I can say it was at least a partial Muslim ban, specifically it targeted Muslims fleeing religious persecution.
It prioritized minorities being religiously persecuted. Before, it was random lottery. Just because the prioritization changed doesn't mean religious ban or even partial. 80% of all Muslims were still able to enter the country and then from these countries after reassessment. I think that is a pretty large leap to say "religious ban" because of that and the courts struggled with that reasoning as well. But because preliminary the plaintiffs didn't have much burden of proof. All they had were allegations of "racism"/"Muslim ban". It is a specious argument to make considering the document itself and considering there were only allegations.
the judges seemed far more dubious about the argument it wasn't targeted at Muslims
There was one judge that was for sure dubious but the other 2 seemed reluctant following the train of thought "Muslim ban"/racist.
comments on TV boasting that he'd had a hand in crafting it and had been asked to make a Muslim Ban that'd pass the legal tests.
But the question to ask is whether this was that order or would that be a different one. Again, there were allegations but because of the preliminary nature of the hearing the burden of proof was very limited. The document itself did not allude to such motivations and its enforcement would be applied only to what was contained in the order and not the allegations of motive behind the order.
You misunderstand the 2nd if you think it only applies to the National Guard. It doesn't. Here is an example, before the civil rights movement in the 60's the black community felt that police were not enforcing law and order. They decided that if the government would not enforce the laws they would. So they took up arms and marched on the legislature to get the police to enforce law in order in their communities. According to you, those people should have just accepted that the government would not help them in times of need and they should have no recourse to defend themselves from criminality. No.
Or how about the Battle of Athens where a black man was shot in the back in the polling station and the ballots stolen to be counted in secret. Some WW2 veterans stormed an armory and used those weapons to besiege the prison where the ballots were being secretly counted. Those vets stole the ballots back at gun point as private citizens while the National Guard sat back and watched. According to you, those citizens of Athens should have accepted the death of a fellow citizen exercising their right to vote and accepted a tyrant government because "national guard". No. You do not wait for the police or the national guard to defend yourself and your rights. Do not belittle such an important right because you don't like it. People have a right to self defense and a gun is an equalizer.
Felons lose rights. Your statements make zero since because they are built of a faulty premise.
Berate North all you want. But do not use a poor character or poor reasoning to justify removing rights for everyone.
So far we have had the climb-down on the Muslim ban
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Even the appeals court in the 9th circuit had a hard time buying that justification from the plaintiff. Of course you would know that if you read the E.O. or listened to the arguments. The only people parading "Muslim ban" are outraged by their own shadow. This just in, candidate made promises and trying to keep them within the extent of the law.
Trump looks like a fascist trying to overrule the constitution and an idiot for proposing an illegal flagship policy and not taking proper legal advice.
Right... were you concerned about Obama's executive order that redefined how the law was interrupted? I bet not. What really happened was that the E.O. was a little vague for some parties that may be affected by the ban and so on those grounds were dismissed but if the order had been a little more specific with those parties, Washington State would not have a claim. So, the courts said: "fix your order instead of relying on us to fix it for you" and he is doing so... What is the problem? He isn't redefining law. He is using existing laws to service the security of the nation as he sees necessary, you know his job as POTUS. He is operating within the existing laws that Obama refused to enforce. He is not redefining law. He is not interpreting law. He is using existing law to direct the government. What is wrong here?
needs to have a working relationship with the press
No it doesn't. The press can investigate the governments actions without a good working relationship. Or do we need a ministry of truth to facilitate that relationship? The press isn't some authority on truth any more than the government. A press that dislikes the government will be more critical of the governments actions and willing to investigate potential abuses. Unlike what we saw for Obama or Clinton. No scandals from Obama? Sheesh, you don't buy that fake news do you? I guess, no scandals if they target the right opponents. As we have learned from feminists and other democrats, there are no wrong tactics just wrong targets.
re.re. experience. Oh sorry I was equating bad experience with no experience. The later isn't an issue and that is why the only requirements to be POTUS is: native born citizen and 35 yro. Sure, Clinton has "experience" at being a terrible politician and being married to Bill. Gratz? I guess. I would rather take an unknown than a known bad.
Tell us more how you know how 60 million people think...
If racism really did elect Trump; Why is it that the acceptance of interracial relationships/marriage is at an all time high? Why would people vote Obama and then Trump if they were so racist and needed a Trump to blabber it?
