Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 12 2018 09:41 KwarK wrote: The EU is picking the same deal the US state department picked Danglars. The deal that got Iran to end their nuclear program. Two years ago the US invited the EU to the table and asked them to pledge to do this shit, you can't be angry at them for doing it and insist that it's some kind of betrayal of American allegiance.
What he wants is the European Union to dunk on Obama by admitting it was a mistake and follow Trump's lead.
Though I dunno why he's posting an article from Commentary magazine to support his argument. They're going to keep calling the European Union supporters of ______ country in the Middle East until they straight up back up Israel 100%. They're no longer a proper conservative intellectual periodical, a lot of their articles are basically textbook AIPAC talking points.
You may remember Rodman's long friendship and basketball diplomat status in North Korea. It was reported earlier that he would be there, and the White House says he's not an official player in the diplomacy. Rodman also campaigned for the release of an imprisoned American missionary in North Korea, and that missionary was released. He gave Trump's book "The Art of the Deal" to an official in Kim Jong Un's government last year. It's a pretty ridiculous sideshow on top of Trump's summit.
THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT has quietly expanded its gang database under Mayor Bill de Blasio, targeting tens of thousands of young people of color for increased surveillance even in the absence of criminal conduct.
New Yorkers have been added to the NYPD gang database under de Blasio at a rate of 342 people per month, nearly three times the rate of the prior decade. That’s despite both historically low crime levels and the fact that gang-motivated crime makes up less than 1 percent of all reported crime in New York City.
New details about who the NYPD includes in the vast database were revealed in response to a public records request by CUNY School of Law professor Babe Howell, who shared the information with The Intercept. The data reveals that as of February 2018, there were 42,334 people in the database — a 70 percent increase since de Blasio took office in January 2014. Ninety-nine percent of those added over that four-year period were not white.
But the results of a separate Freedom of Information Law request suggest that the NYPD’s definition of what constitutes a gang is broad, vague, and disconnected from evidence of criminal activity.
In two presentations released to legal groups and obtained by The Intercept, the department defines a gang as “a group of persons with a formal or informal structure that includes designated leaders and members, that engage in or are suspected to engage in unlawful conduct.”
“That definition, to me, is incredibly problematic,” said Marne Lenox, an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the groups behind that records request. “They’re not even talking necessarily about a group of individuals who have already been found to have engaged in particular conduct. They’re talking about a group of people who may not have actually done anything criminal.”
Together, the new details about the gang database and the two presentations offer a glimpse of a sweeping surveillance effort by the NYPD, which has been collecting and cataloguing information about mostly young men of color with virtually no oversight or public scrutiny. On Wednesday, the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety will hold a hearing about the city’s gang policing practices after dozens of community and advocacy groups demanded more transparency from the NYPD. A rally against the department’s large gang raids is planned ahead of the hearing.
“What we know based on the FOIL request shows how important it is to demand transparency about what we don’t know,” said Howell, who first exposed details about the New York gang database in 2013. “There’s no crime to justify it. … It’s just a new way to profile the usual suspects that insulates them from public scrutiny and public approbation.”
Neither the NYPD nor the mayor’s office responded to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
Gang databases nationwide have increasingly come under scrutiny, particularly as President Trump’s exaggerated denunciations of the MS-13 gang have raised skepticism about the broad use of the label, and after immigration authorities have used gang databases to target undocumented individuals for deportation regardless of their criminal history. As these databases have grown more common, so have reports of the many errors they contain: CalGang, a database widely used in California, listed 42 infants under the age of 1 as active gang members.
So far, the NYPD has not made public the criteria it uses to add individuals to the database or details of how the list is used, shared, purged, or corrected. Individuals do not receive notification when they are added to the database, and there is no clear process to contest one’s inclusion in it. It’s also not clear to what extent the database has contributed to a series of large gang raids in recent years that have seen hundreds of NYPD and federal officers descend on public housing projects to make dozens of arrests. As The Intercept has reported, the raids have led to mass gang indictments in which prosecutors have used conspiracy statutes to punish entire communities for the crimes of a few. In 2016 alone, the NYPD conducted 41 “gang takedowns,” leading to more than 1,000 arrests. “We’re picking them off one by one, in many cases, dozens by dozens,” Commissioner James O’Neill said a January 2017 press conference.
More reporting on the egregious and systemic abuse of PoC constitutional rights in NYC under one of the most 'progressive' members of the Democratic party.
Who are the victims of such abuses supposed to vote for? Seems the Democratic party thinks they should support the guy who is overseeing such abuses, specifically because they should be more scared of the only alternative Democrats want offered to them. The most repugnant Republican they can find.
We saw it in 2016 with Hillary-Trump, recently in WV with Manchin-Blankenchip, and there are countless other examples. The Democratic party is running on threatening oppressed people with Republicans, but Republicans already run pretty much everything and the 'far left' part of the Democratic party is responsible for what we see in instances like this in NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, and so on. If Democrats don't get something better than "we'll slow down Republicans" to run on they are going to spiral into complete irrelevance.
On June 12 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote: The main problem with for the illegal immigrant population is that they can't vote and the people fighting for them don't rally voters. But the group that wants them deported and the border on full lockdown votes every god damn election. There will never be immigration reform until it becomes a serious issue for Democrats that drives people to the polls. Given the behavior of ICE, that might start to happen in some minorities communities. But we will have to wait a while to find out.
