• 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

since the ban:

terror attacks in US: 0
terror attacks in nation offering to take america's refugees: 1

#thankyoudonaldtrump
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Try reading a newspaper.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DeaconSig said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/

923 weeps.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

There is none. No one is making that argument. People from these countries did not qualify for visa waivers prior to the EO anyway.
 
jhmd2000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why should people legally in the US with a green card be denied re-entry when they travel overseas?
 
tiltdeac said:
There is none. No one is making that argument. People from these countries did not qualify for visa waivers prior to the EO anyway.
Click to expand...

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?
 
DeaconSig said:
Why should people legally in the US with a green card be denied re-entry when they travel overseas?
Click to expand...

Okay, this is a good question. If that's what's happening, I'd like to know myself. Not sure how green cards work: do they expire naturally after a time? Are they revocable at will? If the latter, I guess this order would have the effect of blanket retraction of green cards for non-citizens from these seven countries.
 
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?
 
DeaconSig said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to understand it myself, so I can make up my mind. I fully expect he will screw up. Bigly. I'm trying to invest my outrage wisely. If this is such a case, I'm all in. Still trying to get there factually first.
 
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.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, confused again. Which is it?
 
jhmd2000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are a couple of different issues, but I will give my notalawyer analysis for everyone to rip apart.

Issue 1: Is it really a Muslim ban?
Technically, of course not. But I think you can make a fairly compelling argument that in intent and effect, there is a religious basis. One, Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban. Two, Guilliani went on the record and said, paraphrased: Trump came to me and asked how he could do a Muslim ban, but make it legal. Three, there is a provision in the EO that allows special treatment/priority for refugees "provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality." Since all of the countries in the order are majority Muslim, I think it's fair that in effect this allows for discrimination against Muslim refugees.

Issue 2: How the prior Administration treated these 7 countries and what has changed.
My understanding of the law signed and expanded by the Obama administration (again, notalawyer, could be wrong) is that it specifically applied to the Visa Waiver Program. In the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), residents of 38 countries (mostly European) are allowed to visit the US for up to 90 days without obtaining a Visa. The law said that if someone who would have otherwise eligible for the VWP visited one of the 7 countries, they were subject to extra vetting and were not guaranteed to have the visa requirement waived.

Trump's EO is completely different. It refers to immigrants from these countries (a different population entirely, and one that was NOT eligible for the VWP to begin with). Citizens of those countries already needed a visa (and thus, vetting) to enter the US. His EO cancelled all of their visas and prevented any travel to the US. Initially it also included legal residents with green cards from those countries as well, but they appeared to have walked that part back.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Okay, confused again. Which is it?
Click to expand...

According to Priebus - they will admit US green card holders from those 7 countries. This is a reversal of their original stance.

We'll see if that message makes it to the CBP officers who are actually doing the screening.
 
Statement from McCain
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=587F2A2D-8A47-48F7-9045-CF30F0A77889

"President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted." Ouch. That was an intentional jab at the "extreme vetter."

We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.
You'd think a newbie President would consult with the experts at his disposal. This is the recklessness and arrogance we feared from a Trump Presidency.

Back to the Scott Adams "this is a negotiating ploy" take. I am not sure this is a moral/ethical way to run a country. Anyone relieved that this is not serious, but a negotiating tactic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top