|
สหรัฐออกคำสั่งห้ามคนเข้าเมืองฉบับใหม่ 🌎Trump's New Visa Ban Excludes Iraq
![]() Trump signs new travel ban directive
From the section US & CanadaPresident Donald Trump has signed a new executive order placing a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations. Iraq - which was covered in the previous seven-nation order - has been removed from the new one after agreeing to additional visa vetting measures. The directive, which includes a 120-day ban on all refugees, takes effect on 16 March. The previous order, which was blocked by a federal court, sparked confusion at airports and mass protests. Presented as a means to strengthen national security against terror threats, it was blocked by the courts and effectively remains on hold. The new order was unveiled by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. Media captionNew US travel ban: What's different?"The fact remains that we are not immune to terrorist threats and that our enemies often use our own freedoms and generosity against us," said Mr Kelly. In justifying the refugee ban, Mr Sessions said there are more than 300 refugees under investigation for potential terror offences. But no further details were given.
Iraq has been taken off the banned list because its government has boosted visa screening and data sharing, White House officials said. The new directive says refugees already approved by the State Department can enter the US. It also lifts an indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees. Green Card holders (legal permanent residents of the US) from the named countries will not be affected. The new order does not give priority to religious minorities, unlike the previous directive. Critics of the Trump administration had argued that this was an unlawful policy showing preference to Christian refugees. Media captionRex Tillerson: "President Trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe"What does the administration say?The three Cabinet secretaries held a joint news conference on Monday morning to discuss the new directive. America's top US diplomat said the order was meant to "eliminate vulnerabilities that radical Islamic terrorists can and will exploit for destructive ends". Mr Sessions said that, according to the FBI, more than 300 people who entered the US as refugees are under investigation for potential terrorism-related offences. The top US prosecutor said three of the countries were state sponsors of terrorism. The other three, Mr Sessions said, had lost control of territory to militants such as the Islamic State group or al-Qaeda. Mr Kelly added that unregulated and unvetted travel was putting national security at risk. He said the US cannot tolerate "malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives". None of the cabinet secretaries took any questions after the press conference. Analysis - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington Donald Trump has, at last, unveiled his new immigration order, and it looks like government lawyers - and not just White House political operatives like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller - have had their input. Gone are the most controversial measures of the old order, such as preference for Christian refugees and the suspension of existing visas and green cards. The details of the action's implementation are outlined with greater clarity this time, with more than a week before the new rules kick in. It's still an open question as to what, if anything, this order will do to prevent violent attacks on US soil, given that past high-profile incidents have not involved individuals from any of the six named countries. Mr Trump had promised bold action on border security, however - the kind of move that would unnerve traditional politicians and anger civil liberties advocates. Given the early reaction from groups like the ACLU and Democratic leaders, the story is unfolding as expected. Although Mr Trump's campaign-rally talk of sweeping Muslim bans are a thing of the past, his supporters will likely revel in the uproar and consider this latest move a campaign promise kept. Why the delayed implementation?Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionThis Syrian family were reunited at Chicago's O'Hare airport in February The new order is set to take effect on 16 March. White House officials hope the 10 days' notice will help to avoid some of the chaotic scenes at US airports that occurred on 27 January when the first executive order was announced without warning. Travellers with valid visas who were in the air at the time found themselves detained by border officials on arrival. Mr Trump had defended the lack of notice, tweeting that "if the ban were announced with a one week notice, the 'bad' would rush into our country during that week". Media captionMeet the Arab American family divided over Trump Will the new executive order face legal challenges?Yes. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman - the state's highest ranking law enforcement officer - issued a statement on Monday saying his office is ready to take the Trump administration to court. "While the White House may have made changes to the ban, the intent to discriminate against Muslims remains clear," he said. "My office is closely reviewing the new executive order, and I stand ready to litigate - again - in order to protect New York's families, institutions, and economy." The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), an Arab-American grassroots civil rights organisation, immediately called for donations to fight impending legal battles ahead. "The ban is about xenophobia and Islamophobia," the group said in a statement to the BBC. Reference: BBC News National Security