Here's a thought. Maybe there are different reasons to vote for him over his top contender that had nothing to do with any *ism that has been thrown around so often that "people I disagree with" is now "Nazi"...
Yes, tell other people why they do things because you know better than them.
You are what is broken in a democracy
No. People voting how they choose for whatever reason they want is not what is broken with democracy... Or do you think it would be better if everyone just voted how you vote because you are such a good dictator? Get over yourself.
Isn't that normal for the government? Isn't that healthy because it means the executive doesn't haev absolute power to do what it wants? Good god what do you want?
its relationship with the press is a disaster.
Again, isn't this a good thing? Why would you want the press and the government to be in a good relationship and how would they keep the government honest if they were in bed together? Good god what do you want?
Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other, and governance is only possible as long as the Republicans control both houses
Nothing new. News at 10.
Policies are made based on alternate facts and fake news, fed directly to Trump's brain through his favourite sources of media - Fox News, Brietbart and Infowars.
Oh yes, "fake news" only comes from the places I don't like... Get a grip. If this is true then isn't i good that the other news outlets are willing to post the "real" facts? What do you want to have happen?
Trump is in it to enrich himself and his friends, and to inflate his ego.
And Clinton wasn't? I guess that is why she closed down her "charity".
resulted in a narcissist with no experience and no chance of doing a good job taking power.
Are you talking about Clinton or Trump because this describes both...
people manage to salvage something from the next four years.
That kind of explains why the NRA objected to a gun ban for suspected terrorists on the no fly list
Oh, I didn't realize that a citizen being "suspected" of a crime was enough justification to lose constitutionally protected rights... The whole "can't fly can't buy" campaign did a real good job of explaining why we should be able to quickly nullify rights without due process.
It just depends on if you went to school after 2005 when the rules changed. If you default on your loans the loan holder can apply very high interest rates ( I have seen as high as 30% and growing) making it effectively impossible to pay off. The payments become higher than a mortgage payment where a $10,000 original loan turns into a $100,000 non-dischargable debt. At some point, no matter how much money you throw at the loan, it will grow and it can never be gotten rid of even if you throw every penny you have at it. Many people have given up paying off their debt at huge economic uncertainty for retirement because they have no future because any wage can be garnished for life effectively.
Yes, in the good ole days student loans were not predatory but that changed in 2005 when the loaning industry was deregulated allowing for predatory practices. Just because what you went through was fine does not mean it is the same today.
I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.
Mainly because student loans are not relieved from bankruptcy like other debt. That means they can garnish your wages, social security benefits and other government benefits. Basically, you do not have a retirement with outstanding student loan debt.
Unless it turns out that the rest of the article is either a block of encrypted text that the script needs to decrypt or a separate resource that the script needs to fetch using XMLHttpRequest.
Honestly, I haven't seen much of them that do this. Thinking about it, I don't think I have seen one do it. I am sure there are some but it hasn't been an issue for me for the few exceptions to adbock + scripts off won't work.
If it's something I really want to read I'll go to the html source with the developer tools and/or manipulate the html/css to show the content I want. Usually, if adblock is blocked and javascript is required I go somewhere else.
He still signed it, approved it, and executed it. Even the appeals court arbitrating over the E.O. recognizes the "countries of concern" from the "previous administration". It was under Obamas administration that those countries were listed as a concern for terrorism. That is a fact that was used in crafting the language of the E.O. It is disingenuous because the E.O. was crafted with that precedent established by the Obama administration for listing those countries as a concern and barring travel.
If there is one instance there can be others. Syria was given special attention by the E.O. by halting indefinitely. While the other "countries of concern", according to Obama, were given a temporary halt to reassess the process. I am not sure what your point is. Has the vetting process changed since 2015? If not then the FBI's statements are still relevant.
Was that bill(s) (there were more than one) signed into law? Why would you argue that kind of semantic? Obama signed off on those provisions that were expanded with "countries of concern". He signed it and just like the ACA bears responsibility, for the most part (yes Congress is responsible too but it is the POTUS signature that turns a bill to law. )
You are being very pedantic and disingenuous if you think that is a "lie" because it was a law signed by Obama. i.e. his approval, support, and his execution of the law by his administration.
The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.
