If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?
Exactly. He'd have dealt better with the situation.
There is already at least 1 legal case that argues it is unconstitutional
No Executive order can override laws passed by Congress. Since Green card is issued based on US Federal law, any ban on them is unconstitutional.
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.
pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
This is week one. This ban will be clarified, Trump will back-peddle, say it was all misinterpreted, and we'll move on. Then something else will happen and then something else and then something else. And each time we'll see that photo of Trump and May hand in hand.
This is where the media keep making the same mistake. They have got right at this, total outrage, when there is still elements which aren't clear. Then when Trump "clarifies" he is able to claim fake news media.
We know they have to deal with the lying and slippery moves / backtracking etc, but they have already been caught this week on the wrong end of the "mass resignation" story.
I wasn't following, what wasn't true in the resignation story?
The claim was the entire senior management resigned because of trump and had gone that day and that has never happened before. This was a Washington post story which was the repeated unchecked all over the place.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.
@justinamash: 1/ Like Pres. Obama's executive actions on immigration, Pres. Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.
@justinamash: 2/ It's not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.
This is week one. This ban will be clarified, Trump will back-peddle, say it was all misinterpreted, and we'll move on. Then something else will happen and then something else and then something else. And each time we'll see that photo of Trump and May hand in hand.
This is where the media keep making the same mistake. They have got right at this, total outrage, when there is still elements which aren't clear. Then when Trump "clarifies" he is able to claim fake news media.
We know they have to deal with the lying and slippery moves / backtracking etc, but they have already been caught this week on the wrong end of the "mass resignation" story.
I wasn't following, what wasn't true in the resignation story?
The claim was the entire senior management resigned because of trump and had gone that day and that has never happened before. This was a Washington post story which was the repeated unchecked all over the place.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.
Fake news indeed! I think I read a bit about it on the telegraph, but that's gone so far down the crapper these days that it's no surprise they covered it.
It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
This is an impossible situation for May. Charging in and meeting Trump so quickly whilst he is in the middle of all these announcements is going to be looked back on as a terrible mistake.
There is already at least 1 legal case that argues it is unconstitutional
No Executive order can override laws passed by Congress. Since Green card is issued based on US Federal law, any ban on them is unconstitutional.
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.
pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.
An executive order is always an interpretation of the law. This interpretation is clearly unlawful. It will be defeated in the courts.
There is already at least 1 legal case that argues it is unconstitutional
No Executive order can override laws passed by Congress. Since Green card is issued based on US Federal law, any ban on them is unconstitutional.
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.
pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.
An executive order is always an interpretation of the law. This inpetation is clearly unlawful. It will be defeated in the courts.
This is week one. This ban will be clarified, Trump will back-peddle, say it was all misinterpreted, and we'll move on. Then something else will happen and then something else and then something else. And each time we'll see that photo of Trump and May hand in hand.
This is where the media keep making the same mistake. They have got right at this, total outrage, when there is still elements which aren't clear. Then when Trump "clarifies" he is able to claim fake news media.
We know they have to deal with the lying and slippery moves / backtracking etc, but they have already been caught this week on the wrong end of the "mass resignation" story.
I wasn't following, what wasn't true in the resignation story?
The claim was the entire senior management resigned because of trump and had gone that day and that has never happened before. This was a Washington post story which was the repeated unchecked all over the place.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.
Fake news indeed! I think I read a bit about it on the telegraph, but that's gone so far down the crapper these days that it's no surprise they covered it.
Again there is a bit of a story, normally an administration doesn't accept 4 super senior officials resignations and it is probably that having worked for obama for 8 years that they didn't fancy working for trump anyway...but they were so desperate to run outrage story they didn't nail.down the facts, overstated the real scenario, had no insider quotes etc etc etc .
If they gave it a few weeks they probably could have got something more concrete.
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.
Yeah, that is particularly bad. There is even an exemption for it in the order
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.
Yeah, that is particularly bad. There is even an exemption for it in the order
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?
Yeah No 10 would be very wise to actually say something on this issue, Even if it is to disagree with Trump, which May said she would do in public if necessary. Doubly so if British citizens without any other nationality are being banned.
It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.
It's always been a heavily Right leaning site - in recent years though the loons have drowned out the voices of sensible conservatives.
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
Not rushed to visit the White House so quickly.
Give it a rest
Can someone rescue Big_G's tongue last seen disappearing on the White House steps....
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
Not rushed to visit the White House so quickly.
Give it a rest
Can someone rescue Big_G's tongue last seen disappearing on the White House steps....
@benrileysmith: Number 10, Home Office and Foreign Office declining to comment on Trump ban impacting Brits. Uh oh.
Shame on this weak Prime Minister when echoes of the 1930's are clearly audible.
You have to go back several decades to find a weaker Tory PM than Theresa May. She capitulated to the Tory Right within weeks of coming to power then brown-nosed a bigoted moron in the White House soon after. Sir John Major and David Cameron look like lionhearts compared to her.
