9 ms·

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and Preside

* The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. President Obama signed a list of countries into law for enhanced visa scrutiny and President Trump used that exact list without modification, directly referencing the statute in which it was codified. They'd already been identified as terrorism hotspots that warranted additional scrutiny from immigration officials by the Obama administration. Trump just took it a step further and temporarily halted immigration from these nations while his administration reviews the policies to ensure they're sufficient. * Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. Neither are dual citizens. * It is true that non-diplomatic visas have been temporary suspended (not canceled), but this applies at border crossings only; persons currently in the country on those visas do not have to leave. * There has been 18 months of warning in the form of the Presidential campaign. Trump promised something like this up and down. He was taken seriously, not literally, and he seriously implemented a 90-day stay on the travel of foreign nationals from areas with high terrorist activity, using the exact list that President Obama signed into law. He did not literally implement a ban on Muslims, or indeed, any other religious group, despite the literal meaning of his prior comments that did explicitly mention Muslims. Likewise, his statements about "the wall" seem to be flexible to the point of something more like multiple layers of well-patrolled fencing. To me, "seriously but not literally" appears to be holding up really well. Trump is not betraying the intent of the voters who elected him, but he is also consulting with his advisors and legal experts and implementing things that accomplish the intention within the constraints of practicality and legality.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
disantlor 10y ago
any what exactly does this EO accomplish? just because Obama identified countries as a potential threat doesn't necessitate that we be recklessly suspicious of anyone who comes from them. it's disingenuous to say it's just a"step forward" by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >any what exactly does this EO accomplish? I mean, is there some mystery to this? The EO explicitly states its purpose in its text. It gives the Trump administration time to evaluate the procedures used to vet nationals from these hotbeds of terrorist activity. Are you concerned that it doesn't do this, or do you simply not agree that this is a worthwhile thing to do? >by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin. It's not White House spin. Green card holders were never banned. The media falsely reported a statement from a DHS spokesperson, literally not even quoting a full sentence, to try to cause a panic (and they obviously succeeded). After a few hours, they were forced to fix their erroneous reporting when the White House began issuing corrections (that wouldn't have been needed if the media hadn't intentionally misconstrued the story in the first place).
  - davidw 10y ago
    Those people are already being vetted. A lot. Do you think no one before Trump realized that there are some bad people in those countries?
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      You're moving the goal posts. I have no position on whether this was good or not. The parent asked what this EO accomplishes. It accomplishes what it says it accomplishes; it gives the Trump admin time to review the policies. Is that a smart thing to do or not? I don't know. Does my opinion on whether or not it's smart have anything to do with whether its sufficiently illegal to have the acting AG openly refuse to allow the DoJ to develop arguments in its favor? I don't think so.
      - disantlor 10y ago
        why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review? they haven't presented any reason for that, and since they've been talking about it for a year i doubt they learned some new info after the election (that some terrorist was specifically trying to get in from these countries, when none ever has, historically) further, they are wasting a lot of the time they've given themselves in the fallout of how botched and rushed it was. to say nothing of my lack of confidence that they could come up with a good immigration plan after how poorly this was executed this whole situation is pointless and cruel
zzleeper 10y ago
Do you really believe what you posted? If tomorrow he says something to disprove one of your points, you will further twist your argument to somehow appears as if he is still doing the right thing. I don't think anyone but yourself can convince you of what is really going on.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I have no position on whether or not President Trump's order is "the right thing". I am merely saying that he is seriously, but not literally, fulfilling the promises he made during the campaign. That's what the comment I was replying to was discussing. Trump has not literally banned Muslims, nor has he literally begun construction on a wall that rivals the Great Wall of China (and indications are that he doesn't intend something so permanent/marring, but that he does intend to build a secure perimeter along the southern border). If tomorrow he does literally fulfill some promises, that's probably fine, as surely some promises were literal (maybe the ones about government-paid child care?).
  - siidooloo 10y ago
    You're doing a lot of arguing For someone who has no position on it.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Self-indulgent arguments over technicalities have been a lifelong thing for me. My dad always told me I should be a lawyer. ;) Seriously though, it matters because people are trying to pretend that there is some extraordinary abrogation of law, precedent, or process here, when indeed there hasn't been. There's just a bunch of malicious people with a megaphone trying to scare other people so that those people will be duped into doing their dirty work, which has a real potential to grow not just disorderly, but violent. I really don't know much about whether President Obama's immigration orders were wise or not either, but I would've made equally self-indulgent arguments in his favor if people were also trying to incite mass panic over it.
conistonwater 10y ago
> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test. > Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. Later the administration seems to have reversed their stance on this. (Here is a later overview: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bannon-idUSKBN15E2TG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bann...)
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” You're sending me an article that quotes Giuliani as explicitly stating "it's not about religion, it's about terrorists" as proof that it's about religion? Am I reading this right? >This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180
  - ctchocula 10y ago
    Read the article more carefully. From the article: > “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” The story goes: 1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally." 2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point: > The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jbae29 10y ago
Green card holders were initially included in the ban. DHS assumed they were not and the white house clarified that they were. Now green card holders are not included. He is doing what he said he would do, as you pointed out. So to me, "seriously but not literally" is not holding up well.
mwpmaybe 10y ago
> President Obama signed a list of countries into law > using the exact list that President Obama signed into law Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]). 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... 1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can trudge up? Would the hearing be fair if Ms. Yates' rule was allowed to stand? No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.
  - mwpmaybe 10y ago
    I am merely pointing out the flaw in your argument that the Trump administration's order is in any way acceptable simply because they're working off the same list of countries that the Obama administration used for a past order.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      I fail to see the flaw. Many people are pretending that Trump explicitly selected these countries because they didn't interfere with his business interests, or that he selected them specifically because they are home to many Muslims (in fact, the nations with the 5 largest Muslim populations are totally unaffected by the order). The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously identified as terrorist hotspots by President Obama, which fully obviates the implication that Trump selected the countries due to their religious makeup, etc., because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin.
michaelchisari 10y ago
has nothing to do with religion. After what Giuliani has publicly stated and explained, how can you say this?
- mwpmaybe 10y ago
  And Michael Flynn's son[0]. 0. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/michael-flynn-muslim-ban-234328 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/michael-flynn-muslim-b...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Did you read what Giuliani stated, or just go off the headline? He explicitly said it wasn't about religion. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527870. This is "seriously, but not literally". Trump seriously meant he wanted to halt immigration from terrorists hotspots (which, yes, at the moment, are predominantly Muslim -- but that doesn't mean Muslims are predominantly terrorists). He asked his people to take his loose statement of intent and make it into something serious, legal, and valid. Giuliani indicates that in order to do that, the Trump admin avoided any conflation of terrorism with religion, and that this was both "totally sensible" and "totally legal". Do you disagree?
  - michaelchisari 10y ago
    I didn't just read it, I watched it. I heard it from his own mouth. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298 Let's put this in context Donald Trump's quote: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Or the wording on his website: https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/11/trump-on-muslims.png https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/11... We can let the viewers at home decide.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States They did a pretty bad job then. The vast majority of Muslims don't live in those 7 countries.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

