Obama Bans LGBT Human Rights Violators Entry Into U.S.
84 replies, posted
[quote]President Barack Obama on Thursday signed a proclamation banning violators of human rights, including LGBT rights, entry into the United States.
[URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-"]Obama's proclamation[/URL] bans any persons who have participated in serious human rights violations abroad, including human right violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, from entering the nation.
Immigrant and non-immigrant aliens who “planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so” is suspended from entry into the United States.
The measure gives the Secretary of State broad discretion in implementing the proclamation. That is, the secretary could allow such an individual to enter the country if the “entry of such person would be in the interest of the United States.”[/quote]
[url]http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=9138&MediaType=1&Category=25[/url]
Link to the official Presidential Proclamation: [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-[/url]
A very bold step in the right direction, I'm pretty impressed.
Yes, please don't let more idiots come in.
so who hypothetically would be banned from entry? does this mean like ambassadors from like the middle east and africa cant come in to do diplomatic shit or what?
[QUOTE=djshox;31580254][url]http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=9138&MediaType=1&Category=25[/url]
Link to the official Presidential Proclamation: [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-[/url]
A very bold step in the right direction, I'm pretty impressed.[/QUOTE]
Awesome.
They really do cover everything, don't they?
"race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity"
quite a mouthful, including the whole responsibility part too.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31580304]so who hypothetically would be banned from entry? does this mean like ambassadors from like the middle east and africa cant come in to do diplomatic shit or what?[/QUOTE]
That's why the restrictions seem to be broad.
[quote]The measure gives the Secretary of State broad discretion in implementing the proclamation. That is, the secretary could allow such an individual to enter the country if the “entry of such person would be in the interest of the United States.”[/quote]
Obviously, ambassadors are in the interest of the US.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31580304]so who hypothetically would be banned from entry? does this mean like ambassadors from like the middle east and africa cant come in to do diplomatic shit or what?[/QUOTE]
Section 2 covers it:
"Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where the entry of such person would not harm the foreign relations interests of the United States."
So if the Westboro Baptist Church leaves for a bit, does this mean they can't come back in?
[QUOTE=Elizer;31580329]That's why the restrictions seem to be broad.
Obviously, ambassadors are in the interest of the US.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=djshox;31580330]Section 2 covers it:
"Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where the entry of such person would not harm the foreign relations interests of the United States."[/QUOTE]
no this doesnt cover it at all, that just raises more questions. who does this ban from entering? fleeing human rights abuse people? are there any examples of human rights abusers that have entered the country while fleeing?
im not criticizing this at all im just a bit confused to who is going to be turned down
[editline]7th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=TwinkieHouse;31580352]So if the Westboro Baptist Church leaves for a bit, does this mean they can't come back in?[/QUOTE]
they havent committed any human rights abuse
Title is misleading. This gives the Secretary of State the power to forbid entry to those who have committed any sort of crime against humanity, not just against any group in particular.
[editline]7th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=TwinkieHouse;31580352]So if the Westboro Baptist Church leaves for a bit, does this mean they can't come back in?[/QUOTE]
It applies to aliens only.
[QUOTE=TwinkieHouse;31580352]So if the Westboro Baptist Church leaves for a bit, does this mean they can't come back in?[/QUOTE]
That would be Win-Win situation for everyone, as no one wants them in their country. They would be stuck on sea :v:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31580354]no this doesnt cover it at all, that just raises more questions. who does this ban from entering? fleeing human rights abuse people? are there any examples of human rights abusers that have entered the country while fleeing?
im not criticizing this at all im just a bit confused to who is going to be turned down
[editline]7th August 2011[/editline]
they havent committed any human rights abuse[/QUOTE]
I'm not understanding where you're getting confused here. ANY alien fitting the description with the exclusion of ones that are of diplomatic interest will be banned from entry. This isn't prohibiting anyone from entering based on their beliefs, simply based on violating human rights. If "fleeing human rights abuse people" have committed any violations, then yes it bans them from entering.
[QUOTE=djshox;31580483]I'm not understanding where you're getting confused here. ANY alien fitting the description with the exclusion of ones that are of diplomatic interest will be banned from entry. This isn't prohibiting anyone from entering based on their beliefs, simply based on violating human rights. If "fleeing human rights abuse people" have committed any violations, then yes it bans them from entering.[/QUOTE]
but i mean how many fleeing human rights abusers do we have fleeing into the country? is there a strong precedent for this sort of thing or is this mostly a symbolic action?
what im basically confused about, is the act practical in any way? are there currently people residing in the us or people trying to gain entry that commit human rights abuse? or is this mostly to show that we have a tough stance against human rights abusers
Yeah I haven't really heard about individuals who commit a human rights violation. That can only be committed by someone who has a place of power.
I would think it'd only apply to heads of state and other government officials. Maybe the Pope will be banned I dunno.
Yeah but the thing is. I don't think that the pope is officially a human rights violator. It's similar to OJ. Yeah he killed his wife and that Jew. But 'officially' he didn't.
this is good, less idiots coming in... now how about going a step further and purge the whole country from human rights violators already in here?
Well I guess a more serious example would be that dude in Libya. Gadhaffi or whatever. But I think it would be unlikely he would have been allowed into the US even before this law.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31580837]Yeah I haven't really heard about individuals who commit a human rights violation. That can only be committed by someone who has a place of power.
I would think it'd only apply to heads of state and other government officials. Maybe the Pope will be banned I dunno.[/QUOTE]
I think this applies more to specific people that are on the US bad side, plus it's applying to people who've directly committed human rights violations.
And how's the pope committed any human rights violations?
[QUOTE=SwissArmyKnife;31580945]And how's the pope committed any human rights violations?[/QUOTE]Words can hurt too, you know.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31580532]but i mean how many fleeing human rights abusers do we have fleeing into the country? is there a strong precedent for this sort of thing or is this mostly a symbolic action?
what im basically confused about, is the act practical in any way? are there currently people residing in the us or people trying to gain entry that commit human rights abuse? or is this mostly to show that we have a tough stance against human rights abusers[/QUOTE]
I think it's mostly symbolic. People could argue that it's completely useless, but I like the fact he's taking an official stance on human rights.
Congrats. Obama is a legend! :v:
[QUOTE=Careld;31580462]That would be Win-Win situation for everyone, as no one wants them in their country. They would be stuck on sea :v:[/QUOTE]
They can go and protest the dolphins then
It'd be nice if a mod could change the title, as it bans people who've committed crimes against humanity, and not just LGBT ones, like ASmellyOgre said
Now to start kicking them out.
[QUOTE=Kiwi Bird;31587106]It'd be nice if a mod could change the title, as it bans people who've committed crimes against humanity, and not just LGBT ones, like ASmellyOgre said[/QUOTE]Shush it makes me feel nice.
[QUOTE=Stren;31587294]Shush it makes me feel nice.[/QUOTE]
Of course it does Stren.
[QUOTE=Kiwi Bird;31587106]It'd be nice if a mod could change the title, as it bans people who've committed crimes against humanity, and not just LGBT ones, like ASmellyOgre said[/QUOTE]
The title doesn't hint at any exclusivity. The article is extremely short enough that they can read for themselves. It's fine.
Good?
Great, but it's a long way from gay marriage still.
[QUOTE=Metanar;31587569]Great, but it's a long way from gay marriage still.[/QUOTE]
it's basically the same thing
[QUOTE=smurfy;31587593]it's basically the same thing[/QUOTE]
Not really. It doesn't include 'marital status' as a discrimination, for a start.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.