Yes, it sucks for those people. Yes, there is vetting. Has that vetting kept up with the times? If so, why would the FBI acknowledge there is no basis to vet some Syrian refugees? The ban is temporary... What is wrong with taking stock into the process to ensure it has kept up with the times and methods used by nefarious individuals? Instead of acting like Germany I have no problem with the government reassessing our immigration processes.
There were mistakes but no government is perfect and they have started to rectify those mistakes by letting in green card holders and the like. What I have heard is that refugees directly affected by this have to go through some additional interviews and questions before immigrating... So what? An inconvenience to be sure but it sure as hell beats where they came from. It's also temporary for most of the countries save Syria which has no records, barely functioning government and civilian militants... We are at war there and there is a hostile government... I am sorry for those people but the world is a crappy place. There is nothing wrong with reassessing various processes that could vector extremism to the US.
supporting the constitution is not required to be a US citizen, and in fact many citizens do not support all or some of it.
Yes, and that is a problem but they are citizens that are protected by the very document they don't support. With immigrants they are not protected and as such there is nothing wrong with requiring prospective immigrants respecting the law of hte land and the philosophy it was founded on.
Again, citizenship. You seem to not understand this concept. Dual citizenship is possible and has it's own 'caveats'... but they are still a citizen that has protection by the constitution. Do you really not understand this concept? You cannot ban a citizen but you can ban an immigrant.
Also, if you are not a citizen there is no right to enter the U.S. and the State Department can deny access for any reason. it is a privileged granted by the federal government for immigrants to come to the nation that can be taken away at the Presidents discretion as established by the Constitution and the Congress that gave the President that power.
Careful with the wording??? We are talking about law... The whole point is to be careful about the wording... WTF do you think law should be vague and misleading? Or very carefully worded?
These are some of the criteria that will bar you entry into the US from the E.O.:
the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles
United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law
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.
the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles...
United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law...
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.
How is that a Muslim ban? Notice that those characteristics are not specific to one religion, race, or ideology. If you think or do those things you should not enter the U.S. Why is that bad?
has been far more American born terrorism in the US post 9/11.
The difference being that if you are an American citizen you have constitutional protection. As opposed to refugees/immigrants whose admission is a priledge made available at the discretion of the federal government.
His ban punished people who legally immigrated.
Which is getting resolved by the courts and has already been amended to include green card holders and the like... This just in, governments are not perfect. News at 10. Not a lot of people fall into this category.
the best way to combat it is to turn their economies around. If we continue to piss on our poorer neighbors, they will find a way to sneak into our country even with a wall in place. Do I have a solution? No. It just seems like common sense to not make enemies of your neighbors.
I could agree with the sentiment. But do you understand why a lot of GOP'ers were upset that the previous administration refused to uphold immigration law and are now over reacting because of said refusal? As with a lot of issues, economics tends to be the answer but Latin American nations are sovereign nations.They are free to have crappy economies and that does not mean that we should ignore our immigration law because they are poor. And yes, I recognize US meddling in Latin America and I don't know the answer but at least understand the sentiment.
the country that has produced the most foreign terrorists that have made attacks on American soil
Yes, Saudi Arabia. The one with diplomatic relations with the US (ally). The one that has good documentation for visa applications. The one that does not have ISIS operating within its borders... The countries in the ban were listed as dangerous by the previous administration. Nothing is perfect and I you have an answer on what to do with an ally that does crap like Saudi Arabia I am all ears. They are apples and oranges.
I'll take that as a compliment. Law is interesting; it's where philosophy, ethics, morality, and free-will come crashing into reality in one blunt obtuse tool that makes liberal democratic civilization possible.
racist ploy
If you read the E.O. it doesn't sound bad... At all. Here are a few excerpts:
the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles
United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law
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.
It seems that if you don't do any of those things you will be fine. Those are not actions specific to one religion, race, or ideology. I honestly do not have a problem with any of those. In fact, I think it should the driving ethos of our immigration policy.
I must have missed the "what if's" I used. I reread the post and did not see any statement resembling "What if they X".
Have you read the executive order? Because it sounds like you haven't and are basing your opinion based on what CNN says. Seriously... when you say " counter productive to ban already vetted people such as Syrian Christians." when the E.O. says: "Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality"
IOW, halt immigration take an assessment of the process and then when we start it back up prioritize those that are minorities instead of random lottery. Instead of Obama's policy that left those Syrian Christians you are concerned about to be butchered it gives them priority because they are a minority being persecuted because of their religion. They have waited years, what is a few more months at most? An inconvenience to be sure but so what?
