The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
amlove21 said:
Strictly from the 9/11 attack, 15 hijackers were Saudi's, 2 from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon.

This is a major problem I have with this ban- you can ban the countries all you'd like, it's not state sponsored terrorism. The attacks aren't carried out in the name of Iran, Sudan, Yemen or Iraq.

Pres Trump says that it's not a Muslim ban. Ok, I can only believe what he says. So why no Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emerites added to that list? Omar Mateen didn't come here from Iraq, he was born in New York- so how does the immigration ban actually effect terrorist attacks again?
Click to expand...
I agree with your post, with a caveat-
The 7 countries mentioned have a pretty dense population of undesirables. Enacting a blanket ban may free up some resources which can be diverted to processing applications coming from countries where vetting is more realistic.
 
Etype said:
I agree with your post, with a caveat-
The 7 countries mentioned have a pretty dense population of undesirables. Enacting a blanket ban may free up some resources which can be diverted to processing applications coming from countries where vetting is more realistic.
Click to expand...
Which countries would you focus on with our 90 day surge of resources- I assume it's a country where we have a diplomatic presence as you've stated before?
 
amlove21 said:
Which countries would you focus on with our 90 day surge of resources- I assume it's a country where we have a diplomatic presence as you've stated before?
Click to expand...
No idea, I'd be in over my head.
 
Dienekes said:
In my international political economy class, we went over the concept of embedded liberalism put forth by John Ruggie in 1992. While it mainly concerns continuity of the liberal economic order and norm-governed change, the most interesting concept to me had to deal with the denouncing of the neoliberal economic order. He claimed that international trade disrupts domestic stability in the short term due to the losers of trade, and the faster globalization and liberalized trade is pushed, the more domestic stability is disrupted. The natural inclination of domestic societies in response to this disruption is push-back against the liberal international regime in the form of protectionism or nationalism which only continues to be exacerbated through expanded globalization. Given this, he suggests gradual increases in globalization and liberalized trade so as to minimize the domestic disruptions with time rather than having them compound in a short time frame. We read this about a month after the election when everyone was trying to determine how things went so wrong for Trump to win, and I was like "Holy shit this is it."

His paper is a really, really great read about the evolution of the international monetary system, post WWII international regime, and hegemony. The domestic stability stuff is in the last 1/3.

Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order- John Ruggie
Click to expand...

That's interesting - although frankly a little dense. I can't say that's the type of non-fiction reading I've done much of since graduate school. It struck me Ruggie would have been a proponent of the EU expansion post cold war, yet I've read much of Europe's inability to deal effectively with the economic and refugee crises stemmed from precisely the lack of economic options EU membership left them. I'm thinking specifically about the ability to adjust your national currency and being able to adjust domestic immigration policies without abrogating international trade agreements. I'll be straight though - economic theory and policy is not my strong suit. I tend to rely on what I glean from experts writing about it - I won't claim a deep understanding myself.

I was thinking when I posted earlier more of Joseph Stiglitz and 'Globalization and it's Discontents.' His argument, if I remember correctly, was that globalization caused massive social and economic upheaval at the lowest levels of society. The shift from agrarian to industrial economies in the modern era did raise people out of poverty, but simultaneously broke down well established social norms, put workers in relatively better - but still very difficult economic conditions, and vastly advantaged the upper class and corporations over the lower end of the economic spectrum. Basically, globalization destroys culture, promises economic progress, but delivers diminishing returns to lower-classes while vastly increasing/creating wealth for the upper classes.

But, it seems like the harshest reaction we're seeing is not so much from those in poverty, but from those in the middle class - especially those in the manufacturing or working class strata over those working in the information economy. But, in a way it boils down to the same argument. 'You big-brained experts kept promising me the working man a better life, but it seems like my life is staying about the same, I am anxious it is going to get a lot worse, and you brainiacs and fat-cats keep getting richer while my future hangs in the wind. To add insult to injury the unwashed hordes are coming across the border, they all want to murder me - or at least take my job - and you give me some technocratic song-and-dance with a little bit of holier-than-though morality sprinkled in. Why shouldn't I turn to someone who may do a bunch of fucked up stuff but clearly isn't tied to all of your bullshit. If he/they can't fix it maybe they'll just burn it down. Of course you elites are sweating your future now - welcome to my world of the last 10-20 years. '
 
As I posted months and months ago, I don't understand passing new laws until we start enforcing the existing laws. I totally support a temp ban on the ME countries listed, but how can we seriously propose long term fix actions when we don't enforce what's currently on the books? How do we explain to those who did the right thing and immigrated legally that it's okay for illegal immigrants to stay and get a pass?
 