Remember when Bill Clinton deported Elian Gonzalez at the point of a gun, Pepperidge farm remembers, or is Bill Clinton not sufficiently Democratic in today's environment? The same goes for people like Reagan who had an immigration policy quite different than the border-hawks who find themselves in seats of power for the GOP right now. If something as high profile as Elian Gonzalez didn't do jack shit, I doubt much else will.
On June 12 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote: The main problem with for the illegal immigrant population is that they can't vote and the people fighting for them don't rally voters. But the group that wants them deported and the border on full lockdown votes every god damn election. There will never be immigration reform until it becomes a serious issue for Democrats that drives people to the polls. Given the behavior of ICE, that might start to happen in some minorities communities. But we will have to wait a while to find out.
Remember when Bill Clinton deported Elian Gonzalez at the point of a gun, Pepperidge farm remembers, or is Bill Clinton not sufficiently Democratic in today's environment? The same goes for people like Reagan who had an immigration policy quite different than the border-hawks who find themselves in seats of power for the GOP right now. If something as high profile as Elian Gonzalez didn't do jack shit, I doubt much else will.
Is Bill Clinton the current sitting president? If not, why is he brought up?
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
On June 12 2018 05:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Article about the 'Trump doctrine' with foreign policy, if there is any. Senior officials describe it in several ways: 'No Friends No Enemies' , 'Permanent destabilization creates American advantage' and last but not least: 'We're America, Bitch'
Who would have known Matt Stone and Trey Parker of Southpark fame would turn out to be such influential policy makers. First 'Blame Canada' now this...
Though to be honest the first two are more saddening. There seems to be no intent left to be friendly with allied countries anymore. Shared values are dead. I wonder what they see to gain with this. Do they really believe it will make the US stronger if they stand alone? Isn't part of the US world power the access to a large amount of military bases in allied countries? Or do they mean advantage in that if every country dislikes the US, it will be an easier climate to implement a far-reaching nationalist agenda?
I guess it was already known that Trump adheres to no values, but to see it in action as an administration with officials flaming allied countries, without cause other than destabilization, is still very difficult.
The third-best encapsulation of the Trump Doctrine, as outlined by a senior administration official over lunch a few weeks ago, is this: “No Friends, No Enemies.” This official explained that he was not describing a variant of the realpolitik notion that the U.S. has only shifting alliances, not permanent friends. Trump, this official said, doesn’t believe that the U.S. should be part of any alliance at all. “We have to explain to him that countries that have worked with us together in the past expect a level of loyalty from us, but he doesn’t believe that this should factor into the equation,” the official said.
The second-best self-description of the Trump Doctrine I heard was this, from a senior national-security official: “Permanent destabilization creates American advantage.” The official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most powerful country on Earth. When I noted that America’s adversaries seem far less destabilized by Trump than do America’s allies, this official argued for strategic patience. “They’ll see over time that it doesn’t pay to argue with us.”
The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine.
“No,” the official said. “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine.”
“What is it?” I asked. Here is the answer I received:
“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”
It struck me almost immediately that this was the most acute, and attitudinally honest, description of the manner in which members of Trump’s team, and Trump himself, understand their role in the world.
I asked this official to explain the idea. “Obama apologized to everyone for everything. He felt bad about everything.” President Trump, this official said, “doesn’t feel like he has to apologize for anything America does.” I later asked another senior official, one who rendered the doctrine not as “We’re America, Bitch” but as “We’re America, Bitches,” whether he was aware of the 2004 movie Team America: World Police, whose theme song was “America, Fuck Yeah!”
“Of course,” he said, laughing. “The president believes that we’re America, and people can take it or leave it.
A Senior White House Official Defines the Trump Doctrine: ‘We’re America, Bitch’ The president believes that the United States owes nothing to anyone—especially its allies.
Many of Donald Trump’s critics find it difficult to ascribe to a president they consider to be both subliterate and historically insensate a foreign-policy doctrine that approaches coherence. A Trump Doctrine would require evidence of Trump Thought, and proof of such thinking, the argument goes, is scant. This view is informed in part by feelings of condescension, but it is not meritless. Barack Obama, whose foreign-policy doctrine I studied in depth, was cerebral to a fault; the man who succeeded him is perhaps the most glandular president in American history. Unlike Obama, Trump possesses no ability to explain anything resembling a foreign-policy philosophy. But this does not mean that he is without ideas.
Over the past couple of months, I’ve asked a number of people close to the president to provide me with short descriptions of what might constitute the Trump Doctrine. I’ve been trying, as part of a larger project, to understand the revolutionary nature of Trump’s approach to world affairs. This task became even more interesting over the weekend, when Trump made his most ambitious move yet to dismantle the U.S.-led Western alliance; it becomes more interesting still as Trump launches, without preparation or baseline knowledge, a complicated nuclear negotiation with a fanatical and bizarre regime that quite possibly has his number.
