ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Op-Ed: How Trump can end illegal immigration right now—without a border wall

Quote
During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised not only to 'build a wall' to seal the southern U.S. border, but to make Mexico pay for it, at a cost of some $10 billion to $38 billion. Mexico on Thursday reiterated it's refusal to foot the bill.
Yet, a market-based immigration policy allowing Central Americans who passed a background check to purchase work visas at market rates (instead of paying thousands to human smugglers) could generate revenues for the federal government in excess of $40 billion, or more than enough to pay for that wall. You can read the details i n an earlier article I wrote for CNBC.
But here's the best part: With a market-based visa system, President Trump could materially end illegal immigration within a month or two, even without a wall. Here's how it would work.
Illegal immigration is a variety of black market. Black markets always arise as the direct result of government policy, when governments either cap prices or restrict volumes. For example, during Super Storm Sandy, a number of East Coast governors put price caps on scarce gasoline, creating a black market within a matter of hours.
Young men with gasoline cans would stand in line at gas stations and wait their turn. As soon as they filled up, they would walk around the corner and sell the gasoline to motorists at a 200 percent profit. When governments allowed market prices to prevail again, black market activity disappeared just as fast. The black market existed only because of government policy.
In the case of immigration, the sorry truth is that the government provides only about one third as many visas as needed by U.S. businesses, primarily in agriculture and construction, even as these businesses are unable to find Americans to fill these jobs. President Trump argues that Americans want 'good jobs'.
Well, illegal immigrants do not get 'good jobs'. They are taking the jobs no one else wants. This includes almost anything outdoors (not involving a football), for example picking fruits and vegetables, dairy and other agriculture, construction, lawn work, and indoors, house cleaning. Most of these jobs pay around the minimum wage, and often involve travel and difficult working conditions. Very few Americans aspire to these jobs anymore—that's how we know we're a rich country.
But the need for labor hasn't gone away. Indeed, about half of the farm workers in California are undocumented. Illegals are not a nice-to-have, they are an essential component of the agricultural business model in the U.S.
Now, Mexicans have no love manual outdoor labor, either. But the reality is that US farm work pays about four times as much as those Mexicans could make in Mexico. If lawyers or investment bankers in New York could earn four times their wage picking strawberries in Guadalajara, there would be no shortage of recruits.
The black market in labor therefore exists because certain businesses in the U.S. are desperate for low-end labor and because unskilled Mexican workers can earn multiplies of their income by coming to the U.S. The U.S. government has, for decades, actively tried to prevent these two sides from coming together by enforcing the border. After all, if the border were open, conservatives argue, we would be inundated with Mexicans. And that's absolutely true.
However, if we issued an appropriate number of visas, then we would cover domestic needs and Mexicans would no longer have an incentive to jump the border. We could do that by selling visas at market rates to eligible Mexicans and other Central Americans and monitoring the prices of visas and field wages to get the number more or less right.
The system does not have to be perfect. As long as Central Americans can buy visas at will and U.S. employers can obtain low-end labor on demand—even if it may be a bit costly at some times—both Mexicans and the U.S. businesses sectors would have an incentive to use the system.
This would eliminate the need to jump the border. The decision to come to the U.S. would come down to economics. An eligible Mexican could go online—in Mexico—and check available U.S. jobs and the cost of a visa. If the numbers work, they could apply for the job and buy a visa. If not, they stay home.
If entering the U.S. legally is easy—as long as the applicant has passed a background check and has the money to pay for the visa—then virtually every Central American migrant will be using a visa. Why risk your life in the desert if you can pay a fee and hop on a bus? It is the ease of complying with the law—not enforcement—which guarantees compliance. But once compliance is universal, companies will not hire workers who fail to comply. If employers can obtain documented labor, they will avoid illegals.
Undocumented immigrants will find their situation untenable. Not only will employers will shun them, President Trump can declare that any immigrant caught crossing the border illegally will be ineligible to purchase a visa in the future. Border jumping will be quickly transformed into the single worst way to enter the U.S.
If legal entry for a fee is easy and border jumping disqualifies an applicant from the legal labor market, then illegal entry by economic migrants will all but cease. A wall will not be necessary. To make it all happen, Trump needs only signal his credible support for a fee-based visa system and tweet that crossing illegally will disqualify an applicant from obtaining a visa. If Mexicans believe a reasonable market-based visa system is coming in relatively short order, many will defer a difficult, risky and illegal desert crossing. It's that simple.
Many Americans regard President Trump with a mixture of hope and fear. If the President chooses to focus on making deals, on applying business principles to policy problems, he could be a great success. He has the flexibility to look at programs in terms beyond the sterile left-right vocabulary which has ossified the Washington political class.
Want to work in my backyard? You've got to pay an entry fee. Any businessman could understand that. So can any immigrant. A market-based visa program could generate $33 bn in net revenues, and create value for U.S. business, migrant labor and social conservatives at the same time. It could be a spectacular win for the Trump administration.