Just read the damn thing before you go half cocked on an absurd opinion that has no basis in reality because CNN said "Muslim ban". Hint. It doesn't say Muslim any where. Most Muslims can still immigrate to the US.
I wonder if there are other reasons why Saudi Arabia or Egypt wasn't included on that list. I wonder if it has anything to do with where ISIS operates or the type of documentation they have on their citizens for visa applications or their diplomatic status. Stop conflating the issue. It's an apples to orange comparison and you know it. I bet they would have been included if the Obama administration labeled them dangerous like the others.
List of countries that A) the Obama administration listed as dangerous prior and B) has ISIS operating within their borders. WTF is a good criteria if those aren't for a temporary immigration ban ?
The countries he listed had ISIS operating within the borders...We are at war with ISIS. Why is that not a good enough reason to suspend immigration until the processes has been vetted to ensure it isn't being gamed by an enemy whose operations and ideological extremism span across continents and national borders?
What is a good reason to suspend immigration from a country if a violent ideological enemy is not?
For Hint1: His ban was temporary implying that the process was to be reassessed in addition to the stated goals of the WH.
For Hint2, maybe you forgot the debacle a few years back how the FBI and Homeland Security secretaries could not guarantee the process would ensure no terrorists made it through. If they are already extremely vetted then what is the problem to ensure that that process is not behind the times? I have heard reports how that vetting process could not look at social media to see if they have ISIS sympathies. So far what I have heard is that prospective immigrants have to sit through a few extra hours of interviews... So what? Considering where they are coming from a few hours answering a few questions seems like cake. These were reports from NPR.
Hint3: The countries have ISIS operations. Are you saying ISIS is not terrorists? ISIS made it to Europe through the refugees why do you think they wouldn't make it to the US if they tried to game the immigration system?
Slashdot Mirror
I can say it was at least a partial Muslim ban, specifically it targeted Muslims fleeing religious persecution.
It prioritized minorities being religiously persecuted. Before, it was random lottery. Just because the prioritization changed doesn't mean religious ban or even partial. 80% of all Muslims were still able to enter the country and then from these countries after reassessment. I think that is a pretty large leap to say "religious ban" because of that and the courts struggled with that reasoning as well. But because preliminary the plaintiffs didn't have much burden of proof. All they had were allegations of "racism"/"Muslim ban". It is a specious argument to make considering the document itself and considering there were only allegations.
the judges seemed far more dubious about the argument it wasn't targeted at Muslims
There was one judge that was for sure dubious but the other 2 seemed reluctant following the train of thought "Muslim ban"/racist.
comments on TV boasting that he'd had a hand in crafting it and had been asked to make a Muslim Ban that'd pass the legal tests.
But the question to ask is whether this was that order or would that be a different one. Again, there were allegations but because of the preliminary nature of the hearing the burden of proof was very limited. The document itself did not allude to such motivations and its enforcement would be applied only to what was contained in the order and not the allegations of motive behind the order.
You misunderstand the 2nd if you think it only applies to the National Guard. It doesn't. Here is an example, before the civil rights movement in the 60's the black community felt that police were not enforcing law and order. They decided that if the government would not enforce the laws they would. So they took up arms and marched on the legislature to get the police to enforce law in order in their communities. According to you, those people should have just accepted that the government would not help them in times of need and they should have no recourse to defend themselves from criminality. No.
Or how about the Battle of Athens where a black man was shot in the back in the polling station and the ballots stolen to be counted in secret. Some WW2 veterans stormed an armory and used those weapons to besiege the prison where the ballots were being secretly counted. Those vets stole the ballots back at gun point as private citizens while the National Guard sat back and watched. According to you, those citizens of Athens should have accepted the death of a fellow citizen exercising their right to vote and accepted a tyrant government because "national guard". No. You do not wait for the police or the national guard to defend yourself and your rights. Do not belittle such an important right because you don't like it. People have a right to self defense and a gun is an equalizer.
Felons lose rights. Your statements make zero since because they are built of a faulty premise.
Berate North all you want. But do not use a poor character or poor reasoning to justify removing rights for everyone.