Trumpian chaos is, in fact, undergirded by a comprehensible worldview, a number of experts have insisted. The Brookings Institution scholar (and frequent Atlantic contributor) Thomas Wright argued in a January 2016 essay that Trump’s views are both discernible and explicable. Wright, who published his analysis at a time when most everyone in the foreign-policy establishment considered Trump’s candidacy to be a farce, wrote that Trump loathes the liberal international order and would work against it as president; he wrote that Trump also dislikes America’s military alliances, and would work against them; he argued that Trump believes in his bones that the global economy is unfair to the U.S.; and, finally, he wrote that Trump has an innate sympathy for “authoritarian strongmen.”
Wright was prophetic. Trump’s actions these past weeks, and my conversations with administration officials and friends and associates of Trump, suggest that the president will be acting on his beliefs in a more urgent, and focused, way than he did in the first year of his presidency, and that the pace of potentially cataclysmic disruption will quicken in the coming days. And so, understanding Trump’s foreign-policy doctrine is more urgent than ever.
The third-best encapsulation of the Trump Doctrine, as outlined by a senior administration official over lunch a few weeks ago, is this: “No Friends, No Enemies.” This official explained that he was not describing a variant of the realpolitik notion that the U.S. has only shifting alliances, not permanent friends. Trump, this official said, doesn’t believe that the U.S. should be part of any alliance at all. “We have to explain to him that countries that have worked with us together in the past expect a level of loyalty from us, but he doesn’t believe that this should factor into the equation,” the official said.
The second-best self-description of the Trump Doctrine I heard was this, from a senior national-security official: “Permanent destabilization creates American advantage.” The official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most powerful country on Earth. When I noted that America’s adversaries seem far less destabilized by Trump than do America’s allies, this official argued for strategic patience. “They’ll see over time that it doesn’t pay to argue with us.”
The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine.
“No,” the official said. “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine.”
“What is it?” I asked. Here is the answer I received:
“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”
It struck me almost immediately that this was the most acute, and attitudinally honest, description of the manner in which members of Trump’s team, and Trump himself, understand their role in the world.
I asked this official to explain the idea. “Obama apologized to everyone for everything. He felt bad about everything.” President Trump, this official said, “doesn’t feel like he has to apologize for anything America does.” I later asked another senior official, one who rendered the doctrine not as “We’re America, Bitch” but as “We’re America, Bitches,” whether he was aware of the 2004 movie Team America: World Police, whose theme song was “America, Fuck Yeah!”
“Of course,” he said, laughing. “The president believes that we’re America, and people can take it or leave it.”
“We’re America, Bitch” is not only a characterologically accurate collective self-appraisal—the gangster fronting, the casual misogyny, the insupportable confidence—but it is also perfectly Rorschachian. To Trump’s followers, “We’re America, Bitch” could be understood as a middle finger directed at a cold and unfair world, one that no longer respects American power and privilege. To much of the world, however, and certainly to most practitioners of foreign and national-security policy, “We’re America, Bitch” would be understood as self-isolating, and self-sabotaging.
I’m not arguing that the attitude underlying “We’re America, Bitch” is without any utility. There are occasions—the 1979 Iran hostage crisis comes to mind—in which a blunt posture would have been useful, or at least ephemerally satisfying. President Obama himself expressed displeasure—in a rhetorically controlled way—at the failure of American allies to pay what he viewed as their fair share of common defense costs. And I don’t want to suggest that there is no place for self-confidence in foreign policymaking. The Iran nuclear deal was imperfect in part because the Obama administration seemed, at times, to let Iran drive the process. One day the Trump administration may have a lasting foreign-policy victory of some sort. It is likely that the North Korea summit will end, if not disastrously, then inconclusively. But there is a slight chance that it could mark the start of a useful round of negotiations. And I’m not one to mock Jared Kushner for his role in the Middle East peace process. There is virtually no chance of the process succeeding, but the great experts have all tried and failed, so why shouldn’t the president’s son-in-law give it a shot?
But what is mainly interesting about “We’re America, Bitch” is its delusional quality. Donald Trump is pursuing policies that undermine the Western alliance, empower Russia and China, and demoralize freedom-seeking people around the world. The United States could be made weaker—perhaps permanently—by the implementation of the Trump Doctrine.
The administration officials, and friends of Trump, I’ve spoken with in recent days believe the opposite: that Trump is rebuilding American power after an eight-year period of willful dissipation. “People criticize [Trump] for being opposed to everything Obama did, but we’re justified in canceling out his policies,” one friend of Trump’s told me. This friend described the Trump Doctrine in the simplest way possible. “There’s the Obama Doctrine, and the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine,” he said. “We’re the ‘Fuck Obama’ Doctrine.”
I asked this official to explain the idea. “Obama apologized to everyone for everything. He felt bad about everything.” President Trump, this official said, “doesn’t feel like he has to apologize for anything America does.” I later asked another senior official, one who rendered the doctrine not as “We’re America, Bitch” but as “We’re America, Bitches,” whether he was aware of the 2004 movie Team America: World Police, whose theme song was “America, Fuck Yeah!”
This is a pretty mainline justification. Obama went on apology tours expressing his regrets of past American actions and attitudes. Mitt Romney, to his credit, made reference to them in his campaign against Obama. Well, some of us are tired about our presidents going abroad to speak of everything America's done that he thinks is blameworthy to conduct foreign policies. To quote another,
Yes, President Obama again found a way to blame the United States for another country’s problems, while visiting that country. He started taking “apology tours” early on in his administration, and he apparently means to keep the tradition going till the end.
