The US Border Patrol Is Checking Detainees' Facebook Profiles (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CNET: Border patrol agents are checking the Facebook accounts of people who are being held in limbo for approval to enter the U.S., according to a Saturday tweet by immigration lawyer Mana Yegani that was spotted by The Independent... Yegani, who is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told CNET that checking phones has been reported by other lawyers as part of the vetting process. "[G]oing through passengers phones from the seven banned countries happens when the individual is interrogated (put under extreme vetting)," Yegani said.

Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."

Comments

Brave new world

[Dorianny]

As if I needed more reason not to share my personal life with the world (and TSA)

Re:Brave new world

[Anonymous Coward]

As if I needed more reason not to share my personal life with the world (and TSA)

CNN was reporting that refusal to provide your social media details could be considered grounds for refusal to admit the person into the country.

I imagine that not having "social media accounts" would be seen as equivalent to refusal to provide them by the G-drone doing the verifying. It probably would not occur to most people in this day and age that there may be people without accounts on Facebook or Twitter.

Re:Brave new world

[ClickOnThis]

You mean George Orwell's 1984. That was about a totalitarian society with widespread surveillance.

Brave New World (by Aldous Huxley) was about a bio-engineered caste society. Individuality was discouraged, but the main theme was not surveillance.

Re:Brave new world

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I avoided this personal data breach and self-incrimination faux pas by just not having a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram account. And somehow my life doesn't seem to have suffered...

Re:Brave new world

[ooloorie]

As if I needed more reason not to share my personal life with the world (and TSA)

A social media account can be used to help you establish that you are harmless; if you don't have one, you simply go back into the "unknown" category.

Re:Brave new world

[uncqual]

But how do you know what your friends had for breakfast or see the latest picture of their cat and comment "Ohh... Soo... Cute"? Do you mail postcards back and forth to keep up to date?

Re: Brave new world

[DonaId Trump]

Whoops! I forgot to log in when I posted that.

Re: Brave new world

[fox171171]

Rumors are the inquiry into facebook isnt the only thing they are doing. They are also attempting tobdetermine loyalty by asking what detainees think of the president.

So if they answer anything other than "he's an idiot", toss them out, as they are untruthful and should not be trusted.

Re:Brave new world

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

But how do you know what your friends had for breakfast or see the latest picture of their cat and comment "Ohh... Soo... Cute"? Do you mail postcards back and forth to keep up to date?

I just log in to the cameras I've secreted throughout their homes.

Re:Brave new world

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

They can figure out your views from posting on sites like this, or do you not use the internet at all ?

I never use the internet at all.

Vetting

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the agents also permitted to provide alternative facts when they don't find what they are looking for under this administration?

Trump is what he said he was

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is doing exactly what he said he would. He promised this during the campaign. Many on the right said there was hope Trump would do the right thing and, despite criticizing him, cast their votes for him. Trump is keeping his campaign promises and doing so with rapid pace. Many Republicans in Congress sharply criticized him, but most have fallen in line. Even McCain, Graham, and Sasse (who's criticism was incredibly weak) have yet to do anything substantive. Trump gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to support his executive actions because last Congress' Senate didn't do their jobs. This is what the far right wanted and they've justified it with alternative facts, which is a euphemism for outright lies and fake news. So many on the right said Trump didn't support their values. So many Christians said Trump's positions were contrary to their beliefs. They voted for him because he called himself a Republican and claimed to be pro-life. So many religious leaders backed Trump on the principles of the GOP platform, but now aren't happy that he kept his promises. Meanwhile, much of the far right continues to live in their own alternate reality with alternative facts and fake news. And this is how tyranny escalates. Trump told all of you he was a tyrant, but too many of you ignored him. And now he has four years (because the Senate will likely stay under Republican control after the 2018 election) to do as much damage as he can, with a handpicked Supreme Court Justice to help prevent his policies from being struck down as unconstitutional.

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[mmell]

Trump is fixing America the same way I fixed my dog. Last time I said "let's go see the vet, boy!", he bit me!

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is only fixing problems that exist in the fake news and alternative facts that the far right believes. Refugees are already subject to intense screening and the numbers show that they're no significant threat to Americans. Illegal immigration actually declined under Obama and most of the border cities are actually quite safe. The problems that Trump is fixing are problems that don't exist. Denying lawful residents the right to enter the United States and treating them like criminals at borders and airports isn't keeping America safe. The greatest threat is presented by our own citizens who radicalize here, something that Trump has no clue how to address, because it isn't addressed with walls and Muslim bans.

