Trump's published Immigration policies MEGATHREAD

[AmSank 1]

20 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Yeah it's being called that by the news sites that hate this administration but that's not what it is. 

What country is this? 

Syria

[Djiboutiman 2]

Yemen. But to due to issues there we had our case in Djibouti 

19 minutes ago, RO_AH said:

If a Christian or a Jew from any of the listed country applies they will have the same fate so no it is not a "Muslim" ban.

 

As from everything I have read it is more of a pause than a ban, but then again the word ban is also created by the main stream media. From my understanding people will be put on hold while better vetting procedures are put in place. 

Honestly whatever it is it’s still a pain

[JoannaV 174]

If the visa hasn't been issued yet then it now won't be issued.

 

Reading the text of the proclamation, the only bit of hope would be that waivers are available on a case-by-case basis, and for those wanting to come to the US to reside with a close family member it says if "the denial of entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship". HOWEVER my assumption would be that this would be a rare event with "undue hardship" = something the world media could make to look really bad. I don't know if they've actually developed any guidance on this yet or not, so we really don't know yet how the waivers will work.

[AmSank 1]

24 minutes ago, JoannaV said:

If the visa hasn't been issued yet then it now won't be issued.

 

Reading the text of the proclamation, the only bit of hope would be that waivers are available on a case-by-case basis, and for those wanting to come to the US to reside with a close family member it says if "the denial of entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship". HOWEVER my assumption would be that this would be a rare event with "undue hardship" = something the world media could make to look really bad. I don't know if they've actually developed any guidance on this yet or not, so we really don't know yet how the waivers will work.

I just dont get it, why am i being held far away from my wife? .. this is unfair and wrong !..

[abum 324]

it is the 3rd attempt of a ban that (then Candidate) Donald Trump said he would do "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and this is also said by Rudy Giuliani on Fox News:

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally
 

"I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.

"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"

Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers.
"And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.

 

 

Hence it has been called MUSLIM BAN ever since. 

And it is also the same with Affordable Care Act, where people kept calling it OBAMACARE. 

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

The new rules include the suspension of all immigrant visas for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen and Somalia, and the suspension of non-immigrant visas, such as for business and tourism, to nationals of Chad, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Yemen.

Citizens of Iran will not be eligible for tourism and business visas, but remain eligible for student and cultural exchange visas if they undergo additional scrutiny. Such additional scrutiny will also be required for Somali citizens applying for all non-immigrant visas.

Your country is not included in this ban 

 

Many muslim countries are not affected although it is believed Trump will later include them 

Not sure how this businessman will do business with these countries like keep getting middle eastern oil

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

13 hours ago, RO_AH said:

If a Christian or a Jew from any of the listed country applies they will have the same fate so no it is not a "Muslim" ban.

 

The key fact.. "Muslim majority countries".. 

Muslims are the ones being disprortiatly affected by this.  Rationalizing discrimination is not cool. 

[Lee & Lei 42]

14 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

The key fact.. "Muslim majority countries".. 

Muslims are the ones being disprortiatly affected by this.  Rationalizing discrimination is not cool. 

It isn't deliberately discriminatory against Muslims. If that were what Trump wanted, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,  Indonesia, and UAE would also be on that list.

 

If you read the details of the document, it specifies for each country why that country is banned. For the majority, they either fail to adequately share security intelligence, do not keep adequate identity records about their citizens, or they are a significant source of terrorist threats or have a significant terrorist presence within them. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Lee & Lei

[mcdull 474]

46 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

The key fact.. "Muslim majority countries".. 

Muslims are the ones being disprortiatly affected by this.  Rationalizing discrimination is not cool. 

Those Mohammedans may be the ones affected mostly by the ban,  but the law itself isn't targeting Muslims.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim majority country isn't targeted by the ban. 

Malaysia isn't in this ban, Pakistan isn't in this ban. UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Israel are not in this ban.

China which has 23 million Muslims, not in this ban.

Muslim from Canada, UK, Germany,France are not in this ban

As a matter fact, the absolute majority of Muslims are not subject to this ban

So, why are you calling this a Muslim ban?

 

Fake news isn''t cool.

[gregcrs2 1,778]

Regardless of what anyone wants to call it, for now, per the Supreme Court, the ban is legal.  

