Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens - Rasmussen

[bcking 3,157]

40 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Trump has placed a temporary hold on visa applications from seven countries that the Obama administration identified as the prime sources of terror. This at a time when Islamist terrorists have carried out numerous acts of mass murder across the Western world and expressed the desire to carry out more via lone wolfs imported into Western countries.

Trump is a buffoon, but this is a perfectly sensible measure.

The hypocritical over-reaction from self-proclaimed "liberals" would be a joke if it wasn't so dangerous.

Except that the 7 countries chosen aren't actually supplying the "mass murderers". At least not on our domestic soil. As I've said before, only 3 people have carried out attacks from those 7 countries, with zero fatalities. 2 of them were naturalized citizens and this EO wouldn't have even prevented them from attacking.

 

Even if I agreed with solving our problem by banning immigration/visitation from some countries, the "perfectly sensible" thing to do would be to ban people coming in from places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where it actually makes an impact. 

 

And before you say "Where Obama came up with this list", Trump is his own man and he is President now. He needs to make his own decisions. Choosing these particularly countries scream of alterior motive, specifically given certain countries that we "like" special treatment despite them harbouring terrorists. It's okay if Saudi Arabia sends us terrorists because they are rich and they are friends. God forbid Syria sends us refugees, considering there has not been a single attack in the US perpetrated by one.

[Ontarkie 14,221]

~~Posts containing personal attack plus many others for being off topic (21 posts altogether) removed. Any more personal attacks suspension will follow.~~

[JayJayH 546]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

Except that the 7 countries chosen aren't actually supplying the "mass murderers". At least not on our domestic soil. As I've said before, only 3 people have carried out attacks from those 7 countries, with zero fatalities. 2 of them were naturalized citizens and this EO wouldn't have even prevented them from attacking.

 

Even if I agreed with solving our problem by banning immigration/visitation from some countries, the "perfectly sensible" thing to do would be to ban people coming in from places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where it actually makes an impact. 

 

And before you say "Where Obama came up with this list", Trump is his own man and he is President now. He needs to make his own decisions. Choosing these particularly countries scream of alterior motive, specifically given certain countries that we "like" special treatment despite them harbouring terrorists. It's okay if Saudi Arabia sends us terrorists because they are rich and they are friends. God forbid Syria sends us refugees, considering there has not been a single attack in the US perpetrated by one.

Congress and the Obama administration did come up with that list. This is the exact list of countries whose citizens were barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they were dual citizens in a VWP/ESTA eligible country. In addition, anyone with a VWP/ESTA eligible passport was barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they had visited any of those seven countries recently. Iran, Syria and Sudan were listed as "state sponsors of terrorism" while the remaining countries were listed as "countries of concern." As much as I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, they have a functioning (and cooperative) state bureaucracy and you can get a credible background check from Saudi Arabia. Egypt too. Try getting anything credible from Somalia.

 

It's ok to be against Trump, while still recognizing that Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had already been considered "terror prone" by Congress and the Obama administration as recently as 2015.

 

And before anyone else says "Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia etc." That's true. The Emirates too. Qatar perhaps.

 

But the vast majority of Muslim majority countries exempted along with Saudi and Qatar have nothing even remotely resembling a Trump Tower. Remember that Chad, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Oman, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the West Bank, Gaza, Bosnia, Albania etc, etc, are all exempted too. Not just Turkey and the Gulf states.

 

Treat this for what it is - A Trump administration PR stunt to say he's following through on his campaign promises. This ban will be up two days prior to the conclusion of Trump's first 100 days in office. At that point, this will still be in the court system, while Trump will say something in the lines of "I fixed the vetting process. Bigly. It's beautiful." while the "Muslim ban" narrative will seem rather strange to anyone who isn't in the "Trump is Hitler" camp.

 

This is one of the most poorly implemented policies I can remember ever seeing. And from a national security point of view, makes little to no sense. But Trump/Bannon know how to play the media, and they know how to sideswipe the media. Hysteria and speculation play into their "the media is against you" narrative. Put into context of Trump's campaign, most of it makes total and complete sense.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[yuna628 9,676]

2 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

Congress and the Obama administration did come up with that list. This is the exact list of countries whose citizens were barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they were dual citizens in a VWP/ESTA eligible country. In addition, anyone with a VWP/ESTA eligible passport was barred from using the VWP/ESTA if they had visited any of those seven countries recently. Iran, Syria and Sudan were listed as "state sponsors of terrorism" while the remaining countries were listed as "countries of concern." As much as I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, they have a functioning (and cooperative) state bureaucracy and you can get a credible background check from Saudi Arabia. Egypt too. Try getting anything credible from Somalia.