disantlor 10y ago

any what exactly does this EO accomplish? just because Obama identified countries as a potential threat doesn't necessitate that we be recklessly suspicious of anyone who comes from them. it's disingenuous to say it's just a"step forward" by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>any what exactly does this EO accomplish? I mean, is there some mystery to this? The EO explicitly states its purpose in its text. It gives the Trump administration time to evaluate the procedures used to vet nationals from these hotbeds of terrorist activity. Are you concerned that it doesn't do this, or do you simply not agree that this is a worthwhile thing to do? >by permanent residents i assume you mean green card holders in which case they 100% were affected unless you believe the white house spin. It's not White House spin. Green card holders were never banned. The media falsely reported a statement from a DHS spokesperson, literally not even quoting a full sentence, to try to cause a panic (and they obviously succeeded). After a few hours, they were forced to fix their erroneous reporting when the White House began issuing corrections (that wouldn't have been needed if the media hadn't intentionally misconstrued the story in the first place).
- davidw 10y ago
  Those people are already being vetted. A lot. Do you think no one before Trump realized that there are some bad people in those countries?
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    You're moving the goal posts. I have no position on whether this was good or not. The parent asked what this EO accomplishes. It accomplishes what it says it accomplishes; it gives the Trump admin time to review the policies. Is that a smart thing to do or not? I don't know. Does my opinion on whether or not it's smart have anything to do with whether its sufficiently illegal to have the acting AG openly refuse to allow the DoJ to develop arguments in its favor? I don't think so.
    - disantlor 10y ago
      why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review? they haven't presented any reason for that, and since they've been talking about it for a year i doubt they learned some new info after the election (that some terrorist was specifically trying to get in from these countries, when none ever has, historically) further, they are wasting a lot of the time they've given themselves in the fallout of how botched and rushed it was. to say nothing of my lack of confidence that they could come up with a good immigration plan after how poorly this was executed this whole situation is pointless and cruel

zzleeper 10y ago

Do you really believe what you posted? If tomorrow he says something to disprove one of your points, you will further twist your argument to somehow appears as if he is still doing the right thing. I don't think anyone but yourself can convince you of what is really going on.