With the president’s visit to Havana, Cuba, that tour has come full circle. In response to a question about Cuba’s human rights policies during a joint news conference, Cuban President Raul Castro criticized the United States for what he asserted was America’s violation of human rights. Mr. Castro engaged in a form of moral equivalency when he asserted that the denial of health care and education for all and “equal pay” for women was somehow similar to the jailing of political dissidents. Mr. Castro claimed Cuba pays women the same as men. Yes, and it is called equally shared poverty, which is a good definition of the communist form of government and its economic policies.
In response to this smear, President Obama said, “I personally would not disagree with him.” Score another propaganda victory for communist Cuba.
“We’re America, Bitch” is not only a characterologically accurate collective self-appraisal—the gangster fronting, the casual misogyny, the insupportable confidence—but it is also perfectly Rorschachian.
If anybody needs a reminder to why Trump was elected, please refer to the author feeling the need to include that the phrase "We're America, Bitch" is an example of "casual misogyny."
I’m not arguing that the attitude underlying “We’re America, Bitch” is without any utility. There are occasions—the 1979 Iran hostage crisis comes to mind—in which a blunt posture would have been useful, or at least ephemerally satisfying. President Obama himself expressed displeasure—in a rhetorically controlled way—at the failure of American allies to pay what he viewed as their fair share of common defense costs. And I don’t want to suggest that there is no place for self-confidence in foreign policymaking. The Iran nuclear deal was imperfect in part because the Obama administration seemed, at times, to let Iran drive the process. One day the Trump administration may have a lasting foreign-policy victory of some sort. It is likely that the North Korea summit will end, if not disastrously, then inconclusively. But there is a slight chance that it could mark the start of a useful round of negotiations. And I’m not one to mock Jared Kushner for his role in the Middle East peace process. There is virtually no chance of the process succeeding, but the great experts have all tried and failed, so why shouldn’t the president’s son-in-law give it a shot?
This is such an epic hedge. After attempting an epic take-down of everything America in American foreign policy under Trump, he yields that it's just a difference in it's applicability in this case.
He says "self-confidence." It's really "America's foreign policy goals should serve America's interests." The thought is that we've lost sight of that in all our diplomacy. Incidental benefit to the United States is not a sufficient ground to give approval to alliances, trades, military partnerships, and the rest. NATO was a good example. We're helped in restraining a geopolitical rival, Russia. That does not justify indefinite continuance despite allies not contributing even the guideline 2% GDP. It show that acting in collective self-interest is slang for America acting in a greater collective's self interest.
This is mostly xDaunt's area of expertise in arguing, but I'll try my hand. Trump is an overreaction to a general fault in foreign policy circles. America acting in its self interest, even as it includes helping allies since it helps us, has been les majeste in elite circles for some time now. America is "supposed" to instead act according to the agreed upon ethics and morals of the international community. This occurs alongside members of the international community acting in their own self-interest, but providing lame excuses to why it's really their ethical and moral duty to act in the way they do. Elites smile and nod, knowing exactly the game that's being played. Trump mobilized a section of voters a little pissed off at America-last foreign policy, and in true Trumpian fashion has been very imperfectly executing their demands. His trade policy does not serve an America-first foreign policy, and needlessly pisses off allies. His current approach to the Iran deal does. Last year's approach to North Korea (rocket man) does (we're in the middle of talks right now, so no clue currently). Requesting more sharing of cost in NATO does. Corporation tax cuts, in so far as they encourage a competitive tax environment among foreign countries, does. His approach to Israel, a steadfast American ally, does advance American interests. Basically, 'We're America, bitch" only holds power as far as other nations/the international community presume they can treat America and her interests as a bitch.
The solution is admitting just how much Americans want their foreign policy to serve America. Show tariffs hurt our economy. Show we can partner with allies on many aspects of common interest, while also standing up to them in sane, polite ways when they pursue courses that hurt our domestic and foreign interests. Stand up to them when they demean our ally Israel and befriend the terrorist regime Hamas. Then who the hell has patience for Trump's insanity? There's then no point in having the bull in the china shop that America-firsts his way about in a destructive fashion, doing more to piss off other nations unnecessarily than project clear vision and goals.
Trumpian chaos is, in fact, undergirded by a comprehensible worldview, a number of experts have insisted. The Brookings Institution scholar (and frequent Atlantic contributor) Thomas Wright argued in a January 2016 essay that Trump’s views are both discernible and explicable. Wright, who published his analysis at a time when most everyone in the foreign-policy establishment considered Trump’s candidacy to be a farce, wrote that Trump loathes the liberal international order and would work against it as president; he wrote that Trump also dislikes America’s military alliances, and would work against them; he argued that Trump believes in his bones that the global economy is unfair to the U.S.; and, finally, he wrote that Trump has an innate sympathy for “authoritarian strongmen.”
Trump's always whined about unfair trade deals in Buchanan-like fashion. To that extent, he has a comprehensible worldview on trade. But Trump on foreign policy is an exercise in trusting his gut instinct to guide him in what's best for America. It's a poor guide. I hope his advisers are able to teach Trump what's a good deal and what's a bad deal at the North Korean summit. The best example that this might occur is that Trump agreed to meet with North Korea after very publicly calling the meeting off.