Pošto je engleski original pejvolovan, evo sa peščanika prevoda teksta koji se bavi analizom ekonomske politike koju će Trampova administarcija, barem za sada bi se reklo, voditi:

Trampovanje kapitalizma

Tekst je užasan za čitanje, a meni je i nejasan, mada nisam bio baš pažljiv.

Opet se ponavlja ono da ga na početku teksta predstavljaju kao Regana, u sredini teksta će zaustaviti hiperglobalizaciju i ima neke kejnzijanske elemente koji bi pomogli opstanku liberalizma, na kraju teksta se spominje italijanska fašistička korporativna ekonomija.

Lud zbunjenog, ili prosječan čitalac gleda početak i kraj teksta i preleti sredinu, i dobije famoznu kategoriju Regan fašista. Hau konvinijent.

Hahah, ma ne, ovo je kolekcija mišljenja različitih ekonomista, nije ideja da tekst ima jednu konzistentnu tezu, mada njegov autor svakako na kraju daje i svoje mišljenje. Ali ideja je da vidiš šta različiti ljudi misle o tome na šta bi sve to moglo da liči.

Sindikalni kolumnisti su protiv Trampa, aj nouz it!

I Varufakis ga poredio s Musolinijem u ekonomiji.

znaci dopao bi se gandiju

Indiri Gandi!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-theresa-may-porn-star_us_588b14d8e4b0cef5cf8745a4

Pomiješali Theresu i Teresu May, adultnog modela

http://www.blic.rs/vesti/svet/pocelo-je-prve-muslimane-vratili-sa-aerodroma-samo-nekoliko-sati-nakon-trampove/sdbz6r1

Zlo je počelo. Naravno, Saudijcima ulaz u SAD nije zabranjen.

Alen Badju protiv Žižeka!

http://www.noviplamen.net/glavna/razmatranja-o-skorasnjim-izborima/

ujujuj, bruderu trumpe, srpski sine, zašto, k vragu 

http://kossev.info/strana/arhiva/trampova_administracija__kosovo_treba_da_formira_vojsku/11035

iz saudije ne dolaze izbjeglice
samo teroristi

Quote from: Palmer Eldrič on 28-01-2017, 23:36:37

Epohalno!

Čitaš li ti to pažljivo Scor, ili prelijećeš dijagonalno?

Misim, nije sporno da će teško neka američka administracija stav o Kosovu da promijeni preko noći

Ali pitali su čoeka šta treba da se uradi da bi se smanjilo američko prisustvo na Kosovu, i on im je stručno odgovorio. Pitanje je totalno tehničko kao i odgovor.

Uopšte nije njegov poso da priznaje ili ne priznaje države, lik je ministar odbrane, nije u kongresu ili stejt dipartmentu. Ne donosi odluke.

I što bi nama uopšte smetalo da se Ameri povuku s Kosova...

vodoravno - dijagonalno, a posle dvanaest cik-cak

Ja sam samo mislio, kad smo već platili bilbord za trampa usred beograda, da će biti neka malo mesnatija koščica od ovako kilavih izjava, sve sa pominjanjem neke buduće vojske kosova

sad čitnuh da je jedna od voćkinja marša transfera blama jedna solidna islamistica
(jevrejsko glasilo) https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/01/27/womens-march-figure-linda-sarsours-radical-background-ties/
(drugo jevresko glasilo) http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.767187




en sou aan en sou aan

Toe nova islamistička ljevica, koja je češće desno od Trampa no što nije, u ova naša iščašena vremena

Scor, pa vojska kosova neće biti problem!

pričo sam s nekim likovima koji su stručni, thing is mi ionako ne možemo vojno da osvojimo Kosovo sve i da hoćemo

Toest, možemo da osvojimo, ne možemo da zadržimo i odbranimo. Nači naš limit je sredina Kosova, neke planine na tom području, zaboravih ime. Do Prokletija nikad, sve da nam i Tramp da blagoslov.

pričao si s princom?

Ne, princ nije vojni ekspert. Stanbre, jel ovo neki trik, pa ti si princ!

sorry ako je već postavljano al ima hilarious momenata 

http://youtu.be/ELD2AwFN9Nc

ovi se ne šale. evo mejla koji je dobio phd student iz laba (trebalo da ide na kongres, prihvaćen mu rad za oral presentation, ima pismo od nas plus pozivno pismo iz usa, kupljenu kartu, hotel)

Quote



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Notice on Executive Order 01/27/17
Date: 2017-01-28
From: no-reply@ustraveldocs.com
To: xxx

Your visa appointment has been cancelled.  A U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017, suspended visa issuance to nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  Please continue to monitor www.ustraveldocs.com for further updates.

Please note that certain travel for official governmental purposes, related to official business at or on behalf of designated international organizations, on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to this suspension.  If you believe your travel falls under one of these categories and your appointment was canceled in error, please contact us at www.ustraveldocs.com.