cookiecaper 10y ago
I have no position on whether or not President Trump's order is "the right thing". I am merely saying that he is seriously, but not literally, fulfilling the promises he made during the campaign. That's what the comment I was replying to was discussing. Trump has not literally banned Muslims, nor has he literally begun construction on a wall that rivals the Great Wall of China (and indications are that he doesn't intend something so permanent/marring, but that he does intend to build a secure perimeter along the southern border). If tomorrow he does literally fulfill some promises, that's probably fine, as surely some promises were literal (maybe the ones about government-paid child care?).
- siidooloo 10y ago
  You're doing a lot of arguing For someone who has no position on it.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Self-indulgent arguments over technicalities have been a lifelong thing for me. My dad always told me I should be a lawyer. ;) Seriously though, it matters because people are trying to pretend that there is some extraordinary abrogation of law, precedent, or process here, when indeed there hasn't been. There's just a bunch of malicious people with a megaphone trying to scare other people so that those people will be duped into doing their dirty work, which has a real potential to grow not just disorderly, but violent. I really don't know much about whether President Obama's immigration orders were wise or not either, but I would've made equally self-indulgent arguments in his favor if people were also trying to incite mass panic over it.

conistonwater 10y ago

> The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion. As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... and also explains why the language of the order does not contain a religious test. > Alien permanent residents from the affected countries are not currently banned. They never were. This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. Later the administration seems to have reversed their stance on this. (Here is a later overview: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bannon-idUSKBN15E2TG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-bann...)

cookiecaper 10y ago
>As an example, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have been involved in drafting it, explains that it does From the article: "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” You're sending me an article that quotes Giuliani as explicitly stating "it's not about religion, it's about terrorists" as proof that it's about religion? Am I reading this right? >This is just plain false, the "immigrant and non-immigrant" text was part of the original executive order, and the DHS spokeswoman said it applied to greencard holders. I addressed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13507180
- ctchocula 10y ago
  Read the article more carefully. From the article: > “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” The story goes: 1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally." 2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point: > The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jbae29 10y ago

Green card holders were initially included in the ban. DHS assumed they were not and the white house clarified that they were. Now green card holders are not included. He is doing what he said he would do, as you pointed out. So to me, "seriously but not literally" is not holding up well.

mwpmaybe 10y ago

> President Obama signed a list of countries into law > using the exact list that President Obama signed into law Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]). 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... 1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...

cookiecaper 10y ago
It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can trudge up? Would the hearing be fair if Ms. Yates' rule was allowed to stand? No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.
- mwpmaybe 10y ago
  I am merely pointing out the flaw in your argument that the Trump administration's order is in any way acceptable simply because they're working off the same list of countries that the Obama administration used for a past order.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I fail to see the flaw. Many people are pretending that Trump explicitly selected these countries because they didn't interfere with his business interests, or that he selected them specifically because they are home to many Muslims (in fact, the nations with the 5 largest Muslim populations are totally unaffected by the order). The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously identified as terrorist hotspots by President Obama, which fully obviates the implication that Trump selected the countries due to their religious makeup, etc., because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin.

michaelchisari 10y ago

has nothing to do with religion. After what Giuliani has publicly stated and explained, how can you say this?

mwpmaybe 10y ago
And Michael Flynn's son[0]. 0. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/michael-flynn-muslim-ban-234328 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/michael-flynn-muslim-b...
cookiecaper 10y ago
Did you read what Giuliani stated, or just go off the headline? He explicitly said it wasn't about religion. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13527870. This is "seriously, but not literally". Trump seriously meant he wanted to halt immigration from terrorists hotspots (which, yes, at the moment, are predominantly Muslim -- but that doesn't mean Muslims are predominantly terrorists). He asked his people to take his loose statement of intent and make it into something serious, legal, and valid. Giuliani indicates that in order to do that, the Trump admin avoided any conflation of terrorism with religion, and that this was both "totally sensible" and "totally legal". Do you disagree?
- michaelchisari 10y ago
  I didn't just read it, I watched it. I heard it from his own mouth. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlibiQIy298 Let's put this in context Donald Trump's quote: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Or the wording on his website: https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/11/trump-on-muslims.png https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/11... We can let the viewers at home decide.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States They did a pretty bad job then. The vast majority of Muslims don't live in those 7 countries.