporting them.

"The U.S. government began looking at potentially fraudulent naturalization cases a decade ago when a border officer detected about 200 people had used different identities to get green cards and citizenship after they were previously issued deportation orders.

In September 2016, an internal watchdog reported that 315,000 old fingerprint records for immigrants who had been deported or had criminal convictions had not been uploaded to a Department of Homeland Security database that is used to check immigrants' identities. The same report found more than 800 immigrants had been ordered deported under one identity but became U.S. citizens under another.

Since then, the government has been uploading these older fingerprint records dating back to the 1990s and investigators have been evaluating cases for denaturalization."

So no, this isn't a massive problem, but they deemed that it was significant enough to look into. They claim that they've identified a few thousand potential illegals this way, but we'll see how that pans out.

In regards to your B point, neither of your two articles mention ICE once. Issues like this are handled by district courts (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launches-effort-to-take-citizenship-from-those-who-lied-to-get-it) and, while the Trump administration hasn't said explicitly how they will handle it, ICE hasn't been mentioned.

It's an aggressive move by the Trump administration to keep cracking down on illegal immigrants, which has been a cornerstone of their position and politics. Could they make mistakes and identify some people who are legal citizens? Yes, of course they could; they and ICE and everyone else involved with this are only human. Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

Quit overreacting.

Something something law and order, something something values.

erttheking:

You'll forgive me if this make it feel like Trump isn't just interested in hurting immigrants.

Fixed that for you friend =) (Edit: I completely misread what you originally said, thus the "fix" was unnecessary)

Anyway, how the hell are they going to determine if they knowingly lied during the naturalization process? This just seems ripe for all kinds of abuse, and seeing as how this administration doesn't seem to give a shit if abuse happens under it's watch, it's more or less to be expected that it will happen here too. They're really going out of their way to scare off immigrants though huh? Legal or otherwise, this administration doesn't want people even thinking about coming here. They've said as much, and have proven so too. Oh, unless they're from Norway I guess.

EquestrianGeneral:
Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

I mean, ICE is completely evil and should be abolished, and everyone who ever worked for ICE should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Just saying.

BreakfastMan:

EquestrianGeneral:
Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

I mean, ICE is completely evil and should be abolished, and everyone who ever worked for ICE should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Just saying.

Agreed.

EquestrianGeneral:
Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

This in particular might not, yet they remain evil people who want to deport every brown person they see.

Draining the swamp, everyone..

See now, this is another one of those times that demonstrates why it would have made sense for the opposition to practice a modicum of discernment in their outrage, instead of the constant #FullResistance treatment for every freaking time Trump so much as draws breath. If the objective was to maintain the ability to have a genuine moderating influence on policy that is, rather than fomenting strife. Because the general hysteria for "abolishing borders" is obscuring the rather significant distinction between simply not granting citizenship to all comers vs. stripping away citizenship status from those who have already been granted it.

There is a line there that shouldn't be thoughtlessly crossed, as on the other side there is the prospect of rendering people stateless. This is a big deal, since whatever some people like to proclaim, such legal rights as anyone has are derived from states. And while it's one thing for a state to recognize a person as a citizen of another state who might require some measure of protection from their treatment by that state, it is another to declare someone a citizen of no state whatsoever. That would be the very definition of marginal status within the framework of the international system that we actually have, and that's not a good thing. Anyone wishing to explore the ramifications might want to check out The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt.

StatusNil:
See now, this is another one of those times that demonstrates why it would have made sense for the opposition to practice a modicum of discernment in their outrage,

What would also make sense is if you didn't carry water for people doing highly objectionable things, such as blaming his opponents. Let's be unambiguously clear here: you and yours supported him, funded him, talked him up, put him into power. It's your love and devotion feeding his narcissistic ego and driving him. What he does up there is your responsibility long before it's your opponents'.

StatusNil:
See now, this is another one of those times that demonstrates why it would have made sense for the opposition to practice a modicum of discernment in their outrage, instead of the constant #FullResistance treatment for every freaking time Trump so much as draws breath. If the objective was to maintain the ability to have a genuine moderating influence on policy that is, rather than fomenting strife.