Sad ćemo da vidimo da li je jača izvršna ili sucka vlast:

Trump's Immigration Ban Is Illegal

Quote

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive "national-origins system," skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that "the harsh injustice" of the national-origins quota system had been "abolished."Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to "suspend the entry" of "any class of aliens" that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
Continue reading the main story      Related Coverage 

   
•        Opinion                         Op-Ed Contributor   Donald Trump's Un-American Refugee Policy JAN. 27, 2017     
•         Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries JAN. 27, 2017     
•        NEWS ANALYSIS   Fears That Trump's Visa Ban Betrays Friends and Bolsters Enemies JAN. 27, 2017     
•        Opinion                         Op-Ed Contributor   Mexico's Forceful Resistance JAN. 27, 2017     

Advertisement
  Continue reading the main story      But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be "discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence." The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between "the issuance of a visa" and the "entry" of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump's original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a "rational link" with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, "We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications."
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that "procedures" and "locations" for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress's vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama's executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America's constitutional system.

Tramp će dodredi novog sudiju bješe?

Al žalosno je što se i dalje ponavlja ista greška, Saudijci čine 90% terorista a njih stalno tetoše.

Ovo ako mu ukinu baš će fino da ispadne, pokazaće se pred svojim patrijotskim biračima a neće promijeniti ništa u vezi imigracije

ne radi se o terorizmu nego o izbeglicama i imigraciji. terorizam i taj extreme vetting je samo paravan. blokirane su šit zemlje koje proizvode izbeglice i ekonomske migrante i neprijateljski iran. nisu blokirani emirati, katar, pa ni saudijska arabija jer to su drugari i to su pare i to se ni ne krije.
naravno, nije tramp smislio ovu meru nego neki dobar rišćanin koji hoće da ograniči dolazak prekomernog broja muslimana.

zabrana ističe za par meseci i zamenjuje je ograničenje godišnjeg priliva izbeglica na 50000 duša. praktična funkcija zabrane je da se uvedu mere tog navodnog extreme vettinga, ali pravi smisao zabrane je čisto iživljavanje i demonstracija lojalnosti biračkom telu.

sud tu ne može ništa da promeni uglavnom. sve je to ustavno i ionake će biti gotovo za dva tri meseca, nakon čega će se stvari vratiti u normalu.

Dobro, to i piše u Mehovom tekstu, da su decenijama prije svega uvozili pripadnike zapadne civilizacije, i da ovo nije ništa novo.

Samo se pitam kako se ovo prodaje građanima kad je odavno objelodanjeno odakle većina terorista dolazi.

a vid stvarno manje vise pise. nije mi se dalo. elem kako? pa fino glup narod. glup ko kurac.

sad treba napraviti anketu-kviz s pitanjem "je li tramp zabranio muslimanima ulazak u zemlju" i video bi da bi odgovor bio nesto tipa 99% da

onda kad bi im rekao "tramp nije zabranio saudijcima ulazak u zemlju" tzv levi bi rekli "a jel whatever, svejedno je zabranio muslimanima" a tzv desni bi rekli "ti lazeeeees" i to bi bilo to otprilike

"Štaviše, pre nego što bi bilo mudro smanjiti vojno prisustvo američkih vojnika, sigurnosne snage Kosova moraju dobiti mandat kako bi obavljale sigurnosnu situaciju u samoj zemlji, kao i teritorijalnu odbranu, pomak koji zahteva ustavne promene i podršku parlamenta (Skupštine Kosova)", istakao je Matis."
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2017&mm=01&dd=29&nav_category=78&nav_id=1225084

Oooops.

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2017&mm=01&dd=29&nav_category=78&nav_id=1225238

Ja se još iznenadio kad je T. Nikolić u govoru na dan sećanja na žrtve holokausta na prvo mesto stavio Srbe a tek posle Jevreje, a on u stvari samo pravi trend "inkluzivnosti" koji uspostavlja Tramp. U izjavi Bele kuće istim povodom, Jevreji se ni ne pominju.

White House Says It Deliberately Omitted Jews from Holocaust Remembrance Day Statement

Quote

The White House is defending the statement it released on International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday that had no mention of the 6 million Jews that were killed.


Hope Hicks, the Donald Trump administration spokeswoman, told CNN that, "despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered."
Other than having no mention of the 6 million Jews killed, the statement also failed to mention anti-Semitism.
Instead, Hicks provided a link to a Huffington Post UK story that notes the 5 million other "priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters," that were murdered in the genocide, according to CNN. When asked if asked if Trump purposely left out Jews in his statement to avoid offending anyone, Hicks simply said, "it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day."
President Trump's statement is sharply different than those of his predecessors — namely Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama — who both had some mention of Jews or anti-Semitism in their statements.

