Statement from LibraryThing’s Employees on Trump’s Recent Executive Order

LibraryThing employees got together to write a statement on Trump's recent executive order.

You can read it here:
http://blog.librarything.com/main/2017/01/statement-trump/

We were, I think, careful to repeat this was "LibraryThing employees" not "LibraryThing."

By "employees" we meant that every employee had the right to help with the statement, and the right to nix it entirely, anonymously. No one did, and indeed we worked together to edit my initial, partial draft into something far better.

By "employees" we also mean that neither I nor all employees together would ever presume to speak for the LibraryThing community as a whole.

That's it. Obviously our statement is to nothing compared with that of giants like Facebook and Twitter, or to some of the library organizations that have done so. But we are, I think, the first library tech company to issue such a statement. Maybe it will prompt others to consider how their business is dependent on principles and simple human dynamism that Trump's order offends.

Great statement.

Bravo, well done.

I stand with you, and am impressed and honored to do so.

Nice to see this.

Thank you, Tim & Co.

Thank you very much for this.

Good for you. An excellent statement. Well done, LT employees!

Not all Librarythingers are automatically PC liberals; I'm on here every day & am so far really impressed with Trump's stand against Muslim extremism. Interestingly havent seen any protests from your crowd at head office against Islamic outrages. Mind you, maybe it wouldnt be safe to decry the beheadings, bombs and mayhem that emanate from that 'religion' on a daily basis! Interesting to debate this on political site but I tune in her to do books and I'm really not interested to hear your personal thoughts (which are just as unimportant as my own!)

I am also here for the books and just the books.

Thank you. I'm sure you'll get a lot of flak for this, and I'm glad you're doing the right thing.

I'll add my voice to the others saying thank you for making this statement.

>1 timspalding: Thank you all for taking a stand. Your principles and welcomeness make me especially happy to be here.

Thank you, Tim. It actually brought a tear to my eye. In a couple of hours I'll be demonstrating in front of our congressman's local office about these issues.

I respect that others have different opinions. But I am afraid for so many people right now because of so many issues. I'm 65 years old and I'm doing the same thing I did when I was 16, taking it to the streets. And voting. I've always voted.

Thank you! Glad to know I'm not alone. Appreciate that you would speak up and out on this latest craziness. Hardly think we need to be PC liberals to see religious ban for what it is. Unconstitutional!

Bravo.

Thank you. This is not a time to keep silent.

>9 starbox:

LibraryThing has never been a faceless entity, but a collection of real people—real enough for you to talk to, agree with or disagree with. We aren't silent corporate caretakers, but participants too. If you disagree, well, the flip side is that we think of you the same way.

As the LibraryThing employee most often talking about politics, on our various political groups, I can say that, if you haven't seen me discussing Islamist terrorism, you weren't looking. With my views, there aren't so many who'd call me a "PC liberal." At the same time, yes, you will not see me putting quotes around the world "religion" when applied to Muslims. That sort of talk goes against my religion, not to mention the humanity of the people I'm having dinner with tonight.

I'm glad LibraryThing's community has people of different views. But I believe our company and industry—books, libraries, tech—depends upon certain core principles, such a free press and, here, non-discrimination and the value of immigration. And we will continue to speak up against things that threaten those principles.

My heart goes out to those caught at airports around the world. People with valid tickets, with valid visas or green cards. People who want to go home, or people who have torn up their roots for the promise of a freer life.

Thank you, LibraryThing employees. Thank you.

I agree with your statement at the beginning and your comment in 18. One must be civil and be clear about where one stands on this "mess (my personal feeling)". Nice job.

>18 timspalding: Couldn't have said it better myself, so I wont.

Thank you very much for making your statement and thumbs up to timspalding. Bravo!

As an LT employee who was a very active member for many years before being employed by the company, everything in >18 timspalding: is exactly how I feel about it and us. On LT I've learned from folks with different beliefs from mine and whose lives aren't much like mine, without being subjected to personal attacks. That's a rarity on social media, and I'm grateful for it.

Well said!

Thank you for making this statement. I am amazed (and pleased) at the number of groups, colleges, and others, who have never before taken a public, political stand but are doing so, this time.

I'm always proud to be an LTer but never more so than today.

Bravo, Tim. I'm sharing.

and re: >18 timspalding: -- LT is the only place I actually enjoy arguing about politics and religion. Often with you! :) I think that's down to the culture that you and the staff have cultivated, and the principle of free exchange of ideas that the site is committed to. So as possibly the most "pc" pc liberal on the site, thank you.

Discrimination? It appears to me everyone uses this word like it is a bad thing. Or am I wrong? If a family member of a neighbor is harmful to my family, and I issue an executive order that my family is not to associate with this other family until I can figure out how the other members of that family are inclined. Am I not exercising discrimination? Is that not a good thing? Am I not protecting my family from harm? Am I not taking the time to figure out if my actions are justified, while protecting my family in the meantime? Help me out here so I can understand the reasoning behind these statements. Yes, and I know my example will be called simplistic by some, but I tend to reason out on a smaller scale, so that I can wrap my head around issues, rather than deal with the humongous family we call the USA. I welcome other points of view on this subject!
Ron

Thanks, Tim and LT staff.

>28 ronpeltier: It's when you discriminate on criteria that make no sense that it becomes a problem.

Excellent, Tim. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the thoughtless way this was done, punishing people from countries that haven't even been a threat. For those who want a ban against terrorists, start with the countries that actually birthed and hosted the terrorists who have attacked us: countries like Saudi Arabia, where Trump has business interests and Bush Jr has friends. Or maybe "Christians", who have carried out attacks in the name of white supremacy, or any number of other groups. Trump is using mob mentality to find a scapegoat, and unfortunately, at least with the Trump supporters I know, he has swayed many to follow his rhetoric rather than thinking it through for themselves. The lessons of WWII should be obvious to anyone who cares to take a close look.

>31 auntmarge64: I'll second that. I'm also postponing any plans of visiting the US. To borrow the picture from >28 ronpeltier: I won't be visiting the family until I'm convinced that it is safe to do so. Danes don't scare easily but I really don't fancy getting stranded in the security facilities of a US airport.

Thumbs up..

I'm thirding that. I'm in the UK and quite worried where this is headed, and quite fearful for my US family. Also well said Tim and team - as I said on Facebook, the whole point of democracy and free speech is to allow you be able to express your beliefs freely and without fear. I'm not sure closing your borders is the best way to communicate that message to those regimes where these rights are a hope.

>1 timspalding: To be honest Tim I think this was just a way to get his name remembered out there. It's been done before - just more political posturing. Muslims have always been screened entering the USA as have many other immigrants. There was nothing new - Trump has been elected democratically you have to go along with that. He is in the position of leader. I truly can't see what all the fuss is about. Maybe people just wanted to get out and meet each other. I hope the demo's were peaceful.

I was glad to see your statement. Recent events have left me very concerned for the United States.

>1 timspalding: Thank you Tim and all, and well said.

>35 justmum: The issue isn't the screening, it's that he's put a 90 day stop on all travel to the US for citizens of 7 majority Muslim countries (although, after much protest, now permanent residents and those with special visas (such as those who aided the US as translators, etc) will be allowed in but still with extra scrutiny, whatever that means). And I just read that the Trump administration has said that some of those bans may become permanent.

Thank you for your statement!

>1 timspalding: Well said, people! (From the UK)

>28 ronpeltier: No, it's more like issuing an order against that neighbouring family rather than to your own, and issuing it as well against Episcopalians (those living in places where you have no financial interest, anyway) because that family are Episcopalian, unlike you but just like the kid living 12 states distant who was a school shooter.

Kudos for speaking up.

Well said!

So, now I am confused by your logic. Obama issued orders against these very same countries, and no uproar resulted. Now, Trump issues a temporary order until he can evaluate the potential threat, and it is a major issue. Please explain to me the difference. I do believe Saudi Arabia probably should be on the list, but somehow I think that would really have created chaos. Has anyone else read the order? I cannot see where it is a ban on all Muslims, just those that are terrorist. Enlighten me please. Ron

>44 ronpeltier:

Please explain to me the difference.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-...
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-...

I cannot see where it is a ban on all Muslims, just those that are terrorist.

It is a ban on all people from specific countries, not just terrorists. It includes lawful permanent residents of the U.S., as well as visa holders. (Notably, it does not ban people from countries known to have supported terrorism, but in which Trump does business.)

While Trump claims it is not aimed at Muslims, Rudy Giuliani has told us that Trump called him and said he wanted to find a way to have a "Muslim ban" legally.

>44 ronpeltier:

The old bans did not catch LPRs (green card holders), work and study visa holders that had already issued and in a lot of cases activated visas. This one is a total ban - if you are a citizen of one of the 7 countries and you were outside of USA in Friday OR you need to travel out in these 90 days, you cannot come back. No matter what visa you are holding. If you are studying or working in the USA and you were out on vacation/family visit in Friday, you are banned from coming back to your studies. Despite having been here for years in some cases. And it surely did not catch the people from these countries that had worked for USA and already had been approved for visas.

They did "clarify" that LPRs can come back home in Sunday (after first saying that it does include them of course) but the way it was issued in Friday did not allow them to.

The refugees related clauses are also a mess - including the minority religions ones - when you ban 7 countries with the same majority religion and order that the priority will be for the minority religions, how exactly do you read that order?

>45 lilithcat: I'd not put all my trust in Politifact, they've been proved wrong in the past.

I'm sick to death of the moaning, groaning, and hysterical rantings that the media is promoting. I am extremely sorry that the employees of LT took it upon themselves to spread the conflagrations here. If I wanted to read Politico, CNN, or Huffington Post, I would have gone to those sites instead of LT.

Now I'm going to go read...

>1 timspalding: I am both grateful and very proud of you & the staff for taking a stand.

>47 fuzzi: Stating a position does not equal spreading conflagration by any stretch of the imagination.

>47 fuzzi: This isn't hysterical ranting, moaning, and groaning. This is people's lives. Literally. Until Trump got put under enough pressure they weren't going to let in those people who have literally put their lives on the line to translate for our soldiers. Them coming to America is what they are promised, and Trump was going to renege on that promise because he consulted with no one outside of his little handjob circle. Not even the DHS or the Justice Department. Maybe you'll be okay, and your family will be okay, but there are people in other countries who were not being let on planes because of this... thing that Trump decided to do on spur of the moment (relatively, usually these things get gone over by everyone and their sister for weeks).

Oh, and how about this. Every. Single. One of us, excluding those who belong to Native Tribes of the Americas, is an immigrant. What, because I came in the 1700s instead of last year or last Sunday that means... what?? Nothing.

Thank you Tim et al for your statement. And, it's not the size of the company, or who an individual is. We are still a country where one vote counts (for the moment). So, thank you.

>49 DanieXJ: "Every. Single. One of us, excluding those who belong to Native Tribes of the Americas, is an immigrant."

You don't think ancestors of Amerindians immigrated?

Good for you, Tim and staff! Nicely said.

Thank you for making this statement!

Thanks to the LT staff for taking an unapologetic stand for what you believe.

I'm also off to read. Seems like a good time for a reread of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Thank you, Tim and other LT'ers.

Thank you LT employees for the statement. I am proud to be an LT'er.

Thanks for this statement. I'm very grateful to the individuals and companies who have chosen to take a stand.

>44 ronpeltier:

A French-Canadian has just indisputably carried out a terrorist attack on north American soil. It's a very fresh attack, so who knows what the implications are for US security? Therefore I eagerly await Trump's decision to issue a temporary order banning all Canadians (not just French-Canadians) from entering the USA for 90 days "until he can evaluate the potential threat".

Ridiculous? Well, yes, that's the point...

I do believe Saudi Arabia probably should be on the list, but somehow I think that would really have created chaos

It has already really created chaos in the lives of thousands of people in those seven countries and beyond.

ETA: The "chaos" that is close to home for me includes the 80-year old Sudanese grandmother who was stopped from going for her regular cancer treatment in USA, where her daughter is a US passport holder (Chicago family heartbroken that elderly mom from Sudan not allowed to travel here for cancer care), to say nothing of the Darfuri, Nuba and other refugees fleeing from the depredations of Omar Hassan al Bashir's Islamist regime.

Meh. Disappointing Post. Not interested in the views of LT staff on this or any political matter in this particular forum. The immigration issue is more complex than those on either side seem willing to fairly acknowledge. By disclaimer, I'm a centrist libertarian who voted for neither of the two major party candidates for President who generally favors liberal (open) but intelligent immigration policy that respects native interests & national security.

While I have mixed views regarding President Trump's Executive Order and its haphazard implementation, it seems clear those who opine most vociferously in opposition have NOT actually READ the Order, or the relevant parts of the Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1952 and its 1965 & 1990 amendments (aka, PL 82-414; 89-236; 101-648), or Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code, especially § 1182 on Inadmissible aliens: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

The President was well within his Constitutional and Statutory (Congressionally-delegated) powers. The list of restricted countries was a carry-over specification by the Obama Administration--failed states and those known to foster/sponsor terrorism. Over 90% of the world's Muslim population lives in countries NOT affected by this Order. A straight-forward reading of the EO reveals that it's primary focus/impetus is simply a temporary (90-day) moratorium on "visa waivers" (not a suspension of all immigration) while the vetting process is strengthened and current immigration policy is re-assessed.

Moreover, immigrants, non-immigrant visitors, and refugees each comprise different classes under U.S. Immigration Law...and, contrary to popular rhetoric on social media do NOT enjoy all the same "rights" and legal protections as do U.S. citizens. (Basically, notwithstanding our cultural ethos and national discretion, they're not entitled, we're not obligated, and due-process could mean you get turned back at the border.)