 

It's ok to be against Trump, while still recognizing that Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had already been considered "terror prone" by Congress and the Obama administration as recently as 2015.

 

And before anyone else says "Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia etc." That's true. The Emirates too. Qatar perhaps.

 

But the vast majority of Muslim majority countries exempted along with Saudi and Qatar have nothing even remotely resembling a Trump Tower. Remember that Chad, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Oman, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the West Bank, Gaza, Bosnia, Albania etc, etc, are all exempted too.

 

Treat this for what it is - A Trump administration PR stunt to say he's following through on his campaign promises. This ban will be up two days prior to the conclusion of Trump's first 100 days in office. At that point, this will still be in the court system, while Trump will say something in the lines of "I fixed the vetting process. Bigly. It's beautiful." while the "Muslim ban" narrative will seem rather strange to anyone who isn't in the "Trump is Hitler" camp.

 

This is one of the most poorly implemented policies I can remember ever seeing. And from a national security point of view, makes little to no sense. But Trump/Bannon know how to play the media, and they know how to sideswipe the media. Hysteria and speculation play into their "the media is against you" narrative. Put into context of Trump's campaign, most of it makes total and complete sense.

Jay: While it is correct he did not come up with the list, a bar is not a ban. For instance if someone couldn't use the VWP under the directive via the Obama administration - they could make every attempt to apply for whatever visa they wished to apply for, if they met the requirements and passed the interview. A friend of mine was days away from starting that process. She's barred from the VWP due to her government-authorized travels to Libya. But she is not barred from applying for a B2 nor any other visa she'd like to try for if it applied to her situation. None of changes to the VWP in this directive affected those holding already approved and authorized visas from entering this country, and they certainly did not affect LPRs from coming and going (you can argue if that point was intentional by the Trump WH or not. I contend it was on the part of the WH but not on the part of the DHS. I believe Gen. Kelly is furious about this). Furthermore it also didn't affect applications of immigrants from those countries currently here and undergoing adjustment processes - which, if the memo from Renaud is accurate, and I believe it is (as I have spoken to numerous sources and was made privy to a copy of that memo, and they promise they will keep investigating this for me..) the USCIS is also at a loss to proceed.

 

So it is not merely enough to say well the list of names is Obama's fault. It's only a partial glimpse into something extremely poor they have implemented. And I think we agree it is bad on many levels. I too also think the argument of saying ''other names aren't on there because of Trump's business interests'' is a weak point of attack. In reality, we're keeping with the status quo. We'd never put those countries on there, because it would unleash a new type of quagmire for us, we don't want to deal with. But I double dog dare him.

[JayJayH 546]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Jay: While it is correct he did not come up with the list, a bar is not a ban. [...]

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the VWP/ESTA bar is even remotely the same policy. I'm arguing that if you're going to enact a travel ban and rationalize it by saying you're "keeping terrorists out while enacting extreme vetting", then a list of countries has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is not a random list of countries that Donald Trump conjured on Twitter on Friday night. It's a list of countries that Congress and the Obama administration had identified in 2015.

 

That is a far-cry from saying "it's Obama's fault" or that the policies are even remotely similar.

 

The list of countries isn't random, and has nothing to do with business dealings.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[bcking 3,157]

27 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the VWP/ESTA bar is even remotely the same policy. I'm arguing that if you're going to enact a travel ban and rationalize it by saying you're "keeping terrorists out while enacting extreme vetting", then a list of countries has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is not a random list of countries that Donald Trump conjured on Twitter on Friday night. It's a list of countries that Congress and the Obama administration had identified in 2015.

 

My point has always been that if you wanted to make a list of countries to ban travel to "keep terrorists out", then a list of 7 countries that have supplied 3 terrorists since 9/11, none of which caused any fatalities and 2 of which were already naturalized citizens (so a ban wouldn't have done anything), you are picking the wrong list.

 

The list generated to change the VWP program serves a different purpose than a list of countries to "keep terrorists out". The list doesn't apply to "keeping terrorists out" since the terrorists who have attacked us have not come from those 7 countries. 

Trump isn't responsible for generating the list in 2015, but he is responsible for picking the list in 2017. It was poorly chosen for its intended purpose, regardless of whether you agree with the intended purpose or not.

 

EDIT:

 

You want to know another list of countries responsible for the same number of terrorists on US soil?

 

UK, Australia and France. Just those 3 countries have supplied the same number of countries than the 7 on the list. Why don't we just go ahead and ban those?

Edited February 2, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

the reason this list was used (as a starting point i'm sure) was so no one could get far without ultimately blaming obama. strategy..long game.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

the reason this list was used (as a starting point i'm sure) was so no one could get far without ultimately blaming obama. strategy..long game.