Hafington Poust smatra da je Tramp već zreo za impičment:

The Inevitability Of Impeachment

QuoteTrump has been trying to govern by impulse, on whim, for personal retribution, for profit, by decree ― as if he had been elected dictator. It doesn't work, and the wheels are coming off the bus. After a week!  Impeachment is gaining ground because it is the only way to get him out, and because Republicans are already deserting this president in droves, and because the man is psychiatrically incapable of checking whether something is legal before he does it. Impeachment is gaining ground because it's so horribly clear that Trump is unfit for office. The grownups around Trump, even the most slavishly loyal ones, spend half their time trying to rein him in, but it can't be done. They spend the other half fielding frantic calls from Republican chieftains, business elites and foreign leaders. Trump did what? Poor Reince Priebus has finally attained the pinnacle of power, and it can't be fun.  It is one thing to live in your own reality when you are a candidate and it's just words. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time maybe even to get elected. But when you try to govern that way, there is a reality to reality—and reality pushes back. One by one, Trump has decreed impulsive orders, un-vetted by legal, policy, or political staff, much less by serious planning. Almost immediately he is forced to walk them back by a combination of political and legal pressure—and by reality. Unlike in the various dictatorships Trump admires, the complex skein of constitutional legal and political checks on tyranny in the United States are holding—just barely at times, but they are holding. And the more reckless Trump's behavior, the stronger become the checks.  Only with his lunatic effort to selectively ban refugees (but not from terrorist-sending countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt where Trump has business interests) has Trump discovered that the American system has courts. It has courts. Imagine that. The more unhinged he becomes, the less will conservative judges be the toadies to ordinary Republican policies that they too often have been. Anybody want to wager that the Supreme Court will be Trump's whore? In the past week, Republicans from Mitch McConnell on down have tripped over each other rejecting his view of Putin. They have ridiculed his screwball claim of massive voter fraud.  They are running for cover on how to kill ObamaCare without killing patients or Republican re-election hopes. This is actually complicated, and nuance is not Trump's strong suit. Rep Tom McClintock of California spoke for many when he warned: "We'd better be sure that we're prepared to live with the market we've created" with repeal, said Rep. Tom McClintock. (R-Calif.) "That's going to be called Trumpcare. Republicans will own that lock, stock and barrel, and we'll be judged in the election less than two years away." Sen. Lindsey Graham, mocking Trump's own nutty tweeting habits, sent out a tweet calling a trade war with Mexico "mucho sad."  Trump's own senior staff has had to pull him back from his ludicrous crusade against Mexico and Mexicans, where Trump forces the Mexican president to cancel an official visit one day, and spends an hour on the phone kissing up the next day. Trump proposed to reinstate torture, but key Republican leaders killed that idea. Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the Senate's third ranking Republican said Wednesday that the ban on torture was settled law and the Republicans in Congress would oppose any reinstatement. Trump's own defense secretary holds the same view. After blustering out his new torture policy, Trump meekly agreed to defer to his defense advisers.  All this in just a week! Now capped by federal judges starting to rein him in. Two weeks ago, in this space, just based on what we witnessed during the transition, I wrote a piece calling for a citizens impeachment panel, as a shadow House Judiciary Committee, to assemble a dossier for a Trump impeachment, and a citizens' campaign to create a public impeachment movement.  In the two weeks since then, Free Speech for People has launched a citizens' campaign to impeach Trump. About 400,000 people have already signed the impeachment petition. The bipartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, (CREW) has been conducting a detailed investigation. Senior legal scholars associated with CREW have filed a detailed legal brief in their lawsuit, documenting the several ways Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a president from profiting from the actions of foreign governments.  There are already plenty of other grounds for impeachment, including Trump's putting his own business interests ahead of the country's and his weird and opportunistic alliance with Vladimir Putin bordering on treason. A lesser-known law that goes beyond the Emoluments Clause is the STOCK Act of 2012, which explicitly prohibits the president and other officials from profiting from non-public knowledge. Impeachment, of course, is a political as well as a legal process. The Founders designed it that way deliberately. But after just a week in office, not only has Trump been deserting the Constitution; his partisan allies are deserting him. Despite his creepy weirdness, Republicans at first thought they could use Trump for Republican ends. But from his embrace of Putin to his sponsorship of a general trade war, this is no Republican. One can only imagine the alarm and horror being expressed by Republicans privately. In 1984, the psychiatrist Otto Kernberg described a sickness known as Malignant Narcissism. Unlike ordinary narcissism, malignant narcissism was a severe pathology. It was characterized by an absence of conscience, a pathological grandiosity and quest for power, and a sadistic joy in cruelty.  Given the sheer danger to the Republic as well as to the Republicans, Trump's impeachment will happen. The only question is how grave a catastrophe America faces first.   Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/0307959805 Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook: http://facebook.com/RobertKuttner

A ako u ovom napisu ignorišemo dramatičan ton, ostaju zanimljivi podaci i spekulacije. Na primer, vidi se koliko je ljudi actually otišlo i najureno iz stejt dipartmenta poslednjih dana, a cela ideja o tome da Tramp oko sebe okuplja uzak krug ljudi kojima veruje i da se ne drži zakona baš kao pijan plota nastavlja da podseća na Vučića i njegov stil.

Trial Balloon for a Coup?

Stiv Benon je sad čovek koji se pita za bezbednost u SAD. Dakle, bivši Goldman-Sachs čovek, izvršni precednik Brajtbarta, čovek koji je uspeo da spoji stigmu big biznisa sa stigmom agresivnog propagiranja neonacističkog svetonazora pod krinkom alt rajta, je sada neko ko (zajedno sa još nekoliko ljudi) odlučuje o američkoj nacionalnoj bezbednosti. Vot kud gou rong?