I don't have much to complain about in this lot.
I think the problem arises from America formerly claiming to be the leader of the free world. That's where being expected to abide by the agreed-upon standards of international ethics comes in. You could say America was the west's President, in a way.
So long as you, and Americans as a whole, are fine with ceding that position and lowering down to being just another nation slugging it out, then that's cool.
The problem arises when America/Americans/Trump expect American exceptionalism to be honored by anyone that isn't American at the end of all this. Because absolutely, I'm not going to complain about America serving its own interests first. You can argue about whether all of this is good for America long-term. Potentially damaging long-standing diplomatic treaties both economic and military for no apparent gain strikes me as dangerous for no real reason. But maybe the risk is worth it. Fine.
But the end of this whole period of politics seems inevitably to be the rise of China and America's fall, maybe even the fall of the West as the dominant political entity on the world stage. Because once China is ascendant, we're all going to end up following its lead. Maybe the US won't. But it'll turn into a lonely world if it's just the US, Britain and Russia while everyone else is forming some sort of economic pact with China and the tiger economies due to the US's policy of 'FUCK EVERYONE ELSE'.
Which is admittedly succinct, but not the most welcoming.
This I call a bait and switch. The bait is that America is surrendering being the west's president, and is now just another nation slugging it out. That's a fine view to advance. It might be right and wrong and I might take issue of what are the pertinent definitions. The switch is that somebody "expect[s] American exceptionalism to be honored by anyone that isn't American at the end of all this." That's just a pure propaganda line spoken by somebody that isn't willing to admit it. America doesn't seek validation for any part of what might be called exceptionalism ... it simply can believe or not believe it about itself depending on numerous factors. It's just bland anti-Americanism cloaked very poorly in an unfinished thought that America needs to be considered exceptional by others.
You're all welcome to follow China's lead. They're doing a wonderful job with their political repression under the new social credit system. But they're an economic powerhouse at the moment and you should feel free to forge closer economic and political ties with them compared to with America. You're similarly fine defining European values to mean support for Hamas terrorists instead of Israel, or plans to put Iran on the path to the bomb. It's just going to be part of your "international" consensuses, and not include us anymore. For background:
European Union bureaucrats love to speak of “European values,” and their media allies on both sides of the Atlantic take it for granted that the EU stands for all that is good and just on the international scene. For a certain type of journalist or NGO worker, if the EU does or says something, that act or statement must be admirable by dint of the fact that it originated in Brussels. Yet too often, the EU stands for diplomacy for its own sake, process for its own sake, bureaucracy for its own sake–even when insisting on diplomacy, process, and bureaucracy for their own sake ends up empowering murderous enemies of European values.
Nowhere is this dynamic more visible than in the bloc’s hysteric response to President Trump’s decisions to withdraw Washington from the flawed Iran deal and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. In a statement posted to her blog, EU foreign-policy chief Federica Mogherini made it clear that she views America and Israel as the Middle East’s real troublemakers. The blog post was notable for the cold tone Mogherini took with Washington. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime and Hamas, those unshakable friends of European values, came out unscathed.
Here’s Mogherini on her efforts to save the Iran deal:
On Tuesday I gathered in Brussels the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom – the three European countries that negotiated the deal together with the US, Russia and China. We decided to start working on a package of measures to protect the deal, to make sure that Iranian citizens can enjoy the benefits of it, and to safeguard our economic interests. Our goal is to maintain and deepen our economic ties–including with new projects, starting with energy and transport–while defending and incentivising small and medium enterprises investing in Iran . . . There is a metaphor [sic] that came up several times over the last few days: the deal is like a patient in intensive care, and our shared goal is to restore it to health as soon as possible.
As for the Jerusalem move and the other crises in the region, Mogherini said:
Once again the European Union is the reliable partner, and it is indispensable in such a moment of instability for the Middle East. We continue to go through dramatic events: from the clashes on the border between Israel and Syria, to the unspeakable suffering of the Yemeni people, to tens of deaths in Gaza after the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem . . . As the European Union, we won’t stop working to find a political solution to all these crises: there is no other way to reach a just and lasting peace.
From the mullahs’ nuclear-weapons program to Hamas’s calculated campaign to rush the barrier fence with Israel to the Iranian-led insurgency in Yemen, Mogherini and the EU see only diplomatic challenges to overcome. And the answer is always, always to convene a gabfest in Basel, Lausanne, Vienna or some other plush Continental city, where civilizational clashes and historic animosities and sharp moral contrasts can be dissolved in technical solutions.
Countries in your neck of the world can stand well enough on your own two feet and economies to make decisions in favor of Russia and China and concoct deals with Palestine and Iran. I'll see how it all works out for you guys in terms of preserving European values and niceties of world diplomacy.
Do you actually practice being so predictable, or does it come to you naturally?
There's no fucking bait and switch there. If you don't think American exceptionalism is a thing, then you've paid no attention to politics in the last 50 years.
Your country's operated on the same basis that the UK did for a very long time: we're better than everyone else so we should be treated better than everyone else. But that comes from holding yourself to a certain standard and being seen to behave according to that standard. Conquering the world also helps.
