Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?

Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.

1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.

2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.

I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Biden. There are a lot of us that supported Johnson that would readily have voted Biden.

thekingofkings has the right of it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

I think you are reaching, but I won't continue to White Knight for Whembley, who I know through my own experience can speak perfectly well for himself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So regarding the travel ban, Federal judge says no and stopped the order nationwide.

Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.

The actual ruling.

Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.

TX and AZ state has sued the Obama Whitehouse over their non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The SCOTUS threw out those cases simply stating that the states doesn't have standing, as the Constitution only refers the federal Congress and Executive the full authority of immigration.

This TRO will likely get thrown out for the same reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So regarding the travel ban, Federal judge says no and stopped the order nationwide.

Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.

The actual ruling.

Is there the possibility of the US government getting sued by people whose plans (holiday/new job etc.) were affected by the denial of visas?

Possible? Yep... happens all the time on the lower courts... will they prevail? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is handling the ruling gracefully as expected...

They're following the TRO, but loudly condemning it while appealing...

Unlike Obama's administration who refused the judge over the DACA cases... (and was held in contempt)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
I wonder if Trump has ever heard something about checks and balances or separation of powers.
I guess he wants to rule like a strongman.

If that were true... he wouldn't have nominated Gorsuch.

Justice Gorsuch luuuuuurrrrrrve the Separation of Powers and has jealously ruled in such fashion in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?

Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.

1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.

2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.

I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Biden. There are a lot of us that supported Johnson that would readily have voted Biden.

Perhaps. I remember how the Republicans viewed him in 2008, as a gaff-prone, salty bumbler with his foot constantly in his mouth. No matter how much respect he seems to have gained, I'm fairly confident that a month of solid mud-flinging by Fox and Breitbart would ring the old Pavlovian bells and produce the same results. We are talking about a party of people who fell in line for Donald Trump fairly quickly despite most of them having seen him as an unqualified joke of a candidate. At this point, I will openly assume that any Trump voter who pretends he would have voted for X (as long as X wasn't a real option) is just covering his shame and shifting blame.

Biden's faults are baked in... we all know this.

But, the one thing Biden does really well, is that he's an endearing figure.... probably moreso than George H.W. Bush. Yes, he'll gaffe here and there, but it'll largely be inured due to Drumpf's daily diarrhea and the fact that he'll pull in more of those 'missing Democrat' voters that didn't pull the lever for Clinton.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So regarding the travel ban, Federal judge says no and stopped the order nationwide.

Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.

The actual ruling.

Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.

TX and AZ state has sued the Obama Whitehouse over their non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The SCOTUS threw out those cases simply stating that the states doesn't have standing, as the Constitution only refers the federal Congress and Executive the full authority of immigration.

This TRO will likely get thrown out for the same reasons.

I'm unsure what you are saying here. Are you saying this ruling is going to be overturned, or the Executive Order?

 whembly wrote:
The actual ruling.
Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.

Not in detail (I suppose we'd need to read the States' argumentation for that) but basically, as far as I understand, the district Court agrees sufficiently with what the states have claimed so that it thinks a following suit would see the states likely to succeed. And in such a case; the the status quo should be upheld until that 'proper' suit can be settled.

On bottom of page 4 to top of page 5

Two-thirds of the order explains why the TRO is justified, and whembly says "it doesn't even go into the merits of why it's justified".

Color me surprised.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
This weeks summary of alternative facts:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513348780/fact-checking-this-week-in-the-trump-administration

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is handling the ruling gracefully as expected...

I think we've found our new post-fact-Obama meme.

"Trump is handling ruling gracefully as expected.."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So regarding the travel ban, Federal judge says no and stopped the order nationwide.

Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.

The actual ruling.

Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.

TX and AZ state has sued the Obama Whitehouse over their non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The SCOTUS threw out those cases simply stating that the states doesn't have standing, as the Constitution only refers the federal Congress and Executive the full authority of immigration.

This TRO will likely get thrown out for the same reasons.

I'm unsure what you are saying here. Are you saying this ruling is going to be overturned, or the Executive Order?