Summary criticism of the present EO fails (somewhat hypocritically) to account for similar targeted executive actions by other (Democratic) Presidents--Obama, Clinton, Carter, and FDR...and fails to square circumspectly with the not-so-storied history of U.S. Immigration Policy which was quota-based and quite discriminatory for much of the past 130 years with champions on both the Left and the Right.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protectin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_natural...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_8_of_the_United_States_Code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

I'm very glad to capitalism in action - normally hindered by imperfect information, but for once we have a clear statement of LT's thoughts on an important social matter. And so as with all businesses you can choose to take your custom elsewhere, if you don't agree with the information available.

Personally - even though I frequently disagree with Tim on politics, - I'm glad to see such support for a more inclusive world.

>50 cpg: Yes. I don't think of those who came over an Ice bridge, or however they got here, as immigrants. Just my opinion of course.

>58 tcg17321: I may not have read the order, but I got to watch how it was carried out. So it says something in the text about Visa Waivers. Well, that's great. That's not what they were doing. If you were Muslim you were being stopped. It didn't seem to matter if you were a permanent resident or a former Iraqi Interpreter. Families were split up, there were stories like the one >57 John5918: pointed out. I don't give a rat's ass what the 'text' said. What happened was horrible and despicable, and you know the countries that --aren't-- on the list, like Saudia Arabia, yeah, guess who just happens to have business interests there......

Obama issued orders against these very same countries, and no uproar resulted.

No, he did not. There are people running around saying that Trump's recent Executive Order concerning immigration is just him enforcing Obama's policies, or that Obama did exactly the same thing, or that the list of seven countries targeted by the Executive Order is "Obama's list". These claims are all false. Here is the reality:

8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) is a statutory provision that establishes a visa waiver program for the United States. Under this program, the residents of certain countries may visit the United States for up to thirty days without the requirement that they have a visa of any kind. This program applies to about thirty countries. It has never applied to residents of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, as these countries were never part of the visa waiver program. Residents of those countries have always needed a visa to enter the United States.

In 2015, as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of FY 2016, the list of seven countries was created by Congress, but it didn’t restrict visas or travel for any resident of those countries. What it did do was say that residents of countries that were part of the visa waiver country who had traveled to the seven designated countries could no longer participate in the visa waiver program (with some limited exceptions), and instead had to apply for visas in order to travel to the United States. Because none of the seven listed countries were ever themselves part of the visa waiver program, the rule didn’t affect anyone who was a resident in any of those countries.

Note, however, that this wasn’t a blanket travel ban for anyone. When someone says that the portions of the Executive Order that apply a ban on entry for citizens of those countries as just part of a “previously in-force” section, they are either ignorant or lying. The list that Trump used was not, and never before had been, a ban on people with valid visas entering the United States. It was a list of countries for which a specific and quite limited exception to a rule concerning visa-free travel applied.

Claiming that because this list existed for entirely unrelated purposes means that somehow the travel ban is the result of the Obama administration’s policies would be like saying that a ban on entry into the United States for people from NATO countries is just implementing an already established policy because the list of NATO countries is already set out in U.S. statutory law somewhere (all ratified treaties are Federal law in the United States).

There has not previously been a policy implemented that banned those with valid visas from entering the United States. This is new to Trump.

Just weighing in:

I appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion and the right to speak it. But I do not wish to see LibraryThing turn into a political forum. Since 2007, when I joined, LT has been my 'safe place' online. I do not see LT as 'social media' and will be very sad if it changes to that. However as long as you keep the politics in a specific place/thread where I am not forced to see it but can if I choose, then I am all fine and good with it.

I consider myself to be safe & protected from the outside world, so to speak, when I am on LibraryThing. If that is burying my head in the sand so be it, but not all of us here can emotionally and/or mentally handle all of the derision in the world today and need that safe place.

Thank you for listening to a poor, old woman.

There will always be stories of woe to pull at the heartstrings. I truly am sad that innocent people have to suffer. But, in an imperfect world, the fact is that someone is always caught in the crossfire. Whether Trumps policy is successful or not, at least he is attempting to come to terms with the terrorism that has infected the world. Before we come out with guns blazing, let us make sure it is not from emotion or fear. I seek the facts so that I can understand, and come to a conclusion from strength and reason. Seems to me, at this point in time, that fear, emotion, and second guessing is ruling the day. That is a bad combination. I am caught in the crossfire on this issue. I see valid points on either side. I walk the line catching the stones from both directions. There is a good chance I will be a casualty in all this, but so far I've dodged the bullets.

Free speech is welcome. My issue is with those who climb the soapbox, and yell "FIRE", when there is no fire.
Instead of acknowledging the facts, they become an arsonist to further their claims. The resulting conflagration harms us all~ Ron

Tim, I am honored to stand with you and LT staff on this issue.

While I also see LT as a refuge, oops, almost wrote refugee, I have to admire that, like many others, for the first time ever, they are taking a stand.

For those who say that LT shouldn't be doing so, do you also object to your new Supreme Court nominee who wrote the Hobby Lobby decision giving companies religious rights?

Now that this has thoroughly disintegrated into people defending everything Trump does, can it please be move to Pro and Con? The whole reason that group exists is to keep the namecalling and attacks against groups of people off the rest of the site.

Whether Trumps policy is successful or not, at least he is attempting to come to terms with the terrorism that has infected the world.

No, he is not. Nothing about this Executive Order does anything to deal with terrorism. No legal visa holders from any of the countries affected by the ban have killed any American civilians. No refugee has killed anyone in the United States in more than forty years. You chance of being killed by a refugee in the United States is 1 in 3.6 billion per year. Your chance of being killed by an illegal immigrant is 1 in 10.9 billion per year. The "policy" that Trump is implementing is one that guards against risks that are minuscule when compared risks like the chance you will be killed by falling out of bed (26 times more likely than you will be killed by a terrorist) or falling down stairs (127 times more likely than you will be killed by a terrorist).

You don't have to take my word for it. The Cato Institute wrote an extensive analysis of this issue.

More critically, this sort of blanket ban is likely to make the U.S. less safe than it is now. Islamic terrorist organizations have been trying to paint their conflict as "the United States against all Muslims", and this sort of ban just gives them propaganda ammunition on that front. Several of the people caught by this "ban" were people who had worked with U.S. forces, serving as sources of information and liaison's with local organizations. For their efforts, at least one found himself handcuffed for hours when he tried to enter the United States on his perfectly valid visa. How do you think that will play out in the future when U.S. forces try to recruit people to assist them in anti-terrorism efforts?

You will find no actual anti-terrorism experts who support the sort of "effort" that Trump has been making, and most will agree that his policies are likely to be counterproductive. Trump is engaging in political grandstanding and pointless security theater, nothing more.

While this is a good discussion, I agree that if it is now a debate about the executive order, it would be more appropriate to move it to a thread in pro and con.

>68 sturlington: Right. Here's a thread.
https://www.librarything.com/topic/247750

I agree with the majority of the others, well said - thank you!

Perspective in relation to the content of this site: the ban also includes people with dual citizenship. An author such as Navid Kermani, who was awarded the prestigious Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, and was born in Germany, though of Iranian descent, is at the moment not allowed to enter the United States???

>62 rainpebble: I feel very similarly and wholeheartedly agree with >66 lorax:.

It's not as if the title doesn't tell you that this is a political thread...

>72 anglemark: it was sent to some of us through Facebook. I decided to see what Tim and the others wanted to say.

"We are an illiterate nation, incapable of understand great truths." -- C. Gregg Singer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiteracy, http://www.christianpost.com/news/biblical-illiteracy-in-us-at-crisis-point-says... http://www.lettermen2.com/bcrrappd.html#islamoha

Thank you, LibraryThing staff, for taking a principled stand.

Kudos, LT staff, thank you. Sorry you had to write it, but glad you did.

As an Australian, I am appalled by the actions of the US president in multiple areas, but particularly his ban that is spliting families and stranding law abiding people because they were born in the wrong country. Most terrorists are home-grown, and the vast majority of citizens from the banned Middle Eastern countries are as peace loving as most Americans.
You should never judge any group by its black sheep or bad apples.

I had hoped that the days of having to march for freedom would end, but in the face of a takeover of the government by a collection of authoritarian, meanspirited despots, silence = guilt.

I am an Independent voter. I have no allegiance to Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the myriad of other parties. Vermont is home, and also home to Bernie Sanders. I did not agree with Bernie on a lot of issues. He is certainly a Socialist, which is not a democracy for sure. When Hillary preempted his campaign, I was sorry he was pushed aside by the political machine, and very vocal about that fact. It also saddened me when he meekly stepped behind Hillary without so much as a whimper. Now, Hillary is another story. I never liked Bill or Hillary mainly because I knew too much about them. Still, I listened when she talked, and evaluated. Trump also did not particularly appeal to me. However, I do respect the office of the Presidency, no matter who is sitting in that seat. If I associated only with those who I agreed with, I would be completely alone. We cannot lose our sense of respect for anyone. That does not mean we have to agree, or condone, or not take appropriate actions when necessary.

Anyway, what I really want to say, is that this is more of a "Con" discussion, than a "Pro and Con." I'm not interested in jumping on this bandwagon. I will continue to read the comments though. Thanks to everyone for participating, and for putting up with my half-penny contribution. Ron

>79 ronpeltier: This is the Talk About LibraryThing discussion. The Pro & Con conversation is here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/247750

Thank you, LT employees.

I stand with Tim and the LT staff.

The American Library Association made a statement too.
http://www.infodocket.com/2017/01/30/ala-releases-statement-re-recent-actions-by...

Proud to be a librarian!

Thank you. It is important to me to know where others stand. First, because there is strength and support in numbers. Second, because I like to patronize businesses with enlightened social policies.

Thank you, Tim & employees.

>85 krisa: You're allowed to attack ideas but not people. Just saying. Read the LT ToS. http://www.librarything.com/privacy.php#terms

I was replying to a comment by Stormraven.

Which one? The one that was supported by facts and analysis, or the other one that was supported by facts and analysis?

I think both your statement and your intention in posting it publicly is wonderful.

I've been an LT member for many years, not so active recently, but at the time when I most needed it I think it's fair to say that LT and the people I met here have brought me through some very bad times.

Now LT is speaking out for people also going through some even darker times. Those interviews of people crying in airports, separated from their families, who can't go home, who have nowhere else to go, who have done no harm and who are being punished and who are suffering.

The more people who stand up and say they care about this and feel that what is being done to them is wrong the better. To me that is exactly the sort of thing I do expect from LT, because over the years I've seen the people who work here and the people who visit here posting for that reason time and again.

So good for you guys. And thank you. Well done.

I have long been an advocate of helping refugees from around the world and have invested considerable time and money to back up my beliefs. However these refugees need to be integrated into a safe environment and be given the opportunity and encouragement to become productive members of our society. If we continue to allow terrorists, criminals and sexual predators to come into the country in increasing numbers we are allowing our country to become more like the countries that they have fled (or like Sweden or Germany).

While the EO certainly had a rocky start the initial problems have been corrected in a very short time. The EO has waivers. Moreover the time some people who should not have been detained, e.g., people who have permanent residence status, were inconvenienced was shorter than the time people have suffered at our airports due to bad weather and equipment problems.

LT employees have the right to express their opinions and setting up a forum like this seems an appropriate way to do it. However making a formal statement based on personal opinion is divisive. As a previously happy member of LT who has introduced LT to many others I now spend too much time deciding whether to continue with LT or avoid it. I do not want LT to become an organization like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Breitbart and Huffington Post. In my opinion LT's statement was devoid of any facts and was largely wrong. The US needs to protect its citizens and also to accept refugees in an organized manner. A few months seems like a very reasonable time to wait in order to accomplish this.

>90 phillies: Of course, people who are delayed in airports due to bad weather don't have to wait in handcuffs.

I come here to learn about books and the joy of reading. Not to discuss politics. The movie sites that I used to enjoy do nothing but bash Trump now. The humor sites that I used to enjoy bash Trump now. The social media sites all argue politics and bash Trump now. And now the book and reading sites that I enjoy are all politics and Trump bashing now. No one can just have fun and enjoy life anymore. If I wanted to hear or read politics I would go to a site dedicated to that. I am saddened that we can't just share our love of books without being told what we should believe politically.

If we continue to allow terrorists, criminals and sexual predators to come into the country in increasing numbers we are allowing our country to become more like the countries that they have fled (or like Sweden or Germany).

There is no actual evidence that admitting refugees has made places like Germany more unsafe than they were before. In fact, all of the evidence available shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native born residents.

>90 phillies: what's so wrong with Sweden and Germany?

>90 phillies: I'm not sure why you consider it divisive? Tim didn't say that if you don't agree that you have to get off the site. (That would have stunned me) There were no threats or anything like that. They have their right to express themselves, and you have your right to express yourself. I don't see anyone stopping you or Tim or any of us who have posted on this thread.

Not to mention, how in the world would LT transform into a cable news channel? Very honestly confused about that sentence.

>94 eclecticdodo: I'd like to know, too. After several years living in Germany, I can say that it is safer than the US.

>90 phillies: If we continue to allow terrorists, criminals and sexual predators to come into the country in increasing numbers...

I have yet to see any demonstration that this is the case. We already have very strict vetting for those coming into this country from most areas of the world and the situation is nothing like Europe. Nearly all the terrorist incidents in this country have been by people from here. So what exactly is the problem that this order is supposed to solve?