Only Corbyn is keeping her from being in deep trouble. Her support is a mile wide, and a millimetre deep.
You only have to go back 8 months to find a weaker Tory PM than May.
Lots of Labour MPs tweeting in support of Nadhim Zahawi, and Tory MPs against Trump
If May doesn't get her act together her approval ratings are in trouble
If Theresa is damaged by this, then all the blame will have to be laid at Farage's door. He spooked Theresa into this who-can-meet-Trump-first contest with that silliness in the lift. They should have let Trump bed in for a few months so everyone could acclimatise to him. Instead Theresa is looking like a Trump courtier. She is in danger of losing her reputation for cool detachment.
A lot can be traced back to Farage but A Prime Minister should be strong enough and wise enough to see the writing on the wall. It's not like she didn't have Tony's template to know what not to do when you have a crackpot in the White House.....and this one's worse
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
Agree. Observant Jews tend not to intermarry but are well integrated.
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.
Yeah, that is particularly bad. There is even an exemption for it in the order
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
So why was the Yazidi woman stopped. Her husband is in the US and was an US Army interpreter.
There is already at least 1 legal case that argues it is unconstitutional
No Executive order can override laws passed by Congress. Since Green card is issued based on US Federal law, any ban on them is unconstitutional.
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.
pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.
An executive order is always an interpretation of the law. This interpretation is clearly unlawful. It will be defeated in the courts.
Bear in mind that a previous Executive Order signed by FDR (who signed more than 3500 of the things) ordered the imprisonment in camps of tens of thousands of US citizens simply because of ancestry. Trump is unfortunately following in some pretty awful footsteps. That is not to excuse him, just to point out the EOs are a rather evil way of making law.
(That said Truman used EOs to ban race discrimination of any form in the military and Federal organisations so they can do some good)
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?
Yeah No 10 would be very wise to actually say something on this issue, Even if it is to disagree with Trump, which May said she would do in public if necessary. Doubly so if British citizens without any other nationality are being banned.
It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.
It's always been a heavily Right leaning site - in recent years though the loons have drowned out the voices of sensible conservatives.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
Agree. Observant Jews tend not to intermarry but are well integrated.
Extreme case I know, but could we have a thread on how we might integrate the PB Trumpton Arselicker Loonies into civilised society? Is there much intermarriage in that section of the community?
@benrileysmith: Number 10, Home Office and Foreign Office declining to comment on Trump ban impacting Brits. Uh oh.
Shame on this weak Prime Minister when echoes of the 1930's are clearly audible.
You have to go back several decades to find a weaker Tory PM than Theresa May. She capitulated to the Tory Right within weeks of coming to power then brown-nosed a bigoted moron in the White House soon after. Sir John Major and David Cameron look like lionhearts compared to her.
Only Corbyn is keeping her from being in deep trouble. Her support is a mile wide, and a millimetre deep.
You only have to go back 8 months to find a weaker Tory PM than May.
Would that be the same Tory Pm who said that any ban on Muslim immigrants would be divisive stupid and wrong? I believe that was just after he won the Tory party their first majority since 1992 and just before he kept his promise to hold a referendum where he got shafted by the less cerebral members of his party.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
What a stagnant world it must be, inside your little head. Do you ever post about anything else?
@benrileysmith: Number 10, Home Office and Foreign Office declining to comment on Trump ban impacting Brits. Uh oh.
Shame on this weak Prime Minister when echoes of the 1930's are clearly audible.
You have to go back several decades to find a weaker Tory PM than Theresa May. She capitulated to the Tory Right within weeks of coming to power then brown-nosed a bigoted moron in the White House soon after. Sir John Major and David Cameron look like lionhearts compared to her.
Only Corbyn is keeping her from being in deep trouble. Her support is a mile wide, and a millimetre deep.
You only have to go back 8 months to find a weaker Tory PM than May.
Would that be the same Tory Pm who said that any ban on Muslim immigrants would be divisive stupid and wrong? I believe that was just after he won the Tory party their first majority since 1992 and just before he kept his promise to hold a referendum where he got shafted by the less cerebral members of his party.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
What a stagnant world it must be, inside your little head. Do you ever post about anything else?
I post a lot about betting, I throw in a few jibes at your expense... what more do you want?
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
I'm disagreeing with your use of interracial marriage as a litmus test for integration. I outlined why I disagreed with this in my post to you. I don't seriously believe that Afro-Carribean women for example, are less integrated than their male counterparts because they are less involved in interracial relationships. @dixiedean makes a good point on Observant Jews, for example.
I don't think that all groups are equally well integrated. But in terms of integration, I'd measure it by how much a group participates within our society.
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
What a stagnant world it must be, inside your little head. Do you ever post about anything else?
I post a lot about betting, I throw in a few jibes at your expense... what more do you want?
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad health
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.
many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up about
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
I'm disagreeing with your use of interracial marriage as a litmus test for integration. I outlined why I disagreed with this in my post to you. I don't seriously believe that Afro-Carribean women for example, are less integrated than their male counterparts because they inter-marry less. @dixiedean makes a good point on Observant Jews, for example.