What on earth makes you think the gentle approach would work on Trump?

Agema:

What would also make sense is if you didn't carry water for people doing highly objectionable things, such as blaming his opponents. Let's be unambiguously clear here: you and yours supported him, funded him, talked him up, put him into power. It's your love and devotion feeding his narcissistic ego and driving him. What he does up there is your responsibility long before it's your opponents'.

Say what? I and "mine" supported and funded him? I love him?

I'm not aware of being a part of any political party, nor funding any candidate. There are solid technical reasons as to why I didn't even vote for the guy. And this "love" is an alien emotion to me, these days if not throughout my life.

What I did was oppose his opponent more than him, again due to my opposition to totalitarianism from all sides, rather than being OK with it if it's "us" doing it. And I believe I insisted on people criticizing him on his actual plenitude of faults, rather than just making shit up to smear him. You know, like that "admission" that he goes around grabbing women "by the pussy", or attributing "White Supremacist" beliefs to someone who plainly gives no fuck about the Color Chart placement of people as long as they reliably service him.

And what I'm doing here is acknowledging the real dangers of the backlash the empowered him. It's not that the people who voted for him were simply revealing their "deplorability", it's that there was an unacceptable push of a radically inegalitarian ideology and they started pushing back. But that kind of pushback can and probably will get out of hand the longer it needs to be maintained. So it is in everyone's interest to de-escalate. Again, if the goal is not some cataclysm of "cathartic" violence, which does seem like something the "#Resistance" has a mighty boner for.

Let me just reiterate that it irks me to concede this much to people behaving the way they are, the mere who-man that I am. But I do it because I have a certain responsibility to try to communicate the actual hazards involved in the ongoing political disintegration as I've been given to understand them, as opposed to just gloating at the losing streak of the coalition that alienated me in quite offensive terms for trying to maintain some standards of reason and fairness. When can we expect the same effort from "yours", instead of the constant doubling down on the hate initiative?

Palindromemordnilap:

What on earth makes you think the gentle approach would work on Trump?

I'm not talking about a "gentle" approach, I'm talking about a firm approach. Instead of a flailing, dissipated one.

StatusNil:

I'm not talking about a "gentle" approach, I'm talking about a firm approach. Instead of a flailing, dissipated one.

This I actually agree with. Honestly the cable news outlets and the Democrats are laser focused on the awful crap he says and does, and almost ignore what his administration is actually doing. Don't get me wrong, Trump is human garbage and he says and does a lot of fucked up shit. However his administration is actively ripping apart everything they can get their hands on, and it's done several things that would piss off pretty much everyone including his supporters...well a chunk of them anyway. But instead of wanting to focus on that, the Democrats and the media seem to be gunning for "just be anti-Trump and we'll win". Hell, "restore balance" is the phrase they're throwing around, oblivious to the sheer resentment that gets them.

All in all, I don't think just howling at how awful of a human being he is will be the best approach. You know reading that back...it's fucking weird. Just who he is should disqualify him to be the head of anything other than a used car dealership that eventually goes broke, and then shot up by the mob for refusing to pay back a loan. But this country is fucking backwards so I guess it makes sense in the bizzaro world that is this nation. So sure, do that, but also break down how damn awful his policy is. How he's screwing over the people who voted for him. Instead of spending hours and hours on how offensive he is, dedicate just a bit of time to that, and then tear into what the hell his administration has been doing hiding in plain sight. I guess for the cable news outlets that isn't sensational enough though...and the Democrats...Jesus fucking Christ they're just stupid.

it's not as bad as it first sounds. reviewing green card holders to make sure there is no trickery going on does make sense is you think immigrants are sneaking into your country to.. ruin it? i guess.
its just a continuation on the line of thinking that America is under attack by filthy immigrants.
personally i don't get why you would want to move to the US unless you're super rich already.
the worst part of it is that is sets a dangerous precedent for stripping citizens of their citizenship. its interesting how republicans are in favor of a "small state" yet they keep giving it more and more power.