>97 jjwilson61: Nearly all the terrorist incidents in this country have been by people from here. So what exactly is the problem that this order is supposed to solve?

Yeah, this order is a solution looking for a precipitate. Chemistry puns aside, what's likely to fall out? Hostility to the US government at home and abroad. That hostility will likely be used to justify even more counterproductive steps. Sometimes you have to go down a hill, but it's better to go slowly.

>95 DanieXJ:

"...how in the world would LT transform into a cable news channel?"

Step 1: Tim buys a big, acrylic desk...

2/3/17 10:00 EST ETA: please see my comment at >132 dukedom_enough:

>1 timspalding:
Bravo to Tim and all the employees. Beautifully crafted statement.

Goggle: refugee problems in Sweden and refugee problems in Sweden. Articles by Huffington Post and NYTimes which can hardly be considered supportive of the administration. Many other articles. Not well covered by main stream media. Sweden has warned women not to go out alone at night. Used to be an extraordinarily safe place.

>92 hredwards: No one can just have fun and enjoy life anymore.

Perhaps the lesson is to oppose policies that prevent others from having fun and enjoying life, so their misery won't be such an inconvenience to you.

Response to 95. All five organizations I listed have websites and are active in social media just like LT.

I did not say that anyone was asked to get off the site or that there were threats. I said that this forum was appropriate and LT employees have a right to their opinion. What I see as divisive is that they posted it on Twitter and, to me, it looked like a policy statement. Since I do not agree and am a member I feel divided from the policy of LT. That is my opinion.

Response to 99. Your comment is mocking and does nothing to advance the discussion.

>104 phillies: There's a discussion going on about this over here:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/247750

Please consider taking your objections to the Pro and Con thread (above). Thank you.

>103 phillies: You are entitled to your opinion. I guess I just don't see where they have stated anything that looks like policy to me.

Actually, in the last paragraph, I myself thought they went out of their way to acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way.

But, to each their own.

The fact that you put Breitbart and MSNBC or CNN in the same sentence probably indicates that we would agree on very little (although it does look like we both have the same opinion about The Giver. Have you read the other books in the 'Giver Quartet' by Lowry? They're not quite as good as the original, but, almost. And Son is a really, really close second).

>102 _Zoe_: quit it. You are being rude to someone who holds an opinion contrary to yours. Your intolerance for those who believe differently from you is in full display.

And some wonder why the OP/statement is considered devisive by me and others?

I know, I should go sit down and shut up, as I'm in the minority here. I thought that I could enjoy something non-political here, a site about books, but I guess that's no longer allowed.

>107 fuzzi: You obviously chose to read—and continue reading—this thread.

Anyway, I'm reminded of this article.

Nice people made the best Nazis.

Or so I have been told. My mother was born in Munich in 1934, and spent her childhood in Nazi Germany surrounded by nice people who refused to make waves. When things got ugly, the people my mother lived alongside chose not to focus on “politics,” instead busying themselves with happier things. They were lovely, kind people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away.

Nope, I can't say politeness is my top concern at the moment. Sorry, not sorry.

>107 fuzzi: I thought that I could enjoy something non-political here, a site about books, but I guess that's no longer allowed.

Enjoying the site without participating in -- or even looking at -- political discussions is allowed.

>109 southernbooklady: Enjoying the site without participating in -- or even looking at -- political discussions is allowed.

And it doesn't take a lot of puzzling to realize that a thread titled "Statement ... on Trump’s Recent Executive Order" is likely to have some political content. Several posters here make it seem as if they've been somehow coerced into reading this thread. I don't generally participate in Pro and Con; it's not what I come to LT for either, at least not these days. But this is a pretty rare exception, and I think we can take it as a signal of the strength of sentiment from the LT staff that they've decided to breach their own conventions about the organization of Talk in order to make their statement. I appreciate that, anyhow.

There has always been political discussion on this site somewhere or other, and while it hasn't always been the most civil, like every thread/group on LT one's participation is wholly by choice. Anyone pretending otherwise is deluding themselves.

>107 fuzzi: I don't mean to be harsh, but if you don't like what you're reading here then click the ignore button and walk away. Don't keep coming back and pretending this thread and its ideas are being foisted upon you.

Thank you for this.

>108 _Zoe_: you just lost the argument, kiddo.

>109 southernbooklady: that's why I left Pro and Con, years ago.

>111 clamairy: clam, I'm been waiting and hoping for someone to point out that name calling those with different opinions is not productive, and that it does not indicate an interest in rational and adult discussion.

I'm here because I received a notice from LT.

So, why did Tim feel it necessary to send out an announcement about this thread? I never would have noticed it, otherwise. To me, and a few others posting here, it indicated that some of us are not as welcome here as we thought we were.

Yes, Tim said it was only the opinions of LT employees, but by making a statement in this manner, they have actually associated their opinions with LT, as a forum.

So much for tolerance, diversity. Thanks.

>113 fuzzi: The only name calling that I saw was quickly flagged.

>113 fuzzi: How was this notice sent? I did not receive one and I'm here and on FB and Twitter.

I saw the statement on my FB feed but there was no notice sent, to me, at least.

>113 fuzzi:

I'm still trying to work out what you considered rude in >102 _Zoe_:.

And I agree with >114 clamairy: on the name-calling.

>116 John5918: It's good to see you again, John. :o)

>117 clamairy:

Likewise. At least we can thank Trump for bringing us together again on the same thread in LT!

Just curious, has this thread been taken off 'Hot topics' at a site level or is it just me not seeing it? I see 'Hot Topics' from number 2 and this doesn't factor at all.

>119 klarusu: I think you're just missing it. It's currently showing at #64 on Hot Topics for me, and I saw it there higher up the list earlier today, too.

>120 lorannen: Thought it might be me. I sometimes watch on HT but I didn't notice until today that the numbering wasn't exactly sequential. I'm guessing it would be filled with 'background' busy posts if it wasn't slightly filtered.

*stops derailing argument with curious observations*

I live in Sweden and have done so all my life, and anyone who believes that we have other serious immigration problems here than finding jobs for immigrants is not exactly well informed, to phrase it in a TOS-compliant manner.

92hredwards

Totally agree! And whatever my personal opinions, I would object if my local library started handing out leaflets encouraging Christianity, Conservatism. I may espouse those beliefs but a library should be impartial, with just as much info on alternative religious & political views, so its users can make their own informed decisions.

>123 starbox:
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/statementspols/corevalues

This is LibraryThing verifying their continued support for the things libraries value by the nature of their mission. The fact that this can be dismissed as "politics" and compared to handing out religious leaflets is disturbing.

>123 starbox: I would object if my local library started handing out leaflets encouraging Christianity, Conservatism.

And yet, LT is not a local library, nor a government-funded civic institution. It is a business offering a service, and it has been the general thinking of conservatives that businesses have freedom of expression. Which is why Chik-fil-a can have its conservative-leaning corporate culture, and Hobby Lobby can even get involved in politics in the name of its conservative beliefs, and receive wide-spread support from American conservatives for doing so. Target has made political statements. Here in NC, businesses and corporations from diners to international banks to sports teams have expressed political opinions on things like our infamous (and still in force) HB2.

There is a simple solution in a capitalist culture to businesses expressing political values. If you don't like it, don't shop there.

It's not a bad thing to have your beliefs and ideas challenged on occasion, even in unexpected places. Isn't this what our greatest writers, philosophers, and teachers do? The worst threat is that it may cause you to rethink your position.

>113 fuzzi: Zoe's comments were well-chosen. They are why many people are so worried about the current EO and with the rise in violence toward a single group of people identified by their religion and culture.

Please relocate this thread to a politics forum.

As there are vociferous posters who clearly don't want to read this thread but seem to feel that it is forced upon them, I can only assume that the existence of the 'Ignore Thread'/red 'x' is not well known. If you click this, the thread will be ignored but not the group and you won't have to (a) see it and (b) post here about seeing it. This group is 'Talk About LibraryThing'. A company statement on principles is very much a conversation about LibraryThing.

The life we should all 'have fun and enjoy' is underpinned by the moral and political framework it's built on. It's an ultimate expression of unconscious privilege to imply the failings with social discourse lie with those of us who can't ignore the framework and play ball games on the fabric covering it. Personally, I can't 'just have fun' when family, friends and colleagues are affected by something ... or when groups of people are attacked and marginalised by something. The framework's broken.

>126 sturlington: The worst threat is that it may cause you to rethink your position.

No!!! The horror!

I'll comment over on the other thread, with some specific responses to arguments about immigration, and definitely not representing all employees.

For here let me say this. We did not make a statement for narrow political reasons, nor should we be counted as simply "against Trump," whether you like that or don't. We did not "cover" all the ways we might disagree with the Administration, and even something we disagreed with more would draw no comment from us, if it did not touch who we were and what we do.

We made a statement because we believe that the immigration order is contrary to the best traditions and simple success of professions we are actually in—libraries and technology.(1) About half our employees are graduate-educated professional librarians, and like other professions librarianship has certain professional values; the major library bodies have issued similar statements, because they too feel the order conflicts with their values. Technologists doesn't have that sort of formal professionalization, but we know who made our tools--an almost comically diverse collection of passionate misfits--and who works in our industry. If we turned off all the LibraryThing and open-source code written by Muslims and the descendants of immigrants, the site wouldn't even manage to show a "down" page. Anything that strikes at international and diverse nature of technology, strikes at us.

---

1. We might also say literature and publishing too, but we wanted to keep it simple, and the traditions overlap.

>104 phillies: I was thinking only about >95 DanieXJ:, and was taken with the image of Tim sitting on an LT version of those gleaming cable-news sets. I failed to think about your comment at 90, and should have done so; I apologize.

#123 starbox.
To use your analogy; LT is not "handing out" leaflets, rather it has placed them on the public announcements table to be perused by those who are interested. Pick them up or don't, the choice is totally yours.

For the life of me I can't remember how to do that thing with the > and the blue writing.

But 113 Fuzzi - I didn't get or see a notice, but I did see the Facebook post and followed that.

I'm sorry you don't feel welcome on LT because you now know the personal opinions of the LT staff with regard to this policy.

But it's not like you've been branded undesirable because of your country of origin and banned from LT for 90 days because of it, with you having done nothing wrong but making your life as you know it impossible to resume, and causing distress to your friends and relatives as well as yourself. At least you haven't been made to feel that unwelcome.

You've just read that some people you don't know disapprove of something you seem to agree with (forgive me if you don't, in fact, agree with this policy), and you'd rather they hadn't said so in the way or the place that they did.

>135 QueenOfDenmark: Type the caret and then the post number with no space between them.

>136 PhaedraB: thank you

>135 QueenOfDenmark: Beautifully stated. Thank you.

>139 Collectorator: I hope you feel better soon. Thank you.

Thank you LT staffers for your statement - well said.

>139 Collectorator: Charming.

Clam, is that really a shock?

Not really. And I'm not even sure what induced his vomiting.

Thank you Tim and LT staff people. I am 100% with you on this. As the daughter of a holocaust refugee whose father only got into this country because someone could certify and pay for a year of his support, I have a special sympathy for refugees and sensitivity towards blanket discrimination.

Best wishes,

k4k

Well done, Tim and crew.

Thank you, Tim and staff for your statement. Well done!

>57 John5918: mentioned the terrorist attack against Muslims in Quebec. The terrorist was a known Trump admirer. Who knows, this tragedy may not have happened if Trump had not stirred up the anti-Islamic pot.

Thank you Tim and LT staff for taking a stand. I am very worried about where this government is headed.

In the interest of Freedom of Speech, I think the owners of any business should be able to state the principles which guide them. I appreciate the transparency of the the LT staff.

In this very complicated year, it seems essential to me that all of us look at what we want for our country and be sure to let each of our representatives know. It is never a bad thing to examine oneself, know what we stand firm on, and evaluate the world by the principles we hold dear.

>149 MrsLee: Nicely stated!

>149 MrsLee: Yes, this says what I think better than I could have said it. And thanks, Tim and LT staff.

Thanks, Tim & co. Our president's order seems to me to be quintessentially un-American. Appreciate you taking a vocal stand on this.

Well said.

>many of you! I think you should just let Trump get on with HIS job while you do yours. He's obviously been advised.

>154 justmum: As I understand it, the USA has a universally participatory system of government. At least for now.

>154 justmum:

My job, as a citizen, is to do my part to ensure that our elected and appointed officials do the right thing, that they do not violate the Constitution. Blind faith in any leader is dangerous (particularly in one who has bragged that he doesn't need intelligence briefings because he's "smart").

To quote Carl Schurz: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

>154 justmum:

It's my understanding that the USA has a constitution, checks and balances between executive, legislature and judiciary, due process, etc, and the people responsible for those are just doing their jobs, and it rather looks as if Trump hasn't been advised about those.

He's obviously been advised.

I see you are trying to be funny.

Thank you.

Reading and creating libraries are inherently open and inclusive acts. I deeply appreciate this statement as being in that tradition.

Thank you Tim and LT staff. It had to be said, and you are absolutely right in taking this stand.

Actually 72 terrorists came from the countries listed in President Trump's EO. Twenty from Somalia, 19 from Yemen, 19 from Iraq, 7 from Syria, 4 from Iran, 2 from Libya, and one from Sudan.

>161 thebooklover1: Can you give a source? Are we talking about terrorism on American soil or somewhere else? Because if the we're talking about justification for Trump's travel ban then terrorism in other places is irrelevant.

162: Can you give a source? Are we talking about terrorism on American soil or somewhere else?