Revised executive order bans travelers from six Muslim-majority countries from getting new visas Trump administration officials spoke to members of the media, March 6, about a new executive order imposing a ban on U.S. entry for new visa seekers from six majority-Muslim nations. Here are key moments from that news conference. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) By Matt Zapotosky, David Nakamura and Abigail Hauslohner March 6 at 2:21 PM President Trump signed a new travel ban Monday that administration officials said they hope will end legal challenges over the matter by imposing a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas for citizens of six majority-Muslim nations. In addition, the nation’s refugee program will be suspended for 120 days, and the United States will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration. The new guidelines mark a dramatic departure from Trump’s original ban, issued in January and immediately met by massive protests and then ordered frozen by the courts. The new ban lays out a far more specific national security basis for the order, blocks the issuance of only new visas, and names just six of the seven countries included in the first executive order, omitting Iraq. Trump signed the new ban out of public view, according to White House officials. The order will take effect March 16. “This executive order responsibly provides a needed pause so we can carefully review how we scrutinize people coming here from these countries of concern,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in announcing that the order had been signed. The order also details specific sets of people who would be able to apply for case-by-case waivers to the order, including those previously admitted to the United States for “a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity”; those with “significant business or professional obligations”; and those seeking to visit or live with family. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, sent out an email asking people to sign a petition in support of the new order. “As your President, I made a solemn promise to keep America safe,” the email signed by Trump said. “And I will NEVER stop fighting until we implement the policies you — and millions of Americans like you — voted for.” Democrats and civil liberties groups said Monday that the new order was legally tainted in the same way as the first one: It was a thinly disguised Muslim ban. Trump, in his email, used the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe his concern with the countries whose citizens would be blocked from acquiring visas. That seems to portend more litigation — though how soon remains unclear. The attorney general of Washington state, Bob Ferguson, who successfully sued to have the first ban blocked, said he was still reviewing what to do. The new order, Ferguson said, represented a “significant victory” for Washington state because the administration had “capitulated on numerous key provisions that we contested in court.” But he said state lawyers would need two or three days to see what action they would take in the court case. Attorney General Jeff Sessions outlined President Trump's new travel ban, calling it 'lawful,' during a news conference on March 6 at the Department of Homeland Security. (The Washington Post)“We’re reviewing it carefully, and still have concerns with the new order,” Ferguson said. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that even if the litigation were to move forward, it should do so at a slower place, and with the new ban in place. The government noted that visa applicants typically have to wait months and asserted there was “no imminent harm” from the president’s temporary suspension of the issuance of new visas to certain people. That assertion, though, did little to assuage the concerns of Democrats and civil liberties groups, who said the new ban was just like the old. Karen Tumlin, the legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, predicted that federal judges who ordered a restraining order on the earlier ban are likely to do so again, and that pending lawsuits filed by her organization and others will not need to be filed anew. “From our vantage point, that litigation lives on,” she said. New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D), who had joined the legal fight against the first ban, said, “While the White House may have made changes to the ban, the intent to discriminate against Muslims remains clear.” Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban. Instead, President Trump has recommitted himself to religious discrimination, and he can expect continued disapproval from both the courts and the people.” The revised travel ban also came under quick fire from refugee advocates, who said it unfairly penalizes refugees without improving U.S. security. “President Trump still seems to believe you can determine who’s a terrorist by knowing which country a man, woman or child is from,” said Grace Meng, an immigration researcher with Human Rights Watch. “Putting this executive order into effect will only create a false sense of security that genuine steps are being taken to protect Americans from attack, while undermining the standing of the U.S. as a refuge for those at greatest risk.” Officials from the State, Homeland Security and Justice departments defended the new order as a necessary measure to improve public safety. They said the countries named — Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Yemen — were either state sponsors of terrorism, or their territories were so compromised that they were effectively safe havens for terrorist groups. Iraq was omitted, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, because it is an “important ally in the fight to defeat ISIS” and its leaders had agreed to implement new, unspecified security measures. Civil rights advocates said Monday that the sudden exclusion of Iraq, as well as the omission of other countries with active terrorist groups — such as Colombia, Venezuela, Pakistan and the Philippines and others — underscored the ban’s arbitrariness as a national security measure. The new order provides other exceptions not contained explicitly in previous versions: for travelers from those countries who are legal permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals who use a passport from another country, and those who have been granted asylum or refugee status. It removes an exception to the refugee ban for members of religious minority groups — which critics had pointed to as evidence the first ban was meant to discriminate against Muslims — and it no longer imposes an indefinite prohibition on travelers from Syria. Anyone who holds a visa now should be able to get into the country without any problems, although those whose visas expire will have to reapply, officials said. The order claims that since 2001, hundreds of people born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. It cites two specific examples: Two Iraqi nationals who came to the United States as refugees in 2009, it says, were convicted of terrorism-related offenses, and in October 2014, a Somali native brought to the country as a child refugee was sentenced to 30 years in prison for plotting to detonate a bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Oregon. That man became a naturalized U.S. citizen. “We cannot risk the prospect of malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives,” Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly said. The new ban also says that more than 300 people who entered the country as refugees were the subject of active counterterrorism investigations. U.S. officials declined to specify the countries of origin of those being investigated, their immigration status, or whether they had been charged with crimes. Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor who studies violent extremism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, there have been no fatalities caused by Muslim extremists with family backgrounds in the six countries covered by the new ban. A Department of Homeland Security report assessing the terrorist threat posed by people from the seven countries covered by the president’s original travel ban had cast doubt on the necessity of the executive order, concluding that citizenship was an “unreliable” threat indicator and that people from the affected countries had rarely been implicated in U.S.-based terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, criticized the report as being incomplete and not vetted with other agencies, and he said the administration should not be pressed by the judiciary to unveil sensitive national security details to justify the ban. The order represents an attempt by the Trump administration to tighten security requirements for travelers from nations that officials said represent a terrorism threat. A more sweeping attempt in January provoked mass protests across the country as travelers en route to the United States were detained at airports after the surprise order was announced. The State Department had provisionally revoked tens of thousands of visas all at once. [Read the fact sheet and Q&A on the new travel executive order] Officials sought to dismiss the idea that there would be any confusion surrounding the implementation of the new order. They said they delayed implementation so the government could go through the appropriate legal processes and ensure that no government employee would face “legal jeopardy” for enforcing the order. The revisions to the order will make it more defensible in court — limiting the number of people with standing to sue — but the changes might not allay all the concerns raised by judges across the country. The three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, for example, said that exempting green-card and current visa holders from the ban would not address their concern about U.S. citizens with an interest in noncitizens’ travel. The administration, too, will have to wrestle with comments by the president and top adviser Rudolph W. Giuliani that seemed to indicate the intent of the order was to ban Muslims from entering the United States, which could run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On the campaign trail, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” After the election, Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, said: “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ” A federal judge in Virginia referenced those comments in ordering the ban frozen with respect to Virginia residents and institutions, calling it “unrebutted evidence” that Trump’s directive might violate the First Amendment. Carol Morello, Matea Gold, Missy Ryan, Mark Berman and Rachel Weiner contributed to this report. Read more: Federal appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban This is what it takes for a refugee to be admitted into the U.S. Denied Entry: Stories of refugees and immigrants barred from the U.S.
|
Asian Americans think 'Orientals' is an offensive word.
