A Suggestion from Jeff Sessions about Hawaii Judge

[kalakoa]

travelers are adjusting their travel plans

This was already happening due to the "border security", the "travel ban" just makes it more visible.

[glassnumbers]

Mermaid, the thing about Hawai'i being the only state with a majority that is non-Caucasian is not true. The District of Columbia has 46% black people to 37% white, and New Mexico has 44% hispanic to 37% white.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/dis...imeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22White%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Aloha

[PaulW]

"only state a majority is non Caucasian"

Depends what he meant by Caucasian. Seems he's including Hispanics in that category. Not that it matters.

[guardship]

The Dude and I both like Caucasians.

[mermaid53]

glassnumbers, that's an interesting chart. Mahalo! []

edited to add:

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race; all other racial/ethnic groups are non-Hispanic.
???

[Iju]

Today the New York Times provide information on "What is Hawaii?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/trave....html?_r=0

[Eric1600]

This is a complete side track from the point of this thread, but Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity. The kff.org chart is combining ethnicity and race together, so it's misleading using it to counter Schatz's point. You can be White and German, or American, or Hispanic, etc. Additionally the idea of "Caucasian" is a bit of an absurd classification originating in the unproven idea that the "white race" (whatever it means) is native from the Caucasus. Schatz is probably implying the more inclusive term "White" by saying Caucasian, in that context he is correct. According to the US Census Bureau, "People who identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race."

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

exactly how many tourists do you think Hawaii gets from these countries?
...
1/2 of our OWN nation is hating the judge and thereby the State

Jeff Session's comment about Hawaii is an intentional distraction and attempt at misdirection from the real issue at hand. He wants to blame a judge in Hawaii for the administration's inability and failure to write an executive order that's constitutional, and they hope you won't notice the problem lies with the wording of their executive order.

For instance, as an example, what if we ask the question:

"Who would know more about immigration, a judge residing in a Pacific island state populated by grateful and willing immigrants seeking a new home from many diverse nations, or a recent senator from Alabama, where a large number of former immigrants to his state arrived by force, or with a bill of sale? Perhaps Sessions, who lived in a state with a history that forced immigration on people of a certain color, might find it more difficult to see that the denial of immigration for those of a specific religion or nationality might also be wrong."

Of course that's another distraction and it may or may not be true. What we need to ask are the real questions before us:

1) What is the right thing to do, regardless of the immediate effects on our state? (even though as Eric1600 noted, the medium and long term effects are plain to see)
2) What is the Constitutional thing to do? (as PaulW pointed out)

Tourists from Asian nations will decide for themselves whether or not they think foreign travelers are welcome in Hawaii and the United States, or how their rights will be respected if they visit. Saying that only six countries are affected by the ban doesn't take into account the permission racist individuals feel they've been granted to treat all visitors of specific skin colors the same, because how can you determine where a darker skinned person is from without seeing their passport? Yemen? Malayasia? Fiji? It's been said many times recently, "better safe than sorry." So permission granted, you may treat "them" all the same.

That's just one way in which an island in the Pacific can be directly impacted by the attitude of Americans both here and thousands of miles away, and by a haphazardly written executive order. It's why our judges and our senators in Hawaii have as much right to speak out on this issue as anyone else. Certainly the same right as the people who want to imply they don't.

On the fifth day - the scientists who studied the rivers - were forbidden to speak - or to study the rivers. -Jane Hirshfield's poem on creation

[MarkD]

Several observations:

Though the travel ban might dissuade some foreign visits to the U.S. [i](see comments by Eric1600, p. 1) [i/], the case should not be overstated.

Look at how Japan limits immigration or vets foreign tourists. Talk about a nation with restrictive policies. Yet apparently they have a quite the visitor industry.

Major opposition to the travel ban comes from America’s multiculturalists/open border people, who want unrestricted entry into our country. Much of the U.S. is highly multi-cultural, Hawaii even more so. Some 20-25 ethnic groups or races are prominent in the U. S. Up until a few years ago, when illegal immigration escalated, multi-culturalism worked out reasonably well for our nation and our islands (excluding, I grant, native peoples who believe they were better off pre-contact).

But this is not enough for the new multiculturalists/open border people. Don’t have a thriving community of Sudanese, Yemeni or Lybians in your country? Then your immigration policies are racist.

The fiasco we have seen along the U.S./Mexican border the past several years illustrates their ideology. Generally when people get caught sneaking across a border, they are a little sheepish. Not much anymore. Many of the illegals caught the past several years hold their heads high. So do the sanctuary city people who abet them. They publicly assert that anyone who crosses the U.S. border has a right to citizenship. The proposed border wall--an infringement on human rights.

Regardless of your view here, one thing is clear: the arrogance of the border crossers and, particularly, their sanctuary city allies, was a major reason Trump was elected.

We can probably all agree that Trump and Sessions have been highly disrespectful towards a judge. And Trump’s warnings of terrorism on U.S. soil are exaggerated. But harsh new immigration controls are justified. Anyone want to observe what is happening with immigration into Europe and then guess how many of the world’s 7 billion people want to come to the U.S., legally or illegally?

[PaulW]

Japan vets foreign tourists? Since when?

No matter how scared you are of foreigners, the fact remains that this travel ban is very likely unconstitutional.
That's a very slippery slope if they start allowing that to slide. I'm glad a Hawaiian Federal judge stuck his neck out.

PS It's usually spelled Libya