They are talking about something else. The list is a list of 72 immigrants who have been convicted of terror related crimes, although in almost all cases the crimes involved sending material support back to their home country's to groups that have been designated as terrorist groups. In other cases, they have been convicted of possession of an unlawful item. Most of the articles on this have proclaimed that this contradicts the 9th Circuit's note that no immigrant from those countries who would be covered by the ban has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States, except that it doesn't. Being convicted of laundering money to send it back to Yemen is not a "terrorist attack in the United States". It is dubious whether that could even be considered terrorism. The "72 terrorists" claim is just evidence of how desperate those who support Trump's Executive Order actually are.

Here's how many people in the U.S. have been killed by terrorists from the 7 countries in the Executive Order over the last four decades: none.

https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-trumps-executive-orde...

Well said, Tim. Thank you and your staff.

You can read an article on "The Washington Post" that lays out the facts pretty well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-c...

>166 thebooklover1: Nice. That article debunked your claim nicely.

Not entirely. If you read closely, "The Washington Post" chooses to minimize what are some very serious charges. Providing material support to the enemy (in this case terrorist organizations) has historically been treated VERY harshly by nations at war (which we are.) I see no reason to treat it differently now.

I posted a link that no here could quibble with, but it did not debunk "my claim" in its entirety.

>168 thebooklover1: I didn't say entirety. I just said it debunked it. Don't add to my words.

>168 thebooklover1: But providing material support to terrorist groups could as easily, probably more easily, be done from their home country than from the US, so they don't really work as an argument for the travel ban. Remember, we're discussing whether Trump's travel ban would make the US safer.

let's not forget that a fairly significant minority of Americans inadvertently supported "the cause" of the IRA war on the British Government back in the day. All I'm saying is the waters are considerably murkier when it comes to deciding who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist. Sending money overseas thinking you're supporting freedom fighters, only to find out, or indeed never find out, it was spent on violence against the innocent instead, would not be a new thing

gilroy, once again you need to read more closely. I did not add to your words.

jjwilson61, a temporary ban for 90 or 120 days on travel from these seven countries is a reasonable and necessary step to ensure the safety of the American homeland and is very much within the President's power. It allows time for the new administration to make a determination on whether current vetting procedures are sufficient. Keep in mind that it did not ban all immigration and with a TEMPORARY ban of these seven countries, the United States still takes in more immigrants than any other country in the world.

>173 thebooklover1: The current vetting procedures are sufficient as evidenced by the fact that no one from those countries has committed a terrorist act on US soil. The fact that Trump believes something doesn't make it true.

>174 jjwilson61: I think that your comment that "the fact Trump believes something doesn't make it true," is somewhat trite with regard to this discussion.

You must keep in mind that ISIS does control territory in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, while al-Qaeda has a major presence in Yemen and the terrorist group al-Shabab is based in Somalia. The U.S. State Department alleges that the governments of Iran, Sudan, and Syria support international terrorism. The Trump administration selected these countries because the Obama administration and Congress had previously designated them as places people couldn’t visit if they planned to participate in the U.S. visa-waiver program.

This does not sound unreasonable.

>174 jjwilson61: A Somali refugee injured several people in an attack at Ohio State University.

thebooklover1, would you please take this over to Pro&Con?

No, I won't. My comments were only replies to previously posted comments as are the others. Why are you only asking me to do this?

>177 RidgewayGirl: good point. Several of us have got drawn into argument and this is not the place

>175 thebooklover1: It's unreasonable because the current vetting process is pretty extreme, requiring several years to make it through, and there is no proof that it isn't working. There is no emergency that would require that people already in the process be delayed.

>175 thebooklover1:
Someone that had been in Harvard on a Study visa for the last 3 years and just happened to be out of the country that weekend was banned from coming back to school if they are from one of the seven countries. Or someone that was working for Microsoft on a working visa for the last 3 years. I won't even start on the whole Green Cards nonsense in the first days of the order - at least they cleared that up in a few days.

And already approved refugees had spent years in the process. So do anyone with an immigrant visa that had not arrived yet. But it was not just the refugees and the immigrants that got hit by this mess.

Do you really believe that the order that caused that is protecting the country? If you do, then I guess we have different ideas of what protection means.

Keep in mind that it did not ban all immigration and with a TEMPORARY ban of these seven countries, the United States still takes in more immigrants than any other country in the world.

1. Yes, the Executive Order did ban all immigration from those seven countries, even for people who held valid visas already. It banned admitting refugees from Syria indefinitely.

2. Immigrants, yes. Refugees, no.

3. How many actual terrorist attacks in the United States have been successfully carried out by people from the listed seven countries in the last, oh, forty years?

I will only respond further in the thread created on Pro and Con for this topic.

>172 thebooklover1: Hmmm... Let me see where I misread:

>167 gilroy: That article debunked your claim nicely.
>168 thebooklover1: it did not debunk "my claim" in its entirety.

Bolding is adding to my words.

Starbox,
I agree 100%
Thank you for taking a stand against politicizing this otherwise lovely website.

Would the paying members of LT be so quick to support this political statement if it wasn't one they personally agreed with?

>185 DeeOhTea:
This question makes no sense. Why would anyone (paying or not) support a statement that they disagree with (quickly or not)?

If you mean "would people be so fast to support the LT right to make the statement" then the answer is still "yes". The right to make a statement of believes is independent from agreeing with what the statement is all about. Unless if one lives in an echo chamber and believes that any opinion they disagree with should be suppressed and silenced.

>185 DeeOhTea: I personally would be supportive of the LT team's right to make any statement they like about where the company stands on any issue that they believe strongly requires a public declaration, whether or not I personally agree with it. It's a principle and many of us are not so shallow that we simply agree with the right to say things we concur with. I don't always agree with Tim personally either in political or other discussions. I'm not alone. People discuss and move on but rarely do folks say that a contrary opinion has no right to be expressed.

>185 DeeOhTea:

I wouldn't support the statement if I didn't agree with it, but I'd support their right to say it.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Freedom of religion and speech is listed first in the Bill of Rights for a reason. It's why I agree with the LibraryThing staff announcement.

>185 DeeOhTea: I don't need to agree with a statement to support one's right to speak. Don't you?

Now if they had chosen to throw themselves behind the white nationalists and fear-mongers longing for a less diverse country, I'd have to decide whether my own convictions would necessitate leaving the site, but I wouldn't question their right to speak.

>116 John5918: I agree with fuzzi. >102 _Zoe_: was rude.

Freedom of religion and speech is listed first in the Bill of Rights for a reason. It's why I agree with the LibraryThing staff announcement.

Since you mention it, that's another thing we would defend--even if some members disagreed.

The criterion isn't politics per se, but whether or not a given policy contradicts our values and interests as a company at the intersection of technology, books and libraries.

So, for example, free speech does. Immigration, refugees and non-discrimination does. (Believe me, you don't want all the work done by immigrants and Muslims yanked out of Librarything.) Net neutrality, copyright, public data might. Privacy law, particularly that impacts libraries and readers, would. We supported same-sex marriage too--not only to support our gay, married employees but because local laws around that issue formerly hurt our hiring efforts in Maine.

But most political issues don't. You could, for example, probably get all the LibraryThing staff to agree about torture, but it's not something that touches us as a company, so we'd never speak to it as a company. Ditto any number of other issues, policies, officials and etc.

Compare this, if you will, to a hotdog company. You shouldn't be surprised if they speak up about issues related to meat, food safety and so forth. Nor would it surprise me if they talked up about immigration—all the asylees I know in Portland work in prepared-food factories anyway. But they're probably not talking about US policies against North Korea.

Now, do I agree with my hot-dog company? Maybe, maybe not. But I understand why they're talking about hot-dog issues. That's all I want here.

Aaaahh... now I'm hungry!

Hot dogs for everyone!

>190 thebooklover1:

Thank you. Since you agree with >107 fuzzi:, I wonder if you could explain to me what you think was rude about >102 _Zoe_:?

Thanks for this statement by LT employees! I think it's a nice analysis. Here's the literary reference to go with it:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

>195 banjo123: Thank you! I have been thinking about that a lot lately. It's nice to see it all written out.

> 194 johnthefireman >102 _Zoe_: was flippant in her reply. The "Sorry, not sorry." in her subsequent reply was even more flippant.

>197 thebooklover1: I can call out the blatant hypocrisy with full seriousness if you prefer.

Many people who have done nothing wrong are in the process of having their lives ruined. They're being cut off from family members and forced to abandon their educations or careers.

And >92 hredwards: has the nerve to complain that the people objecting to these actions are interfering with his ability to enjoy his online hobby in peace?

The sheer selfishness is astounding.

And the basic point remains: if you don't want to hear about other people suffering, I recommend doing what you can to reduce and prevent that suffering rather than trying to hide it from view.

>185 DeeOhTea:
Would the paying members of LT be so quick to support this political statement if it wasn't one they personally agreed with?

I'm a paying member, so I'll bite.

If by "support" you mean "agree with", well, ... I make a point of not engaging in political discussions online (for reasons that are perfectly cromulent and sufficient to me), so I won't tell you whether I agree with the statement.

What I can tell you is that I don't mind Tim/staff a) speaking their mind, b) using the staff blog to do so, or c) posting a heads-up in this Group if they felt it was important, regardless of their position on the Executive Order. I don't see it as my place to voice my (dis-) approval of them having opinions and being vocal about them. So in the sense of "tolerate others to speak their mind", I do support them making the statement.

(As such, I think it is rather irrelevant that the employee statement is "political": the statement being "political" does not render it inappropriate for general discussion in a group for general LT discussions. My answer would have been the same if the statement had dealt with, say, fake news, or wikipedia's deletion-happy mods and bots, or other general-interest and current-affairs issues that relate to Library and Information Science.)

>92 hredwards: Although I have made my fair share of comments on this post, I would enjoy the Website much more had I not. I agree with your comment wholeheartedly.

Nobody has told you what you ought to believe. Nobody even told you that you had to read this topic. The LT staff made a public statement about what they believe. That is their right. You have the right to agree or disagree, publically or silently. You also have the right to click on the red X and ignore this whole discussion.

Excellent. Thank you for speaking out.

I'd endorse the LT statement, but I'm slightly unsure what to make of: "The American tech industry too draws much of its strength from immigrants". Presumably what is meant is recent immigrants.

There is an unintentional moral pitfall underlying this. Why is it better for a significant number of the world's best tecchies to reside in America rather than in the countries those people came from, if technological development and progress are regarded as a positive thing not just for America but for every country that can achieve it? Why is it a good thing to deprive other countries of technological whizz-kids who, if they'd not emigrated, might have benefited their country of origin rather than a country that is arguably less short of expertise than most?

>203 Auriger: The American tech industry too draws much of its strength from immigrants and diversity of all kinds is a statement of fact, not a value judgment.

>203 Auriger:

America has, historically, acquired a reputation for being a place where engineers were uniquely appreciated, great talent given an opportunity to grow and do it's best, and where innovation was deeply implicated in freedom of thought, free enterprise, experiment and play. This is a rare thing globally. Far more common is the idea that engineers are helper drones for the "important people," namely managers and business people; that engineering is a profession where seniority, social status and connections matter; that engineering was for serious, boring people, who must be directed and controlled by non-engineers; that the best engineers should work for the government, or big companies, etc. Simple openness to the world has also been a major factor--US CS programs admit foreigners in droves, and, while implicit bias certainly exists, explicit preferentialism is universally condemned.

Maybe, without immigration, Steve Jobs or Sergey Brin would have enriched the Syrian or Soviet/Russian tech scene. But it's more likely Jobs' unlikely, play-based genius would have been squandered, and Brin would have been stifled by soviet anti-semitism, lack of connections, and the difficulty of doing great tech in Russia, where the vast social communication potential of the internet is a threat to the government.

I think too of Wael Ghonim, whom I met at a (rather surreal) Wikipedia Conference in Alexandria, Egypt before he became one of the leading voices of the Arab Spring. He might be enriching Egypt right now, instead of creating amazing new products, or he might be dead or in prison. (And since we're on the subject, consider Albert Einstein, another refugee who enriched American science and technology.)

Things are changing--and American's newfound hostility to openness is accelerating the change. Smart Indian children who were once forced into the civil service as the only secure and high-status employment for talent, are now starting tech companies. Silicon-Valley-level level innovation centers have sprung up in Ireland, and so many other places. But the fact remains that the US tech industry is uniquely enriched by immigration, and for reasons having directly to do with America's traditions of democracy and freedom.

>203 Auriger: The specific countries affected by the Trump directive are not places where it is currently easy to work for technological development and progress. Many of the well trained and intelligent people are leaving because they would rather work than die in civil wars.

>203 Auriger:

You cannot be creative and productive if you need to work a second job to feed your family or you need to spend your time at work on same old things because this is paying the bills or when the government is stealing or suppressing your work. Or if bombs are falling around you or someone can come overnight and just shoot you or your family. And in some cases it comes down to the ability to have the technology and the hardware to do what you need to do.

It is a great dream that you can be creative and equally productive anywhere but in an unstable economy, unstable political situation or government-controlled or underdeveloped field, you won't reach your potential back home. And in a lot of cases, the work/study in the USA is not a permanent move.

As a retired American librarian and lover of the US Constitution, I am sad to see that you, like so many others, can address, in your flowery tongue, the problem of illegal immigrants. But without mentioning them. Why is it that leftists resort to patriotism only when their backs are to the wall? "freedom of thought, free enterprise, experiment and play" blah blah

For readers here, the American Library Association has been an instrument of progressiveness on a similar plane equal to the American school and university campuses since at least the era of the Vietnam war.