EquestrianGeneral:

In regards to your B point, neither of your two articles mention ICE once. Issues like this are handled by district courts (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launches-effort-to-take-citizenship-from-those-who-lied-to-get-it) and, while the Trump administration hasn't said explicitly how they will handle it, ICE hasn't been mentioned.

It's an aggressive move by the Trump administration to keep cracking down on illegal immigrants, which has been a cornerstone of their position and politics. Could they make mistakes and identify some people who are legal citizens? Yes, of course they could; they and ICE and everyone else involved with this are only human. Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

Quit overreacting.

You're missing the point. The point is that Trump has openly displayed his disdain towards due process, ICE under his administration has been a hotbed of abuse with him encouraging it, and with there being no consequences for those who openly try to frame US Citizens. The Trump administration has torn thousands of children away from their parents, kept them in sub-par conditions, and when a judge told them they had to give the kids back, they asked, and I'm not kidding here, how many of the kids they had to give back.

http://thehill.com/latino/395803-trump-requests-more-time-to-reunite-families-separated-at-the-border

Oh, and to answer your question, if you work in ICE then there's a good chance you really do want to deport every last brown person they see, considering the unchecked abuse running rampant there.

With Trump, overreacting is more or less impossible. It's just being cautious when it comes to Trump, because he's done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt. With him and immigrants, it's not a question of if it will be abused and if innocent citizens will get caught in the crossfire. It's not a question if he'll care about those people either, we know he and his people don't. It's a question of how many innocent people will be caught in the crossfire and if they'll get any justice.

Basically, everything in his administration has been a cavalcade of abuse, and telling me to not "overreact" is basically telling me to close my eyes and not think. Sorry man, but I subscribe to the theory I like I call "basic pattern recognition."

Or do you want me to just ignore all the immigrants that recently got kicked out of the military for reasons that were barely explained?

StatusNil:

Palindromemordnilap:

What on earth makes you think the gentle approach would work on Trump?

I'm not talking about a "gentle" approach, I'm talking about a firm approach. Instead of a flailing, dissipated one.

I'm ok with that. And I've been doing that this whole time. Glad we got that settled.

EquestrianGeneral:
As you waited until nearly the end of the post to point out, the initiative is to find immigrants who unlawfully obtained their citizenship through naturalization through lying about previous criminal charges, affiliations with terrorist groups, etc. These are not people who came here legally, in that case, I'm sorry to tell you.

In regards to your "A point", if you read the articles that you post, you'll see that part of the reason that this is happening is due to recent findings and corrections regarding fingerprint data and false identities. Trump and his administration didn't suddenly just feel like rounding up a bunch of people they didn't like and deporting them.

"The U.S. government began looking at potentially fraudulent naturalization cases a decade ago when a border officer detected about 200 people had used different identities to get green cards and citizenship after they were previously issued deportation orders.

In September 2016, an internal watchdog reported that 315,000 old fingerprint records for immigrants who had been deported or had criminal convictions had not been uploaded to a Department of Homeland Security database that is used to check immigrants? identities. The same report found more than 800 immigrants had been ordered deported under one identity but became U.S. citizens under another.

Since then, the government has been uploading these older fingerprint records dating back to the 1990s and investigators have been evaluating cases for denaturalization."

So no, this isn't a massive problem, but they deemed that it was significant enough to look into. They claim that they've identified a few thousand potential illegals this way, but we'll see how that pans out.

In regards to your B point, neither of your two articles mention ICE once. Issues like this are handled by district courts (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launches-effort-to-take-citizenship-from-those-who-lied-to-get-it) and, while the Trump administration hasn't said explicitly how they will handle it, ICE hasn't been mentioned.

It's an aggressive move by the Trump administration to keep cracking down on illegal immigrants, which has been a cornerstone of their position and politics. Could they make mistakes and identify some people who are legal citizens? Yes, of course they could; they and ICE and everyone else involved with this are only human. Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

Quit overreacting.

Unlawfully obtaining their citizenship by violating their visa and lying on their application about it? I guess they should start with Melania Trump then:
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d
https://www.ndn.org/blog/2016/11/ap-story-confirms-melania-lied-broke-immigration-laws
Or are some people " above the law" and this only applies to those who cannot afford to fight them?