But you sacrifice that status by choosing to become just another nation slugging it out. Same as we did with Brexit, and received an immediate culture shock when we tried the usual card in negotiations with the EU and they simply shut us down.
It wasn't me being 'anti-American'. Stop looking for something to attack in every single post that's directed your way. It's tedious.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
You know an opinion is politically extreme when the exact same statement could be used as sarcasm by someone else...
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Which wouldn't happen with North Korea, since they have nuclear weapons and there's no will to wage a war that would cause significant collateral damage to an important regional ally, nor with Russia, who is a significant military power with huge economic and energy connections with Western Europe. So no, Clinton wouldn't be bombing either country because it'd be pointless in every possible metric and destructive to our allies.
You bring up Gaddafi but that was a NATO military intervention that began with NATO implementing a no-fly zone in response to Libyan rebels getting hit with airstrikes. It was Sarkozy who started the whole "Gaddafi must go" call, this wasn't a case of the US ("Hillary Clinton's idea of diplomacy") being the lone instigator as you're suggesting here.
The leaders shaking hands at the DMZ doesn't concern Trump nor is it directly related to the summit today. Are we being consistent with our arguments here?
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
Its fair to cite Libya was an example of Western Imperialism but its important to understand the context relating to the intervention.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Which wouldn't happen with North Korea, since they have nuclear weapons and there's no will to wage a war that would cause significant collateral damage to an important regional ally, nor with Russia, who is a significant military power with huge economic and energy connections with Western Europe. So no, Clinton wouldn't be bombing either country because it'd be pointless in every possible metric and destructive to our allies.
You bring up Gaddafi but that was a NATO military intervention that began with NATO implementing a no-fly zone in response to Libyan rebels getting hit with airstrikes. It was Sarkozy who started the whole "Gaddafi must go" call, this wasn't a case of the US ("Hillary Clinton's idea of diplomacy") being the lone instigator as you're suggesting here.
The leaders shaking hands at the DMZ doesn't concern Trump nor is it directly related to the summit today. Are we being consistent with our arguments here?
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
Its fair to cite Libya was an example of Western Imperialism but its important to understand the context relating to the intervention.
The bolded part is where I think the core of the issue is. I think it's fair to say that Trump has created a new international relations environment, in which such a shaking of hands is less costly for both SK and NK. Valid concerns can be had about whether it was worth it based on the areas of foreign policy which have been neglected and what the benefit-cost ratio will be in a longer perspective. The idea that Clinton would have started any major interventions in this political environment seems highly questionable, of course, as you did in fact say..
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Stop taking credit for SK's diplomatic achievements, please. Get your own. Other than pissing off all your strategic allies.
The US's chance for a big diplomatic win is the summit Trump's at. Crow to the heavens once he comes out of that with a pact of friendship and a big hug.
Also, you pick a nice soundbite, but do we need to bother retaliating with the soundbites of Trump threatening to nuke people? Something something glass houses.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Which wouldn't happen with North Korea, since they have nuclear weapons and there's no will to wage a war that would cause significant collateral damage to an important regional ally, nor with Russia, who is a significant military power with huge economic and energy connections with Western Europe. So no, Clinton wouldn't be bombing either country because it'd be pointless in every possible metric and destructive to our allies.
You bring up Gaddafi but that was a NATO military intervention that began with NATO implementing a no-fly zone in response to Libyan rebels getting hit with airstrikes. It was Sarkozy who started the whole "Gaddafi must go" call, this wasn't a case of the US ("Hillary Clinton's idea of diplomacy") being the lone instigator as you're suggesting here.
The leaders shaking hands at the DMZ doesn't concern Trump nor is it directly related to the summit today. Are we being consistent with our arguments here?
On June 12 2018 18:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
Its fair to cite Libya was an example of Western Imperialism but its important to understand the context relating to the intervention.
The bolded part is where I think the core of the issue is. I think it's fair to say that Trump has created a new international relations environment, in which such a shaking of hands is less costly for both SK and NK. Valid concerns can be had about whether it was worth it based on the areas of foreign policy which have been neglected and what the benefit-cost ratio will be in a longer perspective. The idea that Clinton would have started any major interventions in this political environment seems highly questionable, of course, as you did in fact say..
Eh. I think that's putting too much credit at Trump's doorstep. SK elected a leader who campaigned on wanting to change relations with NK and try something new. I don't think a Clinton Presidency would have changed anything on this front.
Of course I'm sure a Clinton Presidency would still try and take some sort of credit for it, and would be just as in the wrong for doing so.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Which wouldn't happen with North Korea, since they have nuclear weapons and there's no will to wage a war that would cause significant collateral damage to an important regional ally, nor with Russia, who is a significant military power with huge economic and energy connections with Western Europe. So no, Clinton wouldn't be bombing either country because it'd be pointless in every possible metric and destructive to our allies.
You bring up Gaddafi but that was a NATO military intervention that began with NATO implementing a no-fly zone in response to Libyan rebels getting hit with airstrikes. It was Sarkozy who started the whole "Gaddafi must go" call, this wasn't a case of the US ("Hillary Clinton's idea of diplomacy") being the lone instigator as you're suggesting here.
The leaders shaking hands at the DMZ doesn't concern Trump nor is it directly related to the summit today. Are we being consistent with our arguments here?
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
Its fair to cite Libya was an example of Western Imperialism but its important to understand the context relating to the intervention.