Ruling will be overturned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Two-thirds of the order explains why the TRO is justified, and whembly says "it doesn't even go into the merits of why it's justified".

Color me surprised.

He explains why but doesn't provide any legal merits/justification as to why the state has standing.

Standing: In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Page 4, Line 8 through Page 5, Line 9 has the judge explaining how he used two different standards to determine if the states had a valid case and explains how they met those standards.

Edit: I am not a legal person, and I'm not going to repeat any legal opinions from blogs or twitter posts I read to make any claims as to the validity of the claims made in this ruling. I'm just saying it seems like the Judge seems to think they had standing and it looks to me like he explained his decision. He might be wrong about it, but the explanation is in there.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.

If this is what Milo is doing or planning to do, I am certainly against it. I was not aware this kind of behavior was occurring or was being planned, as the case may be.

For what it's worth, I am a liberal, not a right-winger, but I admit there are many trends I observe coming from elements of the left that I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot get behind.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I agree. I have lived more than four decades and less than five and I have never experienced this kind of hatred between right and left.

Are you sure it's not just the internet blurring your perspective?

I'm at least willing to consider the possibility, but I have noticed a level of animosity among many of my own friends since the campaign and after Trumps victory that seems to me to be something new.

As far as political animosity goes, the Bush years were pretty bad at times, but what's going on now seems to me to be jacked up a level from what it was like then.

I should also note that the Obama years there was a ton of animosity coming from the right against liberals, Democrats, and especially Obama himself.

Maybe this has been slowly coming to a boil since the GW Bush days.

"The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employments, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders"

That's the summary basically, as far as I understand.

Some of the people adversely affected by the EO are residents of the States in question. Therefore the states have standing. According to the district court.

 jasper76 wrote:

One of my sincere hopes is that out of all this political turmoil, a new center will arise that actually represents the majority of Americans...one that abandons issues of yesteryear and focuses instead on our current common ground.

The common ground of which Americans? Suburban middle class? Californian techies? The precariat? And I don't think that centrism will ever represent the majority of people. It's an ideology that appeals to a small group of horse-trading politicos.

 jasper76 wrote:

This likely won't be a popular thing to say here, but here I go: If protests are staged too frequently, almost daily, which I suggest to you too is becoming the case, then protests won't be taken seriously, because they lose their shock value, and average workaday citizens who also have it hard will perceive them as mere whining.

"Average workaday citizens" meaning who exactly? The people who attend protests aren't some sort of pixie that can be summoned on a whim. They're flesh-and-blood humans who need an income and who have families, friends and homes. If things are so bad that cities are affected by protests every day then that means there is a widespread support for protests. The black bloc would be an integral part of protecting and directing these protests, too, so the lived experiences of millions of Americans would overcome old propaganda.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.

If this is what Milo is doing or planning to do, I am certainly against it. I was not aware this kind of behavior was occurring or was being planned, as the case may be.

For what it's worth, I am a liberal, not a right-winger, but I admit there are many trends I observe coming from elements of the left that I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot get behind.

There have always been radical left terrorists, though. And the moderate left has always denounced them or rolled their eyes at the antics. It sounds to me like you're letting certain media narratives dictate your feelings, along the lines of "why aren't the moderate Muslims denouncing these attacks? I mean more moderate Muslims than already have. This trend of rising Islamisism is really making me reconsider being friends with the moderate Muslims I know so well." It's really hard for me to see where you're coming from when you group an entire half of the political spectrum together and judge it by the actions of a dozen donkey-caves who might not even be a part of that spectrum.

 Ahtman wrote:
Phone calls leaked from Trump arguing with Australia/Mexico

Apparently alliances with the two are on really rocky ground after Trump threatened them but the real issue is that someone leaked them. Sending our guys in the military to Mexico is just fine and dandy but someone letting people know that threatening to go in there militarily is what is wrong. Don't worry though Trump let evangelicals know everything is super awesome and not to worry about it. I wouldn't worry as we don't need to be allies with Australia or Mexico when we have Russia to give us a little something something.

Like I said in the last thread, there's always someone willing to talk to the press.