They have never been the voice of all America's librarians however. Some of us read the amazing books in the history section, and understand that America is a great experiment - one that with God-given leadership tried to build a governmental system that was neither too beholden to the state nor the church.

Why elitist intellectuals have tried to bring it down is a question I cannot answer.

Every sovereign nation has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens.

Every sovereign nation who wants to survive examines its immigrants. If enough Muslims migrate into Western culture, they will have an overwhelming voter bloc. I do not expect their governmental priorities will include funding libraries.

I sympathize. There are many Americans who are being pushed to their limits these days.

Unfortunately, the Left is devoted to being smarter than the common man. And their moral and intellectual superiority is being challenged by some. But, this cannot happen; this is heresy. This is not to be tolerated. We must embrace them and bow to them. They are building a Utopia for us, and here we are, being obstructionists.

Orwell

If enough Muslims migrate into Western culture, they will have an overwhelming voter bloc. I do not expect their governmental priorities will include funding libraries.

So what you are saying is that Western (and American) culture is not robust enough to be convincing to immigrants. That Western culture is too flimsy to stand on its own merits on the intellectual playing field, but must rather be coddled and protected from outsiders, because it is too weak and too poorly supported to convince them to adopt its values.

>208 Katie1949: " I am sad to see that you, like so many others, can address, in your flowery tongue, the problem of illegal immigrants"

This Executive Order had nothing to do with illegal immigration. It banned legal immigrants, refugees and visitors (including the ones authorized to work or study in the country). So I am not sure what you are talking about.

If enough Muslims migrate into Western culture, they will have an overwhelming voter bloc.

Current percentage of the United States population that are (in any sense) Muslim: 0.9%

You have no historical perspective.

Immigrants who came here earlier assimilated! All you need do is read a few of Paul Joseph Watson ‏@PrisonPlanet tweets at Twitter to see the difference.

Common sense dictates we make an effort to examine those people who want to come here.

>213 Katie1949: Do you really sincerely believe that refugees and immigrants are not vetted? Do take a few minutes today and learn about what is required of those who want to live here. And then take a look historically at the movements to keep out such groups as the Irish and Italians. It's an education.

>213 Katie1949: Common sense dictates we make an effort to examine those people who want to come here

But "examining" was already in place, amongst the most stringent in the world. And in this instance people who had already been "examined" and found to be acceptable were being banned, while potential newcomers were not in fact being "examined" but were simply being banned en masse based on their country of origin.

>213 Katie1949: Citing an Infowars author doesn't really bolster your argument.

People who come here are already vetted, often for months ahead of time. See here for more information: https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

"The total processing time varies depending on an applicant’s location and other circumstances, but the average time from the initial UNHCR referral to arrival as a refugee in the United States is about 18-24 months."

There have always been fears that new groups arriving here would somehow change or weaken our culture. But as you say, previous immigrants assimilated despite those fears.

>216 sturlington: It should also be noted that those new groups assimilated despite facing prejudice and ignorance from those who had arrived a few generations earlier. And their addition has enhanced our American culture.

>213 Katie1949: Immigrants who came here earlier assimilated

I'm guessing the native population would disagree with you there ...

>218 klarusu: But surely they also came from somewhere ...

>208 Katie1949: I am saddened and surprised that you think Muslims don't appreciate libraries. Your idea of Muslim culture seems to be rather narrow.

>219 bnielsen: Absolutely. I was simply indicating that the statement in >213 Katie1949: is a somewhat glib drawing of an arbitrary line that's convenient when in support of their argument. Whereas in reality, in the recent recorded history of their country (when political boundaries existed that are comparable to modern divisions rather than in our more distant species history when these recorded & formalised divisions didn't exist), there's a pretty comprehensive example of how immigrants not only didn't assimilate into any of the myriad of native cultures, but also actively set out to destroy them. I'm aware that to many this doesn't 'count' but it was a poor argument.

I'm a geneticist by trade ... we all came from somewhere else, but I think in terms of a single universal common ancestor rather than a different land mass ;-)

>221 klarusu:

Oooh, the Unicellularian agenda...

>222 LolaWalser: Radical ;-)

>208 Katie1949: Why the heck would Muslims not want to have libraries????? That is just bizarre

>224 eclecticdodo: There was a time...
http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/knowledge-learning-institutions-and-librar...

The librarian at the desk next to mine is Muslim. I'm really going to miss her when I retire. We'll keep in touch, but it's not the same.

>213 Katie1949: Immigrants who came here earlier assimilated!

According to a Pew poll, 95% of third-generation Hispanic immigrants speak very good English, but only 45% speak very good Spanish. Here's an entire Wikipedia category of categories of non-English US newspapers over history. Yiddish, Italian, German, Norwegian, Japanese, etc. There were huge numbers of daily newspapers catering to immigrants, because speaking English is hard. Many of them lived in Little Italy, or Little Germany, or other areas defined by ethnicity where they could get away with their native tongue. Their children and their children's children became indistinguishable from the rest of America, just like current immigrants will.

You have no historical perspective.

Immigrants who came here earlier assimilated!

I think you need to go back and study some history. Yes, immigrants who came earlier assimilated. Eventually. It took time, and almost every wave of immigrants experienced a xenophobic backlash to their arrival. The Irish were discriminated against - nativist organizations were formed to persecute them, violently in some cases. Jewish immigrants, Eastern European immigrants, Italian immigrants, Chinese immigrants, Japanese immigrants, and just about every other group of "new" emigres were criticized for not assimilating fast enough and for polluting or tainting American culture.

Every place you see a neighborhood named something like "Little Italy" or "Chinatown", every time to see a traditionally ethnic neighborhood, you are seeing the history of the fact that "assimilation" has historically been a long, slow, difficult process, and even after it has been theoretically accomplished, the xenophobia often remains and sets apart the descendants of the immigrants, making full acceptance difficult - witness the World War II era interment on Japanese-Americans, many of whom were native-born American citizens.

Understanding history means understanding that those who are complaining about recent emigres "not assimilating" simply have no historical perspective on how immigration has ever worked in the United States.

When I was in high school (1960s) a friend took me with her when she visited here Italian grandmother. She had been in the US for thirty years, but spoke no English. My father went to schools where some of the classes were taught in Polish. My mother's parents spoke German at home, but my mother always answered them in English, so by the time she was an adult, the only German she remembered were swear words. After WWII, my dad was told, "You're very qualified, but we've already got one Catholic working here."

We've never had immigrants assimilate easily. Whether an immigrant subgroup is seen as "white" makes a difference in how fast they are assimilated. (cf. How the Irish Became White; there are far more undocumented Irish and Polish immigrants in Chicago than there are Mexican or other Hispanic, but you don't hear much about round-ups in those neighborhoods.)

Read your history, most certainly. Read about the restrictions on Chinese immigration, for example, or immigration from other non-European parts of the world.

Unless you're Native American, you're descended from immigrants, "legal" or otherwise.

>221 klarusu:
Recent numbers from the Danish national statistics department say that 25% of all people in Copenhagen are immigrants or children of immigrants. (Immigrant here defined as someone born outside Denmark and with none of his/her parents being Danish or born in Denmark). So yes, we all come from somewhere else. And the lines are mostly arbitrary. The 25% includes a lot of Swedes and Norwegians and Germans ... and people from all over the globe who are here to study or on long term visits etc.

I so agree...

>213 Katie1949: Why wouldn't Muslims like libraries? They science'd before the Western World thought to stop being so superstitious and to science a bit. (Actually, a good portion of the rest of the inhabitants of the entire Earth were science-ing before 'Western Civilization' was science-ing so.....)

Also, I'm a public librarian, and I'm seeing more and more women who practice the Muslim faith every day (probably men too, but, generally I can't tell outwardly what their religion is). I know that it's probably a dumb thing to find that awesome (and I'm probably putting it in a horrible way, I apologize), but I love seeing such a wide variety of people come in. I want every single person who wants to come in to feel like they can do so, and to behold the amazing thing that is the public library. (sorry, that went off on a tangent).

Immigrants generally have a lot to gain from libraries. I don't know any sort of national numbers, but I know they're a major resource for the refugees and asylees in Portland, Maine. Many libraries offer language classes, immigration resources and collections in foreign languages.

Overall, however, libraries are something few other countries are as enthusiastic about as the USA, including the Muslim world but also including Europe. When it comes to a deep history of local libraries everywhere, America stands alone--it's one of the lesser pillars of our democracy.

>233 timspalding:
Tim, I think most British Commonwealth countries have an even higher enthusiasm for libraries than Americans.
In Australia, one in every 24 people use a library each year, in New Zealand one in 26 and in the United Kingdom one in every 28.
North America seems to lag behind.
In Canada it is one in 35 and the United States figure is one in every 44 people.
Source:-
https://www.oclc.org/en/global-library-statistics.html

>233 timspalding: libraries are something few other countries are as enthusiastic about

Tim, I don't have statistics or anything, but growing up in Britain in the fifties, sixties and seventies, public libraries run by the local council were a huge part of the culture. In the area of London where I grew up there were three or four public libraries within easy walking distance and there was a mobile library which came to our street twice a week. My first paid part-time job as a teenager while still at grammar school (what you would call high school) was as a library assistant on Saturdays, when the number of people using the library overwhelmed the regular staff, which is why they had a programme of part-timers.

I won't dispute other English speaking countries are up there too. We'll have to dig into this more, and get good cross-country stats.

FWIW, your numbers are either low and totally killed by the USA, or just don't add up. (My guess is the latter.) You say 1/24 in Australia use a library every year, with similar numbers in other places. I find that incredibly low. According to PEW, the number for the US is 46% (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/15/who-uses-libraries-and-what-they-do-at-their-libraries/). So either Americans visit the library 6-8 times more often than other Anglospherians, or something's wrong.

>235 John5918:

There have been very significant cuts in British libraries in recent years. According to the BBC, 1/4 of all library workers have lost their jobs in the last six years ( http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35707956 ), and many libraries have closed. The British librarians I know are in full-on crisis mode.

FWIW, the numbers they give for paid library staff in Britain, 24,044, puts the people-per-staff in Britain at 2,665 people per paid staff member. The comparable number in the USA is 366,642, or 869 people per paid staff member. That's three times more staff per person in the USA than Britain. ( http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet02 )

>236 timspalding:

Thanks, Tim. I don't dispute that British libraries have been deeply damaged over the last couple of decades by funding cuts leading to closures and staff reductions. However I was responding to your statement, "When it comes to a deep history of local libraries everywhere, America stands alone", rather than to the current state of affairs. I think if one looks into the "deep history of local libraries", you might find that America is not as alone as you suggest.

But as I say, I don't have statistics, only a sense of what libraries and the popular "library culture" were like in Britain during a certain period. Only two things could empty a public library on a Saturday afternoon: (1) the football cup final was on TV, and (2) the Wimbledon men's singles final was on TV! Saturday library staff used to look forward to both!

>237 John5918:

Yes, fair enough. It's a generalization, and the other Anglophone countries are the closest thing to an exception. I don't think it's a coincidence, Carnegie focused on the USA, UK and Canada in his free library program.

That said, the OCLC numbers paint a picture of the the Anglophone countries being outliers, and the US leading them. I did up the public library numbers and crossed them against population for the UK, US, Aus, NZ, France, Italy and Slovenia. The US is far ahead in users, except against Britain. But Britain trails the US in funding (85%), librarians (52%), libraries (11%), and volumes (66%). Unfortunately, the UK numbers are invariably older than the US, so I suspect there's been erosion since.

Academic numbers are, from what I can see, even stronger for the US. By volumes per capita, for example, UK has 53% of US, Australia 55%, NZ 59%, France 22%, Slovenia 68%, Italy 25%.

Anyway, my basic point stands. Americans don't realize that we're global outliers when it comes libraries. This is all the more surprising because we're global outliers in the other direction when it comes to funding for other social services. I, at least, attribute this to the US's hyperlocal library funding model, based on a long history of town libraries, and before that social libraries. The US is riven by political divides, and has an aversion to taxes and large government, but libraries, funded on the local level, do pretty well, comparatively.

>238 timspalding: sorry Tim, I'm unclear what the percentages are, could you explain

>238 timspalding:, >239 eclecticdodo:

And also the date of those figures. If they are recent (last 20 years, say), then I think one would find that older figures in Britain (say 50 years ago) would be much higher.

>238 timspalding: I wonder what the connection is to bookstores. Germany has less of a library culture than a bookstore culture, with every neighborhood supporting a small, independent bookstore and downtown areas often having a dozen within walking distance of each other.

I wonder why libraries are so important to Americans when reading is not, and anti-intellectualism is almost a virtue.

>242 southernbooklady: That's such a sweeping generalization as to be completely meaningless.

>243 rosalita: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBG3zEEhAvw
Bill Hicks. QED. ;-)

Another point, building on my anecdote here:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/247416#5935031 ; https://www.librarything.com/topic/247510#5914110

I didn't mention that in the course of a few moments' baffled leafing through the library's acquisition request book, I incidentally took stock of what else was written in it: with almost no exceptions, page after page of requests for DVDs.

>238 timspalding: It might be worth taking into account population density here. The UK doesn't necessarily need so much duplication of volumes in academic libraries when everyone lives so much closer together. I'd be curious to see something like how many volumes the average person has accessible within a two-hour travel radius, or something along those lines.

>243 rosalita: There are a lot of things you can say with confidence about the American character, but "we are a nation of readers" is not what springs readily to mind.