Probably not going to get that if your relying on western imperialist supporters for such context. You're right it's likely we wouldn't bomb Russia or NK. We most certainly would be bombing the Syrian people as a proxy for Russia and further escalating tensions with Russia in general. Additionally there would be no NK summit or any movement toward peace and deescalation of military tensions.
It's fair to say that Trump has been terrible regarding dealing with our allies, but as far as dealing with our enemies he's doing better than the last few presidents. Mostly just by selling out western imperialist interests for his own personal gain, but what are ya going to do ya know?
I'd say that the Korean people deserve the credit for this though, Trump just got the US out of the way for the ego boost this is all giving him.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Stop taking credit for SK's diplomatic achievements, please. Get your own. Other than pissing off all your strategic allies.
The US's chance for a big diplomatic win is the summit Trump's at. Crow to the heavens once he comes out of that with a pact of friendship and a big hug.
Also, you pick a nice soundbite, but do we need to bother retaliating with the soundbites of Trump threatening to nuke people? Something something glass houses.
On June 12 2018 17:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seriously still sad Clinton didn't win? She'd be bombing the shit out of North Korea or Russia by now.
Trump was the right choice America, good job.History is being made right now.
Citation needed.
Also history being made right now? Or are we so forgetful about 1994's Agreed Framework?
Hillary Clintons idea of diplomacy : History not being made? The leaders of North and South Korea shaking hands at the DMZ isn't history being made? Please....
Which wouldn't happen with North Korea, since they have nuclear weapons and there's no will to wage a war that would cause significant collateral damage to an important regional ally, nor with Russia, who is a significant military power with huge economic and energy connections with Western Europe. So no, Clinton wouldn't be bombing either country because it'd be pointless in every possible metric and destructive to our allies.
You bring up Gaddafi but that was a NATO military intervention that began with NATO implementing a no-fly zone in response to Libyan rebels getting hit with airstrikes. It was Sarkozy who started the whole "Gaddafi must go" call, this wasn't a case of the US ("Hillary Clinton's idea of diplomacy") being the lone instigator as you're suggesting here.
The leaders shaking hands at the DMZ doesn't concern Trump nor is it directly related to the summit today. Are we being consistent with our arguments here?
On June 12 2018 18:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
Its fair to cite Libya was an example of Western Imperialism but its important to understand the context relating to the intervention.
The bolded part is where I think the core of the issue is. I think it's fair to say that Trump has created a new international relations environment, in which such a shaking of hands is less costly for both SK and NK. Valid concerns can be had about whether it was worth it based on the areas of foreign policy which have been neglected and what the benefit-cost ratio will be in a longer perspective. The idea that Clinton would have started any major interventions in this political environment seems highly questionable, of course, as you did in fact say..
Eh. I think that's putting too much credit at Trump's doorstep. SK elected a leader who campaigned on wanting to change relations with NK and try something new. I don't think a Clinton Presidency would have changed anything on this front.
Of course I'm sure a Clinton Presidency would still try and take some sort of credit for it, and would be just as in the wrong for doing so.
I do believe that a more conventional US presidency would be urging more caution and put significantly more emphasis on human rights during the process, citing decades of unfavorable precedent, much as this thread does. The thing with taking credit is that you also suffer from the backlash once NK does something insane again. Let's suppose NK feels the need to kill a few thousand people in a prominent manner, because they became too emboldened by the new shift in rhetoric. The whole thing is dug up, scrutinized by experts and could end up being either really bad for your approval rating or not change it much. It also paralyzes your ability to work on other things while you deal with this fallout. I hope we agree on this much?
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
This is one of the core issues with people today. They chose Trump over Hillary thinking he was a better choice, and then defends their vote by saying "Hillary would have been worse" instead of holding the man in charge accountable for his continuous horrible actions. Your vote doesn't matter any more. The election is over. Hillary is not the president, Trump is, so start holding him to the standards of the position he's suppose to be filling.
On June 12 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote: Can we stop bringing up Hillary Clinton as an excuse for Trumps behaviour please? The two have no correlation. Hillary is not president, Trump is, and thusly he should be held accountable for his own actions.
Sorta, but not really. When juxtaposing our choice in 2016 she inevitably has to be mentioned. If we're stuck with two parties it's always relevant to consider what our alternative choice was.
It's also fair to cite Libya as the kind of foreign policy we could expect out of a President Hillary (the only other choice besides Trump). The same goes for immigration where people are in a tizzy over sessions when Hillary said almost the same thing. I'm not going to argue that Trump isn't worse (whether he is or not) but the worst thing that can happen is people think Trump is the problem and not our entire government.
This is one of the core issues with people today. They chose Trump over Hillary thinking he was a better choice, and then defends their vote by saying "Hillary would have been worse" instead of holding the man in charge accountable for his continuous horrible actions. Your vote doesn't matter any more. The election is over. Hillary is not the president, Trump is, so start holding him to the standards of the position he's suppose to be filling.
That's another of the core issues. The abandoning of any responsibility for the political situation. Hillary pushed for Trump to be the Republican nominee. Why would someone who cared about the country purposely push someone they also thought such a danger as their opposition? Because at her very core she'd risk the worst possible president she can imagine to boost her odds of winning a few percent.