I don't think that all groups are equally well integrated. But in terms of integration, I'd measure it by how much a group participates within our society.
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
@RidgeOnSunday: Tory MP and Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee @crispinbluntmp will be in the studio to talk Trump and our special relationship #Ridge pic.twitter.com/SxKcRHjZAV
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?
Are any of the protestors saying vote Democrat? (But if more people had, Trump wouldn't be in office.)
PS My guess is that that woman with the banner saying "Jews welcome refugees" is absolutely not a Zionist. Good on you, girl!
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?
Are any of the protestors saying vote Democrat? (But if more people had, Trump wouldn't be in office.)
@bbclaurak: Corbyn-'May should have stood up for Britain and our values by condemning his actions. It should sadden our country that she chose not to'
Corbyn's consistent opposition to American policies was one of the things that made him look fringey. Trump is succeeding in making such sentiments maintstream.
I've not been a knee-jerk Trump-hater, since i see him as a populist who likes being cheered more than a serious racist reactionary. But I think we're seeing a fairly clear pattern. Where he can score points and satisfy his base by taking actions that may not achieve much but look good, he's ready to do them regardless of criticism and without too much concern for legal and treaty constaints.
What we don't yet know is how he'll handle more complex issues, such as what (if anything) he'll have to replace Obamacare and how smoothly he'll have the transition to it. Will he do careful, detailed policy as well as shooting pronouncements from the hip?
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?
Much as I hate to interrupt the discussion of the migration criteria imposed by another country on itself, may I ask the PB Brains Trust about something more pressing? Specifically, movements in USD/GBP over the next week. I purchased some USD at £1=$1.21 prior to May's outline of Brexit approach. This was in the expectation of GBP going south. But that did not happen and a few days later, Trump was inaugurated and USD started going down at the rate of about 2-2.5 cents per week. It's currently at £1=$1.255.
The consensus was that USD would increase throughout the year. Republican presidents usually have a honeymoon period in which USD increases, there are rumours of a rise in US interest rates later in the year, and there's Article 50 in March. So I though USD was a slam dunk. But Trump is a RINO and his remarks and actions are frightening the markets, who prefer calm pursuit of profit to all this shouting and ideological gubbins.
So I'm wondering: will USD continue to drift south? Is Brexit baked in and Trump now the New Abnormal? Anybody got any thoughts?
The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?
Dangerously close to a Godwin although admittedly Trumper makes it hard to avoid at times
Apparently Godwin himself thinks Trump is fair game.
From December 2015
"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?
I had not heard that one before but the Democratic party was closely tied to the Confederate cause after the Civil War.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Comments
pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.
@justinamash: 1/ Like Pres. Obama's executive actions on immigration, Pres. Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.
@justinamash: 2/ It's not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.
If they gave it a few weeks they probably could have got something more concrete.
Regarding other posts, I don't think the ban (though obnoxious) is unconstitutional per se. What is blatantly unconstitutional is the detention of travellers with valid visa documents as a result of the ban:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_has_suspended_due_process_for_muslims.html
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
Poor Theresa. It was all going so well.
Circa 2007 was fairly clearly left-leaning.
(That said Truman used EOs to ban race discrimination of any form in the military and Federal organisations so they can do some good)
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
No, OGH has only bad news for Trump.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/825473554984665089
Ummm
I don't think that all groups are equally well integrated. But in terms of integration, I'd measure it by how much a group participates within our society.
@RidgeOnSunday: Tory MP and Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee @crispinbluntmp will be in the studio to talk Trump and our special relationship #Ridge pic.twitter.com/SxKcRHjZAV
PS My guess is that that woman with the banner saying "Jews welcome refugees" is absolutely not a Zionist. Good on you, girl!
I've not been a knee-jerk Trump-hater, since i see him as a populist who likes being cheered more than a serious racist reactionary. But I think we're seeing a fairly clear pattern. Where he can score points and satisfy his base by taking actions that may not achieve much but look good, he's ready to do them regardless of criticism and without too much concern for legal and treaty constaints.
What we don't yet know is how he'll handle more complex issues, such as what (if anything) he'll have to replace Obamacare and how smoothly he'll have the transition to it. Will he do careful, detailed policy as well as shooting pronouncements from the hip?
Yes, let's have a poll...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
The consensus was that USD would increase throughout the year. Republican presidents usually have a honeymoon period in which USD increases, there are rumours of a rise in US interest rates later in the year, and there's Article 50 in March. So I though USD was a slam dunk. But Trump is a RINO and his remarks and actions are frightening the markets, who prefer calm pursuit of profit to all this shouting and ideological gubbins.
So I'm wondering: will USD continue to drift south? Is Brexit baked in and Trump now the New Abnormal? Anybody got any thoughts?
From December 2015
"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."
Whether those figures survive prolonged contact with reality though...
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Seriously?