This is puzzling to me. 'Oriental', in many classic literatures, has been used as a romantic term describing the exotic East. 'The Orient' refers to the colorful people and culture of East Asia, China in particular. The word 'Orient' and 'Oriental' have positive connotation throughout Asia even today. By classic definition, any place east of Istanbul is the Orient. Marco Polo traveled to the orient to serve Kublai Khan also by way of Istanbul. The Orient Express connects Europe with Istanbul, where Europe meets the Orient, and on which a murder was committed - thanks to Agatha Christie who made the word 'Orient' so thrilling. We now can fly Orient Air to Japan and buy an Orient watch. Then fly back to Bangkok for a few night stay at 'The Oriental', the best hotel in the world, where Joseph Conrad frequented during his time of 'Lord Jim', and other famous novels. They even named a room after him. Get your orientation right and you will love the Orient and the Orientals. No matter what Asian Americans think of their place in American cultural context, I still feel that the word 'Oriental' is exotically romantic. ------- เมื่อปี 2016 Grace Meng, ส.ส.อเมริกันเชื้อจีน, เห็นว่า "Orientals" เป็นคำไม่เหมาะสม ไม่สมควรจะใช้ในกฎหมายใดๆของสหรัฐฯ เพราะเป็นคำที่แสดงอาการดูถูกคนเอเชีย และคนอเมริกันเชื้อสายเอเชีย จึงเสนอกฎหมายให้ยกเลิกการใช้คำว่า "Orientals" นี้ อย่างเป็นทางการ กฎหมายผ่านรัฐสภา และมีผลบังคับใช้เมื่อปี 2016 โดยให้ใช้คำว่า 'Asian American' แทน ทำนองเดียวกับการใช้คำว่า 'African American' แทนคำว่า 'Negro' เมื่อวันที่ 4 กุมภาพันธ์ 2017 Mike Bost, สมาชิกสภาผู้แทนสหรัฐอเมริกา แห่งรัฐ Illinois, พูดว่า “You know the cleansing that the Orientals used to do where you’d put one person out in front and 900 people yell at them?” เป็นการพูดแสเงความไม่พอใจที่เวลาไปประชุมพบประชาชนที่หอประชุมท้องถิ่นแล้วมีคนมายืนตะโกนต่อว่ากันมากในระนี้ที่การเมืองสหรัฐฯกำลังแบ่งข้างชัดเจน เขาจึงเปรียบการระดมคนไปสร้างปัญหาด่าว่าผู้บรรยายในที่ประชุมนั้นเหมือนกัยที่จีนคอมมิวนิตส์ทำสมัยหนึ่ง พอพูดเสร็จแล้ว ส.ส. Bost พูดเสร็จแล้วนึกขึ้นมาได้ว่าการใช้คำว่า ‘Orientals’ เป็นเรื่องไม่เหมาะสม เพราะคนอเมริกันเชื้อสายเอเชีย โดยเฉพาะคนจีนรู้สึกว่าคำว่า ‘Orientals’ เป็นคำดูถูกเหยียดผิวคนเชื้อสายจีนหรือเอเชียในอเมริกา เพราะเมื่อปี 2016 มีกฎหมายห้ามใช้คำว่า ‘Orientals’ ในกฎหมายต่างๆทั้งหมดแล้ว ส.ส.