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[Anonymous Coward]

Only six Republican Senate seats are up in 2018, four of which are considered safe. Even if the other two flipped, Republicans would still control the Senate because of Pence. It's more likely at this time for Republicans to actually gain seats, even if Trump continues to be a disaster.

Although you're right that Americans don't use the power of the ballot box enough, the 2018 election is such that it's virtually guaranteed for Republicans not to lose the Senate. The House is so locked up by gerrymandering that it's unlikely to flip, either. And Republican Congresspeople who criticized Trump's policies during the election have largely come out in favor of the same policies over the past few days, at least among those who have spoken up. Although Americans may not have done anything if given the chance, it's almost certain because of how this election sets up.

And I see that I've been modded down for my thoughts in the GP post. It was sincere, even if some moderators don't like it. I have too many Christian friends who criticized Trump during the election but voted for him anyway because he said he was pro-life. After the election, Cardinal Raymond Burke called the vote a moral awakening and said the silent majority had spoken. This is actually a big part of the problem, because the churches help to push voters toward people like Trump. The churches have become a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[tchdab1]

"Extreme vetting" means something else entirely.

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[Anonymous Coward]

The political genius was that they knew that this was going to cause very public chaos and likely be initially ruled contrary to the constitution. So at the same time all this was going on, while the public and media were suitably distracted; and after speaking with his good friend Mr Putin; Trump has kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence off the National Security Council and installed Steve Bannon in their place.

I hope you're all watching what happens next very carefully, because tomorrow does not always follow the same as today.

Re:Trump is what he said he was

[I75BJC]

You are correct. The time of change of the POTUS is a time of transition. During times of transition, some people are caught in the changes and suffer. This is an unwelcome but normal occurrence. (Those with jobs know this well.) POTUS Bush didn't start any policy against incoming POTUS Obama and even gave him a say during the last part of the Bush presidency. POTUS Obama, according to the news, didn't "pay it forward". POTUS Obama tried to institute policies before POTUS Trump could take office AND cut him out of the decisions. Had POTUS Obama treated incoming POTUS Trump in the manner that POTUS Bush treated him, this transition would have gone smoother. Having gone through a variety of transitions in a variety of circumstances, I wish the people weren't getting clobbered but "that's life".

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[fahrbot-bot]

... Trump has kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence off the National Security Council and installed Steve Bannon in their place.

That's because Trump Administration Defends Bannon’s Role on Security Council:

“Well, he is a former naval officer,” Mr. Spicer said of Mr. Bannon on ABC’s “This Week.” “He’s got a tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now.”

And I sure that vast experience from his 7 years in the Navy from the late 1970s to early 1980s:

Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.

Makes him *way* more valuable than the, "four-star general who heads the Joint Chiefs, Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who rose through the Marine Corps and served in Iraq and Afghanistan." who was on the NSC. (from the NY Times article above) /sarcasm

At least with Trump, this will be a HUGE shit-show, the biggest, best shit-show ...

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[fahrbot-bot]

Since you can't seem to make an argument w/o resorting to name calling...

Obama didn't demote the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. In addition, previous to her appointment as National Security Advisor, Rice, among other things:

1. served in the Clinton administration in various capacities: at the National Security Council (NSC) from 1993 to 1997; as director for international organizations and peacekeeping from 1993 to 1995; and as special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs from 1995 to 1997.
2. was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in 2008

Steve Bannon worked at Goldman-Sachs, produced a few movies and ran a right-wing newspaper.

The two don't exactly compare.

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[Kiuas]

Reality is countries who letting these refugees in are finding out the hard way how incompatible the cultures are, and some people are paying for it with their lives.

The residents of the countries on that list have performed 0 terror attacks on US soil since 1975. And the source for this is not some 'libtard' site bit the conservative as Cato institute:

Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period. - -

In addition to the visa restrictions above, Trump’s executive order further cuts the refugee program to 50,000 annually, indefinitely blocks all refugees from Syria, and suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days. This is a response to a phantom menace. From 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 refugees have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all in the 1970s. Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion. The other 17 convictions have mainly been for aiding or attempting to join foreign terrorists.

President Trump tweeted earlier this week that executive orders were intended to improve national security by reducing the terrorist threat. However, a rational evaluation of national security threats is not the basis for Trump’s orders, as the risk is fairly small but the cost is great. The measures taken here will have virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security.