A evo kako Dejli Bist piše o tome kako se na granicama ignorišu ustav & sudske odluke:

Trump's Border Patrol Defies Judge, U.S. Senator at Dulles Airport as His First Constitutional Crisis Unfolds



Nije, naravno, ni da se Obama držo ustava ko pijan plota, ali zanimljivo je ovo pratiti.

Ne znam čemu takva likovanja ,,aha, jesam vam rekao Tramp ne menja stav o Kosovu''. Pa niko nije ni očekivao da će ga promeniti. Niko normalan-ne računam tu Šešelja, Vučićevića i slične. Američka spoljna politika se planira i sprovodi decenijama unapred. Ono što su ljudi očekivali je da će bar malo da smanji pritisak na Srbiju i Srbe generalno, ne zato što ih voli, već prosto što će se više baviti drugim stvarima, prvenstveno unutrašnjim pitanjima SAD. Ako se ni to ne desi, bože moj, ni prvi ni poslednji političar koji je izneverio ta očekivanja.
Ljudi su prosto više likovali zbog poraza Klintonove, a ne zato što su verovali da je Tramp neka dobrica.
Zanimljiva su mi i ta naricanja kome je Tramp zabranio ulazak u SAD. Srpske liberale i građaniste boli što neko iz Jemena ne može ući u SAD, ali ni malo se ne bune što stotinjak kilometara od Beograda ljudi ne mogu otići obići mesta gde su rođeni i svoju imovinu na Kosovu, ne mogu otići na groblje da ga ne zateknu porušenog. Ali to nije problem, problem je što Jemenski i Irački građani ne mogu u SAD.
Uvek smo bili veći katolici od pape, veći Rusi od Putina, bolji Amerikanci od Trampa. Vodimo tuđe brige i sve znamo kako treba kod drugih.
Tramp je makar na površinu otvoreno izveo američki korporativni fašizam i imperijalizam. Barem više nema onih lažnih skrivanja iza tobožnje demokratije. Zna se ko odlučuje, onaj ko ima novac u rukama, kakvo crno građanstvo i narod.

Tramp je uspeo da jako brzo prekrši Ustav. Ovako diktatorsku ličnost Amerikanci dugo nisu imali na mestu predsednika. Baš me zanima šta će se dalje dešavati...

Najgore tek dolazi!

Kaže Pol Krugman

http://pescanik.net/najgore-tek-dolazi/

Trump Bows to Judges' Orders on Muslim Travel Ban in Defiantly Worded Statement

Quote from: lilit on 29-01-2017, 03:19:28
sorry ako je već postavljano al ima hilarious momenata 

http://youtu.be/ELD2AwFN9Nc

Vučić mora ovo da uradi za srbstvo!

Quote from: Scordisk on 28-01-2017, 19:57:33
ujujuj, bruderu trumpe, srpski sine, zašto, k vragu 

http://kossev.info/strana/arhiva/trampova_administracija__kosovo_treba_da_formira_vojsku/11035

  http://standard.rs/svet/36875-бесни-пси-и-лажне-вести

Liberali i fejsbuk

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-limits-liberal-open-mindedness-19245

^ Nemoj da pricas - ja sam se toliko toga nagledala poslednjih meseci, da mi je samo to bilo dovoljno da dodatno korigujem percepciju stvarnosti i ucinilo me jos kriticnijom osobom. Fala im!

Quote from: Anomander Rejk on 30-01-2017, 13:29:48
Niko normalan-ne računam tu Šešelja, Vučićevića i slične.

Kada to tako kažeš, zvuči kao da su u pitanju dva ortaka iz kraja što tuku pivdžanu ispred dragstora, žive kod keve i lepe postere brudera trumpa u svojoj polovini sobe, a ne premijer i vojvoda najveće "opozicione" patije Ozbiljni polit'čari, bot te mazo. No, pustimo njih, oni su spin surferi već dobrih trideset godina, znaju da prpeoznaju dobar vetar kada ga vide. Sutra će se sve ionako zaboraviti, šta gods da je rečeno.

