How is it the same people working for one president less than 60 days later act so different ? or are they ?
Do you mean to say that you are the French historian Henry Rousso?
Google's dictionary (wherever it comes from) has
> conjunction 2: used to indicate by comparison the way that something happens or is done
I think you're thinking of
> preposition 1: used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has
I never anticipated anybody would be so moronic as to think that.
But it's clear, my personal close call at the US border was under Obama, and that I am far from calling him someone in love with justice.
Trump, OTOH, is the kind of person who wants to throw out all the Yemeni in case one of them is another Timothy McVeigh.
You can't really prove this. Something being said in the front of the camera with a fake smile on the face is one thing, documents being signed that are not released to the public is a different story.
Any king can claim to be innocent when a bishop is killed in his realm, and may in theory be innocent. One that said "oh, won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" before the bloodshed can't expect to be believed innocent, though.
"[...] the shift — and the new enthusiasm that has come with it — seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen or gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming 'fun.' Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportat...
I guess we'll be seeing more and more of this in the near future. I and other non citizens are now silenced. A few more laws like this to silence a few other anti-trmup groups and the USA will slowly creep into totalitarianism for fear of losing everything they have.
I'm just glad my birth country is Australia and I can happily return there before it gets really bad in the USA. The biggest problem I'm having is where shall I draw the line where I pack up my life here and return.
If he "didn't want them to happen" it would have been trivial to stop them. Would not even need a new law, a presidential speech would be enough.
When I applied for... it doesn't matter precisely what. I've forgotten, actually, but it was some piece of paper that foreigners need, and only foreigners. Anyway, when I applied for that I chanced upon an official who didn't have much sympathy for foreigners. I got my paper in the end, but it wasn't because of his helpfulness.
Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech to make that official speak a understandably to foreigners? Slur a little less, swallow fewer consonants?
An example of what? That the POTUS, who appoints the Homeland Security secretary, could, if they so wished, absolutely influence behavior and/or policy in the TSA?
>Can you describe, as an example to support your assertion, what should have been in the speech
How about something like: "Any malevolent behavior and unnecessary harassement to visitors from border officials wont be tolerated?"
Realistic?
“If only the czar knew!”
The part where he mentions three officials immediately shouted down a man in unison after he protested about their treatment of the woman with the child is a perfect example of the cruel and over the top behavior I was witness to. It's also quite cowardly to need three people to do that and pathetic. I should say I was not often the victim, but just watching other people being treated in this way made me feel sick and I think it's something that should be addressed by the citizens, you should say denounce this sort of treatment of anyone. Anyone who gets pleasure out of causing any sort of suffering of another person should be removed from their post, based on my experiences that would require a complete overhaul from top to bottom.
Nothing has really changed with regards to how people are treated.
I think the author of this article made the classic mistake of admitting he was being paid for work, which is forbidden with a regular US tourist visa. It turns out that he did have the right visa (or the type of work he was doing is permitted - it wasn't clear in the article), but as soon as you say that you're being paid, it sets off alarm bells.
My understanding -- reading between the lines -- is that if someone has been to the US on a J1 they are more likely to return and work illegally.
CBP screen based on this. It sucks, and has for a long time. I've not personally experienced any change post-Obama. The major variability is in the CBP agent, not in top-down policies.
At the end of the day you have to choose between open and closed borders. If you want to close your borders then screening is a tough business. The main difference between the US and the rest of the world is scale and desirability. A lot of people want to go there, more than any other country in the world. That makes it difficult!