My guess is that with our emphasis on individualism, on the virtue of the self-created person, that libraries are valued not so much because knowledge is valued for itself, but because libraries are an excellent tool for a person to improve themselves. They appeal to our affinity for self-reliance.

>245 _Zoe_: it is also worth noting that most libraries are parts of consortiums, so for example I can get any book from almost any library within 60 miles or more delivered to my local library for free

Edit to add: University libraries similarly cooperate with inter library loans easily available over a large distance

>247 eclecticdodo: I think it is even easier in the States - most libraries allow ILL from any other participating US library (which seems to be pretty much any library in the USA - look at my ill: tags to see which libraries I had received books so far from if you are interested) for free.

Within the U.S. the 4th class book rate through the USPS was established partly to help with Inter-Library Loan. Now it is called Media Mail to encompass a larger range of materials that might be consumed.

When a library offers Inter-Library Loan (ILL) for free, it is subsidizing it. It is certainly not free to supply such a service. It costs at least $4 to send the book each way if Media Mail is used. Perhaps a county-wide network may truck books around and not use the US Postal Service but there are expenses there as well.

Not all books that can be found on WorldCat (OCLC) catalogs are available for ILL, of course. Some books are findable with minimal effort because some library has it and will loan it. Others don't wish to bother or consider the item too hard to replace.

I collect certain classes of books because libraries don't carry them traditionally. In this case I am thinking of the older juvenile series books (think Tom Swift). There may be some in libraries but more often the selection librarians are proud that they don't have them. So, if I wanted to use one of the more scarce volumes, I might not be able to get it through ILL.
_____

Regarding the discussion of library usage in different countries, it is hard to make direct comparisons. There are differences of population, density, and the retail price of books which the public can buy. On average, novels for adults are cheaper in the U.S. than elsewhere. Hardcovers are more prevalent for the public as well than they are in the U.K.

However, after exploring the shipping costs from the U.S. to the U.K., the cheapest method I could find to send 5 Nancy Drew books with a packed weight of less than 1.8 kg (4 pounds) was $57.00. UPS and FedEx were more than triple this figure at their cheapest rates. Sure it is a weight, volume, and distance factor. Shipping to Canada is also inexplicably expensive considering that it is not necessary for airplanes to be involved. I'd like to see some better bilateral agreements for sending packages in North America.

James

>249 Keeline: It used to be you could send USPS surface M-bags for delivery by sea freight, but that's been discontinued as of 2007 or so. The USPS still offers M-Bags, but only for much more epensive air freight: ISAL (http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immc2_039.htm) or IPA (http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immc2_038.htm#ep2606894). M-Bags for bulk mailings of media can still be sourced at post offices, but they're really only economical if you're sending upwards of 5 kilos or so, and still much more expensive than the old surface ones. Smaller shipments of books can be sent via IPA or ISAL parcels, but the easiest way to do that is to establish an account with a postal shipping consolidator. I used International Mail Service in Kalamazoo, MI to good effect back when I was selling books internationally. http://www.intlmailserv.com/

I recently had an annoying experience with an ILL, where the book was sent in a van that took several weeks to make the 4-hour trip. By the time it arrived, it was already due and they sent it back immediately.

>248 AnnieMod: Most libraries in Canada will do ILLs for free, as well!

>248 AnnieMod: >249 Keeline: Not all libraries offer ILL anymore. Some will do it only if you pay for the costs. My local library will not request books from outside its system (Jackson County, Oregon). When I lived in Chatham County, North Carolina, they would do ILL if you footed the bill. I imagine these two are not outliers.

>240 John5918:

That I don't know. We'd also need to look at older US numbers. Anyway, I have no particular need to diss Britain to point out that the US is an outlier--all the more so for being generally a small-governmnet place.

I wonder what the connection is to bookstores. Germany has less of a library culture than a bookstore culture, with every neighborhood supporting a small, independent bookstore and downtown areas often having a dozen within walking distance of each other.

I believe they also have a rule that requires bookstores online and off to sell at the list price. Amazon has decimated the US bookstore world.

I wonder why libraries are so important to Americans when reading is not, and anti-intellectualism is almost a virtue.

Careful or the conservatives will call you racist, like they did me when I disparaged the cult of beauty in Argentina and the USA.

It might be worth taking into account population density here. The UK doesn't necessarily need so much duplication of volumes in academic libraries when everyone lives so much closer together. I'd be curious to see something like how many volumes the average person has accessible within a two-hour travel radius, or something along those lines.

Right. Although we'd also need to know what people really can access--I used to live ten minutes from Widener, but they certainly didn't let me in, even if I was getting a PhD at Michigan! (They let my mom, an alumna in, so, occasionally I had to have her retrieve a book for me.) And, similarly, we can speculate that Slovenia's academic libraries are relatively well stocked because, well, you gotta have the important books and can't get away with having 0.7% of the books in the US just because you have 0.7% of the people.

>254 timspalding: I had to drop out of grad school because life upheavals moved me away from the university library. I could have finished as a distance student, but no library access made that close enough to impossible that I couldn't cope. Never mind that I moved closer to a cluster of very high-end universities. My status at one school (even one in the same state system) still didn't let me into the library of another.

When I was a kid, UNLV offered limited access to non-students if you left a credit card on file, but apparently no more. Oklahoma State offers a library card to anyone who is 18 and a resident of Oklahoma, current member of the Friends of the OSU Library, or a visting scholar (see the Courtesy Card Application). I've never been denied access to a university library, whether it be NWOSU, UNLV, or UMass-Lowell, though I didn't try Harvard or MIT. It would be interesting to see a survey of university libraries, to see how many universities don't restrict access at all, and how many go a step further and offer a library card to a general audience.

>256 prosfilaes: There is a literal not physically letting you enter the library building, and the horrible tease where you can enter but not check anything out. The biggest barrier I found was lack of access to scholarly publications. If you have to input student ID to access the computer databases, that's an issue. With some scholarly publication databases, you can't access them from your home computer, either, it has to be from one of the library's computers. And you can't log into those computers without proper ID etc.

I'm in Canada, so things might be different. I also work at a (very small) academic library. We offer a "community borrower" card for a small fee. This does not give access to electronic databases, though. Our electronic databases are accessible on-campus, though, with a guest login.

Other academic libraries around here, I think, have similar options. Some type of community borrower card for a fee, and many databases are accessible on-campus with a guest login. Not all databases. That is usually the database provider that sets up the rules in the license. In some cases, the library might be able to pay more if they want that access for guest logins on-campus, but that may be a higher cost, as well.

I'm surprised that if a university or college has distance education courses, they don't have something set up to help out those people who are working from a distance.

>245 _Zoe_: exposes the vast gulf in difference between the UK and the US. Two hour travel time for me here in Manchester UK will get me to London in one direction or Gretna Green on the border with Scotland in another, an area encompassing at least 3/4 of the country and more than that of the population*

But because of this, there isn't the same mindset about travelling. Nobody, not even the most ardent bibliophile would consider a 2 hour journey to get hold of a book in any way reasonable. Few people would travel beyond their local town ~30mins away. Which I guess in some parts of the US might not get you past your local neighbours.

Very very difficult to find a meaningful comparison of numbers.

Public library access is open to all, withdrawals mostly limited to your county (see above ~30min driving) - although I'm aware it varies. You can borrow Ebooks from wherever you like, subject to the people per copy restrictions. Academic libraries would normally be restricted to students/staff of that institution, although exceptions may apply.

*Although some places between those points take a LOT longer than 2 hours to get to.

>259 reading_fox: As someone once put it: in the UK 100 miles is a long way; in the US 100 years is a long time.

by posting the statement on the Librarything blog it shows that you support the statement.
I don't like seeing Librarything being politicized.

Thank you!

You were not forced to link in, it was an option. No one wants terrorism, but we don't want innocent people persecuted either.

This isn't just about racism and religous bigotry, although of course Trump and his supporters are guilty of both those things. I note that Australian author Mem Fox, who was travelling to the US for the 117th time to appear at a conference, and was being paid an honorarium and expenses, was pulled out of a customs line and held for several hours because some moron thought she might be trying to work illegally in America. I also saw that Muhammed Ali's mother and son were accosted and interrogated when returning to the States from some trip abroad recently. The Trump administration is empowering all the narrow-minded bullies and morons who work in immigration and border control to behave in the way they have always wanted to behave. I know from my own country (Australia) that it's an area of work that attracts bullies and morons the way the Catholic Church attracts paedophiles. Congratulations for taking a stand.

Derrick

Thank you to the staff members of Library Thing. Not taking a stand against evil is to empower it. My grandparents came here with not much more than the clothes on their backs, teenagers alone and each on their own in 1912, barely able to speak any English. Before they met, my grandmother was gutting fish at a tuna factory and my grandfather was working at a lumber camp - very dangerous, low paying jobs. I'm thankful they became American citizens. America has been built with immigrant labor. There was a tiny silver lining in the dark cloud of bullying foreigners: I saw the story on Mem Fox and looked up her books. My grandson is getting them for his birthday, and Mem is getting a note of appreciation from me. Hate does not defeat hate - only love can do that.

A UK teacher (Muslim, born in Egypt) on his way to the US as chaperone for a school group, was pulled from the flight in Rekjavik without any explanation.

Thank you so much for standing up and issuing this statement.

Well done, LT! The truth is the truth, not an opinion. We can't turn a blind eye to oppression.

I am extremely disappointed in the direction so-called progressives have taken. They are now a hindrance, not a help, to our democracy.
I am a former lifelong Democrat/Liberal (no longer, since I have seen all this hate-mongering from my former party members).
I hated the direction Reagan and both Bushes took. I was in agreement with Bill Clinton's ideas. I have changed in just a few months.
Liberalism should stand for freedom of speech... Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether you agree with them or not. "I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto my death your right to say it."(I forget that lady's name, sorry.) It is the Republicans' turn now... things can turn around in 4-8 years. In the meantime, let's remember what America means, what no other country means... a democratic society defends ALL (not just one or two) sides of thoughts and beliefs, whether we agree with them or not.

Mainly, this is no place for all this political nonsense... this is for our passions about books.

>269 CaryNichols: this is no place for all this political nonsense

And yet you are the one putting "political nonsense" in "this place" (i.e. this thread, rather than one at Pro & Con). Your comment has only the most tenuous of connections to this thread. The LT statement said nothing about "progressives," nor did it agitate in opposition to or support of political parties or office-holders. It was a conscientious, professionally-based reaction to a current position of the Federal Executive, and worth applauding as such in a democratic society, whether one agrees with its particulars or not.

Your shiny new empty LT account shows nothing of your "passions about books."

>269 CaryNichols: Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether you agree with them or not

So you agree that the LT staff have the right to say what they want?

what America means, what no other country means... a democratic society

Are you seriously trying to suggest that no other country "means" a democratic society? The USA is the only one?

>270 paradoxosalpha:

Thank you.

>270 paradoxosalpha: May be a sock puppet account so the poster does not have to use their real name? Or a drive-by troll? In any case, I found the argument of being against free speech because free speech unconvincing.

>272 RidgewayGirl: I found the argument of being against free speech because free speech unconvincing

Me too, but there seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

US not only one
But hopefully STILL one.

Yes LT staff has the right
but so do all Clinton supporters
And all Trump supporters
And everyone else, too.

This probably isn't the place for it
Since not everyone is THIS political.
They may just want peace from
all the rhetoric.

I think travel ban is highly warranted. Besides, it is not a BAN, only a more stringent vetting process for those from suspect countries. Too bad countries in the EU didn't use such procedures to protect their citizens.

>275 KMcLeod: It's too bad that Obama just let people in with no checking. Oh wait, he did check, quite thoroughly too. Never mind. :(

There does seem to be a fair number of people who take Trump at his word that there was no vetting before him or that there is none in any European country (probably why there was that terrible event in Sweden Trump spoke of, and of course the Bowling Green massacre). In a community of readers, this is unfortunate.

>275 KMcLeod: I am very pleased that Austria accepted people who came thousands of kilometers, often mostly on foot, to escape war and terror. It has not made a lot of difference to life in Vienna. Yes, a few of the young single men have acted inappropriately, but the few people who have been arrested on suspicion of planning terror attacks have not been refugees. They have been born and raised here or in Other EU countries.

I think travel ban is highly warranted. Besides, it is not a BAN, only a more stringent vetting process for those from suspect countries.

First, it was a ban. The Executive Order specifically prohibited entry into the United States to people with passports from specific countries, regardless of whether they had valid visas or not.

Second, as the Department of Homeland Security report recently stated, there is no reason to believe that citizenship is a good way to screen people, and it is in fact counterproductive.

>277 RidgewayGirl: I am fairly convinced Trump meant to say Columbus, Ohio and not Bowling Green. With regard to Sweden, women have been warned not to go out alone at night and riots broke out in Stockholm just this month. Police were firing warning shots to over 100 rioters as they set fires and threw rocks. Trump may also have been referring to a post on Facebook from a Swedish police officer named Peter Springare who was posting about the increase in crime in his country and the number of perpetrators who were immigrants.

>280 thebooklover1:
For Sweden - you may want to see what people that actually live in Sweden are saying or the media based in the country, not what the US media is reporting.

Are you really going to defend the "Bowling Green Massacre" propaganda? They "may have meant"? It is a bit scary that the people that make policy need a "may have meant" in order to be understood. Or defended. Still does not make sense though.