Plus Trump is giving them extra motivation. No one wants this administration to be the end of their careers. There will be people seeking "paper trails" of their "conscience" if only as a just in case measure.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

One of my sincere hopes is that out of all this political turmoil, a new center will arise that actually represents the majority of Americans...one that abandons issues of yesteryear and focuses instead on our current common ground.

The common ground of which Americans? Suburban middle class? Californian techies? The precariat? And I don't think that centrism will ever represent the majority of people. It's an ideology that appeals to a small group of horse-trading politicos.

 jasper76 wrote:

This likely won't be a popular thing to say here, but here I go: If protests are staged too frequently, almost daily, which I suggest to you too is becoming the case, then protests won't be taken seriously, because they lose their shock value, and average workaday citizens who also have it hard will perceive them as mere whining.

"Average workaday citizens" meaning who exactly? The people who attend protests aren't some sort of pixie that can be summoned on a whim. They're flesh-and-blood humans who need an income and who have families, friends and homes. If things are so bad that cities are affected by protests every day then that means there is a widespread support for protests. The black bloc would be an integral part of protecting and directing these protests, too, so the lived experiences of millions of Americans would overcome old propaganda.

Regarding common ground, I mean common ground of all Americans. Regarding centrism, perhaps your right that they will never represent the majority of Americans, which I think is a shame, and I'm aloud to hope.

Regarding "average workaday citizens", perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to suggest that protestors were not human beings, as well. I guess what I meant was people who do about their daily lives and do not involve themselves in protests. My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.

I was trying to come up with an explanation for an assertion a poster made that many Americans are dismissive of protests in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.

If this is what Milo is doing or planning to do, I am certainly against it. I was not aware this kind of behavior was occurring or was being planned, as the case may be.

For what it's worth, I am a liberal, not a right-winger, but I admit there are many trends I observe coming from elements of the left that I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot get behind.

There have always been radical left terrorists, though. And the moderate left has always denounced them or rolled their eyes at the antics. It sounds to me like you're letting certain media narratives dictate your feelings, along the lines of "why aren't the moderate Muslims denouncing these attacks? I mean more moderate Muslims than already have. This trend of rising Islamisism is really making me reconsider being friends with the moderate Muslims I know so well." It's really hard for me to see where you're coming from when you group an entire half of the political spectrum together and judge it by the actions of a dozen donkey-caves who might not even be a part of that spectrum.

I have already conceded the point that I was painting with too broad of a brush. I'll try and be careful not to do so going forward. I thought this is exactly what I was doing with how I phrased my last sentence in the quote.

Certainly many Americans are dismissive of protests, because they've been able to live outside of the need to protest. They haven't had a reason to have first-hand experiences that contradict the conventional wisdom.

OWS was notable for this. A lot of white liberals, who previously had no reason to think of the police as anything other than sworn to serve and protect, got these notions beaten out of them by cops.

 jasper76 wrote:

Regarding common ground, I mean common ground of all Americans. Regarding centrism, perhaps your right that they will never represent the majority of Americans, which I think is a shame, and I'm aloud to hope.

Finding common ground is plain good organising because if you want to be able to do anything relevant you must ask yourself who your friends are. There is strength in numbers. But you must also ask yourself who your enemies are. There are some people that you can never find common ground with because their goals are opposed to yours. Uber drivers will not find common ground with Uber owners. There are many kinds of Americans and not all of them can trust each other.

 jasper76 wrote:

Regarding "average workaday citizens", perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to suggest that protestors were not human beings, as well. I guess what I meant was people who do about their daily lives and do not involve themselves in protests. My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.

I just wanted to point out that "protesters" and "regular people" aren't mutually exclusive groups. I see that kind of rhetoric a lot when dismissing direct action, a common thing to do is call them professional protesters paid by Soros, and that kind of thing is just meant to be misleading. It's true that a particular kind of event that is repeated time and time again becomes normal. Anti-abortion protests are an example of this. But I think that's true only up to a certain point. Things could reach the level where the people who don't care to get involved and don't know someone who is involved are such a small group that it isn't worth considering. How things have been is not going to be a good guide for how things will be, or perhaps it's better to say how things may be because it's impossible to be certain.

