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

[bcking 3,157]

10 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

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. 

Just to be clear, are you implying that Trump is "faithfully executing provisions of laws"?

 

He was on record as saying that he is trying to give preference to Christian refugees, which gives preferential treatment over religion (Unconstitional)

 

I won't even bring up the international agreements that we should be proud to uphold but instead are violating. 

 

EDIT:

 

Oh and as for the whole "These were the countries Obama listed on the Bill that he signed" excuse, that just doesn't fly for multiple reasons:

1. It wasn't "Obama's Bill", it was a Bill like any other. It started in the Legislature and had bipartisan support

2. It was addressing removing countries from the VISA WAIVER PROGRAM - Saudi Arabia is not on the VWP, and presumably wasn't on it to begin with which it why it wasn't listed. It was also addressing people who had travelled to those countries and then were trying to enter under the VWP

 

A blanket ban is very different from being able to travel on a visa. Very very different. Simply taking the list of countries and reusing it is not only very lazy (They really could'nt think on their own? After spending a year attacking Obama they then use his work?) but also just bad judgement. 

Edited January 30, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

33 minutes ago, bcking said:

Just to be clear, are you implying that Trump is "faithfully executing provisions of laws"?

 

 

It was a general statement. I wasn't referring to either Trump or Obama in particular, nor going at this point into specifics about any of their orders, just something to watch for that I believe is important. Faithfully executing provisions of existing laws is legal, creating your own is not backed by the constitution.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

 

It was a general statement. I wasn't referring to either Trump or Obama in particular, nor going at this point into specifics about any of their orders, just something to watch for that I believe is important. Faithfully executing provisions of existing laws is legal, creating your own is not backed by the constitution.

I think there can be a third scenario -

 

Unfaithfully executing provisions of existing laws in a way that makes it illegal.

 

Example being taking a law and then applying a religious preference/exclusion, which would be unconstitutional.

[yuna628 9,660]

2 hours 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?

Remember several things about that case though.

1) They went through CSC that has been known to approve cases within days. Quite a fast-track. The case didn't hang around CSC that long in the scheme of things.

2) Is it a background checking problem? Or was it a employee problem? Something tells me someone probably got chewed out and fired. We all know there were problems with that case, even when we review their K1 casefile. I mean they sent in bare bones, she had a questionable case history, not so much as an rfe, no aggressive questioning and there seemed to be no AP at all for them. They also married before using the K1, so that of course is visa fraud. There was multiple failures on multiple levels.

3) Her country of origin would not be affected by this ban.

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

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.

That's the reality though of pretty much any recent President. Treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves, because of many reasons - political, financial, trade, and oil. By looking the other way on Saudi, Trump is following the status-quo in that regard at least.

 

5 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.

Now why would anyone want to actually educate people about immigration law? Let's face it, over the past week I've sent multiple emails to publications trying to get them to issue corrections that the ''visa waiver program'' is not the same thing as the ''visa waiver interview program''. One of the publications was an organization that prides themselves on immigration/human rights cases! It is furthermore easy for the government to not educate people on immigration law.. even those senators that spend hours lying about immigration law for political gain - why would they want to? A dumb people are easy to control.

 

And again the restrictions placed on the VWP didn't prevent people from entering the country, they could get waived under certain criteria, and they were not barred from entering the country on a visa if they obtained one. And it never affected LPRs. As I stated before, the VWP rules affected someone I know who had traveled to Libya under directive of her government - now I do not even know if she can get a visa, let alone be allowed in. I wonder now if my own in-laws will be hassled in the airport under the VWP, for making travels to a variety of middle-eastern countries, as many Europeans love to do. They never once thought that their sunny and luxurious holidays would affect ever seeing their son again.

[millefleur 5,045]

18 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Now why would anyone want to actually educate people about immigration law? Let's face it, over the past week I've sent multiple emails to publications trying to get them to issue corrections that the ''visa waiver program'' is not the same thing as the ''visa waiver interview program''. One of the publications was an organization that prides themselves on immigration/human rights cases! It is furthermore easy for the government to not educate people on immigration law.. even those senators that spend hours lying about immigration law for political gain - why would they want to? A dumb people are easy to control.