Bato - na stranu što je standardov argument "niko to nije objavio ni na istoku ni na zapadu, a i vest kasni dve nedelje", kao da čitav svet sedi na ivici fotelje i čeka šta će bruder Trump da kaže o Kosovu (mnogo toga što bruder Trump kaže ne bude zvanično objavljeno), ono što mene neobično razveseljava kod pojave Trampa jeste to što bi taj čovek mogao da napravi buru i u čaši vode. Da ga nema, trebalo bi ga izmisliti. Pazi ti njega! Objavi deklaraciju o tome da će nepisana praksa filtriranja nepodobnih državljana postati zvaničena (kao da dosadašnji vizni sistem SAD-a do sada nije bio premetanje šupka za "nepodobne" građane), i digne celu Ameriku na noge, Twiter gori, zvezde i liberali se prenemažu i padaju u trans, svi su odjednom zabrinuti kako će ti nesrećni Sudanci i Sirijci sada da dođu u 'Muriku, pošto je do sada bilo med i mleko dobiti ulaz, dok zli Trump nije sjebo stvar. Haos, jeote, tri dana gore društvene mreže, a šta rade države koje su na crnoj listi (sve odreda bile u ratu sa amerima)? Jemen, Somalija i Libija ni ne otkonstatuju šta se dešava, Sudan pošalje protestnu notu diplomatama u stilu "pa baš nije u redu", a Iran, tradicionalni prijatelj SAD, kaže da će od sada i oni to da uvedu (pošto američkim državljanima ionako nije bilo ograničeno kretanje amera na teritoriji Irana). Sirija - ne zna se ima li koga preživelog da pošalje smislen odgovor. Somaliji još niko nije javio, ostavili su im poruku kada se vrate s pecanja, valjda će videti. Jedino se Irak, doduše, potresao, ali to je zato što su svi oni vojnici, generali, političari i civilci što su sarađivali sa Amerima imali obećanu sigurnu kućicu, u slučaju da cela ta stvar sa okupacijom ne upali (više o tome krekd kaže - zamisli, bivši saveznici, kolaboratori, biće kolateralna šteta, ko bi to rekao!)

I onda se tako divlja tri dana, svi imaju mišljenje, mada bih živo voleo da vidim koliko to Somalijaca godišnje dobije vizu za SAD, glasači brudera Trumpa srećni, konačno se nešto radi sa brljavim imigrantima (samo ne onim južnjačkim, što obrću takos, rade kao vodoinstalateri i realno mogu da zapale čitav jug ako se sete gde im je kuka a gde motika), liberali daju si malo na odušku, pišu se smešne parole i lupaju selfače na protestu, i posle tri dana, izvedeš ženu, decu i psa na ulicu, lepo je vreme, i najsmešnije od svega, ispostavi se da ta deklaracija ipak ne može da stupi na snagu, za sada. Do sledećeg spina!

Imao je Peljevin baš dobar pasus koji savršeno opisuje tu situaciju, gledaću da ga prepišem ovde večeras ili sutra...

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for Refusing to Defend Immigration Order

Quote

The acting U.S. Attorney General, Sally Yates, was fired Monday night hours after she refused to defend President Trump's executive order regarding immigration because she is not convinced it is "lawful," according to a letter.
In a statement, the White House said Yates "betrayed the Department of Justice" and was "weak on borders" and said she was being replaced by Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
"Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration," the White House statement said. "It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country."
In the letter, Yates wrote: "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful."
Trump's Order Heightens Risk of Extremist Attacks in the US, Counterterror Expert Says


Immigration Order Faces New Challenges After Tumultuous Weekend


"Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so."
Trump's order, which went into effect Friday, affects immigration from seven countries that have predominantly Muslim populations, temporarily bans certain travelers and places indefinite restrictions on Syrian refugees.
The order sparked protests at airports across the country, as well as legal action. A federal judge issued a stay on part of the order regarding deportations.
Yates, who was nominated by former President Obama and confirmed in May 2015, wrote that the "order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions."
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts," she wrote. "In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."
She also wrote that the Office of Legal Counsel's review of the order "does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just."
Before Trump signed the executive order, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel offered the White House a "narrow" assessment of whether the orders were illegal on their face, according to a Justice Department official.
"Through administrations of both parties, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has consistently been asked by the White House to review Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. That review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC's view, a proposed Executive Order is on its face lawful and properly drafted. OLC has continued to serve this traditional role in the present administration," the DOJ official said a statement.
The office's legal review is generally conducted without the involvement of DOJ leadership, and OLC's legal review "does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order," the statement continued.
According to a DHS official, as of Sunday night, there were 735 encounters at ports of entry related to the executive order and no one remains detained.
In addition, there was confusion over whether or not the executive order applied to green card holders from the countries, until DHS Sec. John Kelly issued a statement Sunday, ordering that the entry of lawful permanent residents was in "the national interest," allowing those people to enter the U.S. absent any "significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare."
After Yates' letter was released, Trump Tweeted on Monday night that the "Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G."
And on MSNBC, White House adviser Stephen Miller said that the acting attorney general's memo is a "demonstration of how politicized our legal system has become" and defended the president's authority to determine who is allowed to enter the country.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer defended the implementation of the president's immigration executive order during his press briefing Monday, telling ABC News' Cecilia Vega that the interests of national security outweighed the uncertainty that was caused to those who were stuck in limbo when they arrived in the U.S.
"Coming into this country is a privilege, and be able to come to America is a privilege not a right and it is our duty and it is the president's goal to make sure that everyone who comes to this country to the best of our ability is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully and so he takes that obligation extremely seriously," he said.

austrijske vesti javljaju da je odluka proširena i na one koji su se sticajem okolnosti rodili ta teritoriji prokuženih zemalja (ne moraju nužno da budu arapi), a imaju austrijski pasoš. i kažu da lista nije konačna! lol

Da, i ovaj podugački editorijal priča (i) o tome:

Trumped: May left damaged by early contact with president

Quote
Theresa May has an enormous Trump-shaped problem on her hands. Outside Downing Street tonight and in protests across the country, people will demand that she rescind her invitation of a state visit for the new US president. A petition demanding that the visit be downgraded is around the million signatures mark as this article was written. It needed just 100,000 to be considered for a debate in parliament.
This visit is now an albatross around the prime minister's neck. But why? There was no mention of a state visit before her trip to the US. No-one was calling for it. But when she and Trump strode out for a press conference on Friday, she made herself a hostage of fortune. Not for the first time, she has invented a problem which is not in her power to control.
"I have today been able to convey her majesty the Queen's hope that president Trump and the first lady would pay a state visit to the United Kingdom later this year," she said on stage.
It was baffling. Up until then, May seemed to be doing relatively well. She had issued warnings to Republicans on Trumpism, highlighting dangers around Nato, Russia, Islamophobia and free trade.