Trump's not going to be president forever. The problem is when it's not a Republican, Republicans are going to say the same thing and the cycle continues.
Remember when Obama was elected, every other sentence was how we can't blame Bush for the mess he left, now liberals want to blame Trump for all sorts of trashy policy that was there before him because he also happens to support it and/or doesn't hide his support. Republicans would be having a conniption if Obama said half the things Trump says in any 24 hour period, same for Hillary, and it goes on and on round and round.
Like I said, forget this "hold Trump accountable" stuff (our government is demonstrating quite clearly it's incapable) and start thinking "We need to hold the entire government, more specifically both parties, accountable for their rank incompetence and blatant corruption.
Otherwise you might as well just buckle up for Trump's second term and Republicans using the same line to force you not to talk about how unbelievably bad the last Republican presidents have been and the policy that came with them.
It is all pure speculation anyways and not worth debating when there are real problems facing this country right now.
Trump administration launches bid to catch citizenship cheaters
LOS ANGELES — The U.S. government agency that oversees immigration applications is launching an office that will focus on identifying Americans who are suspected of cheating to get their citizenship and seek to strip them of it.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director L. Francis Cissna told The Associated Press in an interview that his agency is hiring several dozen lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of immigrants who were ordered deported and are suspected of using fake identities to later get green cards and citizenship through naturalization.
Cissna said the cases would be referred to the Department of Justice, whose attorneys could then seek to remove the immigrants' citizenship in civil court proceedings. In some cases, government attorneys could bring criminal charges related to fraud.
Until now, the agency has pursued cases as they arose but not through a coordinated effort, Cissna said. He said he hopes the agency's new office in Los Angeles will be running by next year but added that investigating and referring cases for prosecution will likely take longer.
"We finally have a process in place to get to the bottom of all these bad cases and start denaturalizing people who should not have been naturalized in the first place," Cissna said. "What we're looking at, when you boil it all down, is potentially a few thousand cases."
He declined to say how much the effort would cost but said it would be covered by the agency's existing budget, which is funded by immigration application fees.
The push comes as the Trump administration has been cracking down on illegal immigration and taking steps to reduce legal immigration to the U.S.
Immigrants who become U.S. citizens can vote, serve on juries and obtain security clearance. Denaturalization — the process of removing that citizenship — is very rare.
The U.S. government began looking at potentially fraudulent naturalization cases a decade ago when a border officer detected about 200 people had used different identities to get green cards and citizenship after they were previously issued deportation orders.
In September 2016, an internal watchdog reported that 315,000 old fingerprint records for immigrants who had been deported or had criminal convictions had not been uploaded to a Department of Homeland Security database that is used to check immigrants' identities. The same report found more than 800 immigrants had been ordered deported under one identity but became U.S. citizens under another.
Since then, the government has been uploading these older fingerprint records dating back to the 1990s and investigators have been evaluating cases for denaturalization.
Earlier this year, a judge revoked the citizenship of an Indian-born New Jersey man named Baljinder Singh after federal authorities accused him of using an alias to avoid deportation.
Authorities said Singh used a different name when he arrived in the United States in 1991. He was ordered deported the next year and a month later applied for asylum using the name Baljinder Singh before marrying an American, getting a green card and naturalizing.
Authorities said Singh did not mention his earlier deportation order when he applied for citizenship.
For many years, most U.S. efforts to strip immigrants of their citizenship focused largely on suspected war criminals who lied on their immigration paperwork, most notably former Nazis.
Toward the end of the Obama administration, officials began reviewing cases stemming from the fingerprints probe but prioritized those of naturalized citizens who had obtained security clearances, for example, to work at the Transportation Security Administration, said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at New York University law school.
The Trump administration has made these investigations a bigger priority, he said. He said he expects cases will focus on deliberate fraud but some naturalized Americans may feel uneasy with the change.
"It is clearly true that we have entered a new chapter when a much larger number of people could feel vulnerable that their naturalization could be reopened," Chishti said.
Since 1990, the Department of Justice has filed 305 civil denaturalization cases, according to statistics obtained by an immigration attorney in Kansas who has defended immigrants in these cases.
The attorney, Matthew Hoppock, agrees that deportees who lied to get citizenship should face consequences but worries other immigrants who might have made mistakes on their paperwork could get targeted and might not have the money to fight back in court.
Cissna said there are valid reasons why immigrants might be listed under multiple names, noting many Latin American immigrants have more than one surname. He said the U.S. government is not interested in that kind of minor discrepancy but wants to target people who deliberately changed their identities to dupe officials into granting immigration benefits.
"The people who are going to be targeted by this — they know full well who they are because they were ordered removed under a different identity and they intentionally lied about it when they applied for citizenship later on," Cissna said. "It may be some time before we get to their case, but we'll get to them."
Trump’s administration has now hired bunch of lawyers to review immigrants to see if they lied getting citizenship. Lets be clear, these folks are going to review cases they think are suspect and then try to remove citizenship from the immigrants if they don’t like what they see. I’m not hearing a lot about oversight or why this is a pressing issue. But Sessions and his justice department are acting exactly how everyone expected. We have children being taken from their parents, thrown into camps and now we are “reviewing” recent naturalizations trying to strip American citizens of their citizenship.
EPT