Meanwhile, Saudi-arabia is the largest propagator of Wahabbism which is both the state religion of the kingdom and also at the core of ISIS ideology. Saudis are also largely behind the funding of ISIS. 15 of the 911 attackers were Saudi nationals, 2 were from United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese, and one was from Egypt, But is Saudi-Arabia on the list? Nope. And neither are Egypt or Lebanon. They're still considered your 'allies'. In fact Saudis themselves seem 'very optimistic about Trump.'

So he's planning to combat radical Islam by maintaining military and financial support to its largest state sponsor in the world, while banning a list of countries that have done the US zero harm comparatively? So what, exactly is this 'fixing' outside playing right into the hands of your enemies by allowing them to trump up the rhetoric of 'holy war' and senseless persecution of muslims in an attempt to radicalize the american muslim population?

Nothing. You're being played like a cheap fiddle. The ISIS commanders are laughing their beards off and Sun Tzu is rolling in his grave because of such utter strategic incompetence.

Re: Trump is what he said he was

[Kiuas]

Those seven countries do not have infrastructure such that they can provide documentation to Customs/BP/DHS/State so background checks or vetting can occur. It's hard to get someone's police record from the "government" of Somalia so you can see whether or not they're a criminal.

Many people from these countries have been vetted before and so far it's worked, that is, there's no history of peole coming in from these regions committing acts of terror in the US. Obviousuly the vetting is hard and takes time, but that's not a good reason for an across the board ban, as opbviously cases exist in which vetting can (and has) be successfully done.

Saudi Arabia has a functioning government

They're a totalitarian theocracy. They have a 'functioning government' in the same sense North-Korea has a 'functioning government'.

Or would you like Saudi Arabia added to the list because they're muslim?

No, I don't think banning entire countries is a good strategy to begin with. I support giving refuge to anyone fleeing the totalitarian government of SA just as I support giving refuge to those fleeing isis. My point was an is that Saudis are the primary source of monetary and ideological suport for ISIS. They share a good deal of values, as SA is also a strict islamic theocracy.

If the goal is to combat radical islam, then doing so without putting pressure on the Saudi government to stop aiding extremists groups and funneling them money is a useless effort.

Also, trusting the Saudi officials is also not likely a safe strategy. The declassified 28 pages of the 911 report make it seem pretty likely that Saudi intelligence is lackluster at best, and in league with the hijackers at worst.

Perhaps most intriguingly, the 28 pages reveal that Osama Basnan, whom the documents describe as a supporter of two of the 9/11 hijackers in California, received a cheque from Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the US.

“On at least one occasion, Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account,” it says. “According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar.”

Basnan lived across the street from two of the hijackers – Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi – in San Diego and told an FBI asset that he had helped them, according to the document. Basnan was allegedly a supporter of al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden and spoke of him “as if he were a god”.

Obviously the official conclusion of the FBI is still that SA was not complicit in the attacks, because admitting that while continuing to hold them as a military ally would be impossible.

Whatever the case is, either the Saudi officials are so incompetent in their monitoring and record collecting that they missed their own former ambassador wiring money to an extremist. Or they did not miss that and simply let it slip. Anyway, in this light, were I american I would be heavily skeptical of any 'vetting' or other such intel provided by Saudi officials and their 'working' government, which shares more of its core values with ISIS than it does with western democracies.

It's impossible to simultaneously say that ISIS is evil but there's nothing wrong with Saudi-Arabia, and this is the key cognitive dissonance that american politicians, officials and the public will have to face if you want to address the issue of militant Islam without seeming totally clueless.

Reverse engineering

[zm]

Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.

Re:Reverse engineering

[ScentCone]

Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.

As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output? As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them? And that many of those killers and their support circles were lumped in with a huge flow of refugees?

Re:Reverse engineering

[0100010001010011]

Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from any of those countries between 1975 and 2015, according to statistics tallied by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.

However, the same set of statistics show that nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in the same time period - with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.

In a striking parallel, Trump’s sprawling business empire — which he has refused to rescind ownership of — holds multi-million dollar licensing and development deals in all of those countries, raising potential conflict of interest concerns and alarming questions over what actually went into the decision process behind Friday’s executive order.

So please, use statistics and data to explain how Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia managed to escape that ban, other than having strong ties to Trump's bottom line.

Re:Reverse engineering

[quantaman]

Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.

As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?

A bill signed by Obama to avoid a government shutdown. Hardly an example of Obama actively pushing restrictions on those 7 countries.

As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

And I'm pretty sure that makes two of us.

Re:Reverse engineering

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

However, the same set of statistics show that nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in the same time period - with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.