ผู้นี้เลยต้องกลับมาขอโทษประชาชนที่ใช้คำว่า 'Orientals' โดยเหตุที่ว่าชาวอเมริกันส่วนหนึ่งถือเป็นคำไม่สุภาพและเหยียดหยามคน 'Asian Americans' เหมือนกับการใช้คำว่า 'Negro' กับคนผิวดำ คนอเมริกันเข้าใจไปอย่างนี้ได้อย่างไร ว่าคำว่า 'Oriental' ไม่สุภาพและเป็นอาการเหยียดหยามคนเชื้อสายจีน วรรณกรรมในอดีต ใช้คำว่า 'Oriental' เป็นคำงดงาม สุนทรีย์ romantic คำใช้ในงานวรรณกรรมในอดีตสะท้อนความ อัศจจรย์ เป็นเอกลักษณ์ของชาวเอเชียตะวันออก โดยเฉพาะชาวจีน "Orient" ใช้เป็นชื่อนาฬิกาชั้นดีของญี่ปุ่น และเป็นชื่อสายการบินในเอเชีย และ ชื่อโรงแรม 'The Oriental' ยังเป็นชื่อที่ยิ่งใหญ่ของโรงแรมระดับนำของโลกที่กรุงเทพฯ เป็นเรื่องของการซึมซับรับรู้ทางประวัติศาสตร์วัฒนธรรมและประสบการณ์ของต่างบริบทสังคม คนอเมริกันเชื้อสายจีนมีประสบการณ์ชีวิตที่ต่างไปจากคนเอเชียตะวันออกที่เกิดและเติบโตที่ The Orient มิได้จากบ้านเกิดไปตั้งรกรากใหม่ที่ไหน Thaivision 5 มีนาคม 2560 Democracy Dies in Darkness
The Washington Post When freedom is killed 'Democracy Dies in Darkness' 'ประชาธิปไตย ตาย ในความมืด' เมื่อเสรีภาพถูกทำลาย หนังสือพิมพ์ The Washington Post พิมพ์ 'คำเสียขวัญ' ด้านล่างของหัวหนังสือพิมพ์ว่า 'Democracy Dies in Darkness' / 'ประชาธิปไตย ตาย ในความมืด' สะท้อนความตกต่ำของประชาธิปไตย อันได้รับผลกระทบจากความคิดทางการเมืองของ Donald Trump ที่กำลังปิดกั้น, ทำลายเสรีภาพ, และจำกัดบทบาทหน้าที่ของสื่อมวลชนในการสร้างสังคมประชาธิปไตยในอเมริกา เวลาที่มีข่าวที่เขาไม่ชอบ Trump จะกล่าวหาสื่อมวลชนเสมอว่าเป็น 'fake news' รายงานข่าวปลอม โกหก เป็นพวกเลวร้ายที่สุดในโลก ที่รุนแรงที่สุด คือการที่ Trump กล่าวว่า "สื่อมวลชนคือศัตรูของประชาชนชาวอเมริกัน" และล่าสุดเมื่อสัปดาห์ที่ผ่านมา Trump สั่งห้ามสื่อมวลชนสำคัญของสหรัฐฯหลายองต์กร เช่น CNN, BBC, New York Times, Bloomberg, Huffington Post รวมทั้ง BBC ของอังกฤษ ไม่ให้เข้าฟังการชี้แจงข่าวที่ทำเนียบขาว ส่วนสำนักข่าว AP ทั้งๆที่ได้รับเชิญ แต่ก็ประท้วงไม่ไป เพื่อแสดงความสนับสนุนเพื่อนสื่อมวลชนที่ถูกห้ามเข้าทำเนียบขาว สงครามระหว่าง Donald Trump กับเสรีภาพ รุนแรงหนักขึ้น ดังที่หนังสือพิมพ์ The Washington Post ตอกย้ำกับสังคมอเมริกันถึงความสำคัญของเสรีภาพของสื่อมวลชน ตามข้อความที่ลงในเนื้อที่สำหรับคำขวัญและปรัชญาขององค์กร แต่คราวนี้เป็น 'คำเสียขวัญ' ประกาศไว้อาลัยต่อประชาธิปไตยในอเมริกา ว่า 'Democracy Dies in Darkness' / 'ประชาธิปไตย ตาย ในความมืด' Thaivision 26 กุมภาพันธ์ 2560 ปัจจุบันนี้เรียกชื่อว่า "ทะเลจีนใต้" แต่จากนี้ต่อไป,
เพื่อความถูกต้องเหมะสมตามลักษณะทางภูมิศาสตร์, ทะเลแห่งความตึงเครียดนี้สมควรจะเรียกชื่อใหม่ว่า "ทะเลแห่งเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้" หรือ "South-East Asian Sea" (SEAS) ในความเห็นของผม / IN MY OPINION ▶️ Currently known as the South China Sea, this body of contentious water shall, from now on, be geographically-correctly called "THE SOUTH-EAST ASIAN SEA" (SEAS). It's located south of China and surrounded by Southeast Asian countries. