• 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

The "extra" vetting done this weekend was a couple of hours of interviews by CBP officers. Doesn't support the idea that the previous system was seriously lacking.

I would not confuse a bullshit roll out that resulted in those interviews (never mind none of us know the content of said interviews) from the larger question. If we do not understand the substance of how Obama vetted (not the process but the substance), then we are in no position to demand answers from Trump. And that is the core of the issue.
 
Haven't there been several articles posted so far that explain the vetting process?
 
I would not confuse a bullshit roll out that resulted in those interviews (never mind none of us know the content of said interviews) from the larger question. If we do not understand the substance of how Obama vetted (not the process but the substance), then we are in no position to demand answers from Trump. And that is the core of the issue.

As stated just an hour ago by Spicer, the Trump administration is satisfied that a couple extra hours of detention and interviews was sufficient to properly vet those they had stopped. That certainly doesn't point to a need for a blanket ban.
 
I would not confuse a bullshit roll out that resulted in those interviews (never mind none of us know the content of said interviews) from the larger question. If we do not understand the substance of how Obama vetted (not the process but the substance), then we are in no position to demand answers from Trump. And that is the core of the issue.

The bold is just not true. Even if we don't know what President Obama's vetting process was, we are absolutely in a position to question what President Trump's vetting process is. Because he is the President. And he is the one who put out the horseshit EO.

To be clear, I think there is a constitutional way to ban refugees and visa seekers from any country in the world. I don't think we should do it, but it there are ways to do it that pass muster. The chuckleheads in this administration don't give a shit about that, however.

You and I see the issue of refugees from Muslim countries in starkly different terms. That is fine; the issue has plenty of room for disagreement. The difference is that you hope that Bannon and Miller come up with something that actually meets your needs and wants with respect to immigration while maybe sort-of being constitutional. I don't believe this administration, led by a man who has repeatedly called to ban immigration by Muslims, deserves any benefit of the doubt.
 
Haven't there been several articles posted so far that explain the vetting process?

Yep, we know -

- It takes a long time

- It involves interviews with UN and various U.S. government agencies

- Certain questions about the nature of political affiliations are or are not off limits (conflicting reports)

I just got two passports for my Colombian kids. Colombian passports. It took months. It involved providing data to multiple governmental agencies in Colombia. It asked us no questions about politics.

Here's an example. Would you admit someone as a refugee if they told you they thought having sex with children was acceptable? In Yemen and Somalia and Sudan those types of attitudes are not at all uncommon. Should we be asking that question? Are we asking that question? If we should be asking that question, how are we asking that question? That's what I'm getting at. We do not really know the substance of how a determination is made whether to admit a refugee or not via the vetting Obama did. We get lots of sound bites about process from both sides of the aisle (Obama said the vetting was awesome and the GOP said it sucked - shocker).

But what are the standards for admission to the U.S. and what, specifically, does the Trump administration think is wrong with those standards? This is the central issue in this whole thing and literally no one in the media seems to be getting at this issue. If he has bad intent as you claim there will be no way to really hold him to account if you can't speak to why he is wrong and you are right. Or is your position that we should just be letting anyone and everyone into the country - which is going to go nowhere other than some protests at the airport.
 
The bold is just not true. Even if we don't know what President Obama's vetting process was, we are absolutely in a position to question what President Trump's vetting process is. Because he is the President. And he is the one who put out the horseshit EO.

To be clear, I think there is a constitutional way to ban refugees and visa seekers from any country in the world. I don't think we should do it, but it there are ways to do it that pass muster. The chuckleheads in this administration don't give a shit about that, however.

You and I see the issue of refugees from Muslim countries in starkly different terms. That is fine; the issue has plenty of room for disagreement. The difference is that you hope that Bannon and Miller come up with something that actually meets your needs and wants with respect to immigration while maybe sort-of being constitutional. I don't believe this administration, led by a man who has repeatedly called to ban immigration by Muslims, deserves any benefit of the doubt.

Uh, ok. How are you going to hold Trump to account if you do not know the substance behind the decisions to admit or not admit under Obama's vetting? You'll call his vetting bullshit on grounds (A through Z) and he'll say it is by and large very similar to Obama's with the following enhancements (X, Y and Z). If you think he's a bullshitter, then what? You've ceded the entire argument to him. Good work.

The media is doing everyone (no matter their politics on this issue) a huge disservice by not asking these questions. They are ceding ground to Trump.

I have no idea what your ideas on immigration are. And you have never asked about mine. So I'm not sure you can be certain how far we might diverge.
 
Last edited:
Uh, ok. How are you going to hold Trump to account if you do not know the substance behind the decisions to admit or not admit under Obama's vetting? You'll call his vetting bullshit on grounds (A through Z) and he'll say it is by and large very similar to Obama's with the following enhancements (X, Y and Z). If you think he's a bullshitter, then what? You've ceded the entire argument to him. Good work.

The media is doing everyone a huge disservice by not asking these questions.

You have to know ZERO details of the vetting process to hold Trump accountable for prioritizing Christians over Muslims when prioritizing who should be admitted to the US.
 