Well I think that plus they figured it would allow them to say "Look at the good we are doing" without actually causing any problems by insulting countries that we are worried about insulting for various reasons.

[JayJayH 546]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

My point has always been that if you wanted to make a list of countries to ban travel to "keep terrorists out", then a list of 7 countries that have supplied 3 terrorists since 9/11, none of which caused any fatalities and 2 of which were already naturalized citizens (so a ban wouldn't have done anything), you are picking the wrong list.

 

The list generated to change the VWP program serves a different purpose than a list of countries to "keep terrorists out". The list doesn't apply to "keeping terrorists out" since the terrorists who have attacked us have not come from those 7 countries. 

Trump isn't responsible for generating the list in 2015, but he is responsible for picking the list in 2017. It was poorly chosen for its intended purpose, regardless of whether you agree with the intended purpose or not.

The 2015 list identifies seven countries of "concern" or as being "state sponsors of terrorism." The Visa Waiver Restrictions served almost the exact same purpose - Extra vetting for people holding passports or who had recently traveled to "terror prone" regions. Purpose: "Keep terrorists out." The concern was that extremists holding ESTA-eligible passports could use the VWP as a loophole into the U.S. without added vetting. Why Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE etc. were exempt from that list? Likely because you can get a reliable background check from a U.S.-friendly Saudi bureaucracy. You cannot get anything reliable from Somalia.

 

I agree that this travel ban does little to "keep terrorists out." But I doubt that was the actual purpose. This is a PR stunt from the Trump administration to enact "extreme vetting" (whatever that means) during the first 100 days of his presidency, so he can say on day 98 that "The vetting process is fixed. Bigly. It's fabulous." Read Trump's "Contract with American voters" - 'Extreme vetting' is in there.

 

Bottom line, I don't think Trump actually cares whether or not the policy works for the stated purpose. He cares how it looks 86 days from now. The last president who wrestled with the media in even remotely similar fashion to Trump was Richard Nixon. He won re-election by a landslide. Then Watergate happened.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

7 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

The 2015 list identifies seven countries of "concern" or as being "state sponsors of terrorism." The Visa Waiver Restrictions served almost the exact same purpose - Extra vetting for people holding passports or who had recently traveled to "terror prone" regions. Purpose: "Keep terrorists out." The concern was that extremists holding ESTA-eligible passports could use the VWP as a loophole into the U.S. without added vetting. Why Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE etc. were exempt from that list? Likely because you can get a reliable background check from a U.S.-friendly Saudi bureaucracy. You cannot get anything reliable from Somalia.

 

I agree that this travel ban does little to "keep terrorists out." But I doubt that was the actual purpose. This is a PR stunt from the Trump administration to enact "extreme vetting" (whatever that means) during the first 100 days of his presidency, so he can say on day 98 that "The vetting process is fixed. Bigly. It's fabulous." Read Trump's "Contract with American voters" - 'Extreme vetting' is in there.

 

Bottom line, I don't think Trump actually cares whether or not the policy works for the stated purpose. He cares how it looks 86 days from now. The last president who wrestled with the media in even remotely similar fashion to Trump was Richard Nixon. He won re-election by a landslide. Then Watergate happened.

Your well thought out logical explanations are great.

Don't think for one second the frothing at the mouth will stop long enough to understand or digest what you are saying. Its all either we are saving the USA from immediate Terror attack as God has ordained Trump to do, or Trump is a homophobic Muslim hating narcissist who picked these countries because he has no business ties there or because he is a racist and trying to make Obama look bad, depending on which side of the wall they bump into.  

 

The madness in this country is epidemic on both sides of the coin and especially here

[OriZ 3,157]

24 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

The 2015 list identifies seven countries of "concern" or as being "state sponsors of terrorism." The Visa Waiver Restrictions served almost the exact same purpose - Extra vetting for people holding passports or who had recently traveled to "terror prone" regions. Purpose: "Keep terrorists out." The concern was that extremists holding ESTA-eligible passports could use the VWP as a loophole into the U.S. without added vetting. Why Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE etc. were exempt from that list? Likely because you can get a reliable background check from a U.S.-friendly Saudi bureaucracy. You cannot get anything reliable from Somalia.

 

 

Bingo.

[bcking 3,157]

35 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

The 2015 list identifies seven countries of "concern" or as being "state sponsors of terrorism." The Visa Waiver Restrictions served almost the exact same purpose - Extra vetting for people holding passports or who had recently traveled to "terror prone" regions. Purpose: "Keep terrorists out." The concern was that extremists holding ESTA-eligible passports could use the VWP as a loophole into the U.S. without added vetting. Why Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE etc. were exempt from that list? Likely because you can get a reliable background check from a U.S.-friendly Saudi bureaucracy. You cannot get anything reliable from Somalia.

