“Protection of the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

47 minutes ago, Suss&Camm said:

no.. PhD is not an adjective... Phd student is one...

 

It's abundantly clear to me, that you neither of you want to take in what's being said.. so there is no point in repeating all the logical arguments laid out in front of you...

 

and where is the PhD made?? I'm done with the discussion, keep hashing it if you want to.

You clearly said your purpose was to show that some were stopped that should not have been .if that is the case , why did you include the supposed Swedish students  They were Iranians nationals and it worked as it should have. 

[ready4ONE 5,400]

2 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

might i suggest reading this before being overcome by outrage?
 

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

Obama signed a Bill, publicly debated and crafted by Congress.

 

Trump signed an Executive Order, failed to make it public for a day, failed to explain how it should be implemented and even LPR's wound up sucked into its over-reaching grip.

 

Facts matter, alternative facts are just blustery cover up for the blemish that is Donald Trump and his Administration.

[OriZ 3,157]

OK. So I read the actual executive order in full, and I also found this which I think explains and clarifies alot of it:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/

 

So far we're hearing lots of horror stories. I read on an Israeli news website about an Iraqi that came with his wife and two kids to the airport in Egypt where they were supposed to board a plane to NY on their way to a new life. Because of this order he couldn't do that. He already sold his house, his car, furniture, quit his job and took his kids out of school. They had valid visas and were supposed to go to Nashville. Instead in Cairo they put them on a plane sending them right back to Iraq. Not sure what they're supposed to do now? There was a similar story with a Syrian family that instead of flying from Paris to Atlanta ended up having to go on a plane to Beirut. Then you have all the issues LPRs are having. In my naturalization ceremony there was an Iranian and a Somalian as well. Had they not made the choice to become citizens that day they could be facing the same issues even though they've been living here for quite a while just because the name of their country happens to be different than mine or the Canadians or Hungarian or Nepali who were there.

 

All in all it seems like it was poorly thought out. If they want to look further into things that's ok, you can halt the issuance of new visas(in most of those places they don't issue visas for more than 1 year anyway, so it's not like someone could be walking around with a 10 year visa, chances are) for 3 months but allow those that already have a valid visa in. If you want to halt taking more refugees in for a while that's ok but allow those that were already immediately supposed to be resettled in. There's got to be some give and some take and some consideration and compassion, or all you're doing is making more enemies. One thing I have to say though is it does not seem like the countries have anything to do with economic ties. I read something about the information that they are looking for(that is also mentioned in the order itself) and that for example Saudi already provides that information. Also, in the link I posted from the Atlantic they mention something similar to what charles posted. So that one makes more sense now but there's still some questions for sure.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Ahhh, the voice of calm reason.  Thank you Oriz.

 

It seems even the LPRs are getting held back, but after some questioning, are being allowed passage.  That's a good sign.  Hopefully those who were properly (if they were) will also be allowed in after a bit of validation.  But also hoping it's at least as tough as what we here went thru.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

might i suggest reading this before being overcome by outrage?
 

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

Stopping people entering on the visa waiver program is perfectly fine. That just means they need to apply for a visa. That seems reasonable for certain countries.

 

That is a far cry from what happened on Friday when even people with visas (both visiting visas and permanent residents) were denied entry. Some people were just returning from a vacation and were denied entry. Even Mo Farah was worried he wouldn't be able to return home after training.

 

Also the other major difference is one was a bill, debated in Congress and passed by congress before Obama signed it. 

 

I seem to remember people complaining about how much Obama did with executive orders during his time...

[OriZ 3,157]

46 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Ahhh, the voice of calm reason.  Thank you Oriz.

 

It seems even the LPRs are getting held back, but after some questioning, are being allowed passage.  That's a good sign.  Hopefully those who were properly (if they were) will also be allowed in after a bit of validation.  But also hoping it's at least as tough as what we here went thru.

It should be. There was some confusion about LPRs but it seems like they're supposed to be allowed in now but yet they still reserve the right to discretion.

 

28 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Visas are not my issue as I said in my post. The problem is people that already had planned trips to the US, or that were coming back home, or that were just about to resettle as refugees, or that were already on the plane. Those are the 4 things I have an issue with. Otherwise I am all for doing whatever they can in order to make things safer, assuming it actually makes things safer, without infringing too much on other people's rights.

 

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

Stopping people entering on the visa waiver program is perfectly fine. That just means they need to apply for a visa. That seems reasonable for certain countries.

 

That is a far cry from what happened on Friday when even people with visas (both visiting visas and permanent residents) were denied entry. Some people were just returning from a vacation and were denied entry. Even Mo Farah was worried he wouldn't be able to return home after training.