Il Duce said:
I was thinking when I posted earlier more of Joseph Stiglitz and 'Globalization and it's Discontents.' His argument, if I remember correctly, was that globalization caused massive social and economic upheaval at the lowest levels of society. The shift from agrarian to industrial economies in the modern era did raise people out of poverty, but simultaneously broke down well established social norms, put workers in relatively better - but still very difficult economic conditions, and vastly advantaged the upper class and corporations over the lower end of the economic spectrum. Basically, globalization destroys culture, promises economic progress, but delivers diminishing returns to lower-classes while vastly increasing/creating wealth for the upper classes.
Click to expand...

I'll have to Google that paper. I'd say from your explanation of Stiglitz that Ruggie really just makes the broad claim of domestic instability through increased globalization while Stiglitz provides the details. In a way they seem to complement each other in that Stiglitz seems find the trees in Ruggie's forest. And I agree, Ruggie is stupid dense.

Il Duce said:
But, it seems like the harshest reaction we're seeing is not so much from those in poverty, but from those in the middle class - especially those in the manufacturing or working class strata over those working in the information economy. But, in a way it boils down to the same argument. 'You big-brained experts kept promising me the working man a better life, but it seems like my life is staying about the same, I am anxious it is going to get a lot worse, and you brainiacs and fat-cats keep getting richer while my future hangs in the wind. To add insult to injury the unwashed hordes are coming across the border, they all want to murder me - or at least take my job - and you give me some technocratic song-and-dance with a little bit of holier-than-though morality sprinkled in. Why shouldn't I turn to someone who may do a bunch of fucked up stuff but clearly isn't tied to all of your bullshit. If he/they can't fix it maybe they'll just burn it down. Of course you elites are sweating your future now - welcome to my world of the last 10-20 years. '
Click to expand...

I really like your explanation. I'd say the effect that the move from the industrial age to the information age is affecting the middle class similar to how the transition from the agrarian age to the industrial age affected the lower class as the move to the information age has placed industrial age winners into the line of fire as losers from globalization. What used to be regarded as high-skilled labor is less so now given the rise of technology, yet the returns from trade still benefit the "higher-skilled" a la Stolper-Samuelson theorem. Low-skilled labor is falling increasingly by the wayside while what I'll call medium-skilled labor (predominantly manufacturing and on-the-floor workers) is fighting to maintain relevancy. Sure, a rising tide raises all boats, but if you're rocking Huck Finn's raft or a 35 Johnson, you're gonna have trouble going upstream on a strong river.

I think both articles still point to the problem of the neoliberal international economic order. Forcing free trade and globalization as fast as you can has proven problems and pushback in the face of those problems. This is evident in the recent presidential election and Brexit for advanced-industrialized countries. For the developing countries we have the WTO's Doha Round pushback from the developing countries and proof everywhere of the failure of IMF structural adjustment loans to stimulate economic growth in developing countries. I predict that we will see global pushback from the developing countries with regards to the current international economic regime and increased protectionism from them as the neoliberal economic order is rolled back past equilibrium* toward relative isolationism from the West or international markets. Trump will have a serious problem within the next five years to a decade as developing nations close their markets to protect infant industries and rejecting IMF loans with China sweeping in to extend its influence as a creditor to these nations which will not only affect US export potential but increased costs to consumers will follow. I know we were talking about angry US voters, but in my view, the anger of those voters can find its origins in rapid globalization and the 30-40 years of neoliberal international economics, and that anger can be found worldwide.

*Equilibrium as I see it regarding international trade would be a balance of trade that invokes gradual movements toward globalization to minimize domestic instability and therefore increasingly liberalizing trade overtime as Ruggie suggests.
 
Dienekes said:
I'll have to Google that paper. I'd say from your explanation of Stiglitz that Ruggie really just makes the broad claim of domestic instability through increased globalization while Stiglitz provides the details. In a way they seem to complement each other in that Stiglitz seems find the trees in Ruggie's forest. And I agree, Ruggie is stupid dense.



