Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 30 January 2017 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8081294A8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:12:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9qowbMORjik for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F1312949E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id v0UDC86S031984 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:12:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:12:08 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <20170130131208.GA3823@gsp.org>
References: <CAEjQQ5Vjs-vg6UQ9Oy0kb8VNEZHTbZnyHxeTCqVwPg4MjErsqA@mail.gmail.com> <6d5f47e2-ac98-f71a-a9cc-1b01cb972db0@mnt.se> <CAKHUCzz_6W5OoejQis-i7s1OtZA6rDFhmKiMv38YHbue9za6CQ@mail.gmail.com> <D4B501EA.17053%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D4B501EA.17053%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/prZls5WrY5YDlCux41lhpYQquy8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:12:11 -0000

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:46:40PM +0000, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >Holding meetings exclusively outside the US means that anyone living
> >in the US under a green card or similar may well not be able to return
> >from such a meeting.
> 
> It has been announced that the ban does not apply to green card holders.

What has been announced and what is happening are very different.  Example:

	"I was born in Baltimore MD in 1951.  That automatically makes
	me an American.  Interesting and creepy experience checking into
	Houston International Airport this morning.  I was detained for
	almost an hour by the TSA with questions about my travels to
	North Africa (1970s), my current social media communications
	with friends in Taiwan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Morocco to
	name a few, where I have had friends for years and decades.
	These communications consist mainly of flowers, children, dogs,
	recipes and understanding of our different cultures.  I was
	asked if I was Christian, and I said yes I am.	My passport was
	taken, and was told it would be returned by mail in 14 business
	days. [...]"

Citizen.  Detained.  Interrogated.  Passport confiscated.

---rsk