 

Also the other major difference is one was a bill, debated in Congress and passed by congress before Obama signed it. 

 

I seem to remember people complaining about how much Obama did with executive orders during his time...

 

Main difference there being the 100 days...they give him great power. Obama did things all throughout, which I'm sure Trump will as well he just hasn't yet

 

But lets all make sure(and I will sure try to) to distinguish between a president faithfully executing provisions of laws you don't like, and a president inventing provisions that don't exist. 

[JayJayH 546]

6 hours ago, OriZ said:

All in all it seems like it was poorly thought out. If they want to look further into things that's ok, you can halt the issuance of new visas(in most of those places they don't issue visas for more than 1 year anyway, so it's not like someone could be walking around with a 10 year visa, chances are) for 3 months but allow those that already have a valid visa in. If you want to halt taking more refugees in for a while that's ok but allow those that were already immediately supposed to be resettled in. There's got to be some give and some take and some consideration and compassion, or all you're doing is making more enemies. One thing I have to say though is it does not seem like the countries have anything to do with economic ties. I read something about the information that they are looking for(that is also mentioned in the order itself) and that for example Saudi already provides that information. Also, in the link I posted from the Atlantic they mention something similar to what charles posted. So that one makes more sense now but there's still some questions for sure.

The reason Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are on that list is because those are the seven countries that were affected by the Visa Waiver Program restrictions in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 - Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in late 2015. (But it's only discriminatory if Trump does it because our main sources of information are usually partisan hacks on Twitter, and because it's an approved point of view).

 

Did the Washington Post tell me this? No. I just happened to remember that law.

 

The amount of BS and wild guessing and speculation going on on both side is bordering mass hysteria. This executive order was extremely poorly implemented, perhaps even less so thought out. But the amount of people on the left now whose main source of anger and fury are based on Twitter rumors and limited knowledge of immigration law is absolutely astounding.

 

Folks, here's what's going to happen:

1. The travel ban will be repealed after 90 days (two days prior to Trump's first 100 days).

2. The refugee suspension will be up after 120, and the refugee resettlement program will continue, focused primarily, as it has been during the Obama presidency, on Burma, Bhutan and DR Congo.

3. Donald Trump will provide some version of "The vetting process was a total disaster. I fixed it. We can now have faith in our system."

 

Don't be surprised if the guy builds a wall and then tries to get Congress on board with an amnesty bill. So he can say some version of: "The border was a total disaster. I fixed it. Now let's amnesty" and pick up a greater percentage of Latino votes leading up to 2020. (This part is hypothetical speculation at best).

Edited January 30, 2017 by JayJayH

[millefleur 5,047]

1 hour ago, JayJayH said:

The reason Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are on that list is because those are the seven countries that were affected by the Visa Waiver Program restrictions in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 - Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in late 2015. (But it's only discriminatory if Trump does it because our main sources of information are usually partisan hacks on Twitter, and because it's an approved point of view).

Thanks for that. It makes much more sense now. Of course, despite that, I think Trump's conflicts of interest need to be addressed regardless.

 

I'm still a little confused about how exactly the vetting process can be made stricter. Thanks to VJ, it seems to me that T-country applicants already endure long Administrative Processing prior to visa issuance, which can go on for up to a year or even two years. That seems pretty rigorous to me, although we have no idea what the DHS is actually doing during that time. Still, it certainly wasn't just an "open door" policy like Merkel's Germany before, so I really wonder what extra vetting is going to do at this point since certain applicants already wait up to a year or more before getting a visa. Few Americans are even aware of AP or other scrutiny that visa applicants are already subject to if they come from a 'certain' country.

 

It would've been nice if the MSM or Trump or anyone from the government would've come out to the public and explained how visa laws work and what exactly is going to be tweaked with Trump's order, or at least explain what they find fault with in the current system. I think that would've calmed the hysteria a bit, especially if they had pointed out that a lot of this vetting was already going on under Obama, as most Americans do not know that at all. Most Americans don't have the slightest clue about our visa/immigration laws or how they work. My guess is that most people just assumed that all of these people now being affected by Trump's ban would've been automatically allowed in before the ban (everyone on VJ certainly knows that's not true since a visa is a "privilege" and not a "right", and certainly some of those people would've been turned down anyway for lack of ties to their home countries), hence the backlash.