I really like your explanation. I'd say the effect that the move from the industrial age to the information age is affecting the middle class similar to how the transition from the agrarian age to the industrial age affected the lower class as the move to the information age has placed industrial age winners into the line of fire as losers from globalization. What used to be regarded as high-skilled labor is less so now given the rise of technology, yet the returns from trade still benefit the "higher-skilled" a la Stolper-Samuelson theorem. Low-skilled labor is falling increasingly by the wayside while what I'll call medium-skilled labor (predominantly manufacturing and on-the-floor workers) is fighting to maintain relevancy. Sure, a rising tide raises all boats, but if you're rocking Huck Finn's raft or a 35 Johnson, you're gonna have trouble going upstream on a strong river.

I think both articles still point to the problem of the neoliberal international economic order. Forcing free trade and globalization as fast as you can has proven problems and pushback in the face of those problems. This is evident in the recent presidential election and Brexit for advanced-industrialized countries. For the developing countries we have the WTO's Doha Round pushback from the developing countries and proof everywhere of the failure of IMF structural adjustment loans to stimulate economic growth in developing countries. I predict that we will see global pushback from the developing countries with regards to the current international economic regime and increased protectionism from them as the neoliberal economic order is rolled back past equilibrium* toward relative isolationism from the West or international markets. Trump will have a serious problem within the next five years to a decade as developing nations close their markets to protect infant industries and rejecting IMF loans with China sweeping in to extend its influence as a creditor to these nations which will not only affect US export potential but increased costs to consumers will follow. I know we were talking about angry US voters, but in my view, the anger of those voters can find its origins in rapid globalization and the 30-40 years of neoliberal international economics, and that anger can be found worldwide.

*Equilibrium as I see it regarding international trade would be a balance of trade that invokes gradual movements toward globalization to minimize domestic instability and therefore increasingly liberalizing trade overtime as Ruggie suggests.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think those are great points. What's really sticking with me is the Trump administration - in 8 days no less! - has made some pretty bedrock principles of the liberal world order in geopolitics seem not so fucking bedrock after all. I think when foundational theories demonstrate fragility like this it should call a lot of things into question. Will be very interesting what happens in the field - much less of course what happens in real life :).
 
Supposedly, the immigration executive order delayed the entry of the Vancouver Castaway Wanderers, an amateur Division II Rugby Football Club. They eventually got through and played the Seattle Saracens much later than originally planned. The visiting side eked out a victory 21-20.
 
ThunderHorse said:
What I don't understand is why this crap was worded to the effect of stopping people with visas and green cards from entering the US.
Click to expand...
Haven't the bulk of non-citizen terrorists been legal travelers?
 
ThunderHorse said:
Lawsuits are the norm for the executive branch. What I don't understand is why this crap was worded to the effect of stopping people with visas and green cards from entering the US.
Click to expand...

The ruling was NOT halting the immigration ban, only preventing the detainment of people already on US soil if they have a visa/green card. The ban stands for now.

Personally, I find it hilarious that there are people who are so used to Presidents not realizing their campaign promises that they believed that he wouldn't do any of this stuff. He comes from the business world. You don't just say you're going to do something and then not execute if you want to stay in business.
 
Ooh-Rah said:
Shit just got real for President Trump.

Trump’s immigration ban HALTED by Federal court | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

EDIT: you beat me to it compforce

Not quite Halted.

"The stay will prevent the government from deporting citizens from the affected countries that had already arrived in the U.S.The ACLU estimated that around 200 people would be affected by the ruling."

Trumps order will remain in full effect:

In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: "President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."

It added that the department will "continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people."

DHS issues statement on Trump immigration ban
 
Catholics Oppose Border Wall
"Pope Francis proclaimed that 'refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of humanity. They are children, women, and men who leave or who are forced to leave their homes ... the flesh of Christ is in the flesh of the refugees.' The faithful response is not to build a wall or to discriminate against Muslims, but to open our hearts and our homes to refugees of all faiths in recognition of our sacred call to protect and nourish life. If we refuse to welcome refugees in urgent need, we risk becoming like those we claim to deplore," Lee said.
Click to expand...
The Pope has a pretty solid wall around his city. I don't think he's let any Muslims in either.

The Pope might lose his head if he had to deal with Muslims in Vatican City, literally.

This may be one of the best ivory tower analogies to date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marauder06
It's OK That You Didn't Go To War
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Devildoc
Devildoc
AWP
HAPPY MONDAY FROM THE BOOK SUPPOSITORY BUILDING!!!!
Replies
13
Views
788
Muppet
Muppet
CQB
Kyiv supplied Intel to Tuareg rebels.
Replies
4
Views
678
CQB
CQB
Devildoc
Imminent national security threat?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Marauder06
Marauder06
AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mad boomer
Mad boomer
Back
Top