Technically, Melania Trumps citizenship should be revoked according to the evidence.

lionsprey:
it's not as bad as it first sounds. reviewing green card holders to make sure there is no trickery going on does make sense is you think immigrants are sneaking into your country to.. ruin it? i guess.
its just a continuation on the line of thinking that America is under attack by filthy immigrants.
personally i don't get why you would want to move to the US unless you're super rich already.
the worst part of it is that is sets a dangerous precedent for stripping citizens of their citizenship. its interesting how republicans are in favor of a "small state" yet they keep giving it more and more power.

Yeah, nominally not such a big deal. Run by the Trump administration, it's a serious problem, and a stepping stone to worse.

Lil devils x:
Unlawfully obtaining their citizenship by violating their visa and lying on their application about it? I guess they should start with Melania Trump then:
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d
https://www.ndn.org/blog/2016/11/ap-story-confirms-melania-lied-broke-immigration-laws
Or are some people " above the law" and this only applies to those who cannot afford to fight them?

Technically, Melania Trumps citizenship should be revoked according to the evidence.

Based on what's presented here, it certainly does sound like there should be an investigation into her citizenship. However, she is in a position of political power, so it is unlikely to happen. That isn't fair, but don't pretend for a millisecond that previous US administrations haven't had people within them who deserved legal investigations who never had said investigations carried out.

If you're trying to go for a "gotcha" kind of post, then you're going to have to try harder than that.

Considering ICE was willing to deport a Georgia born man with a Georgia accent back to Russia, yea, this makes me a bit nervous to know my citizenship is now up for scrutiny.

Wonder where Trump would deport me to?

EquestrianGeneral:

Lil devils x:
Unlawfully obtaining their citizenship by violating their visa and lying on their application about it? I guess they should start with Melania Trump then:
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d
https://www.ndn.org/blog/2016/11/ap-story-confirms-melania-lied-broke-immigration-laws
Or are some people " above the law" and this only applies to those who cannot afford to fight them?

Technically, Melania Trumps citizenship should be revoked according to the evidence.

Based on what's presented here, it certainly does sound like there should be an investigation into her citizenship. However, she is in a position of political power, so it is unlikely to happen. That isn't fair, but don't pretend for a millisecond that previous US administrations haven't had people within them who deserved legal investigations who never had said investigations carried out.

If you're trying to go for a "gotcha" kind of post, then you're going to have to try harder than that.

First of all, this was not the first time I have brought up the issue of Melania being in violation of Trumps proposals. Second, administrations that were granting leniency are usually not the ones creating task forces to be harsher on those issues. If it is okay with Trump to tear mothers of other families apart from their children who love and depend on them causing serious trauma to those children, the same should apply to his own family. Politicians are expected to lead by example, not exemption from the laws they wish to impose on the people they claim to serve. "it isn't fair" is not how they are expected to enforce the laws. The laws should be enforced equally regardless of race, religion, social class or status, as everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law or the enforcement of the laws are unjust. Never has being a representative of the people meant they are above the law.

On one hand I can understand the idea of wanting to do follow-up work to make sure no one lied on their citizenship forms. However revoking citizenship seems very...political. And it'd be a small step to start revoking natural citizenship for people Trump doesn't like.
Maybe a fine for those caught lying and leave it be? Then again this is the Trump presidency and I trust them about as much as I'd trust Trump as a landlord.

EquestrianGeneral:
As you waited until nearly the end of the post to point out, the initiative is to find immigrants who unlawfully obtained their citizenship through naturalization through lying about previous criminal charges, affiliations with terrorist groups, etc. These are not people who came here legally, in that case, I'm sorry to tell you.

Let's look at the case of a guy named Baljinder (or maybe Davinder?) Singh.

Baljinder Singh arrived in the US from India in 1991 with no papers or proof of identity. He gave his name as "Davinder Singh," which may have just been someone misreading his name from a handwritten form - a B can look like a D, and an L and a J can look like a V if they run together. He missed a court date, was deported, then returned to the country in 1992 to make an asylum application - under the name Baljinder. About four years later, he married a US citizen who filed a visa petition on his behalf. He stayed in the US until 2006, when he was naturalised.

