5 ms·

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

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
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        >why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review? Their theory is that travel needs to be temporarily halted to ensure that insufficient vetting procedures do not allow any terrorists to sneak in while the review is ongoing. You may agree or disagree that that's a real/substantial threat, but there is valid reasoning behind suspending travel.
        davidw 10y ago
        There isn't valid reasoning though: if you look at what actually kills people in the US, those people who get in after vetting pose virtually no threat. Toddlers with guns, and falling out of bed kill more Americans than people from those countries have in the US. It's a Muslim ban, plain and simple. It's not about our security.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
        As others have pointed out in this thread, if it's a "Muslim ban", it's a "Muslim ban" that bans less than 5% of the worldwide Muslim population, and leaves untouched the 5 countries with the largest Muslim populations. That doesn't sound like a very effective "Muslim ban" to me. Logically, when compared with what's actually happened, it makes much more sense to interpret Mr. Trump's comments that specifically mentioned barring Muslims from entering the U.S. as hyperbolic campaign statements. Whatever intentions you wish to thrust upon American officials, the fact is that the Order makes a valid security-based argument and contains no religious test. Those are the facts. We can't argue over the intentions of someone neither of us has ever met, but we can discuss the text of the Order in question. It's possible for reasonable people to disagree with the Trump administration's arguments, to be sure. But that's not justification for subverting the law, nor is it justification for the DoJ to undermine the president and prevent the executive branch from making a case for itself in the forthcoming judicial challenges, as Ms. Yates was doing. In a democracy, we implicitly accept that there will be some successes and some failures, and that we are bound to live under the laws we dislike as much as the laws we favor. If we lose mutual respect sufficient to live with those compromises, we are in big trouble.
- pm90 10y ago
  > 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? There are many things wrong with the excuse of requiring more vetting: 1. The countries included in the ban have not been responsible for causing damage to the US. The countries with nationals that were involved in such acts were not included. Which makes it rather suspicious that "more vetting" or "preventing dangerous guys" from entering the country was the point of the EO. 2. There is ALREADY an extremely rigorous process to determining the suitability of people before they obtain a Visa/Asylum in the US. If there was anything specifically wrong with the procedure itself that the Trump administration had identified, it would make a lot more sense. They have given no details, and just like Trump's lies about having military plans to defeat ISIS, this seems like the same. > 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). This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later. Bannon has no authority to make immigration policy. The reporting attributes actions to him based on anonymous sources ("American officials"), it's not going by the public record or citing public activity. Given their hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
    - pm90 10y ago
      Do you have a point to make, instead of simply disagreeing with fine print? I explained to you why the reasons for the ban are suspicious and why Green Card holders WERE excluded, and you go off on another tangent. Let's stick to the actual facts: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-trump http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-...

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
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      >why do they need to halt immigration in this way while they review? Their theory is that travel needs to be temporarily halted to ensure that insufficient vetting procedures do not allow any terrorists to sneak in while the review is ongoing. You may agree or disagree that that's a real/substantial threat, but there is valid reasoning behind suspending travel.
      - davidw 10y ago
        There isn't valid reasoning though: if you look at what actually kills people in the US, those people who get in after vetting pose virtually no threat. Toddlers with guns, and falling out of bed kill more Americans than people from those countries have in the US. It's a Muslim ban, plain and simple. It's not about our security.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
        As others have pointed out in this thread, if it's a "Muslim ban", it's a "Muslim ban" that bans less than 5% of the worldwide Muslim population, and leaves untouched the 5 countries with the largest Muslim populations. That doesn't sound like a very effective "Muslim ban" to me. Logically, when compared with what's actually happened, it makes much more sense to interpret Mr. Trump's comments that specifically mentioned barring Muslims from entering the U.S. as hyperbolic campaign statements. Whatever intentions you wish to thrust upon American officials, the fact is that the Order makes a valid security-based argument and contains no religious test. Those are the facts. We can't argue over the intentions of someone neither of us has ever met, but we can discuss the text of the Order in question. It's possible for reasonable people to disagree with the Trump administration's arguments, to be sure. But that's not justification for subverting the law, nor is it justification for the DoJ to undermine the president and prevent the executive branch from making a case for itself in the forthcoming judicial challenges, as Ms. Yates was doing. In a democracy, we implicitly accept that there will be some successes and some failures, and that we are bound to live under the laws we dislike as much as the laws we favor. If we lose mutual respect sufficient to live with those compromises, we are in big trouble.
pm90 10y ago
> 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? There are many things wrong with the excuse of requiring more vetting: 1. The countries included in the ban have not been responsible for causing damage to the US. The countries with nationals that were involved in such acts were not included. Which makes it rather suspicious that "more vetting" or "preventing dangerous guys" from entering the country was the point of the EO. 2. There is ALREADY an extremely rigorous process to determining the suitability of people before they obtain a Visa/Asylum in the US. If there was anything specifically wrong with the procedure itself that the Trump administration had identified, it would make a lot more sense. They have given no details, and just like Trump's lies about having military plans to defeat ISIS, this seems like the same. > 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). This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >This is just not true. Other commenters have posted/commented on how Bannon overruled the initial order saying that GC holders were INCLUDED, but the WH had to change that later. Bannon has no authority to make immigration policy. The reporting attributes actions to him based on anonymous sources ("American officials"), it's not going by the public record or citing public activity. Given their hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
  - pm90 10y ago
    Do you have a point to make, instead of simply disagreeing with fine print? I explained to you why the reasons for the ban are suspicious and why Green Card holders WERE excluded, and you go off on another tangent. Let's stick to the actual facts: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-trump http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-...