So far we have had the climb-down on the Muslim ban
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Even the appeals court in the 9th circuit had a hard time buying that justification from the plaintiff. Of course you would know that if you read the E.O. or listened to the arguments. The only people parading "Muslim ban" are outraged by their own shadow. This just in, candidate made promises and trying to keep them within the extent of the law.
Trump looks like a fascist trying to overrule the constitution and an idiot for proposing an illegal flagship policy and not taking proper legal advice.
Right... were you concerned about Obama's executive order that redefined how the law was interrupted? I bet not. What really happened was that the E.O. was a little vague for some parties that may be affected by the ban and so on those grounds were dismissed but if the order had been a little more specific with those parties, Washington State would not have a claim. So, the courts said: "fix your order instead of relying on us to fix it for you" and he is doing so... What is the problem? He isn't redefining law. He is using existing laws to service the security of the nation as he sees necessary, you know his job as POTUS. He is operating within the existing laws that Obama refused to enforce. He is not redefining law. He is not interpreting law. He is using existing law to direct the government. What is wrong here?
needs to have a working relationship with the press
No it doesn't. The press can investigate the governments actions without a good working relationship. Or do we need a ministry of truth to facilitate that relationship? The press isn't some authority on truth any more than the government. A press that dislikes the government will be more critical of the governments actions and willing to investigate potential abuses. Unlike what we saw for Obama or Clinton. No scandals from Obama? Sheesh, you don't buy that fake news do you? I guess, no scandals if they target the right opponents. As we have learned from feminists and other democrats, there are no wrong tactics just wrong targets.
re.re. experience. Oh sorry I was equating bad experience with no experience. The later isn't an issue and that is why the only requirements to be POTUS is: native born citizen and 35 yro. Sure, Clinton has "experience" at being a terrible politician and being married to Bill. Gratz? I guess. I would rather take an unknown than a known bad.
Modern politics... same as the old politics.
Except more shiny and faster. mmm shiny.
Tell us more how you know how 60 million people think...
If racism really did elect Trump; Why is it that the acceptance of interracial relationships/marriage is at an all time high? Why would people vote Obama and then Trump if they were so racist and needed a Trump to blabber it?
Here's a thought. Maybe there are different reasons to vote for him over his top contender that had nothing to do with any *ism that has been thrown around so often that "people I disagree with" is now "Nazi"...
Yes, tell other people why they do things because you know better than them.
You are what is broken in a democracy
No. People voting how they choose for whatever reason they want is not what is broken with democracy... Or do you think it would be better if everyone just voted how you vote because you are such a good dictator? Get over yourself.
Bogged down in legal proceedings
Isn't that normal for the government? Isn't that healthy because it means the executive doesn't haev absolute power to do what it wants? Good god what do you want?
its relationship with the press is a disaster.
Again, isn't this a good thing? Why would you want the press and the government to be in a good relationship and how would they keep the government honest if they were in bed together? Good god what do you want?
Trump is so divisive half the country is basically pulling in the opposite direction to the other, and governance is only possible as long as the Republicans control both houses
Nothing new. News at 10.
Policies are made based on alternate facts and fake news, fed directly to Trump's brain through his favourite sources of media - Fox News, Brietbart and Infowars.
Oh yes, "fake news" only comes from the places I don't like... Get a grip. If this is true then isn't i good that the other news outlets are willing to post the "real" facts? What do you want to have happen?
Trump is in it to enrich himself and his friends, and to inflate his ego.
And Clinton wasn't? I guess that is why she closed down her "charity".
resulted in a narcissist with no experience and no chance of doing a good job taking power.
Are you talking about Clinton or Trump because this describes both...
people manage to salvage something from the next four years.
Just like every other election... News at 11.
And that is one reason to have voted for him over Clinton. The party and media loved Clinton.
That kind of explains why the NRA objected to a gun ban for suspected terrorists on the no fly list
Oh, I didn't realize that a citizen being "suspected" of a crime was enough justification to lose constitutionally protected rights... The whole "can't fly can't buy" campaign did a real good job of explaining why we should be able to quickly nullify rights without due process.
-.-
It just depends on if you went to school after 2005 when the rules changed. If you default on your loans the loan holder can apply very high interest rates ( I have seen as high as 30% and growing) making it effectively impossible to pay off. The payments become higher than a mortgage payment where a $10,000 original loan turns into a $100,000 non-dischargable debt. At some point, no matter how much money you throw at the loan, it will grow and it can never be gotten rid of even if you throw every penny you have at it. Many people have given up paying off their debt at huge economic uncertainty for retirement because they have no future because any wage can be garnished for life effectively.