Last January, the Justice Department passed an order revoking Baljinder Singh's naturalised US citizenship on the basis that he had entered the country under an alias - an alias that may have simply been messy handwriting. This, according to the Justice Department, is valid grounds for revoking the citizenship of a man who has been living in the country for twenty-five years, who is married to a US citizen, and who has no criminal record whatsoever. But as far as the Trump administration is concerned, if you scribbled your name illegibly on an immigration form twenty five years ago, you're not a US citizen anymore.

Consider this: in the 1980s, United States immigration law banned "aliens with sexual deviance" from entering the country, under a 1950s-era immigration restriction that mistakenly conflated homosexuality with psychopathy. The effect was that any homosexual migrant would be denied entry if they admitted that they were gay; the alternative was to lie and pretend they were straight so as to escape exclusion under an unjust immigration law. Under Trump's policy, a homosexual who migrated to the country before 1990 and who lied as to their sexual orientation in order to enter the country is a "criminal" and should have their citizenship revoked - because they lived in the closet thirty years ago.

It's an insane policy. Baljinder Singh is not a criminal. He hasn't done anything that I can find which would merit losing his citizenship. He's not a terrorist or a war criminal or a drug dealer or even a grifter. He's just an Indian with messy handwriting. Why is the Justice Department allocating resources to trying to deport this guy? It's a waste of their time and the court's time.

And don't get me started on all the times Trump or someone near him has lied on a form and had it swept under the goddamn rug.

bastardofmelbourne:

Baljinder Singh is not a criminal. He hasn't done anything that I can find which would merit losing his citizenship. He's not a terrorist or a war criminal or a drug dealer or even a grifter. He's just an Indian with messy handwriting.

Quite apart from the inadvisability of a policy of revoking citizenships, this does pique my curiosity. Why would "just an Indian" need to apply for asylum in the US?

Based on the name, he would appear to be a Sikh, a religious group who do have a history of militant separatist movements against the government of India. But it's not like Sikhism itself is proscribed or its open practice denied. Could it be there is more to this individual than you're implying? Or is it just an attempted shortcut to naturalization?

StatusNil:
Quite apart from the inadvisability of a policy of revoking citizenships, this does pique my curiosity. Why would "just an Indian" need to apply for asylum in the US?

For...any number of possible reasons.

An asylum seeker is a person who's applied for refugee status, i.e. asylum. To be a refugee, all one needs under the United Nations Refugee Convention is to demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinions. This definition has also been interpreted in recent years as applying to victims of domestic abuse.

Whether or not his asylum claim had merit is not relevant, strictly speaking; he was never granted asylum or recognised as a refugee, because he dropped the claim after marrying a US citizen. His spouse then vouched for his status, which was how he eventually obtained naturalised citizenship ten years later in 2006.

Smithnikov:
Considering ICE was willing to deport a Georgia born man with a Georgia accent back to Russia, yea, this makes me a bit nervous to know my citizenship is now up for scrutiny.

Was he from the areas under Russian occupation? If so, then that'd be the only way to do even get there. Plus there's no direct flights to Georgia from the US. Looking at flights from New York to Tbilisi, all of them have a stop on the way in either Vienna, Kiev, Moscow, Istanbul or some other place that isn't i Georgia.

bastardofmelbourne:

An asylum seeker is a person who's applied for refugee status, i.e. asylum. To be a refugee, all one needs under the United Nations Refugee Convention is to demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinions. This definition has also been interpreted in recent years as applying to victims of domestic abuse.

It seems to have gotten more complicated then that in recent years. In the US, for example, that woman who is the mother of the child that the Times took a photo of and lied to the world that the child had been separated from their parent (which is such an overt violation of Canada's reporting laws I'm amazed it's still legal to sell them up here, because a domestic publication would lose their licence over that) has claimed asylum, but has stated her reason for going to the US is to find work, not flee anything. This isn't all that surprising, given the fact that there are people trying to push the idea that "Economic Refugee" is a thing, despite the fact that any country that subscribes to that would effectively be creating an open border with all lesser developed nations and would last about as long as such a system would have one expect (not very).