>280 thebooklover1: I think this is a huge part of the problem. It is patently ridiculous that we should all have to be sitting here trying to guess what the president meant because his communication is unclear and there are mixed messages coming from the administration. He didn't clarify what exactly he meant by mentioning Sweden--he just said "what's happening in Sweden last night." Everything beyond that, every interpretation of his words, is pure supposition. This was also the problem with the so-called travel ban: it was implemented without any clear guidance or communication, or any legal oversight (apparently), in a way that allowed those who wanted to abuse the policy, which they did and seem to still be doing, even though the "ban" is no longer in effect. I understood that one reason people voted for Trump was because he was a businessman. Supposedly successful businesses understand the vital importance of clear messaging and precise policies. If I ran a business with a communications department like this, I would fire the lot of them. There's a reason presidents hire speechwriters.

I am here for books. If I wanted political statements I'd go elsewhere. I am conservative in political views. I am saddened by the lack of tolerance toward conservative thought shown by those who are not conservative in their thinking. If this were a religion based travel ban, there would be more than a tiny group of 7 countries in the temporary ban. But, I'm not here to argue, as the hate shown toward those who are not liberal is intolerant to me. We are all free to voice opinions, whether liberals honor this freedom or not. As for me, I'm going back to my books. Freedom to read what I want is the purpose of a library. Harsh words and hatred are not for me. Happy reading.

I am saddened by the lack of tolerance toward conservative thought shown by those who are not conservative in their thinking.

Criticism is not intolerance.

I am fairly convinced Trump meant to say Columbus, Ohio and not Bowling Green.

Trump didn't say that. Kellyanne Conway did. Multiple times. She meant to say Bowling Green each time.

>280 thebooklover1: I bit of perspective is needed. It may be true that there is some violence in Sweden associated with some asylum seekers, and it may be true that Trump's female associate misspoke when she brought up the name of a massacre that didn't happen, but the fact remains that gun massacres in the United States are routine occurrences (so it's easy to confuse them?), and hardly any of them are perpetrated by migrants or refugees. The US is a very dangerous place, far more dangerous than Sweden. Particularly if you are black or hispanic. Your country needs far more tolerance, not less.

Derrick

>283 Raspberrymocha: - I completely agree with you.

I am an Australian and have traveled widely.
I am traveling via the South Pacific, Chile and Colombia to the Caribbean in a couple of weeks. I finish the trip in Antigua, and the easiest way to get back to Australia is via Miami and Los Angeles. BUT I cannot travel that way.
I have also traveled as a tourist in the Middle East including Iran, and because I have an Iranian stamp in my passport, I am no longer able to visit the USA on my current passport.
I could get a new passport, and lie on my visa application (ESTA), but instead I have chosen to avoid the USA and return home from Antigua via London and Shanghai.
I cannot see myself revisiting the USA for at least four years.

>288 wcarter: I honestly can't blame ya, mate. Take care.

>283 Raspberrymocha:

If I wanted political statements I'd go elsewhere.

I, too, would like to keep certain corners of my life free from politics. But "politics" is not some neat and well-defined little area off to the side: issues dealing with governing nations or other larger collections of people do tend to affect many people, who will then go on to voice their opinion.

I am conservative in political views. I am saddened by the lack of tolerance toward conservative thought shown by those who are not conservative in their thinking.

As has already been pointed out, criticism does not equal "intolerance". Conflating the two is a gross and unfair exaggeration, which makes having a conversation very hard.

I also disagree with your equating the Trump Administration's actions (that have been the butt of criticism here) with "conservative thought". The latter is much, much wider than the former, and equating the two makes for, again, a gross exaggeration, which makes having a conversation very hard. For instance, several members who have voiced their criticism here may well be conservative. How do you know they are not? Those who are critical of some of the policies of the Trump Administration may include "those who are not conservative in their thinking", but it also includes many who are conservative in their thinking.

If this were a religion based travel ban, there would be more than a tiny group of 7 countries in the temporary ban.

1. Giuliani is on record as having advised on the creation of a religious ban in all but name. 2. A "religious ban" needn't be absolute and cover all relevant nations before you can call it that.

But, I'm not here to argue, as the hate shown toward those who are not liberal is intolerant to me.

Criticism is not "hate". Disagreement is not "hate". Telling people you think they are wrong is not "hate". Again with the gross exaggerations. Please don't do that. It is very hard to have a conversation with you if you see pushback as motivated by malevolent intentions. This conflation will unfairly shut down conversations before they've even started.

We are all free to voice opinions, whether liberals honor this freedom or not. [...] Harsh words and hatred are not for me.

Disregarding the conflation of disagreement with "hatred", these two statements are inconsistent: voicing an opinion invites opinions of people who disagree (and a democracy, even the kind you have in the US, absolutely depends on that dynamic). I can only see these two statements as compatible if I think of criticism and disagreement as a form of "harsh words and hatred". And that, I think, is not true.

Perhaps you have this thread on ignore; perhaps your intention was to post your opinion and then never look back. That's fine (though, again, not conducive to a conversation). But I was motivated to comment on your post, precisely because I thought it contained several unfair exaggerations and unhelpful conflations. I hope you don't mind me voicing my opinion.

Happy reading.

Something we agree on. Happy reading to you too!

>280 thebooklover1:

Reality Check: Is Malmo the 'rape capital' of Europe?

The Beeb doing some fact-checking on a claim that has appeared in some far right circles.

>283 Raspberrymocha: We are all free to voice opinions, whether liberals honor this freedom or not

So do you agree that the LT staff are free to voice their opinions, whether conservatives honour this freedom or not?

Freedom to read what I want is the purpose of a library.

Exactly. You are free to read what you want and free not to read what you don't want. But obviously some people will want to read things that you don't want, so the library (or LibraryThing) will contain some material that you don't want to read, like, for example, the statement by LT staff. I don't want to read romance novels but I don't criticise the library because it has a prominent section labelled "romance".

>290 Petroglyph:

Thank you.

>286 dajashby: Thanks for your thoughts Derrick. I do view the United States as having gotten progressively more dangerous over the last twenty years, but having traveled extensively I can tell you from experience it is not as dangerous as France. At least not in my experience. I have not been to Sweden, so I cannot provide first hand knowledge of that country, but I actually felt afraid in France.

>293 thebooklover1: One person's fear level isn't really a good indicator for the actual level of danger though.

>285 StormRaven: Thanks for the correction. I did find the info about the Bowling Green terrorists who conspired to kill American Nationals abroad. BI had an excellent article explaining their crimes.

>293 thebooklover1: From Wikipedia:
Rates of intentional homicide
USA 3.9
France 1.2

Rates of incarceration
USA 693
France 103

Both are per 100 000 population
I have not felt unsafe in France. I have felt unsafe visiting the US.

>294 jjwilson61: even a population's fear level isn't a particularly good indication for the accurate risk level.

People's are terrible at judging risk.

>294 jjwilson61: Perhaps, but Notre Dame was evacuated because of a threat just as I was leaving the cathedral and three people in our small group were victims of crime while there. Scary nonetheless!

>298 thebooklover1:

If the crime was caused by pickpockets - that had been happening to tourists that do not pay attention for decades over there - to the point that there were signs to be careful about that all over the place. There used to be a joke in travel forums that you had not experienced Paris if you had not been robbed at least once.

PS: Plus the way people are careful really differs depending on where you live. I would not even think of leaving my purse or any luggage out of my sight (or out of a friends sight) even for a second in Europe; here in Phoenix I would leave it and go pick up an order from a counter or go to the bathroom without worrying too much.

As for the evacuation - a prank call causes that as well. Often.

I have a friend moving from Portland OR to France because she felt so much better in France. Perceptions are interesting, but a couple of data points are not enough to make a judgment about a whole country. I used to work in a mall in NY State. We got evacuated a couple of times for bomb threats.

>299 AnnieMod: It also depends where you are in a country. A restaurant you know in Phoenix is different from one in a tourist area of New York. I forgot my purse on an U-bahn here in Vienna once. I got it back from the lost and found, and all that was missing was a tin of peppermints. Biggest problem was when they wanted identity papers to give it back to me. They finally agreed to check the pictures on the ones in the purse.

But I have heard stories about people robbed by thugs with guns in the US. That is very rare in Europe.

>301 MarthaJeanne:

Oh, I know. That is why I said Phoenix and not USA as a whole. But if you are used to live in a place where it is relatively safe to do that, you do not pay as much attention elsewhere either (these days when I am traveling back home, I catch myself forgetting to be more careful even when I know I should be).

I suspect that >298 thebooklover1: forgot that tourist areas are a lot less safe than normal living and working areas of any city. Also, most of feel safer when we are surrounded by people we understand. This is both language and customs. If we don't understand the words and people behave 'strangely' and look 'different' we get on edge.

>294 jjwilson61:even a population's fear level isn't a particularly good indication for the accurate risk level.

And when they do correlate, the causation might easily be in either direction.

And when they do correlate, the causation might easily be in either direction.

As Dara O'Briain has said 'The fear of zombies may be at an all time high right now, but that doesn't make it reasonable."

>305 StormRaven: As Dara O'Briain has said 'The fear of zombies may be at an all time high right now, but that doesn't make it reasonable."

Believing stuff like that is why you don't support the President, who is doing his best to reduce the supply of nutritious brains that could sustain the zombie menace. After Trump is done, there will be no brains in this country that could keep a zombie alive.

>306 prosfilaes: ah so that's his plan. Good to know...

I'm less fearful of either immigrant crime or Muscovite Candidate Trump than I am of the people who are afraid of either immigrant crime or Muscovite Candidate Trump.

I am seriously creeped out by Trump's cabinet, though. I expect their larders will be stocked with brains long after the rest have been eaten.

>309 paradoxosalpha: "...than I am of the people who are afraid of either immigrant crime or Muscovite Candidate Trump." Quite so.

>303 MarthaJeanne: MarthaJeanne, I certainly hope your comment wasn't intended to apply to me because it doesn't. I am an experienced world traveler who has set foot on four different continents and who speaks more than one language. Not understanding and being around people who are different doesn't put me personally on edge. Organized street gangs do put me on edge and should put everyone on edge. Paris, in particular, is over run with organized street gangs.

>311 thebooklover1: Paris has a problem with petty theft, not violent crime though. It doesn't make it unsafe, just annoying

>312 eclecticdodo: Petty theft is usually defined as having a value of less than $500. It is a problem with grand theft. A smartphone is often worth more than that, so grand theft is the more appropriate term. Theft of a passport is a felony.

There seem to be more than a few criminal apologists in this thread.

>311 thebooklover1: The Paris you visited is a very different city than I have visited (and lived in for a year). Granted, my last visit was sixteen months ago, and I was only there for two weeks, but I can't believe it has changed that drastically in such a short period of time. I'll have to email the friends still living there.

>314 RidgewayGirl: I was there in 2014 and again in 2016. It was lovely in 2014, drastically different in 2016. It was under a state of emergency in 2016 when I visited. I am certain that accounts for some of the difference, such as the heavily armed guards with automatic weapons.

That will change things. Armed people (police/army/whatever) where arms are not normal will give a sense of being unsafe, why else would they be there.

The paradox is of course that you are safer, generally, but you feel less safe.

It's probably related to the feeling people have of declining safety, always demanding more police presence, harsher sentences, while crime has been declining for decades and the chances of you being a victim of that crime has thus been declining for decades too. This is true for countries that don't have such high percentage of the population incarcerated too.

Isn't anyone concerned with the theft of the peppermints mentioned in >301 MarthaJeanne: ? If our peppermints aren't safe, how can we be confident in the future of civilisation as we know it?

>317 MrAndrew: Actually, I didn't miss the mints. But I would really like the tin back. It was a copy of an old pill box. Still, I did get all my IDs back, the money, I think we had already stopped the bank cards, but they were still there... The only reason I had the mints was that they came in the tin.

If the local police had been on the ball, they could have caught those mint-thieving bastards tout de suite. All they needed to do was round up the usual suspects and smell their sweet, minty breath. Voilà, tin retrieved.

>313 thebooklover1: I was not aware of a monetary definition of petty theft. But the point still stands, pickpocketing does not endanger one's safety.

>315 thebooklover1: That was a very different situation following terrorism. More akin to taking a flight immediately after 911 than visiting a beautiful city.

>320 eclecticdodo: Yes, the severity of theft as a crime is decided by the value of the items stolen. Grand theft is stealing a car (as in, Grand Theft Auto) while petty theft is, well, petty stuff.

>313 thebooklover1:, >320 eclecticdodo:, >321 PhaedraB:

The dividing line between classes of theft will vary greatly depending on what jurisdiction you are in. Indeed, even in the same jurisdiction, the value that separates misdemeanor from felony or a lesser class felony from a greater will vary.

For instance, in my state, if you steal from a store (retail theft), a lesser value is required to make the offense a felony than if I stole someone's purse.

(I would also note that there are no such offenses in my state as "petty theft", "grand theft" or "grand theft auto".)

It is always dangerous to make blanket statements as to the law.

>322 lilithcat: There's no such thing as distinct crime of petty or grand theft in the uk either, just theft, the severity of the sentence is up to the judge. Also no such thing as misdemeanour or felony, just crimes. I have no idea about France.

>316 JerryMmm: Armed people (police/army/whatever) where arms are not normal will give a sense of being unsafe, why else would they be there.

The irony being that in the USA "armed people", many of whom are not police or army but are just civilians with military-grade weaponry, are normal. I certainly do not feel safe when I am in the USA.

People walking around with military-grade weapons or even openly carrying handguns aren't normal everywhere in the US. It certainly isn't in California.

>319 MrAndrew: Lol!

I'm all for legal immigration. Illegal immigration is an affront to those who stood in line. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Trump's executive order only "apply" to illegal immigration?

>327 Tess_W: If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Trump's executive order only "apply" to illegal immigration?