Well, it could be expected of politicians, but I would hope that certain journalists would like to shed light on the subject. Sad that even progressive human rights organizations don't seem to care about getting the details right. I guess everyone has their own agenda at the end of the day.

[LionessDeon 2,060]

52 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Now why would anyone want to actually educate people about immigration law? Let's face it, over the past week I've sent multiple emails to publications trying to get them to issue corrections that the ''visa waiver program'' is not the same thing as the ''visa waiver interview program''. One of the publications was an organization that prides themselves on immigration/human rights cases! It is furthermore easy for the government to not educate people on immigration law.. even those senators that spend hours lying about immigration law for political gain - why would they want to? A dumb people are easy to control.

 

 

25 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Well, it could be expected of politicians, but I would hope that certain journalists would like to shed light on the subject. Sad that even progressive human rights organizations don't seem to care about getting the details right. I guess everyone has their own agenda at the end of the day.

I have realized that many do not care about facts, information, or truth.  They are content believing their own reality and do not care if it doesn't affect them.  They pick out one FB post or news article that aligns with their beliefs and they are done.  That is gospel and they do not want to hear anything else.  When you try to give facts, they make posts that you are whining, crying, complaining.  

[Dashinka 24,264]

2 hours ago, LionessDeon said:

 

I have realized that many do not care about facts, information, or truth.  They are content believing their own reality and do not care if it doesn't affect them.  They pick out one FB post or news article that aligns with their beliefs and they are done.  That is gospel and they do not want to hear anything else.  When you try to give facts, they make posts that you are whining, crying, complaining.  

This is so true and is a big concern with what is described as the media now days.  The media, all the media, also do not seem to care about the facts, information, or truth.  If a story fits the narrative, then run with it.  I guess I have come to expect it from political types from both sides of the aisle, but the media was supposed to be above that, I guess they find the swamp more inviting.

[LionessDeon 2,060]

Right.  There was a day when journalists and news sources were held to a standard of reporting correct information. It's a changing world out there.  

[smilesammich 10,727]

ironic that this muslim ban is affecting so many students when we have a president who is seemingly allergic to education???? 

 

Quote

Rafiee did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment, but she posted publicly on Facebook:

"...I have no clue whether I would ever be able to go back to the school I like so much, or to see my dear friends there. But my story isn't as painful and terrifying as many other stories I have heard these days. I know an Iranian student in the US, who was planning to go back to Iran to see her sister who has cancer probably for the last time, but had to cancel her trip because of this order. A dear friend of mine, a Columbia Ph.D. student, went to Canada on Friday to be with his fiancée for the weekend, and is not able to go back to his studies and work, back to his scholarly life. I know many students who are outside the US, doing fieldwork for their dissertation, and have no clue whether they can finish their studies after studying for many years..."
Allan Wernick, a law professor who runs an immigration resource center at CUNY, calls the situation a "crisis," noting that CUNY has over 100 students from the affected countries who are here on student visas. "I refer to CUNY as the most immigrant-friendly university in the country," he says, with as many as 40 to 50 percent of the university's half a million students immigrants or the children of immigrants.

Throughout the weekend, similar stories emerged from other U.S. universities. Mohammed Abdi, an anthropology Ph.D. student at Yale, holds a U.S. green card and was in Dubai awaiting a visa to continue his field research in Kabul, Afghanistan. But, as a result of the executive order, he's worried he cannot return to the U.S. Nor can he stay in Dubai for more than 15 days. And, because of his previous work as a human rights activist, he says he can't safely return to his home country of Iran. "It's very ambiguous," Abdi told NPR Ed via Skype. "I am essentially stateless."

 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/01/30/512431112/students-stranded-worldwide-by-trump-order

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by smilesammich

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

This is so true and is a big concern with what is described as the media now days.  The media, all the media, also do not seem to care about the facts, information, or truth.  If a story fits the narrative, then run with it.  I guess I have come to expect it from political types from both sides of the aisle, but the media was supposed to be above that, I guess they find the swamp more inviting.

I think the problem is you can create a story to fit any narrative.