Yep. And it's funny how they never mention that the second-worst terrorist attack on US soil was done by a white, American-born fanatic named Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people (including 19 of whom were children under the age of six) when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

But that wasn't terrorism, oh no, that was ummm, a "disgruntled lone wolf", yeah, that's the ticket.

Re:Reverse engineering

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?

Sorry, but the election is over and you don't get to point the finger at Obama when Trump does all his daffy shit. He could have made his own list. Remember, he "knows more than all the Generals", he said so himself.

It's odd, isn't it, that not one of the countries where Trump has business interests made it on to the list, including Saudi Arabia where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from?

I'm sure that's just a funny coincidence, kind of like how Trump now wants to drop all sanctions against Russia for no apparent reason, and without asking for anything in return.

Re:Reverse engineering

[rubycodez]

not mentioned because not relevant. Timmy was not a member of any international terrorist organization. He was a lone wolf. you have no point

Re:Reverse engineering

[ooloorie]

Bullshit. It's a ban. People with visas and green cards are being refused entry.

People with green cards are subjected to additional scrutiny, but can enter if they pass those checks. People with visas are delayed for 90 days until new vetting procedures are in place.

That's why this is such a big deal.

Green card holders and visa holders have always gotten screwed by the US immigration system, under Democrats and Republicans alike. I've been stuck outside the US for days due to visa processing delays; friends were stuck for months. American voters don't give a f*ck, and any sane immigrant recognizes that American voters aren't obligated to give a f*ck.

This is only a "big deal" because the American left thinks they can turn it into a political issue, and they will pay attention to this for only as long as it serves their anti-Trump agenda, then they'll go right back to their own form of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It's pathetic.

Re:Reverse engineering

[AthanasiusKircher]

Regardless: the point of looking at Obama's signing off on a half-year ban in 2011 is simply to show how hilariously hypocritical the shrieking left is as they react to things like this.

Obama stopped processing applications for refugee status. Trump has banned people who had already been granted visas and even green-card holders (i.e., residents of the U.S.), though apparently they've backed off a bit on the latter today after the huge backlash.

but a national shortage of fainting couches the moment the same thing is ordered for a much shorter period of time now. Love the hypocrisy, and love how transparently it's on display. That's the best.

Let's put this in different terms, shall we? If Obama were running a business, the equivalent of his actions would be to cease accepting new applications for jobs. If Trump were running a business, the equivalent would be to lay off people you had already said were hired, and to lock out of their homes longer-term employees who had relocated to join your company when they tried to return from vacation.

If you can't tell the difference between the severity of those actions, I don't know what to say.

Being "cleared" doesn't mean you are authorized

[fred911]

The Visa Waiver Program was improved in 2015.

"Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country)."

Just because it has been ignored by our previous administration, doesn't make entry lawful. It's far past time for enforcement agencies to follow legal mandates. Right or wrong, law is legislated. Instructing agencies not to follow laws created by legislature by defunding or other political means circumvents mandates created by legislature.

  We are a democracy. If the law doesn't fit what the majority of the citizens want, change it. Effecting change without legislature is just wrong.

SCOTUS ruled , limited rights at the border

[bongey]

Aliens of any type have NEARLY ZERO rights at the border. Consular nonreviewability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... US Citizens have a reduced set of rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Well, yes. As they should.

[Etcetera]

Apparently we've forgotten the folks (San Bernardino, etc) who had "clear evidence of ISIS sympathies" on their Facebook profiles and other public social media that we then asked why hadn't been caught when they were entering the country.

As the SCOTUS has repeatedly stated, aliens have no Right of Entry to the US, and non-citizens have reduced guarantees (and certainly reduced privileges). Even a US citizen may be searched on entry if anything unusual is suspected, and is legally obligated to declare possessions in a way that basically happens nowhere else domestically (except agricultural goods going into California).

This is a Good Thing. How is this not a Good Thing? That's what customs/border inspection is supposed to be doing.

Re:Well, yes. As they should.

[elrous0]

This. Does anyone seriously advocate that someone who posts something like "Death to America!" and has images of ISIS flags all over their Facebook page NOT be stopped at the border?? That's some pretty basic vetting, right there.

If I posted "Death to the Queen!" on my Facebook page, should I be pissed if the UK then denied my travel visa? If anyone thinks this is wrong, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Re:Well, yes. As they should.

[bit trollent]

I think the real question is - when I post "Donald Trump is a bigoted tyrant" what should happen to me at the boarder.

Let's not forget - We aren't even 2 weeks into the Trump presidency, and he is already using his power to intimidate and stifle free speech..