Then there's other examples of it changing, such as up here in Canada, where earlier this year a man from the Gambia was granted refugee status after he illegally entered from the US, where he fled due to his asylum request being rejected on the grounds that the conflict he was seeking refuge from had ended before he had even set food on American soil. This claim was accepted, while South Africans fleeing racial persecution and violence are denied their applications because the Canadian government has taken the official stance that white, Asian and mixed race people cannot suffer persecution in South Africa. It's climate change level reality denial, and granting it would give literally everyone involved what they want (black South Africans included), but for some reason an outcome that all would be happy with that also reflects reality isn't something this country should go with, better to be on the wrong side of history and take an outcome literally no one is happy with.

Man, with how rare it is to find a country that even bothers with the Refugee Convention, why even pretend to continue? I know my country doesn't follow it and makes no secret of it.

EquestrianGeneral:
As you waited until nearly the end of the post to point out, the initiative is to find immigrants who unlawfully obtained their citizenship through naturalization through lying about previous criminal charges, affiliations with terrorist groups, etc. These are not people who came here legally, in that case, I'm sorry to tell you.

In regards to your "A point", if you read the articles that you post, you'll see that part of the reason that this is happening is due to recent findings and corrections regarding fingerprint data and false identities. Trump and his administration didn't suddenly just feel like rounding up a bunch of people they didn't like and deporting them.

"The U.S. government began looking at potentially fraudulent naturalization cases a decade ago when a border officer detected about 200 people had used different identities to get green cards and citizenship after they were previously issued deportation orders.

In September 2016, an internal watchdog reported that 315,000 old fingerprint records for immigrants who had been deported or had criminal convictions had not been uploaded to a Department of Homeland Security database that is used to check immigrants? identities. The same report found more than 800 immigrants had been ordered deported under one identity but became U.S. citizens under another.

Since then, the government has been uploading these older fingerprint records dating back to the 1990s and investigators have been evaluating cases for denaturalization."

So no, this isn't a massive problem, but they deemed that it was significant enough to look into. They claim that they've identified a few thousand potential illegals this way, but we'll see how that pans out.

In regards to your B point, neither of your two articles mention ICE once. Issues like this are handled by district courts (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launches-effort-to-take-citizenship-from-those-who-lied-to-get-it) and, while the Trump administration hasn't said explicitly how they will handle it, ICE hasn't been mentioned.

It's an aggressive move by the Trump administration to keep cracking down on illegal immigrants, which has been a cornerstone of their position and politics. Could they make mistakes and identify some people who are legal citizens? Yes, of course they could; they and ICE and everyone else involved with this are only human. Does this mean that ICE and this initiative are evil people who want to deport every brown person they see? No.

Quit overreacting.

You are amazingly trusting of someone who is known to lie about everything. Like he says more likes then facts, I guess you can just feel that hes your guy.

Zontar:

Smithnikov:
Considering ICE was willing to deport a Georgia born man with a Georgia accent back to Russia, yea, this makes me a bit nervous to know my citizenship is now up for scrutiny.

Was he from the areas under Russian occupation? If so, then that'd be the only way to do even get there. Plus there's no direct flights to Georgia from the US. Looking at flights from New York to Tbilisi, all of them have a stop on the way in either Vienna, Kiev, Moscow, Istanbul or some other place that isn't i Georgia.

I'm talking about Georgia the US state, not Georgia the country.

Lil devils x:

Unlawfully obtaining their citizenship by violating their visa and lying on their application about it? I guess they should start with Melania Trump then:
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d
https://www.ndn.org/blog/2016/11/ap-story-confirms-melania-lied-broke-immigration-laws
Or are some people " above the law" and this only applies to those who cannot afford to fight them?

Technically, Melania Trumps citizenship should be revoked according to the evidence.

EquestrianGeneral:
Based on what's presented here, it certainly does sound like there should be an investigation into her citizenship.

Basically, Melania Trump got citizenship legally, there's no point looking into it at all.