 

I still stand by the point that banning people with GC and who's visas were already approved was ridic, as they had gone through the process fair and square.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, JayJayH said:

The reason Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are on that list is because those are the seven countries that were affected by the Visa Waiver Program restrictions in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 - Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in late 2015. (But it's only discriminatory if Trump does it because our main sources of information are usually partisan hacks on Twitter, and because it's an approved point of view).

 

Did the Washington Post tell me this? No. I just happened to remember that law.

 

 

Yeah, surprisingly the Atlantic link mentions it. As far as the reasons why they were affected by the restrictions to start with I think that has something to do with the info they are requesting and some countries comply or have a better potential to comply than others.

[Dashinka 24,889]

2 hours ago, millefleur said:

Thanks for that. It makes much more sense now. Of course, despite that, I think Trump's conflicts of interest need to be addressed regardless.

 

I'm still a little confused about how exactly the vetting process can be made stricter. Thanks to VJ, it seems to me that T-country applicants already endure long Administrative Processing prior to visa issuance, which can go on for up to a year or even two years. That seems pretty rigorous to me, although we have no idea what the DHS is actually doing during that time. Still, it certainly wasn't just an "open door" policy like Merkel's Germany before, so I really wonder what extra vetting is going to do at this point since certain applicants already wait up to a year or more before getting a visa. Few Americans are even aware of AP or other scrutiny that visa applicants are already subject to if they come from a 'certain' country.

 

It would've been nice if the MSM or Trump or anyone from the government would've come out to the public and explained how visa laws work and what exactly is going to be tweaked with Trump's order, or at least explain what they find fault with in the current system. I think that would've calmed the hysteria a bit, especially if they had pointed out that a lot of this vetting was already going on under Obama, as most Americans do not know that at all. Most Americans don't have the slightest clue about our visa/immigration laws or how they work. My guess is that most people just assumed that all of these people now being affected by Trump's ban would've been automatically allowed in before the ban (everyone on VJ certainly knows that's not true since a visa is a "privilege" and not a "right", and certainly some of those people would've been turned down anyway for lack of ties to their home countries), hence the backlash.

 

I still stand by the point that banning people with GC and who's visas were already approved was ridic, as they had gone through the process fair and square.

I think the best example is the case that occurred in San Bernadino where we found out that the vetting process didn't even consist of checking someone's social media accounts.  The point is that there could be improvements in the vetting process overall, and maybe extra scrutiny for certain countries, but overall I agree, if the visa has been issued, or if someone has a GC, they should not be banned from entering.

 

"It would've been nice if the MSM or Trump or anyone from the government would've come out to the public and explained how visa laws work and what exactly is going to be tweaked with Trump's order, or at least explain what they find fault with in the current system."

 

Would it had mattered if they did?

[JayJayH 546]

3 hours ago, millefleur said:

Thanks for that. It makes much more sense now. Of course, despite that, I think Trump's conflicts of interest need to be addressed regardless.

 

I'm still a little confused about how exactly the vetting process can be made stricter. Thanks to VJ, it seems to me that T-country applicants already endure long Administrative Processing prior to visa issuance, which can go on for up to a year or even two years. That seems pretty rigorous to me, although we have no idea what the DHS is actually doing during that time. Still, it certainly wasn't just an "open door" policy like Merkel's Germany before, so I really wonder what extra vetting is going to do at this point since certain applicants already wait up to a year or more before getting a visa. Few Americans are even aware of AP or other scrutiny that visa applicants are already subject to if they come from a 'certain' country.

 

It would've been nice if the MSM or Trump or anyone from the government would've come out to the public and explained how visa laws work and what exactly is going to be tweaked with Trump's order, or at least explain what they find fault with in the current system. I think that would've calmed the hysteria a bit, especially if they had pointed out that a lot of this vetting was already going on under Obama, as most Americans do not know that at all. Most Americans don't have the slightest clue about our visa/immigration laws or how they work. My guess is that most people just assumed that all of these people now being affected by Trump's ban would've been automatically allowed in before the ban (everyone on VJ certainly knows that's not true since a visa is a "privilege" and not a "right", and certainly some of those people would've been turned down anyway for lack of ties to their home countries), hence the backlash.

 

I still stand by the point that banning people with GC and who's visas were already approved was ridic, as they had gone through the process fair and square.

Honestly, the vetting process can't be made much stricter. Judging by the amount of VJers stuck for months or even years in 'administrative processing', I'm not sure it's possible. This is a PR stunt from the Trump administration. It's a way of keeping the "Muslim ban" campaign promise without actually enacting a Muslim ban.