Nope. It applies to anyone - legal immigrants, visitors, students.

great post, thank you librarything employees who make everybody feel welcome and stand against Trump's exclusionary and xenophobic views and actions.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Trump's executive order only "apply" to illegal immigration?

You are mistaken. The order only applied to those who were in the process of legally entering the country.

>327 Tess_W: The fact that they're pulling legal immigrants off planes etc. is what makes this so outrageous. Doctors who have trained and practiced here for years, Muhammad Ali's son who is a citizen! This is simply wrong in so many ways. It is racism pure and simple. He can make it about keeping our country safe but it isn't doing that. There is no other explanation but racism.

This sort of "aggressive enforcement" of visa and immigration constraints will inevitably harm many "foreign-seeming" people chosen by race and religion, and can only be intended to do so.

Re the coversation on perceived threats around posts 300ff above, there's an interesting little section on the social psychology of conflict and inter-group threat theory in pp40ff of a report entitled If you are safe, I am safe'.

Seek to understand before judging, read the orders, read the legislative acts for yourself. You can access everything, in its entirety, on line. Listen to more than one news station, seek out those that do not agree with you...open your mind. Also, I would ask all who think illegal immigrants are ok, how many have you personally helped? How many refugees have you personally helped here in USA? Very easy to condemn others' opinions, but if you aren't at all touched by all that illegal immigration and refugee policy means to our country, you have no business judging. All my grandparents were legal immigrants who worked from day one, never demanded, expected, or received anything from our tax dollars. Read about other country's immigration laws...most are not liberal at all with their own policies. The U N should help more by stopping the mass exodus from these oppressed countries. How? By doing something about the oppressors. I'll bet Assad and other awful leaders love that so many countries are taking refugees...less for him and other despots to worry about. So what do you suggest? No borders, no illigration laws? Let everyone who is not happy just come in, carte blanche? Again, when is the last time you got truly involved, financially and personally, before pontificating about every single thing the current adminstration does? It wasn't helpful when republicans obstructed Obama, and it isn't helpful now. Who is looking out for the majority of our citizens?
I am proud to be an educated, older woman, third party advocate who is cognizant of the fact that we can't all have everything we want in our country of 320,000,000! Deal with it and seek to understand before jumping on any bandwagon.

Regarding Post 290..I like what you say. As an older, white, educated, third party advocate most of my life, I have to say I am surprised by how vicious, hateful, and closed minded my democrat-voting friends are. If I don't bash Trump, they are angry with me. I tell them to chill...in four years they can try again as that is the greatness of our country. That really makes them mad!

>334 ycul: You joined LibraryThing just to debate politics?

Seek to understand before judging, read the orders, read the legislative acts for yourself.

I have. Most people here have. It is kind of presumptuous of you to assume that others have not.

So what do you suggest? No borders, no illigration laws? Let everyone who is not happy just come in, carte blanche?

Perhaps you have not read what U.S. immigration law was before the current Executive Orders (which have been halted by the courts for now) were put into place. It certainly was not "no borders, no illigration (sic) laws". One might also note that the Executive Orders that this administration has put forth only apply to legal immigration, as they are restrictions imposed upon who may receive visas, and how visa-holders are to be treated.

I tell them to chill...in four years they can try again as that is the greatness of our country.

They can try in two years. Or now. There is no limit to when people can be active in politics and express their opinions.

>334 ycul: Listen to more than one news station, seek out those that do not agree with you...open your mind

Good advice, but I think you'll find that it's the Trump-supporting posters who would benefit from it more than the others.

Also, I would ask all who think illegal immigrants are ok, how many have you personally helped? How many refugees have you personally helped

Rather a lot, actually.

The U N should help more by stopping the mass exodus from these oppressed countries. How? By doing something about the oppressors

Er, well, yes. How to do it? By invading their countries and thus, ironically but not surprisingly, creating more refugees, and indeed creating more conflicts which will create even more refugees? Or by addressing the deep-seated socio-economic and politico-military imbalances (let me not use the word injustices) in the world which contribute to oppression? It really would be nice to see the USA reigning in its own ambitions in order to contribute to a fairer global society, as you suggest.

So what do you suggest? No borders, no illigration {sic} laws? Let everyone who is not happy just come in, carte blanche?

Well acually, yes. I believe freedom of movement should be a basic human right, and that any measures to curtail it should be very carefully and seriously considered and should be seen as unfortunate but in certain limited cases perhaps necessary exceptions to the norm.

>334 ycul: The U N should help more by stopping the mass exodus from these oppressed countries. How? By doing something about the oppressors.

You should get out more. The UN has no army. It only has the power that individual states wield on its behalf. I suppose it could authorize a boycott if the Russians don't veto it, but it has no power to enforce it against countries that want to break it.

The U N should help more by stopping the mass exodus from these oppressed countries. How? By doing something about the oppressors.

Okay. What should the U.N. be doing? Specifically, what should the U.N. do in Syria, for example. You're going to need to come up with specific policy proposals that the U.N. can accomplish. No hand waving allowed.

I'd just like to note that the two executive orders were only designed to limit legal immigration, and don't affect illegal immigration at all.

>342 MarthaJeanne:
So much this. Because of all the bluster and hands waving from Washington, people seem to really believe that these orders and illegal immigration are somehow connected. Even people that claim that they had read the orders.

PS (to some comments above): And comparing Europe to USA is not even close to realistic (even if one believes that Europe has an issue with the refugees) - the refugees in Europe came over the Mediterranean or over land - borders which are hard to police and enforce - pretty much as hard as the Mexican border for USA. USA is kinda too far away and the refugees programs are more structured. Unless if someone believes that these people that just escaped their worst nightmares actually got on boats and crossed the Atlantic just so they can get in the USA illegally.

>334 ycul: All my grandparents were legal immigrants who worked from day one, never demanded, expected, or received anything from our tax dollars.

Count me skeptical. And even if they really never received anything from Social Security or Medicare, or any other form of direct handout, they still took advantage of all the things the tax dollars built.

None of my ancestors that I know about immigrated to this nation; they all came over before that little dispute between King and Colony. And I don't envy the illegal immigrants who are standing out in front of Home Depot or working construction or picking vegetables in hundred degree heat, and know that I don't have the ability to take their jobs. In fact, I was reading an article recently that farmers in one state were being pushed to take pickers off the unemployment rolls, but few applied and most of them quit before the season was over. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the only way our agricultural system is getting enough people to do the poorly paid, labor-intensive jobs they need.

Also, I would ask all who think illegal immigrants are ok, how many have you personally helped? How many refugees have you personally helped?

As you may not know, John literally spends his life working with refugees, in South Sudan and around it--spends and not infrequently risks it. I do no such thing but, in the last 12 months, we gave a homeless Burundian asylee a room in our house, and we and two other local families support a Syrian refugee family financially and in other ways.

I don't think we should have to say this; you don't have to serve in the military or be building a tank in your back yard to have an opinion about military policy. But if those who support refugees have to demonstrate they personally help out, maybe those who propose the government stay out of it should demonstrate they are already picking up the slack.

Trump's devastating new travel ban is built on a harmful myth (Guardian)

The myth underpinning the executive order is that refugees are waived into the US without checks. In fact, there is an average of 18-24 months of forms, interviews and biometric checks. Twelve to 15 US government agencies are involved. It is harder to get to the US as a refugee than via any other route...

There is obviously substantive value in the new life offered to refugees – 47% of the Syrians so far resettled in the US are children. But there is also a symbolic value. Poor and lower-income countries around the world – countries such as Uganda, Kenya, Lebanon, Jordan – are hosting millions of refugees. When countries like the US stand with them it makes a difference...

When countries in the west refuse refugees from the Syria crisis, there is only one winner: those who would say that Muslims should never trust the US and other western countries, including Britain. It is a propaganda gift for extremism to halt the slow flow of refugees into the western world. That is why this aspect of US domestic policy has foreign policy consequences...

On this St. Patrick's Day, I will note that there are an estimated 50,000 undocumented Irish immigrants living in the United States. I am certain that those urging for the government to take a tougher stance on immigrants are clamoring for them to crack down on this epidemic of illegal foreigners.

>347 StormRaven:

Illegal immigrants who come from an area that has a long association with religious intolerance and terrorism, no less.

348: Some of those illegal immigrants probably raised funds to send back to terrorist organizations in their homeland.

>334 ycul: Also, I would ask all who think illegal immigrants are ok, how many have you personally helped? How many refugees have you personally helped

Refugees, I'm not sure, I don't ask. Immigrants of every color, stripe, country, etc., a crapload. (I have never and will never ask if they're legal or illegal, just liked I'd never ask if someone needed a book about alcholism because of themselves or someone t hey know). So, for immigrants, just yesterday I helped at least four in only a four hours shift.

Perhaps you can stop presuming so much about the rest of us in this thread please?

>335 ycul: I tell them to chill...in four years they can try again as that is the greatness of our country.

I'm white too, though I'm young, and I've always hated when people use the saying 'white privilege', or 'privilege'. But my opinion on the saying is slowly changing with this current administration and its supporters.

Boy is that a privileged statement right there. Wow. Just wow.

You have to realize that there will be thousands dead, because of the changes that the president wants to make. No meals on wheels, practically no SNAP, 'access' to healthcare instead of having healthcare... fewer libraries... and sending people back to war torn countries to die?

>347 StormRaven: Whoa, 50,000? Yikes.

>348 John5918: Although that part I did know, I just didn't know that it was so many.

Whoa, 50,000?

Yep, that's the estimate.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/us/white-irish-undocumented-trnd/

>349 StormRaven:

Tell me about it. As a Super-WASP™ from Boston, this stuff makes me think of how hard my people fought to keep the Irish out and down. They have a weird religion. They don't understand democracy. They oppress women. They're criminals. They're clannish. They won't assimilate. They're going to change this country. And above all—they're not our problem!

Update:
Independent: Global praise for Enda Kenny after his inspiring immigration speech
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/global-praise-for-enda-kenny-after-his-insp...

I'm from Chicago. Chicago is rife with both Irish and Polish immigrants who overstayed their visas. Of course, the Irish are considered nice people with cute accents, while the Polish talk funny and are too "foreign." I've heard the same about Russians in Chicago, too. At least the Greeks and the Asians have tasty food at their restaurants. But of course, the Slavs and Irish fit in visually.

In office buildings in Chicago and collar suburbs, you're likely to see little notices by light switches and stuff written in Polish. Because most of the cleaning ladies are Polish. It's naive to think they're all here legally.

>354 bullylover: Your assumptions are, unsurprisingly, incorrect.

I'm also UK-based and an atheist but I don't blame Muslims for the actions of terrorists no matter what the events of any one day are. Much as I didn't blame all Irish or all Catholics for the fact that at 19 I had to check car wheels before I got in and hold my breath still when the key turned in case there was a bomb under them, which was a reality for my circumstances at the time. We can all come out on the offensive at times of tragedy and violence but in the end, that's what makes bad laws and loses us more fundamental rights than we gain.

>354 bullylover: I'm sure bullylover isn't listening to any replies but I couldn't let unvetted refugees pass. Why do so many people believe that we don't vet refugees already?

I assume you're just a group of snowflakes, some living in Mommy's basement, who have not read the order, do not understand why it was done, and why most Americans with a brain do not want to let unvetted refugees into America from a religion whose leaders have PUBLICALLY STATED they want to kill us.

I have read both the initial Executive Order that was struck down as unconstitutional and the replacement order that is currently subject to a hold put on it by the courts. Neither will do anything of consequence concerning terrorism, especially since they don't affect any of the nations from which any actual terrorists have come. Also, unvetted refugees have never been let into the United States - to enter the United States as a refugee requires an extensive vetting process that usually takes eighteen months to two years to complete. The truly odd thing here is that someone who is as clearly ill-informed as you are thinks they are qualified to give lectures to anyone on any subject.

If you would like to turn this into a political forum, please do so. Just be aware that if you continue pushing the liberal agenda, many of us will leave.

I'm sure that LibraryThing will miss the exactly nothing you have contributed to the site over the last three years.

Why do so many people believe that we don't vet refugees already?

Because people like bullylover don't actually know anything, but don't see their ignorance as an impediment to voicing their uninformed opinions.

>354 bullylover: *publicly stated

>354 bullylover: you have no right to bring the London attack into this discussion. Firstly we don't know anything about the attacker yet, just yesterday there was an attack on police by Irish separatists. And secondly it has nothing to do with Trumps actions or the LT statement.

The rest of your post is utterly ill informed too, as others have pointed out.

"Rioting, the destruction of property, the destruction of businesses, blocking roads, and hateful rhetoric against all Conservatives" - sounds a bit like your war of independence, doesn't it?

King George was your legal sovereign. Deal with it?

On the hateful rhetoric scale, all sides are pretty even.

Limiting current immigrants would not have prevented yesterday's attack in London. He was born in Kent.

can we move on to a part 2? even on fiber this thread loads slow..

>368 JerryMmm:

Note that there is also a parallel thread on the same issue at http://www.librarything.com/topic/247750, which is still small enough to load quickly.

I still think Tim made the wrong decision when he allowed continued posting to the original thread after it had been continued, instead of being directed to the new thread.

This topic hasn't been continued.

>370 jjwilson61:

A lot of folks won't go into the Pro and Con group, which is where that other thread is.

>371 MarthaJeanne: Sorry, I thought that it had, but the other thread referenced in >369 John5918: is only a logical continuation since you can't continue a thread into another group. In any case, since no one else has done so, I'm going to continue this thread in the hopes that it will do some good.