The fact that it was exploitation of a loophole which basically permits the rich and powerful to grant citizenship where it pleases them is a matter for law reform, not a criminal investigation. In practice, all countries have ways of bypassing "normal" citizenship pathways where it suits them. In many countries, it's as simple as just being rich: spend $$$, here's your citizenship. And as Equestrian General points out, it's not going to happen.

bastardofmelbourne:

Let's look at the case of a guy named Baljinder (or maybe Davinder?) Singh.

Yes, but this is what always happens.

If you create an organisation to acheive a certain task, that organisation needs to get results to justify its own existence. Quite likely, that organisation is even set targets by which its usefulness is measured, and the organisation becomes dedicated to hitting targets. What it therefore does is pursue anything it can, usually any reason it can find. It becomes disinterested in discriminating between accidental error and deliberate abuse; the spirit of what they are supposed to do becomes less important than the letter of what they can.

People who deliberately wish to avoid the rules tend to be hard to catch, because they specifically learn how to flout them and avoid detection. People who accidentally make honest mistakes are much easier to catch - they're not trying to hide, and if queried, may even de facto help bury themselves because they assume it's just an error and can explain themselves to innocence.

Consequently these organisations will usually end up preferentially nailing the easy and likely undeserving rather than pursuing genuine abuse of the system.

StatusNil:
What I did was oppose his opponent more than him...

Yep.

And now, so busy were busy were you complaining about stuff like subjects being taught in universities that there are actual neo-Nazis marching through city streets with your president permissively describing them as fine people. An authoritarian president who patently has no respect for Rule of Law and thinks he can pardon himself, who admires and loves brutal dictators and quasi-dictators, who's trying to screw and disrupt his own ally liberal democracies more than than his enemies. And believe it or not, with a fair dollop of party loyalty and (let's face it) right wing authoritarian mindset, most of his party have mobilised behind his mile-wide authoritarian streak.

So how did that work out for your country?

The kindest that can possibly be said is you were looking in mostly the wrong direction when worried about authoritarianism. That you're still principally raging against the opponents of the most patently authoritarian president to govern the country in decades suggests you probably don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Agema:

And now, so busy were busy were you complaining about stuff like subjects being taught in universities that there are actual neo-Nazis marching through city streets with your president permissively describing them as fine people. An authoritarian president who patently has no respect for Rule of Law and thinks he can pardon himself, who admires and loves brutal dictators and quasi-dictators, who's trying to screw and disrupt his own ally liberal democracies more than than his enemies. And believe it or not, with a fair dollop of party loyalty and (let's face it) right wing authoritarian mindset, most of his party have mobilised behind his mile-wide authoritarian streak.

So how did that work out for your country?

The kindest that can possibly be said is you were looking in mostly the wrong direction when worried about authoritarianism. That you're still principally raging against the opponents of the most patently authoritarian president to govern the country in decades suggests you probably don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

My President? Why would you assume he's my President? I've certainly never claimed that. I believe my indiscretions are limited to stating that I'm neither British nor Canadian, and that I didn't vote in the US election.

As for those actual neo-Nazis marching through city streets, there have always been some of those around. Let us gaze back through the mists of time to the year 1978, A.D.:

I guess that's what voting that fascist Jimmy Carter into office leads to... in Chicago too, not One Horse Junction, South Alabamy. Seriously though, if (and that's a bold "if") there has been an increase in "White" identity politics, that would be the entirely predictable result of the rise of Anti-White identity politics as a mainstream ideology. That would be the stuff that I've been so busy complaining about, and for a damn good reason. So, familiar as I am with Trump's foibles, I'm also relieved that the party that embraces this spiralling insanity lost. Trump may be a deeply authoritarian personality type, but he's not totalitarian. Some of the SocJus ideologues, on the other hand, definitely are. It's bad enough that they're all over education and the media without giving them keys to the Executive Branch.

StatusNil:
Seriously though, if (and that's a bold "if") there has been an increase in "White" identity politics, that would be the entirely predictable result of the rise of Anti-White identity politics as a mainstream ideology.

