• 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

That is a huge difference, but don't get in DeacMan's way.
 
It's effectively happening to people coming back from those places.

There is no question Trump did an awful job with rolling this order out. Like brutal.

But those people you reference are all now getting back into the country. And they were never going to be "banned" from the country. Ever. It is clear that is the case.

What is clear is that if you read the order we're all being done a ridiculous disservice by our media. The order is entirely grounded in a 2015 law that Obama signed and then administratively expanded. That is just a fact. One Trump is about to point out over and over and over. And he'll be able to point both to that law and his order very clearly as his evidence.

If you are now going to hold Trump to account the question to ask is what is it about the vetting Obama did that is not sufficient. And to ask that question you have to dig in and really understand how that vetting was done - SUBSTANTIVELY. Saying, well, it took 18 mos and involved lots of interviews is worthless. On what basis were people being excluded or admitted to the country. Because if Trump is going to change the rules, that is all that matters. And if the media can't tell us exactly how those decisions were made under Obama then Trump will be free to paint that narrative himself.

Instead what we get are reports about how come he only listed those seven countries because of business interests and how he is going to permanently ban all Muslims. And that crap plays right into his hands if you read the order itself.
 
Glad to see Trump is looking out for the LGBT community with the new vetting procedures, not that many of them seem to be appreciative.
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
There is no question Trump did an awful job with rolling this order out. Like brutal.

But those people you reference are all now getting back into the country. And they were never going to be "banned" from the country. Ever. It is clear that is the case.

What is clear is that if you read the order we're all being done a ridiculous disservice by our media. The order is entirely grounded in a 2015 law that Obama signed and then administratively expanded. That is just a fact. One Trump is about to point out over and over and over. And he'll be able to point both to that law and his order very clearly as his evidence.

If you are now going to hold Trump to account the question to ask is what is it about the vetting Obama did that is not sufficient. And to ask that question you have to dig in and really understand how that vetting was done - SUBSTANTIVELY. Saying, well, it took 18 mos and involved lots of interviews is worthless. On what basis were people being excluded or admitted to the country. Because if Trump is going to change the rules, that is all that matters. And if the media can't tell us exactly how those decisions were made under Obama then Trump will be free to paint that narrative himself.

Instead what we get are reports about how come he only listed those seven countries because of business interests and how he is going to permanently ban all Muslims. And that crap plays right into his hands if you read the order itself.

Again I think saying it is grounded in that 2015 law is a bit of a stretch. It references the same 7 countries, but the 2015 law only referred to visitors to those countries. The rationale being that someone from Europe who otherwise would have had a visa waiver might deserve an extra look if they had visited one of these countries. It had nothing to do with vetting immigrants from those countries. At least that is my understanding.
 
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.

The law put restrictions on anyone who had been in any of those countries from entering the United States. The are exceptions for diplomats, government and military personnel. So if you were from or traveled to or were ever in any of those countries from or after 3/1/11, you were gonna get vetted if you wanted to come to the United States. The concern of media in the Spring of last year is that vetting arguably could have applied even to U.S. citizens had they traveled to one of the countries.

Bottom line, it did already exist. You are right it covered travelers. But it covered anyone who had been in those countries.

Again, the question all comes down to the vetting. What does that substantively mean under Obama and why and how does Trump intend to change it. We've been having this vetting debate in the country in a complete vacuum. We're told it is super extensive by one side and how it isn't sufficient by the other. But no one ever goes into any substantive detail on it. And that is at the core of what Trump says he's gonna put in place - i.e. "Extreme Vetting".

So if you want to be able to hold him to account someone in the media better get to work on the substance of how decisions were made under Obama instead of just telling us it took 18 mos. and lots of interviews.
 
Last edited:
The law put restrictions on anyone who had been in any of those countries from entering the United States. The are exceptions for diplomats, government and military personnel. So if you were from or traveled to or were ever in any of those countries from or after 3/1/11, you were gonna get vetted if you wanted to come to the United States. The concern of media in the Spring of last year is that vetting arguably could have applied even to U.S. citizens had they traveled to one of the countries.

Bottom line, it did already exist. You are right it covered travelers. But it covered anyone who had been in those countries.

Again, the question all comes down to the vetting. What does that substantively mean under Obama and why and how does Trump intend to change it. We've been having this vetting debate in the country in a complete vacuum. We're told it is super extensive by one side and how it isn't sufficient by the other. But no one ever goes into any substantive detail on it. And that is at the core of what Trump says he's gonna put in place - i.e. "Extreme Vetting".

So if you want to be able to hold him to account someone in the media better get to work on the substance of how decisions were made under Obama instead of just telling us it took 18 mos. and lots of interviews.

My understanding is your first paragraph is not true. The law only put restrictions on people using the visa waiver program who visited those countries, not all people.
 
To clarify further, it could not have applied to anyone who was actually from those countries, because people from there were not eligible for the visa waiver program in the first place.
 
 
Haven't had a chance to read through this thread so may have already been discussed but what the fuck is up with customs and border patrol defying last night's court order?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dcis...cle_id=588e462bada6e21d1127be86?client=safari

Despite Court Order, Customs And Border Protection Still Isn't Letting Lawyers Meet With Detained Residents At Dulles

I think the wording of the order likely isn't clear on boundaries. If you are on the front lines you can easily be put between a rock and a hard place in this situation. You have an order from your boss and an order from the court. And there is often grey matter about who it applies to and/or how.
 
I think the wording of the order likely isn't clear on boundaries. If you are on the front lines you can easily be put between a rock and a hard place in this situation. You have an order from your boss and an order from the court. And there is often grey matter about who it applies to and/or how.

Gotcha, makes sense.

Argument over the EO's content aside...this was handled so fucking poorly on many different levels.
 
My understanding is your first paragraph is not true. The law only put restrictions on people using the visa waiver program who visited those countries, not all people.

I actually think we both could be right. There were four countries where the wording says if you'd ever been in the country from and after 3/1/11 and three others where the wording references traveled to those countries. Regardless, my main point remains about the nature of vetting.
 
This section from the EO sticks out to me too:

"(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality."

So since the 7 countries are all Muslim-majority, basically it is saying that we can prioritize non-muslim refugees?
 
Back
Top