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes 12 nautical miles off the furthest shore as national territorial water, and the exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles further away. Countries of Southeast Asia surrounding this marginal sea west of the Pacific Ocean should have equal rights to administer their respective maritime territories and economic zones in accordance with UNCLOS. China has no right to claim the whole of SEAS as their own by merit of history and its namesake. The namesake "South China Sea" does not signify automatic China's ownership, otherwise Thailand could claim the whole of Gulf of Siam. Likewise, India and Bangladesh can start a war for the Bay of Bengal. History belongs to the past and the present is today. The world today lives by international treaty, convention, and agreement. China must learn to abide by international rules. The South China Sea, therefore, is an irrelevant name and a ghost of the past. This body of peaceful water of South East Asia, from today onwards, shall be called "THE SOUTH-EAST ASIAN SEA" (SEAS). China must relinquish all claims and withdraw from all the islands within SEAS. ASEAN negotiation process should continue with full cooperation from China. Thaivision 21 February 2017 'Literacy' แปลว่าการรู้หนังสือ อ่านออก-เขียนได้ เมื่อนำมาใช้กับคำว่า Media หรือ สื่อมวลชน แล้ว 'Media Literacy' ก็แปลว่า การรู้จักสื่อ รู้อะไรเป็นไร ใครเป็นใคร รู้ว่าสื่อเป็นของกลุ่มทุนหรือเจ้าของใด มีความคิดอย่างไร ยึดอุดมการณ์ หลักจรรยาบรรณสื่อหรือไม่อย่างไร ทำงานโดยได้แหล่งข่าวยืนยันความจริงเพียงไร ข่าวแต่ละชิ้นที่เขียนมีเป้าหมายและรายละเอียด หรืออาจมีเจตนาซ่อนเร้นอย่างไร Media Literacy ▶️
|
❉ GOOD READS ❉
บทสนทนาเรื่อง Atlantis ทวีปที่ล่มสลายในอดีตกาล
|
เรื่องเล่าถึง UTOPIA "อุตมะรัฐ" มหานครในอุดมการณ์
|
สัตวาธิปไตย..สัตว์ทุกตัวเท่าเทียมกัน เพียงแต่ว่ามีสัตว์บางตัวเท่าเทียมมากกว่าตัวอื่น เท่านั้นเอง วรรณกรรมการเมืองแบบสังคมนิยมประชาธิปไตยของ George Orwell นักเขียนชาวอังกฤษ ผู้เตือนโลกได้ส่วนหน้าเสมอถึงสิ่งที่จะเกิดในอนาคต
|
1984 Returns to 2017 America in full force. Donald Trump, 'The Bad Hombre' of modern American politics, who has no taste for reading, makes us read this 1948 Orwellian classic again.....and wonder......
|
ปรัชญาการเมืองจากมหาตมะ คานธี เรื่องพลังแห่งความจริง และการไม่ใช้ความรุนแรง
|
อาจารย์มหาวิทยาลัย นักเขียนรางวัล Nobel ผู้เขียนนวนิยายสอนหนุ่มสาวชาวอเมริกันผิวดำให้รู้จักว่าความรัก กับ ความใคร่ ต่างกันอย่างไร และการใช้ชีวิตในสังคมเหยียดผิวนั้นจะต้องทำตัวอย่างไร จึงจะพออยู่ได้ ไม่ถึงกับจะเท่าเทียมนักกับคนผิวขาว
|
หนังสือเก่าที่ไม่ล้าสมัยคู่มือการใช้ภาษาอังกฤษซึ่งเป็นที่นิยมของนักศึก ษาและชาวอเมริกันทั่วไป ชาวต่างชาติมีไว้พกติดตัวปรับปรุงการใช้ภาษาอังกฤษของตนด้วยก็ยิ่งดี สั้น กระชับ อ่านง่าย เขียนโดยอาจารย์มหาวิทยาลัย Cornell University
|