It's effectively happening to people coming back from those places.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there some legal authority they have to do that or are they just grandstanding for the cameras?
Is there some legal authority they have to do that or are they just grandstanding for the cameras?