• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

Even if /when this version falls, he's normalized a religious test that has ample defenders.
 
They'll cut it to four and try again. Then they'll make some type of grand compromise that only applies to Syria, walk it back quietly and blame Obama somehow then point at the next shiny object and tweet about it/
 
he might if folks don't show out like they have today - protests might not change anything already done but might prevent what could be done
 
Trump has to be the most translated English speaking President ever.
 
Oh, ok. That's just your belief as to his real intention. So rather than bother to debate the merits of your belief, do you also believe he could do this?

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Trump campaigned on doing a Muslim ban. A trusted advisor came out and said Trump wanted to figure out how to do a legal Muslim ban and they came up with this.

So I have some pretty good evidence that his intention is to do a Muslim ban. You regularly try to pass on your beliefs as my real intentions with far less evidence.
 
They'll cut it to four and try again. Then they'll make some type of grand compromise that only applies to Syria, walk it back quietly and blame Obama somehow then point at the next shiny object and tweet about it/

Are you aware that the EO is based largely on laws that Obama signed and his administration had implemented? For instance, the EO makes absolutely zero reference to Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia or Sudan directly. It does, however, reference them via a specific section of 8 U.S.C. 1187. And that law was executed by Barack Obama. And under that law his administration in February of last year confirmed Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan (as well as Syria which happens to be directly named in Trump's EO) as "countries of concern". The law is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 that Obama signed into law. And it was last February that his administration added Yemen, Somalia and Sudan to the other four countries as nations where Visa Waivers would be limited for individuals who have traveled to these 7 countries. The limits applied to anyone who had been present in any of those countries on or after March 1, 2011 (with the limited exception of some US government/military personnel).

So, to be clear, what Trump has done is essentially called into question the process of restricting Visa Waivers that Obama had already put in place. For whatever reason there was no outcry when Obama and team put these initial restrictions and vettings in place. And Trump has now come along and said the existing vetting process by which Visas Waivers are granted for these countries needs to be re-examined and, presumably, strengthened.

And this is why I keep on asking what is asked in the current Visa Waiver program and what is it the Trump administration feels needs to be fixed in it. Because we already have some sort of restrictions in place. And no one that I can find can accurately describe what exactly is asked under Obama's version of the vetting (all we get is some folks saying it is insufficient and Obama telling us it is awesome) and Trump has yet to be asked what it is he wants to change (and obviously has not volunteered this either).

Most stunning to me is that no one goes into this type of detail when reporting what has happened. It's all sound bites. I mean for fucks' sake many of us here (including me) were asking why these seven countries and not others. And some here insisted it was because of Trump's business interests in other countries. Well, it turns out he was just referencing rules Obama already had put in place. Obama deemed these the dangerous countries where Visa Waivers had to be restricted. And Trump is now calling that process of waiving Visas from these pre-designated countries into question. Who knows, maybe he'll add more countries to the list later.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Trump campaigned on doing a Muslim ban. A trusted advisor came out and said Trump wanted to figure out how to do a legal Muslim ban and they came up with this.

So I have some pretty good evidence that his intention is to do a Muslim ban. You regularly try to pass on your beliefs as my real intentions with far less evidence.

They came up with this? Are you sure about that Ph. "This" already existed. Obama signed it into law in 2015 and his administration expanded it from four to the current seven countries last winter. Trump says it needs to be strengthened. And no one is asking the obvious questions. See my prior post immediately above.

And when Trump says today Visas will be issued from all of these countries again within 90 days that would be evidence there will be no ban, never mind all the other countries where there is not even a temporary stay. Is that evidence too?

Again, do you believe he could actually do a "Muslim ban" legally?
 
Last edited:
Sadly, I can believe that DeacMan can't understand the difference between "limiting" and "banning". This is a massive difference.
 
They came up with this? Are you sure about that Ph. "This" already existed. Obama signed it into law in 2015 and his administration expanded it from four to the current seven countries last winter. Trump says it needs to be strengthened. And no one is asking the obvious questions. See my prior post immediately above.

And when Trump says today Visas will be issued from all of these countries again within 90 days that would be evidence there will be no ban, never mind all the other countries where there is not even a temporary stay. Is that evidence too?

Again, do you believe he could actually do a "Muslim ban" legally?

I missed when green card holders were refused entry to the country under our last President. Strange that FoxNews and Breitbart didn't cover it.
 
No, you really don't get it. For one thing, the judiciary is already stacked with Obama appointees. There aren't a huge number of vacancies, and Obama's appointees aren't going anywhere for a long time. For another thing, jurists, even conservative ones, swear to uphold the constitution and, to a person, take that oath seriously. If anything, they have an inflated sense of their own Article III power to stop Article II abuses, which isn't entirely a bad thing in a system of checks and balances. No one in who could get confirmed is going to roll over because Trump appointed him, particularly if, as Trump claims, he's going to appoint judges who adhere to the original meaning of the constitution.

There may be decisions that arise out of this that you disagree with, but they won't be because a judge is cowed by Trump.

LOLWUT? There are more than a hundred vacant judgeships open right now, basically one out of every eight. As a point of comparison, only 329 of Obama's judges were confirmed in eight years. Trump could do a third of Obama's eight-year total tomorrow if he could get the Republican Senate to go along.
 
I missed when green card holders were refused entry to the country under our last President. Strange that FoxNews and Breitbart didn't cover it.

Interesting you mention this. Because last Spring various civil liberties groups were focused on the possibility the administration would ban not only Green Card holders but dual citizens (e.g. an Iranian / American for instance) from traveling to the U.S. And no one in the media reported on it.
 
LOLWUT? There are more than a hundred vacant judgeships open right now, basically one out of every eight. As a point of comparison, only 329 of Obama's judges were confirmed in eight years. Trump could do a third of Obama's eight-year total tomorrow if he could get the Republican Senate to go along.

Obama did 325, not 329. Same number as Bush. How many Trump gets to do remains to be seen.
 
There is nothing to "understand" because an out and out ban (a) isn't in the offing, and (b) isn't legally possible.

It's effectively happening to people coming back from those places.
 
Its like some of these ideas that they might do were run by the right people and right departments took awhile to come together and the unconstitutional things and bad optics were thrown out, hmmmm
 
Interesting you mention this. Because last Spring various civil liberties groups were focused on the possibility the administration would ban not only Green Card holders but dual citizens (e.g. an Iranian / American for instance) from traveling to the U.S. And no one in the media reported on it.

Feel free to elaborate on worries that a group had that the former President might do something he never did. Seems absolutely germane to the topic at hand and not a poor attempt at equivocation.
 
They came up with this? Are you sure about that Ph. "This" already existed. Obama signed it into law in 2015 and his administration expanded it from four to the current seven countries last winter. Trump says it needs to be strengthened. And no one is asking the obvious questions. See my prior post immediately above.

I don't think it's fair to say it already existed. At least if Ari Melber is right, the law that you are referring to from the Obama administration designated those 7 countries as dangerous to visit. Meaning people from other countries (many of whom would have been on a visa waiver program otherwise) who visited those countries were subject to extra vetting. The countries themselves were not designated as a source of immigrant related terrorism. I'm certainly not well versed in the law, but that seems to be an important difference to me.
 
Back
Top