Uh, ok. How are you going to hold Trump to account if you do not know the substance behind the decisions to admit or not admit under Obama's vetting? You'll call his vetting bullshit on grounds (A through Z) and he'll say it is by and large very similar to Obama's with the following enhancements (X, Y and Z). If you think he's a bullshitter, then what? You've ceded the entire argument to him. Good work.

The media is doing everyone a huge disservice by not asking these questions.

It is up to the President (the current one) to state what he finds wrong with the current vetting process, and what he proposes to change. If he lies about what is in the current process, I would imagine there will be plenty of people formerly involved in the process that will be happy to provide a contradiction.

I agree the questions haven't been asked well, but I will also state its not like this adminstration has any desire to provide truthful responses anyway. Until the right is willing to hold him the President to the standard of actually telling the truth (a crazy notion, I admit), nothing is going to change. And that is not the media's fault, nor is it something they can fix.
 
Yes. In short it's an 18-24 month process involving several rounds of interviews by approved organizations and later by U.S. officials, covering every aspect of an applicants life.

But we don't know if they ask whether you like to fuck young boys. If that issue is resolved, everything else is good to go.
 
It is up to the President (the current one) to state what he finds wrong with the current vetting process, and what he proposes to change. If he lies about what is in the current process, I would imagine there will be plenty of people formerly involved in the process that will be happy to provide a contradiction.

I agree the questions haven't been asked well, but I will also state its not like this adminstration has any desire to provide truthful responses anyway. Until the right is willing to hold him the President to the standard of actually telling the truth (a crazy notion, I admit), nothing is going to change. And that is not the media's fault, nor is it something they can fix.

Everyone needs to hold him to account. It isn't a left vs. right thing. He's alarming plenty of people on both sides of the aisle. And if you wait until after the fact to show him the facts you are too late. The narrative then becomes cloudy and cloudy is where he thrives. It's a game.
 
As stated just an hour ago by Spicer, the Trump administration is satisfied that a couple extra hours of detention and interviews was sufficient to properly vet those they had stopped. That certainly doesn't point to a need for a blanket ban.

You have no idea why they were detained. Shit happens on a regular basis for a variety of reasons and usually doesn't result in a removal. It has nothing to do with properly vetting or anything else.
 
You have to know ZERO details of the vetting process to hold Trump accountable for prioritizing Christians over Muslims when prioritizing who should be admitted to the US.

Yep. Correct. None of us have details. All we have about Christians or other religious minorities is that they are more likely to be persecuted by the regimes or war lords or ISIS or whomever controls where they live. But we have no other details how they are vetted either.
 
I don't mind not taking Syrian refugees en masse as that has gone poorly everywhere else, but I'm really against "the Muslim ban." I don't see how it makes us safer.

You can't really equate the US refugee resettlement program to what is going in in Europe. Just because of geography alone, we have much more control over who enters on a refugee I-94 visa. For most immigrants into Europe, the designation Asylum seeker is more apt than refugee. Asylum seekers enter a country (legally or illegally, means of entry is not important to this designation), and then ask for permission from the nation to stay. For refugee resettlement, they must be approved before they step on American soil.

In Europe, floods of migrants came to Europe and they are having to deal with who is who, where they will go, while they are already there. That is a very different situation than in the US, where we have tighter control over the point of entry.

And what would be your definition of "en masse?" I believe our numbers for the whole US last year were just over 13,000 (which is about 15% of all refugees resettled).
 
NYTimes on the vetting process: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

From the official White House archives under Obama: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

From the US Department of State: https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

Does it have specific questions that they ask? No...does it provide a pretty good picture of what the vetting process looks like? Absolutely. It appears to me to be pretty thorough, especially with an average timeframe of 18-24 months to vet.
 
You have no idea why they were detained. Shit happens on a regular basis for a variety of reasons and usually doesn't result in a removal. It has nothing to do with properly vetting or anything else.

If you believe the mouth piece of the administration, they were all detained because of the executive order. And all released after just a few hours of additional questioning. And the Trump administration claims they were properly vetted.
 
Yep. Correct. None of us have details. All we have about Christians or other religious minorities is that they are more likely to be persecuted by the regimes or war lords or ISIS or whomever controls where they live. But we have no other details how they are vetted either.

But we do know that his EO allowing for priority for religious minorities does not apply to any country that is not majority-Muslim.
 
NYTimes on the vetting process: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

From the official White House archives under Obama: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

From the US Department of State: https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

Does it have specific questions that they ask? No...does it provide a pretty good picture of what the vetting process looks like? Absolutely. It appears to me to be pretty thorough, especially with an average timeframe of 18-24 months to vet.

We just disagree then. Trump wants "Extreme Vetting" - what the fuck does that mean and how does it differ in substance from what Obama did. We still do not know the criteria to admit or not admit someone. And, to be clear, both sides have been blurry on all of this. Obama - the vetting is awesome. GOP - the vetting is insufficient. And on that basis we all make up our minds? No wonder Trump has been able to play things whatever way he chooses on just about any issue. For shit's sake, someone give us a deeper dive. It shouldn't be hard.
 
Given the vast majority of Muslims can still come to the United States, it's a lie to refer to it as a "Muslim Ban". Why do you lie RJ? Change your title.
 
Back
Top