To say nothing of his cruel bigotry and inhumanity towards legal visa holders, and green card holders.

2 people were told to sign away their green cards without an attorney present on Trump's unconstitutional orders.

This idiocy and bigotry will backfire, but Donald Trump is intent on silencing dissent on Facebook via bigoted actions at our Airports.

Donald Trump is a national disgrace, and his supporters (along with non-voters) should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:Well, yes. As they should.

[ClickOnThis]

Apparently we've forgotten the folks (San Bernardino, etc) who had "clear evidence of ISIS sympathies" on their Facebook profiles and other public social media that we then asked why hadn't been caught when they were entering the country.

The San Bernadino shooters were from Pakistan. They had travelled to Saudi Arabia years before the attach.

Neither of these countries is on Trump's list of seven. How are these new rules supposed to stop people like the San Bernadino shooters?

While we're on the subject, do you know how many people from Trump's list of seven countries are responsible for terror-related deaths of Americans since 1975? Zero. Zip. Nada. But Saudi Arabia was the point of origin for the 9/11 attackers. And other terror-related deaths in America have been due to people from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Those three countries are not on the list. But they do have business connections to Trump (hotels, etc.)

Re:Well, yes. As they should.

[ClickOnThis]

I like how you keep repeating this as "Trump's list of seven"...

It's Obama's list of seven. See: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/01/29/news-bulletin-the-list-of-muslim-nations-in-trumps-socalled-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021

Well Trump owns it now. He went much further than Obama and a Republican-dominated Congress did (albeit with Democrat support.) Trump is not just restricting visas granted to people from these countries. He's banning them from entering.

You still haven't addressed how Trump's action would have stopped the San Bernadino shooters. Which it wouldn't. The list is a convenient one for Trump. He can use its prior existence as political cover, appear to be tough on Muslims entering the country, and not piss off his friends in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates.

Well

[JWW]

While checking their phones is disturbing, facebook is public folks. That shits posted straight there and it sure as hell isn't the posters anymore when it hits faceboooks servers.

We can whine all we want about lack of privacy, but not after willingly abdicating it...

Facebook is evil for many reasons, this is one...

Add: For at least 2 years now

[guruevi]

I know people have been asked to volunteer Facebook and other social network information upon entry into the US, this has been the case for at least 2 if not 4 years and started under the Obama administration. Even Twitter held back their outrage about the DHS using their information for border controls until AFTER it was clear that Trump had won but even that story is now several months old.

All these 'new things' including the stopping of people at the border from certain nations has been done and legislated under the Obama administration, to quote another user here on Slashdot when Obama seized public lands from use by Indians and other members of the public: "Obama is just implementing what was legislated before, these orders are just telling particular agencies how they should implement the legislation".

Well, at least now you know why such laws should never be allowed, most of you here on Slashdot didn't care or realize the gravity of the issues when Obama, Bush or Clinton signed off on these exact laws. Next up: how Trump uses the DMCA, Patriot Act, NAFTA, TPP etc. to do whatever the fuck he wants - and you (the American public) gave it to them because you either didn't feel safe, didn't care or didn't believe that someone could rise up that would abuse those legislations. Too late now.

Re:Better get started on that replacement...

[Harlequin80]

Those countries NEVER had visa waivers.

The change was that if you, as a citizen of a visa waiver country (eg Australia), has been to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya or Yemen on or after March 1 2011 you would no longer qualify for the visa waiver program. You would still be able to visit, you just need to get a visa first. And given that those countries don't have a huge western tourist trade that doesn't seem like a massive impost. What's more is it isn't targetting the people of that country, its people who are citizens of somewhere else that went there.

Re:Better get started on that replacement...

[waynemcdougall]

Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.

Funny thing about that...

Trumps actual order has an exception for immigrants who are already in transit, viz section (e): "[...] when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."

So holding people up at US airports just some ICE pricks trying to make a false narrative to paint Trump in a bad light.

I'd say you hadn't read the article you linked to, but since you quote it, and seem capable of English comprehension, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mispresent the case. The "ICE pricks" are doing exactly what Trump has decreed. You conveniently left out the start of the section, which includes as the beginning...the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis...[including] when the person is already in transit...

So those 'ICE pricks' have no discretion. BOTH Secretaries of State AND Homeland Security must apply that "in transit exemption". AND they can't even do it by a class or group - they have to give approval for each individual. Before they can enter.

AND this exception only applied to refugees. Not to tourists or people visiting their families.