And then she invited him on a state visit, one of the greatest honours she can bestow and a sign of the British establishment's full embrace of the president. Britain has placed trade over principles many times before, and specifically in this manner. President Xi Jinping of China was given a state visit in 2015, much to the horror of human rights groups. He wandered round the country looking unimpressed while David Cameron, with pathetic eagerness, encouraged him to drink pints in a country pub. But at least that visit simply involved ignoring the long-established abuses in a state over which we realistically have little influence. Here, May was validating the path of a country over which we do have some influence as it embarked on an experiment in right-wing authoritarianism.
And not only that, but she was putting the royal family in Trump's orbit. Instantly stories started circulating that Trump would publicly disrespect Prince Charles because - shock horror - he believes in climate change. Princess William and Harry would have to sit with a man who boasted that he could have slept with - sorry, "could've nailed" - their mother, months after she died.
It also constitutes a likely security risk to the UK. When May was home secretary she regularly blocked entry to Britain to anyone who might encourage or lead to violence. Well she may not be able to block Trump, but by associating the British establishment with the US president's explicit Islamophobia she complements the narrative put out by Isis to those in the UK who they hope will listen.
We know why she did it. Brexit. The newfound desperation and weakness of a country which we were assured was suddenly going to be in control of its destiny, but is in fact adrift in the sea, urgently in need of assistance from friends and allies.
But what did May secure in exchange for this offer? As far as we can tell, nothing. Trump does not seem to have made the Nato assurances she wanted. A trade deal with the US remains years away. She has nothing.
But she did create a new problem for herself. Almost as soon as she left the US the nightmare began. Trump's Muslim ban came into force in the most brutal way imaginable, penning people in airports, detaining refugees and interpreters and families and old women, and expanding to include those who had been legally resident in the US for years on green cards. It affected Brits too. Initially it seemed those with dual passports would be affected, then even those who were born in the list of banned states, regardless of their passport. This included figures like Olympics star Sir Mo Farah and Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi.
US officials have now belatedly said Brits are excluded from that. They do so like any tinpot dictatorship, coming out with a badly defined law, enforcing it aggressively, and then making exceptions based on little more than friendship or convenience, without due process. But regardless, the assurances have been made.