Yes, in the good ole days student loans were not predatory but that changed in 2005 when the loaning industry was deregulated allowing for predatory practices. Just because what you went through was fine does not mean it is the same today.
I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.
Mainly because student loans are not relieved from bankruptcy like other debt. That means they can garnish your wages, social security benefits and other government benefits. Basically, you do not have a retirement with outstanding student loan debt.
in Twitter's fucking house.
yea. because who cares about impartiality for public accommodations. amirite?
Unless it turns out that the rest of the article is either a block of encrypted text that the script needs to decrypt or a separate resource that the script needs to fetch using XMLHttpRequest.
Honestly, I haven't seen much of them that do this. Thinking about it, I don't think I have seen one do it. I am sure there are some but it hasn't been an issue for me for the few exceptions to adbock + scripts off won't work.
If it's something I really want to read I'll go to the html source with the developer tools and/or manipulate the html/css to show the content I want. Usually, if adblock is blocked and javascript is required I go somewhere else.
He still signed it, approved it, and executed it. Even the appeals court arbitrating over the E.O. recognizes the "countries of concern" from the "previous administration". It was under Obamas administration that those countries were listed as a concern for terrorism. That is a fact that was used in crafting the language of the E.O. It is disingenuous because the E.O. was crafted with that precedent established by the Obama administration for listing those countries as a concern and barring travel.
If there is one instance there can be others. Syria was given special attention by the E.O. by halting indefinitely. While the other "countries of concern", according to Obama, were given a temporary halt to reassess the process. I am not sure what your point is. Has the vetting process changed since 2015? If not then the FBI's statements are still relevant.
Was that bill(s) (there were more than one) signed into law? Why would you argue that kind of semantic? Obama signed off on those provisions that were expanded with "countries of concern". He signed it and just like the ACA bears responsibility, for the most part (yes Congress is responsible too but it is the POTUS signature that turns a bill to law. )
You are being very pedantic and disingenuous if you think that is a "lie" because it was a law signed by Obama. i.e. his approval, support, and his execution of the law by his administration.
The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.
Yes, it sucks for those people. Yes, there is vetting. Has that vetting kept up with the times? If so, why would the FBI acknowledge there is no basis to vet some Syrian refugees? The ban is temporary... What is wrong with taking stock into the process to ensure it has kept up with the times and methods used by nefarious individuals? Instead of acting like Germany I have no problem with the government reassessing our immigration processes.
There were mistakes but no government is perfect and they have started to rectify those mistakes by letting in green card holders and the like. What I have heard is that refugees directly affected by this have to go through some additional interviews and questions before immigrating... So what? An inconvenience to be sure but it sure as hell beats where they came from. It's also temporary for most of the countries save Syria which has no records, barely functioning government and civilian militants... We are at war there and there is a hostile government... I am sorry for those people but the world is a crappy place. There is nothing wrong with reassessing various processes that could vector extremism to the US.
supporting the constitution is not required to be a US citizen, and in fact many citizens do not support all or some of it.
Yes, and that is a problem but they are citizens that are protected by the very document they don't support. With immigrants they are not protected and as such there is nothing wrong with requiring prospective immigrants respecting the law of hte land and the philosophy it was founded on.
Again, citizenship. You seem to not understand this concept. Dual citizenship is possible and has it's own 'caveats'... but they are still a citizen that has protection by the constitution. Do you really not understand this concept? You cannot ban a citizen but you can ban an immigrant.
Also, if you are not a citizen there is no right to enter the U.S. and the State Department can deny access for any reason. it is a privileged granted by the federal government for immigrants to come to the nation that can be taken away at the Presidents discretion as established by the Constitution and the Congress that gave the President that power.
Careful with the wording??? We are talking about law... The whole point is to be careful about the wording... WTF do you think law should be vague and misleading? Or very carefully worded?
These are some of the criteria that will bar you entry into the US from the E.O.:
the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles
United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law
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.
How the fuck is that a religious test?
Have you read the Order? I bet you haven't.
Here is a hint:
the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles...
United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law...
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.
How is that a Muslim ban? Notice that those characteristics are not specific to one religion, race, or ideology. If you think or do those things you should not enter the U.S. Why is that bad?
has been far more American born terrorism in the US post 9/11.