@Rose buddy: with your example of Uber drivers and Uber owners, they are both in it to make money. There is a quick example of common ground.

I think there is a general problem with branding opponents as enemies, that is a loaded term...but this is probably just a matter of semantics.

Regarding protests, for my part, I can imagine several hypothetical situstions that might lead me to feel the need to protest and protest frequently. But it's true that many people are dismissive of protests, and I suggest it's because they are occurring too frequently.

Modern political protestors should be careful in case they turn into your example given of pro-life protestors. People may just tune out to the messages they are trying to get across.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Rose buddy: with your example of Uber drivers and Uber owners, they are both in it to make money. There is a quick example of common ground.

That's a shallow look at it, however. The driver and the owner don't make the same kind of money in the same way. They don't really work together. The driver has to sell their labour while the owner sells the driver to investors. The incentives aren't the same, either. Uber doesn't even make money from the actual service they provide, they get money from wealthy people who want to support a way to get around taxi regulations. That has been the major legal battles for the company.

 jasper76 wrote:

Regarding protests, for my part, I can imagine several hypothetical situstions that might lead me to feel the need to protest and protest frequently. But it's true that many people are dismissive of protests, and I suggest it's because they are occurring too frequently.

Modern political protestors should be careful in case they turn into your example given of pro-life protestors. People may just tune out to the messages they are trying to get across.

If there is one thing that the current protesters have over the people who want to ban abortion it's that some messages can't be ignored. People won't get tired of "feth Trump" when the Trump administration is actively working to make a lot of peoples' lives worse.

@Rose buddy, I wasn't trying to imply that commonnground extends everywhere, only that there is common ground to be had, even if it's at a basic level, likr Uber owners want to make money, and Uber drivers want to make money.

To the extent, real or imagined, that the Trump administration is trying to make people's lives worse, then people who are affected likely will not get sick of the Dump Trump type protests. I'm not sure that frequency of protests does much to change the minds of people who are Trump supporters though. If you can try and put yourself in their minds for a sec, many of them probably think that due to the frequency of protests, the protestors are willing to protest anything at all that the Trump admin does if they are seeing protests daily. There's probably an argument to be made that this will actually push them even further into their support for Trump.

Having said that, I do understand that protests also do serve a purpose for networking, organizing etc with like-minded people, so they serve another purpose beyond trying to change people's minds.

On a related note, one thing I've seen alot of video of is people using blockade type tactics to try and stop people going to work, or students going to class....stuff like that. Not sure how widespread this behavior is. This is definitely counter-productive, and almost certain to push their opponents even further into their views and create animosity towards the protestors and their causes. I think this is a supremely unwise persuasive tactic. I know we weren't really talking about protest methods, but I thought I'd bring it up.

The stuff where people block transit gets everyone irked very quickly and isn't usually what most protestors are out to do. Again, looking at the people in Portland doing things like blocking MAX trains and the like, few people were sympathetic and it was largely the same type of people looking for an excuse to be jerkwads just for its own sake, and that's where a majority of the police intervention occurred, often accompanied by clapping from everyone else.

There's a time and place for protests like that, but they need to be big, organized, and known events, and such worked during the civil rights protests of the 50's and 60's, but small groups of people deciding to just block a commuter rail line with people trying to get home from work as a spur-of-the-moment thing just pisses people off.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Rose buddy, I wasn't trying to imply that commonnground extends everywhere, only that there is common ground to be had, even if it's at a basic level, likr Uber owners want to make money, and Uber drivers want to make money.

To the extent, real or imagined, that the Trump administration is trying to make people's lives worse, then people who are affected likely will not get sick of the Dump Trump type protests. I'm not sure that frequency of protests does much to change the minds of people who are Trump supporters though. If you can try and put yourself in their minds for a sec, many of them probably think that due to the frequency of protests, the protestors are willing to protest anything at all that the Trump admin does if they are seeing protests daily. There's probably an argument to be made that this will actually push them even further into their support for Trump.