[Russ&Caro 1,549]

Haven't read the latest ban in detail but I know previous versions of it not only affected people who are citizens of the banned countries but also people who had visited or lived in those countries. So just because the OP is from Djibouti and it isn't one of the listed 8 countries, doesn't mean he won't be affected adversely by it.

[Russ&Caro 1,549]

6 minutes ago, mcdull said:

where is the video, can anyone please find the video which you claimed President Trump explicitly said he is banning all Muslims 

When you fake google it, it's the first, second and third fake results from the search.

 

The irony is that if you add a filter limiting the results to Breitbart.com, a source that is generally thought of as true news for fans of Trump, you get the same confirmation of the fact.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-united-states/

Edited December 6, 2017 by Russ&Caro

[Daniela M_______ 410]

15 hours ago, Californiansunset said:

You're profile says the beneficiary (you) would be from Djibouti... I have never seen this country on the list of banned countries. Are you from somewhere else and just processing your case from Djibouti?

i, how can I find information about banned countries? I'm from Venezuela and our goverment has been banned but according to US statements, it would only affect the goverment, not regular citizens of Venezuela like myself. But still.... we all know how that go... we all get in the same label.

[Jaquelly 1,647]

This whole thread is a mess.

 

Attacking each other isn't what we need. Please try to remain helpful. Your personal politics have nothing to do with how badly these families are hurting right now. Goodness gracious.

[geowrian 22,337]

A law or EO that is designed to discriminate against members of a religion in whole or in part is considered discriminatory under the law. You don't need to discriminate against all Muslims in order to be discriminatory. You don't need to discriminate against only Muslims to be discriminatory. The legal question here, IMHO, isn't whether or not it discriminates against Muslims, but whether that discrimination is permitted via an EO. Not all discrimination - even against protected classes - is illegal.

 

For instance, take what recently happened with the voting laws in South Carolina. I understand state voting laws are not immigration laws....this is just demonstrating a point.

For a brief background of the issue, the SC legislature created a law requiring certain Voter ID requirements. The law was challenged on the basis that is was discriminatory against a protected class based on the color of their skin. The law did not mention black people. it did not impact all black people. It did impact non-black people. However, it was shown that:

1) The law disproportionately impacted a protected class.

2) The legislature enacted the law knowing that it disproportionately impacted the protected class.

The federal appeals court that heard the case determined that the law was discriminatory based on the above, and targeted black people despite not only affecting black people. As a result, it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

Okay, back to the immigration issue. Regardless of what it's called - "Muslim Ban" / "Travel ban" / whatever - does the EO disproportionately affect Muslims? If so, were these class of people targeted? Personally, I think the first question is pretty clear - the countries with the most severe restrictions are overwhelmingly Muslim-majority nations. As for the second question, determining intent is always tricky. Was the basis for choosing those countries a coincidence or were they targeted based on their religious makeup? Were the rules applied equally to all nations or are they more strict to Muslim-majority nations? Can the claims by the current president on the campaign trail and statements made via Twitter be considered in determining intent? I'm not claiming to have an answer by any means..just trying to explain the questions that have been or will likely be presented to the court.

 

The EO lists certain reasons for why they chose each country, but doesn't provide enough information in itself to validate those claims. For instance, it says certain countries don't share enough information with the US, or don't provide sufficient identity proofing. "Insufficient" is very broad...were the rules applied equally or did they set rules that discriminated against certain nations based on their makeup? Specifics like that are not something the government wants to disclose, and their claim (as I understand it) thus far has been that they are not discriminating based on religion and that the court does not have jurisdiction to review the requirements.

 

FYI - I'm not looking to debate this. I just wanted to try to provided some background into the current state of things and the questions/arguments being presented by council.

 

15 hours ago, RO_AH said:

As from everything I have read it is more of a pause than a ban, but then again the word ban is also created by the main stream media. From my understanding people will be put on hold while better vetting procedures are put in place. 

To be fair, both the president and his press secretary called it that. For example, Trump tweeted "That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN..." (capitalization is not from me).

The current EO is indefinite.

 

57 minutes ago, gregcrs2 said:

Regardless of what anyone wants to call it, for now, per the Supreme Court, the ban is legal.  

SCOTUS has not ruled on the ban. All they did is determine that the TRO is to be removed while the lower courts hear the merits of the actual case. It's more of a procedural move than a ruling on the legality of the ban.

The end result is the same for now....until a lower court determines otherwise.

Edited December 6, 2017 by geowrian