Sponsored Adverts

Author Topic: Game development, Trump & the "Muslim Ban"  (Read 1494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2283
Game development, Trump & the "Muslim Ban"
« on: January 30, 2017, 08:01:24 PM »


TL:DR; the Executive Order invokes legislation that already exists in various forms. It's not the media manufactured "Muslim Ban" but a temporary suspension and moratorium on United States travel from Countries ear-marked ostensibly, but not exclusively, by the previous Obama Administration, its Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security (and Intelligence Services).




[long post warning]

Although the EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES is fairly long(ish), its meat and potatoes boil down to the following;
Quote
Sect (c) "... pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act], 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry ... "

The statement makes clear reference to "U.S.Code Title 8, § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens", an act last amended Mar. 7 2013 via the "Violence against Women Re-authorisation Act". And "U.S. Code, Title 8, § 1187 - Visa waiver program for certain visitors", last amended in 2015 via the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016" - whilst the actual amendments made on these occasions cover other aspects of the Bills, the opportunities to amend, rescind and/or append components critical to immigration or non-immigration control were not taken[1].

In other words, the groundwork for the current Executive Order was laid by previous Administrations, the Obama Administration being the last[2], during which time the respective Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary of State, as part of their general duties and obligation to the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" and other legislation to ensure the security of the United States and her borders, authored/updated/amended a "designated countries" list that included Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Sudan, a list that may or may not also be supplemental/supplemented by information used to establish the Foreign Terrorist Organisations list, defining specific terrorist organisations of concern, and/or the U.S. Department of States "Country Policies and Embargoes" list, detailing Nations with which the United States has varying permissive or restrictive trade agreements.

To reiterate, the basis of the current travel "ban" is previous Administrations legislate policy. A matter of fact, and of the public record available to anyone for reference; the new Executive Order simply references and invokes past precedent.

But none of these data-points (facts?) seem to matter, and rather than double-check, partisan press and opposition have taken the opportunity to double-down on a narrative of fear[3] that the Executive Order is a "Muslim Ban". As a result everyone else is following suit, including prominent game industry trade and lobbying bodies, organisations developers, individuals to studios alike, trust to have their best interests in mind, whom now seem to be more interested in virtue signalling solidarity with, and politicking of, the noisy baying and vociferous mob that's taking a stand based upon fabricated outrage; obfuscations at best, mendacious lies at worst. And for column inches?. At what point are 'news' networks no longer serving the interests of their viewers, helping them make properly informed decisions, the outcomes from which do have tangible and potentially lasting effect, and instead fomenting ill-informed reactionary discontent.

With respect to the games industry groups, instead of falling in lock-step with the outrage, they should be making non-political statements, reaching out to those caught out by the Executive Order, assisting and advising, working publicly to reassure members and the broader industry base that they are beavering away on a solution, perhaps something as simple as a checklist individuals can use to see if they actually need to be concerned. Contact numbers, encouraging individuals in particular to get in touch with their local Consulate or Embassy for advice and so on - foreign work/employment and the H-1B Visa program are a complicated issue as it is without fear mongering and ginning people into senseless panic. There's a reason shouting fire in a crowded theatre has never been a good idea... unless panic can be monestised.



Footnotes:
[1] caveat: legislative 'riders' or 'bill stuffing' make it difficult to track down legislative hierarchy's (what came first and where) because updates or amendments to Bills can be written into other completely unrelated Bills, a tactic often used to coerce compliance - by placing immigration amendments in an equal rights for women act for example, politicians would be reluctant to object to a section for fear of being called anti-woman - the objection is seen as anti-bill not anti-section.

[2] other Presidents on immigration "SOTU Bill Clinton talking about immigration in the 1995", "George W. Bush Comprehensive Immigration Reform 2007".

[3] where were the protests, the outrage when the "countries of concern" list was drawn up during the Obama Administration, although not exclusive to that Administration. Or the objections to the 100 mile 'border restriction zone' and 'internal check-points'.

Offline SweeTDreamS

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
Re: Game development, Trump & the "Muslim Ban"
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2017, 09:07:29 PM »
I completely agree with EVERYTHING you stated. However, it's not a "Muslim Ban". It's a pause on intake from countries that are known for being terrorist "hot beds". Not to mention, ISIS has declared war on all of the west. Per U.S. constitution, the acting president does have the authority to halt intake of everyone and anyone coming from areas that have said parties that have declared war on the U.S.A.

I sooooo, don't understand why this is effecting game development. We're all at war folks. Why are we letting them (ISIS) have the upper hand by allowing them to cause internal conflict among our own???

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2283
Re: Game development, Trump & the "Muslim Ban"
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2017, 11:10:31 PM »
The larger concern within the games industry was/is to do with the way the suspension potentially affects foreign workers, either those employed and working overseas for U.S. based studios, or workers brought into the country for employment through work visas (H-1B etc.), it's potentially quite a problem because the games industry (and other entertainment industries) heavy reliance on overseas labour. But... industry bodies jumped the gun because they don't like Trump rather than because the "ban" causes problems in their primary labour markets, i.e., the Asia Pacific region (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc,).

The Constitutional argument is an interesting one because a number of States are ruminating on the idea of reaffirming States Rights to control their own borders - the Federal Government only has that power in a general sense, the States have it in the Absolute sense. There are a number of ways they could do this so it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months for sure.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2283
Re: Game development, Trump & the "Muslim Ban"
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2017, 11:13:55 AM »
Supreme Court decision/judgement on the "travel ban";
Quote
We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c).  The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may  not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2. [source]
In a nutshell... the stay on the Executive Order was based on a misapplication of Lower Courts authority - they incorrectly used decisions relevant only to specific cases as foundational rationale to grant themselves broader powers that could be wielded against the Executive Order wholesale.

In other words the Lower Courts essentially argued "all dogs are poodles" instead of "all poodles are dogs" and lost when the stay was subjected to more thorough testing. Its also perhaps not unduly ironic the decision has actually further bolstered the Executive Orders original intent to block entry into the United States by those absent legitimate reason, whilst granting (case-by-case) access to those who do. It was never intended to be a blanket "Muslim ban" as was/is (mis)characterised by press and media.



 

Sponsored Adverts
RSS Content is copyright © KatsBits™ 2018 unless otherwise stated. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this web site may be reproduced (except for personal use, or otherwise stated) without prior written permission from KatsBits.com. For more infomation on copyright click here.
Web design cpdtAdvertisePrivacy PolicyDMCA (about DMCA) Home Store Workshops Blog Jobs Support About Katsbits Contact Site Search KatsBits Help Site Map RSS feed Forum YouTube FaceBook LinkedIn Twitter IMVU