 

It's not that the swamp is inviting, but the swamp is more entertaining to watch and news/media have become just another form of entertainment. They compete for viewership. So if their viewers want to hear about how horrible the President is, they will continue to create stories to fit that. If their viewership wants to hear how awesome the President is, then they can fit the story that way as well.

 

I also think the age of the internet has create a lot more "honest" mistakes on the part of the Media. I don't think every story that reports "false" information is doing so to fit an evil narrative that involves lying to the public. For example, I think the issue with MLK Jr's bust being removed from the White House was likely a combination of it fitting a "negative" narrative against President Trump, but also because they see something/hear something and want to run with it because they want to be first to report the story, since the public expect 24/7 instantaneous coverage. If they had a few hours until the nightly news show to confirm facts, it would be harder to make mistakes. When you run an article online 30 minutes after you receive a piece of information you are more likely to screw up whether you are doing it intentionally or not.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

I also think the age of the internet has create a lot more "honest" mistakes on the part of the Media. I don't think every story that reports "false" information is doing so to fit an evil narrative that involves lying to the public. For example, I think the issue with MLK Jr's bust being removed from the White House was likely a combination of it fitting a "negative" narrative against President Trump, but also because they see something/hear something and want to run with it because they want to be first to report the story, since the public expect 24/7 instantaneous coverage. If they had a few hours until the nightly news show to confirm facts, it would be harder to make mistakes. When you run an article online 30 minutes after you receive a piece of information you are more likely to screw up whether you are doing it intentionally or not.

it wasn't even an article though. the issue with the bust was on twitter, so a tweet made in haste is the main culprit. considering timing and other tweets, trump needed a recent/specific example of an msm 'attack' on him, and the bust tweet fit the bill...

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

it wasn't even an article though. the issue with the bust was on twitter, so a tweet made in haste is the main culprit. considering timing and other tweets, trump needed a recent/specific example of an msm 'attack' on him, and the bust tweet fit the bill...

Don't even get me started with the effect twitter has had on politics. I freaking hate that thing. There should be no twitter account for politicians, presidents, news media.

 

I miss the days when you had no idea what was going on with the country or the world until the nightly news, and maybe an interruption of normal programming for the really big stuff in the middle of the day.

Edited January 30, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

Don't even get me started with the effect twitter has had on politics. I freaking hate that thing. There should be no twitter account for politicians, presidents, news media.

 

I miss the days when you had no idea what was going on with the country or the world until the nightly news.

really? i don't. look at how quick resistance/support can be conjured up, we need that right now. 

 

i also think that it's telling of the character of the politician/president. recent example would be spicer tweeting out his password because he aint' at all tech savvy (or communications savvy imo) or look at how everyone flipped out when obama said if he had a son it would look like trayvon and how quickly the right jumped on that as a 'irresponsible statement' that did nothing but 'create division'.  can you imagine if he had on the fly tweeted statements of that same divisiveness every day? now look at dt, irresponsibly tweeting (and eo signing) every day of his presidency! it's a sort of transparency i can appreciate. if dt wasn't such an immature man baby, he could do some actual longstanding damage with his twitter account. but thus far, he's only strengthened his opposition with it.

Edited January 30, 2017 by smilesammich

[OriZ 3,157]

9 hours ago, bcking said:

I think there can be a third scenario -

 

Unfaithfully executing provisions of existing laws in a way that makes it illegal.

 

Example being taking a law and then applying a religious preference/exclusion, which would be unconstitutional.

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) . . .

This provision is the key to the power Mr. Trump claims. It says: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The provision “gives the president capacious authority to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens,” Professor Spiro said. “No court has ever reversed a presidential order under it.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating-trump-immigration-refugee-order.html

 

We can certainly object to some elements of it and in fact in this thread we have....but what we can't do is call it illegal because it is legal.

 

[yuna628 9,660]

The acting USAG has revolted and refused to allow the DoJ to defend the order. I suspect there is a reason for this in the timing. There is a good source saying another EO is on the way that is especially abhorrent and would be, I suspect hard to defend in court as well. If the AG has qualms about this order, they will definitely have issues with the upcoming one, if true.

Edited January 30, 2017 by yuna628