May's initial response was to repeatedly say that "the United States is responsible for the United States' policy on refugees". Once again, she retreats into meaningless tautology or truism when confronted with a thorny issue. It is not a tactic which fools anyone. Then her position gradually disintegrated. A panicked statement released around midnight on Saturday expressed more criticism. By the end of Sunday the US had offered assurances to the UK - although not for dual-passport holders travelling from the banned countries - and apparently all was well again.
Except that many figures in British politics are principled enough to understand that the policy is intolerable regardless of whether it affects British citizens. It is a moral and constitutional atrocity. That's not because of its effect, but because of its intention. Regardless of their failure or the damage they cause, western policy is always at least trying to solve a problem. Even the disaster of Iraq, or Guantanamo, or extra-judicial killing through drone strikes, had a purpose which, for many - including myself - they sacrificed too many moral principles to secure. But this was different. This was not intended to be effective. It catches too many and excludes too many to be a viable counter-terror policy. It is intended to be discriminatory. Nothing more. This is the theatre of prejudice, weaponised to consolidate Trump's base of support.
For many that was enough, There was now criticism of May's decision to grant Trump a state visit across the political divide. It was so serious even Jeremy Corbyn bothered to say something. The Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens joined in. And Tory MPs made themselves clear. Sarah Wollaston said Trump should be disinvited from addressing the Houses of Parliament. James Cleverly branded the ban  "indefensible, unworkable and almost certainly unconstitutional". Tim Loughton called it "unsustainable and counter-productive". Alistair Burt suggested the UK "try and find a reason for why this visit should not go ahead".
But for now, she's lumped with it: a significant symbolic battle in which Brits appalled by Trump have an outlet for their anger. And all for what? Nothing.
What's concerning is how similarly her misjudgements in this matter correspond to those over Brexit. No-one was talking about the European Court of Justice apart from a few blow-hards when she made her October conference speech. Now it is a red line, which radically complicates her options for the Brexit deal. When she inevitably has to secure an interim period to negotiate a trade deal in 2019, continuing to come under the court's jurisdiction will be a likely EU demand and a way of securing an agreement, because of continued equivalence. But that means she'll be breaking the promises she chose to make on a subject no-one was talking about. It's a rod she made for her own back. And now she's done it again.
These unforced errors she keeps making are bad enough in their own right. But they are particularly concerning given she is about to begin the most complicated, important and dangerous negotiations of Britain's post-war history. And they are particularly depressing when they prevent the UK expressing alarm at the moral disintegration of its greatest ally.
May's initial response was to repeatedly say that "the United States is responsible for the United States' policy on refugees". Once again, she retreats into meaningless tautology or truism when confronted with a thorny issue. It is not a tactic which fools anyone. Then her position gradually disintegrated. A panicked statement released around midnight on Saturday expressed more criticism. By the end of Sunday the US had offered assurances to the UK - although not for dual-passport holders travelling from the banned countries - and apparently all was well again.
Except that many figures in British politics are principled enough to understand that the policy is intolerable regardless of whether it affects British citizens. It is a moral and constitutional atrocity. That's not because of its effect, but because of its intention. Regardless of their failure or the damage they cause, western policy is always at least trying to solve a problem. Even the disaster of Iraq, or Guantanamo, or extra-judicial killing through drone strikes, had a purpose which, for many - including myself - they sacrificed too many moral principles to secure. But this was different. This was not intended to be effective. It catches too many and excludes too many to be a viable counter-terror policy. It is intended to be discriminatory. Nothing more. This is the theatre of prejudice, weaponised to consolidate Trump's base of support.
For many that was enough, There was now criticism of May's decision to grant Trump a state visit across the political divide. It was so serious even Jeremy Corbyn bothered to say something. The Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens joined in. And Tory MPs made themselves clear. Sarah Wollaston said Trump should be disinvited from addressing the Houses of Parliament. James Cleverly branded the ban  "indefensible, unworkable and almost certainly unconstitutional". Tim Loughton called it "unsustainable and counter-productive". Alistair Burt suggested the UK "try and find a reason for why this visit should not go ahead".
But for now, she's lumped with it: a significant symbolic battle in which Brits appalled by Trump have an outlet for their anger. And all for what? Nothing.
What's concerning is how similarly her misjudgements in this matter correspond to those over Brexit. No-one was talking about the European Court of Justice apart from a few blow-hards when she made her October conference speech. Now it is a red line, which radically complicates her options for the Brexit deal. When she inevitably has to secure an interim period to negotiate a trade deal in 2019, continuing to come under the court's jurisdiction will be a likely EU demand and a way of securing an agreement, because of continued equivalence. But that means she'll be breaking the promises she chose to make on a subject no-one was talking about. It's a rod she made for her own back. And now she's done it again.
These unforced errors she keeps making are bad enough in their own right. But they are particularly concerning given she is about to begin the most complicated, important and dangerous negotiations of Britain's post-war history. And they are particularly depressing when they prevent the UK expressing alarm at the moral disintegration of its greatest ally.

Scor, ja i dalje ne razumem zašto građane Srbije boli ta Trampova uredba. Često kad se priča o Kosovu, poteže se argument ,,a kad si bio na Kosovu?'' Analogno tome, zaista sumnjam da je većina  tobož zabrinutih ikad bila u Jemenu, Iraku, Somaliji, a još više sumnjam da žele da ih posete. To su lažne krokodilske suze, jer je sad kul biti protiv Trampa, i ništa više od toga.

Tramp je inače poznat po tome da namerno traži više nego što želi da dobije da bi imao više prostora za pregovaranje. Mislim, to je i sam napisao u knjizi The Art of the Deal. Donji tekst spekuliše da je i trenutna uredba vezana za imigraciju upravo to: da se namerno ide na ekstremnu zabranu (čak i osobe sa zelenim kartama) kako bi se kreirao revolt i izazvale reakcije na koje se onda može odgovoriti ublažavanjem uredbe (Okej, mogu ovi sa zelenim kartama, pa nismo fašisti) a dok se ta borba vodi, on drugde, kako smo već ukazali, pravi drastične poteze (na primer nacionalni savet za bezbednost koji sada ima jednog Stiva Benona u sastavu) i proverava koliko daleko može da gura protiv sudova i drugih segmenata vlasti...

The Immigration Ban is a Headfake, and We're Falling For It

u to ime: kaže mi sestra da kroz san dijego prođoše kamioni i kamioni, nose građevinski materijal na granicu. 
premda je i to verovatno neko zamazivanje očiju.

Tramp mutivoda! A jes ih izmuvo za sve pare

Ovo je i Šešeljeva taktika, pa on je u Hagu maltene jednom priznao da ako hoćeš Srbiju u normalnim granicama moraš da tražiš veliku Srbiju

Šta će tek da radi ako bude htio da napravi nešto s Putinom, uhapsiće Bijons i držati na lebu i vodi tri dana. Džinias!

Histerija protiv Trampa liči već na onu antirusku histeriju u SAD i Britaniji i Baltiku, posle dešavanja na Krimu i u Ukrajini.
Opet imamo jednu skroz crnu stranu, i sile dobra u širokom frontu od Madone do Meril Strip i Čede Jovanovića...