If someone's that tuned out to what other people are saying, then there's really no good way to change their mind, and the protest isn't for them. It's like arguing politics in this thread; you don't do it to try and persuade whoever you're arguing with, you try and lay out reasonable points for the silent lurkers.

 jasper76 wrote:
My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.

Or they make the atmosphere feel like there is a revolution/insurrection brewing slowly…

Prime Minister of Norway? In my Airport, you're Prime Minister of nothing, maggot.. I can see why the South Park guys think they can't compete with the real deal.

 jasper76 wrote:
My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.

I'll just add this point that often gets overlooked: Protests are not the first choice, people usually don't just start one for the fun of standing in the cold or getting beaten up by police. A protest is usually what happens when other options have been exhausted. And the same goes for large scale riots when people feel like things are really bad. and this is often an emotional release and venting happens in destructive ways. White people can even riot for the smallest things like when their favourite sports team loses (or wins, it doesn't even matter) without any long term consequences for all white people. I've yet to see the police preventively attack large-ish groups of white people with team jerseys and face paint to disperse them and prevent riots :/

The colleges where Milo Y. was to appear have been petitioned to not invite him because he's outing people. But "free speech" in the abstract was important than the chilling effect (colloquially speaking, not in a legal context) his type of incitement has on minorities who then self-censor (to use a term free speech absolutists like). But the people in power who make these decision don't even register that Milo Y.'s speech restricts other speech (or they are ignoring it and willing to throw their own students under the bus). The protests were the last resort, not the first and best option.

The same goes for revolutions against the government, people feel like they have nothing to lose anymore. Imagine possibly dying for the greater good being a better option than living in the status quo. Can you imagine people complaining about how violent the American Revolution was, how wrong and aggressive it was, and saying stuff like "how could they destroy the tea, that's private property and won't solve anything", "they should have petitioned George III" or "they will only make him stronger and give him attention"?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Prime Minister of Norway? In my Airport, you're Prime Minister of nothing, maggot.. I can see why the South Park guys think they can't compete with the real deal.

That article doesn't capture the entire issue either. He was travelling on a diplomatic passport, making this a case of violating diplomatic immunity.

All that drama and his ultimate destination was the Prayer Breakfast. That's just rough. Like, worse than the time I camped out for ten hours to see a Star Wars prequel.

So, I heard about this on the radio on my drive home. There is a rumor that Trump will be enforcing a little known part of legal immigration law. Most legal immigrants need a sponsor here in the US. When they sponsor an immigrant they vow to be financially responsible for them, however this provision has never really been enforced. If it does get enforced it means that if an immigrant cant pay for parking tickets, runs up a hospital bill, has to pay fines he can't afford, or defaults on his credit card the sponsor is financially liable, just like he said he would be.

Source on the law, or at least the name of the radio show?

 d-usa wrote:
Source on the law, or at least the name of the radio show?

"Affidavit of Support"?


https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/affidavit-support

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Source on the law, or at least the name of the radio show?

"Affidavit of Support"?


https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/affidavit-support

That's just the paperwork to become a sponsor.

And if you google the law that is referred to on that page, then you get this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/213a.2

Which talks about the cases that require a sponsor, which seems to be limited to someone that may become a burden, and doesn't seem to indicate that every single immigrant for any reason requires a sponsor. Sponsorship specifically seems to be limited to people bringing in their family members or employers bringing in workers. It specifically excludes people filing a visa on their own behalf.

My guess is that "heard on the radio" likely means right-wing talk radio, and if it's Hannity I wouldn't have wasted the 5 minutes on Google.

So, what - Trump found that dealing with the illegal and soon-to-be-legal immigrants was to hard, so now he wants to go after legal immigrants?

Past the necessary amounts of salt for daytime radio, isn't this breaking with his campaign promise to go after illegal immigrants?

 infinite_array wrote:
So, what - Trump found that dealing with the illegal and soon-to-be-legal immigrants was to hard, so now he wants to go after legal immigrants?

Past the necessary amounts of salt for daytime radio, isn't this breaking with his campaign promise to go after illegal immigrants?

To his supporters, is there a difference? Or would they even care?

I mean this is Trump we are talking about.