This is the reason why nobody listens to you anymore.

I don't want to make you feel bad, or anything. I do actually give a shit about you, insofar as I can give a shit about someone I've only ever spoken to over the Internet, and ultimately I want to get along with you. But I can't get along with you right now, and it's because of shit like this.

I just - look, I really just want you to stop and think about what you're saying. Maybe rethink the reasoning that led you to this point, and revise some of the conclusions you've apparently drawn. For example: that Hillary Clinton is a "totalitarian social justice ideologue." That white racism exists because of anti-white racism (?). That anti-white racism is a "mainstream ideology," and that it's "all over education and the media."

Because - and I have to be frank here - that is batshit crazy.

bastardofmelbourne:

StatusNil:
Seriously though, if (and that's a bold "if") there has been an increase in "White" identity politics, that would be the entirely predictable result of the rise of Anti-White identity politics as a mainstream ideology.

This is the reason why nobody listens to you anymore.

I don't want to make you feel bad, or anything. I just want you to stop and think about what you're saying. Maybe rethink the reasoning that led you to this point, and revise some of the conclusions you've apparently drawn.

For example: that Hillary Clinton is a "totalitarian social justice ideologue." That white racism exists because of anti-white racism (?). That anti-white racism is a "mainstream ideology," and that it's "all over education and the media."

Because - and I have to be frank here - that is batshit crazy.

If you're going to diagnose me, you should at least be a little more accurate about what I said.

StatusNil:
If you're going to diagnose me, you should at least be a little more accurate about what I said.

I revised my post slightly. Sorry, I do that sometimes; it confuses people when they're quoting the post as I'm editing it.

Anyway, this is what you said:

"Seriously though, if (and that's a bold "if") there has been an increase in "White" identity politics, that would be the entirely predictable result of the rise of Anti-White identity politics as a mainstream ideology."

"So, familiar as I am with Trump's foibles, I'm also relieved that the party that embraces this spiralling insanity lost."

"Trump may be a deeply authoritarian personality type, but he's not totalitarian. Some of the SocJus ideologues, on the other hand, definitely are."

"It's bad enough that they're all over education and the media without giving them keys to the Executive Branch."

What part did I misread?

StatusNil:
[...]the coalition that alienated me in quite offensive terms for trying to maintain some standards of reason and fairness. When can we expect the same effort from "yours", instead of the constant doubling down on the hate initiative?

As I've pointed out before, you direct near-constant denigration, personal insult and dehumanisation towards your political opponents. The rhetoric you employ is genuinely some of the worst here, from left or right.

This nonsense story about how "offensive" language has "alienated" you is the most transparent, rank hypocrisy. It beggars belief that you can expect anybody to take it seriously.

StatusNil:
Seriously though, if (and that's a bold "if") there has been an increase in "White" identity politics, that would be the entirely predictable result of the rise of Anti-White identity politics as a mainstream ideology.

If there's been an increase in white identity politics, that's the responsibility of people who believe in white identity politics - because, you know, taking responsibility for your own actions and all that. Saying "but he/she MADE me do / think / feel that" is basically the argument of children. And if there hasn't been an increase, I'd call that a tacit admission that groups like BLM, Antifa etc. kind of have a point.

Trump may be a deeply authoritarian personality type, but he's not totalitarian.

Equating social justice (or Clinton, or the Democrats) with totalitarianism is so plainly devoid of anything approaching proportionality, it's hard to even know where to start. That's one hell of a rabbit hole to have fallen down and got stuck in. It's such a warped view of what social justice advocates tend to believe in and work towards that it fails the most basic test of meeting reality.

The bread and butter of social justice is fair representation and active participation of all in the social, economic and political sphere. Do you seriously read the comments of more heavily social justice-minded people - like Evilthecat or Gethsemani on this forum - and see people who want micromanaged control of society, heavy state surveillance, propaganda campaigns, and subordination of the individual to the state? How have you managed to miss all that stuff they also say about democracy, free expression, individual choice, suspicion of state enforcement apparatus, or their criticisms of actual totalitarian regimes? It's right there in front of you, free to read, all the time.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here