 

I only partially agree. I don't think being able to get "reliable background checks" from US-friend Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it. It was more than Saudi is too strong an ally that we don't want to lose by banning immigration even temporarily.

 

If we could get "reliable background checks" from there, maybe they wouldn't be the number 1 supplier of foreign born terrorists on US soil? They are still the primary supplier, and therefore the primary "problem" if you want to try to stop foreign born domestic terrorism. Reliable background checks don't seem to be working, and this EO does nothing to help that.

 

Where I agree with you is that this is mostly a PR stunt. Completely agree. It's not effective at what it sets out do to, and even what it sets out to do wouldn't really solve our problems even if it was effective.

[JayJayH 546]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

I only partially agree. I don't think being able to get "reliable background checks" from US-friend Saudi Arabia had anything to do with it. It was more than Saudi is too strong an ally that we don't want to lose by banning immigration even temporarily.

 

If we could get "reliable background checks" from there, maybe they wouldn't be the number 1 supplier of foreign born terrorists on US soil? They are still the primary supplier, and therefore the primary "problem" if you want to try to stop foreign born domestic terrorism. Reliable background checks don't seem to be working, and this EO does nothing to help that.

 

Where I agree with you is that this is mostly a PR stunt. Completely agree. It's not effective at what it sets out do to, and even what it sets out to do wouldn't really solve our problems even if it was effective.

The ramifications of denying entry to Saudi nationals would be a lot farther reaching, yes. But Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Chad, Mali, Niger, Oman, Djibouti, Albania, Bosnia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Gaza, the West Bank, Chechnya, Dagestan, Northern Nigeria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia etc. are other countries and regions not affected. Saudi and Emirati nationals committed acts of terrorism on U.S. soil in 2001. A lot has arguably changed since then, i.e. we now have a Department of Homeland Security and better exchange of intelligence information. Iraq, Libya, Somalia. Syria and Yemen arguably have no stable or functioning state bureaucracy, being that they're in a state of civil war. Iran, Sudan and Syria are deemed to be "state sponsors of terrorism."

 

While Saudi Arabia accounted for most of the 9-11 hijackers, Tunisia for example has the world's highest per capita population of foreign fighters joining ISIS. But neither Saudi nor Tunisia are in a state of civil war, nor are their governments deemed to be hostile to the U.S.

 

The list makes sense from a PR perspective. My only question really is why Afghanistan isn't on there. I have a hard time believing the Afghan government functions any better than Iraq or Libya.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JayJayH

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

The ramifications of denying entry to Saudi nationals would be a lot farther reaching, yes. But Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Chad, Mali, Niger, Oman, Djibouti, Albania, Bosnia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Gaza, the West Bank, Chechnya, Dagestan, Northern Nigeria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia etc. are other countries and regions not affected. Saudi and Emirati nationals committed acts of terrorism on U.S. soil in 2001. A lot has arguably changed since then, i.e. we now have a Department of Homeland Security and better exchange of intelligence information. Iraq, Libya, Somalia. Syria and Yemen arguably have no stable or functioning state bureaucracy, being that they're in a state of civil war. Iran, Sudan and Syria are deemed to be "state sponsors of terrorism."

 

While Saudi Arabia accounted for most of the 9-11 hijackers, Tunisia for example has the world's highest per capita population of foreign fighters joining ISIS. But neither Saudi nor Tunisia are in a state of civil war, nor are their governments deemed to be hostile to the U.S.

I was referencing more the lists of foreign born terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. Yes most of the deaths come from 9-11 attacks exclusively, but even if you look at all attacks since then the majority come from other muslim-based countries not on the ban. The banned countries may be sponsoring ISIS sure, but they aren't sending the terrorists to US soil so a ban on immigrating here doesn't really do the job. They can continue to "sponsor" ISIS as they have been doing, and other countries can supply foreign terrorists on our soil. Nothing changes.

 

Ultimately I think we agree for the most part so we are just arguing about minute details. (Mostly saying this because I'm getting ready for bed)

Edited February 2, 2017 by bcking

[verneforchat 139]

1 hour ago, JayJayH said:

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the VWP/ESTA bar is even remotely the same policy. I'm arguing that if you're going to enact a travel ban and rationalize it by saying you're "keeping terrorists out while enacting extreme vetting", then a list of countries has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is not a random list of countries that Donald Trump conjured on Twitter on Friday night. It's a list of countries that Congress and the Obama administration had identified in 2015.

 

That is a far-cry from saying "it's Obama's fault" or that the policies are even remotely similar.

 

The list of countries isn't random, and has nothing to do with business dealings.

I think he was just being lazy and Bannon got this list.