Is there a primer on the facts here? Looki g for a real news take on what is actually happening.
Nothing?
Is there a primer on the facts here? Looki g for a real news take on what is actually happening.
Is there a primer on the facts here? Looki g for a real news take on what is actually happening.
Try reading a newspaper.
I'm looking for something that is actually capable of relaying a legal analysis. Something Junebug-y would be preferred. I can get my RDA of emotional, self-congratulatory hysteria here.
Thanks.
From the article, the EO restricts access for non-citizens traveling to the US on passports issued by seven countries, only one of which has an actual ban. No one is actually being denied access to this country because of their faith, but we all knew that already. Interesting footnote in that article. They've already had to retract that there is a "faith-component" to the EO. They claim to regret the error. Thanks, fakenews.
What is the argument that non-citizens from countries engaged in hostilities with US forces should be eligible for entry on a visa waiver?
Thanks.
From the article, the EO restricts access for non-citizens traveling to the US on passports issued by seven countries, only one of which has an actual ban. No one is actually being denied access to this country because of their faith, but we all knew that already. Interesting footnote in that article. They've already had to retract that there is a "faith-component" to the EO. They claim to regret the error. Thanks, fakenews.
What is the argument that non-citizens from countries engaged in hostilities with US forces should be eligible for entry on a visa waiver?
There is none. No one is making that argument. People from these countries did not qualify for visa waivers prior to the EO anyway.
Why should people legally in the US with a green card be denied re-entry when they travel overseas?
I know you didn't vote for the President. And I know all the #notall'pubs bullshit.
But your contention is that, despite what candidate Trump said, despite what America's Mayor said, and despite the whole "we will give preference to religious minorities from the 7 countries at issue (all of which, coincidentally, are Muslim majority), this is not intended to be a Muslim ban?
Do I need to bring up the posts where you flipped out when the Supremes held that the ACA was a legal tax after President Obama's administration claimed it was not? Does intent matter, or does it not?
Can you at least agree that the current administration had no idea what they were doing with this EO?
The prior administration thing is such a red herring. That was to remove the ability to waive the visa requirement for people who had visited those 7 countries. So they still could be admitted - they would just need to go through the full visa process.
Trump's EO is to ban (now temporarily, who knows if it will be extended) the entry of anyone who holds a passport from those 7 countries. They can't even attempt to get a visa. At least they've excluded US green-card holders from that list at this point.
I guess that's the part that's still unclear to me. Those 7 countries were already subject to the prior administrations decision not to waive the visa requirement. If this is new at all (are we sure?), how? It's clearly not a Muslim ban, despite what you might "read [in] a newspaper" (who may or may not regret the error). It's not an outright ban from those seven countries, because the coverage (even the retracted coverage) says the ban is only to Syrian non-citizens. So....what is it?
Okay, confused again. Which is it?