The difference being that if you are an American citizen you have constitutional protection. As opposed to refugees/immigrants whose admission is a priledge made available at the discretion of the federal government.
His ban punished people who legally immigrated.
Which is getting resolved by the courts and has already been amended to include green card holders and the like... This just in, governments are not perfect. News at 10. Not a lot of people fall into this category.
the best way to combat it is to turn their economies around. If we continue to piss on our poorer neighbors, they will find a way to sneak into our country even with a wall in place. Do I have a solution? No. It just seems like common sense to not make enemies of your neighbors.
I could agree with the sentiment. But do you understand why a lot of GOP'ers were upset that the previous administration refused to uphold immigration law and are now over reacting because of said refusal? As with a lot of issues, economics tends to be the answer but Latin American nations are sovereign nations.They are free to have crappy economies and that does not mean that we should ignore our immigration law because they are poor. And yes, I recognize US meddling in Latin America and I don't know the answer but at least understand the sentiment.
the country that has produced the most foreign terrorists that have made attacks on American soil
Yes, Saudi Arabia. The one with diplomatic relations with the US (ally). The one that has good documentation for visa applications. The one that does not have ISIS operating within its borders... The countries in the ban were listed as dangerous by the previous administration. Nothing is perfect and I you have an answer on what to do with an ally that does crap like Saudi Arabia I am all ears. They are apples and oranges.
I'll take that as a compliment. Law is interesting; it's where philosophy, ethics, morality, and free-will come crashing into reality in one blunt obtuse tool that makes liberal democratic civilization possible.
racist ploy
If you read the E.O. it doesn't sound bad... At all. Here are a few excerpts:
the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles
United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law
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.
It seems that if you don't do any of those things you will be fine. Those are not actions specific to one religion, race, or ideology. I honestly do not have a problem with any of those. In fact, I think it should the driving ethos of our immigration policy.
I must have missed the "what if's" I used. I reread the post and did not see any statement resembling "What if they X".
Have you read the executive order? Because it sounds like you haven't and are basing your opinion based on what CNN says. Seriously... when you say " counter productive to ban already vetted people such as Syrian Christians." when the E.O. says: "Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality"
IOW, halt immigration take an assessment of the process and then when we start it back up prioritize those that are minorities instead of random lottery. Instead of Obama's policy that left those Syrian Christians you are concerned about to be butchered it gives them priority because they are a minority being persecuted because of their religion. They have waited years, what is a few more months at most? An inconvenience to be sure but so what?
Just read the damn thing before you go half cocked on an absurd opinion that has no basis in reality because CNN said "Muslim ban". Hint. It doesn't say Muslim any where. Most Muslims can still immigrate to the US.
I wonder if there are other reasons why Saudi Arabia or Egypt wasn't included on that list. I wonder if it has anything to do with where ISIS operates or the type of documentation they have on their citizens for visa applications or their diplomatic status. Stop conflating the issue. It's an apples to orange comparison and you know it. I bet they would have been included if the Obama administration labeled them dangerous like the others.
List of countries that A) the Obama administration listed as dangerous prior and B) has ISIS operating within their borders. WTF is a good criteria if those aren't for a temporary immigration ban ?
The countries he listed had ISIS operating within the borders...We are at war with ISIS. Why is that not a good enough reason to suspend immigration until the processes has been vetted to ensure it isn't being gamed by an enemy whose operations and ideological extremism span across continents and national borders?
What is a good reason to suspend immigration from a country if a violent ideological enemy is not?
For Hint1: His ban was temporary implying that the process was to be reassessed in addition to the stated goals of the WH.
For Hint2, maybe you forgot the debacle a few years back how the FBI and Homeland Security secretaries could not guarantee the process would ensure no terrorists made it through. If they are already extremely vetted then what is the problem to ensure that that process is not behind the times? I have heard reports how that vetting process could not look at social media to see if they have ISIS sympathies. So far what I have heard is that prospective immigrants have to sit through a few extra hours of interviews... So what? Considering where they are coming from a few hours answering a few questions seems like cake. These were reports from NPR.
Hint3: The countries have ISIS operations. Are you saying ISIS is not terrorists? ISIS made it to Europe through the refugees why do you think they wouldn't make it to the US if they tried to game the immigration system?