 

In the end, after 90 days (2 days before the end of his first 100), Trump will be able to say "I fixed it, move on." By 2020, the general public won't be discussing this, as a tons of issues are going to come up between Trump's first week and four years from now. Trump will be judged in 2020 on how the economy is doing, how foreign policy is doing, and how the "repeal and replace" Obamacare deal is going.

 

If he's doing anything to position himself for 2020 right now, it's to be able to say "I did what I said I would." 

 

I agree fully on your point regarding green card holders and those with approved visas. The implementation of this policy was incredibly sloppy at best.

 

 

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

 

Yeah, surprisingly the Atlantic link mentions it. As far as the reasons why they were affected by the restrictions to start with I think that has something to do with the info they are requesting and some countries comply or have a better potential to comply than others.

This has nothing to do with business dealings. Trump may have dealings in the Emirates. He does not have business interests in Algeria, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Oman, the West Bank or any number of Muslim-majority countries not affected by this EO. 

 

Try getting a birth certificate out of Mogadishu.

Or a police record from Aleppo.

Or a background check from Benghazi.

Or a summary of what someone's been up to recently in Mosul.

 

That's doable in relatively stable Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where officials are cooperative with U.S. officials.

I don't support a blanket ban based on nationality. But the hysteria, guessing, Twitter rumoring and virtue signaling of the past 48 hours has been quite astonishing.

Edited January 30, 2017 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

11 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

Honestly, the vetting process can't be made much stricter. Judging by the amount of VJers stuck for months or even years in 'administrative processing', I'm not sure it's possible. This is a PR stunt from the Trump administration. It's a way of keeping the "Muslim ban" campaign promise without actually enacting a Muslim ban.

 

In the end, after 90 days (2 days before the end of his first 100), Trump will be able to say "I fixed it, move on." By 2020, the general public won't be discussing this, as a tons of issues are going to come up between Trump's first week and four years from now. Trump will be judged in 2020 on how the economy is doing, how foreign policy is doing, and how the "repeal and replace" Obamacare deal is going.

 

If he's doing anything to position himself for 2020 right now, it's to be able to say "I did what I said I would." 

 

I agree fully on your point regarding green card holders and those with approved visas. The implementation of this policy was incredibly sloppy at best.

 

 

This has nothing to do with business dealings. Trump may have dealings in the Emirates. He does not have business interests in Algeria, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Oman, the West Bank or any number of Muslim-majority countries not affected by this EO. 

 

Try getting a birth certificate out of Somalia.

Or a police record from Syria.

Or a background check from Libya.

Or a summary of what someone's been up to recently in Yemen.

 

That's doable in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where officials are cooperative with U.S. officials.

I wasn't saying it has anything to do with business dealings, I was saying it doesn't. The part in bold is exactly what I'm referring to in my last two(now three) posts although they didn't provide the spcifics you did so unless you have a source for that that's pretty much speculation(that I agree with), but they did say, including in the order itself that there is info they will be determining they want certain countries o provide, that I guess many of the countries not on the list already provide most of. 

 

Regarding him keeping his promise, wouldn't you say even if it was only a ban on visas he would still be able to claim that? I don't see a situation where a whole lot of people would have been like "you promised a ban on muslims from entering, this is only a ban on visas in certain countries".

[millefleur 5,047]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think the best example is the case that occurred in San Bernadino where we found out that the vetting process didn't even consist of checking someone's social media accounts.  The point is that there could be improvements in the vetting process overall, and maybe extra scrutiny for certain countries, but overall I agree, if the visa has been issued, or if someone has a GC, they should not be banned from entering.

 

"It would've been nice if the MSM or Trump or anyone from the government would've come out to the public and explained how visa laws work and what exactly is going to be tweaked with Trump's order, or at least explain what they find fault with in the current system."

 

Would it had mattered if they did?

Concerning the San Bernardino case: maybe it's because there were links to Saudi Arabia? It's just highly suspicious that this supposedly Muslim ban omits one of the highest frequency T-countries out there. True, perhaps the vetting process can be improved, but it better include SA and other suspect countries (allies or not) of the US if they're going to be fair about it.

 

I think it would have mattered to explain the current visa system a bit to avoid partisan blaming. When I told my dad (who is a by-the-book Republican) that there already were extra vetting measures (AP) for certain T-countries, he couldn't believe it because he was convinced that there was basically nothing in place under Obama. His image was this: that people from dangerous countries could just waltz right in to the US because of Obama being a seeming 'softie' on the subject. It would just be nice if people had more of a clue what exactly our immigration policies are, as opposed to letting people jump to conclusions.

Edited January 30, 2017 by millefleur

[Jacque67 7,328]

Miller!

Delta!

"dudes"!!!!!