4 ms·
In practice, it's necessary that it be sufficient for the vast majority of the cases. And in the vast majority of the cases, it is. Immigrants from the 7 count
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
In practice, it's necessary that it be sufficient for the vast majority of the cases.
And in the vast majority of the cases, it is. Immigrants from the 7 countries that Obama designated in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 [1], and authorized suspension of entry for, make up a tiny fraction of visas.
[1] https://www.niacaction.org/update-frequently-asked-questions-on-the-visa-waiver-restrictions-may-12/ https://www.niacaction.org/update-frequently-asked-questions...
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...
- ericd 10y agoRight, it's still the vast majority, but it's not virtually certain like it was. But I was speaking in the abstract, I wasn't trying to make it seem like a bigger thing than it is. That said, would you agree that the way this is being handled shakes confidence for visitors from other countries that haven't been banned? For green card holders who've moved their lives to the US?
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI agree that the massive amount of (often clueless) media attention being given to this does shake confidence. The actual action, if given "we love Obama" levels of media attention rather than "we hate Trump" levels (c.f. how little attention the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was given), would have shaken confidence to a much lesser (but still nonzero) extent. I think this whole thing is pretty dumb. I'm just critiquing misconceptions about how visas work.
- masonic 10y agowould you agree that the way this is being handled shakes confidence for visitors I (for one) would agree that the way this is being reported in the mainstream media can shake confidence for visitors.